Title: Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikipedia
Headings: Political geography of
Nineteen Eighty-Four

Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four
Contents
Sourcing
Oceania
Eurasia and Eastasia
International relations
Analysis
Contemporary interpretations
Influences
Comparisons
Sources

Content: From this analysis stems the policy of permanent warfare: by focusing production on arms and materiel (rather than consumer goods) each state can keep its population impoverished and willing to sacrifice personal liberties for the greater good. The peoples of these states—subject to shortages, queues, poor infrastructure and food— "are no longer domesticated or even able to be domesticated " says Carr. These states all, in effect, use the same totalitarianism, and are similar monolithic regimes. Historian Mark Connelly notes that "the beliefs may differ, but their purpose is the same, to justify and maintain the unquestioned leadership of a totalitarian elite". Each uses artificially-induced hatred of its then-enemy by its citizenry to control them. Due to the sheer size of the protagonists, there are, says Connelly, no "massive invasions claiming hundreds of thousands of lives", but instead small-scale, local encounters and conflicts which are then exaggerated for the purposes of domestic propaganda. Connely describes the fighting between the states as "highly technical, involving small units of highly trained individuals waging battles in remote contested regions". All sides once possessed nuclear weapons, but, following a short-lived resort to them in the 1950s (in which Colchester was hit) they were recognised as too dangerous for any of them to use. As a result, says Connelly, although London could have been destroyed by a nuclear weapon in 1984, it was never hit by anything worse–albeit "20 or 30 times a week"–than "rocketbombs", themselves no more powerful than the V-1s or V-2s of World War Two.