I know nothing about 1984, but based on this picture alone and the counties that are currently there I would say Oceania. They have three entire continents to themselves and could strike core Europe from the British Isles. Losing Africa and even Australia wouldn't be a game ender, as long as they can hold the Isles and keep everyone out of the Americas they can just pick off the weakened winner of the Europe-Asia land war.
Eurasia has to fight a land war in siberia, the middle east and africa. They either need to focus on the British Isles and risk losing on other fronts or get bombed for the entire conflict. Either way, not much of a chance here.
Eastasia would have a massive manpower base to pull from and could potentially human wave Eurasia down through Siberia and the middle east, but at a great cost. Otherwise their territory is good for defending and if they manage to take south Asia and India they could probably hold the line indefinitely. They might lose Japan and Taiwan, but mainland invasions would be very difficult.
So I would say Eurasia collapses, with Oceania and Eastasia entering a grueling and drawn out stalemate. Oceania may stand a chance at taking Eastasia but Eastasia isn't likely to make it to the Americas.
And if everyone has nukes then the only safe haven would be the southern tip of South America. Everywhere else is too important or bordering contested land and would be a target.
based on geography alone, Oceania.
American supercontinent is essentially invincible and the entirety of africa is theirs for the taking by staging from subsaharan Africa.
Eurasia on the other hand needs to resupply africa through the Mediterranean and cross sahara to resupply their african front lines.
Eastasia is defended by geography (himalayas east, siberia north, vietnamese jungles south east, and seas west) but it also makes it a b***h for them to try and gain land. they'll have trouble expanding and probably wont even be able to take australia.
Going by the "world island" idea, Oceania has the weakest position but the best maneuverability. Still, all sides are nuclear so true victory will always be impossible.
Airstrip One bothers me though, it's de facto impossible to retain it with post-WW2 weapons being available. The map is most likely fake and there is no Eurasia/Eastasia.
There's three options really. 1. Airstrip One is the only territory controlled by Oceania.
2. "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" is giving an accurate portrayal of the world situation and all the three states are engaging in a perpetual war in order to consume the productive abilities of the state and keep living standards low
3. The entire globe is controlled by one state.
Eurasia if they maintain the global % of industrial capacity, technology and numbers of 1949. Mainland Eastasia has numbers a defensive positions but once things go bad - say a breakout that knock out Beijing and pushes down the coast - it gets really bad in a way the other powers don't suffer.
In theory Oceania has great offensive power but if Eurasia can dominate the world island then it doesn't matter. It just becomes a game of Eurasia slowly grinding down Oceania over potentially hundreds of years.
It doesn't make sense in the context of the rocket attacks or seeing captured Eurasian soldiers though. And Orwell was a hack making OG grimdark based on WWI-II
Well, would not be the first time someone bombs himself to cement his power. Remember the apartment bombings in Moscow in 2000. As for the prisoners, people can be kidnapped...
>Airstrip One bothers me though, it's de facto impossible to retain it with post-WW2 weapons being available.
Why? If Oceania has the best navy then there's no reason why it can't be held, especially since the war hasn't gone nuclear.
Oceania needs to achieve naval and air SUPREMACY to be supplied and reinforced. The catch of being an island fortress is that the British isles are incredibly susceptible to turning into a prison once the enemy pushes you out of free access to the sea.
I can see Oceania pulling back to Iceland just because the cost to maintain it far outweighs the strategic value of uncoordinated bombing of mainland Europe. Then it can focus on the absolute disaster of having Australia cut-off and work on pushing Eastasia out of the South Pacific. Or use Eurasia's new focus on the eastern front to make an enduring alliance with Eastasia.
Oceania taking land and air supremacy is very likely. It would need to focus on it in order to defend its core territory, as that's the only way that someone could threaten them. The U.S. was able to achieve global naval and air dominance alone, add all these territories together and it's not an unreasonable claim. Especially if your only enemies are stuck in a land war in asia and the middle east, they may have other pressing needs.
The strategic value of holding Airstrip One would absolutely be worth any cost. WWII showed just how valuable that land is, as both an air field for bombing the production facilities of the Germans and a staging ground for a naval invasion into mainland Europe. Losing it would be a massive blunder that they would do anything to avoid.
NATO and it would not even be close
There is no NATO in 1984.
Hard to say. The three states all being virtually identical was kinda the point.
NATO was founded in 1949 you dumb Black person
What game is this from? None of that makes sense.
(You)
I know nothing about 1984, but based on this picture alone and the counties that are currently there I would say Oceania. They have three entire continents to themselves and could strike core Europe from the British Isles. Losing Africa and even Australia wouldn't be a game ender, as long as they can hold the Isles and keep everyone out of the Americas they can just pick off the weakened winner of the Europe-Asia land war.
Eurasia has to fight a land war in siberia, the middle east and africa. They either need to focus on the British Isles and risk losing on other fronts or get bombed for the entire conflict. Either way, not much of a chance here.
Eastasia would have a massive manpower base to pull from and could potentially human wave Eurasia down through Siberia and the middle east, but at a great cost. Otherwise their territory is good for defending and if they manage to take south Asia and India they could probably hold the line indefinitely. They might lose Japan and Taiwan, but mainland invasions would be very difficult.
So I would say Eurasia collapses, with Oceania and Eastasia entering a grueling and drawn out stalemate. Oceania may stand a chance at taking Eastasia but Eastasia isn't likely to make it to the Americas.
And if everyone has nukes then the only safe haven would be the southern tip of South America. Everywhere else is too important or bordering contested land and would be a target.
who would win?
The ayys
greater france
Finland
For me, it's Long India
for me, it's Honda Civic
>Atlantis Ocean
Aquaman
Ur Gay
You have no real way of knowing whether Erasia or Eastasia even exist.
based on geography alone, Oceania.
American supercontinent is essentially invincible and the entirety of africa is theirs for the taking by staging from subsaharan Africa.
Eurasia on the other hand needs to resupply africa through the Mediterranean and cross sahara to resupply their african front lines.
Eastasia is defended by geography (himalayas east, siberia north, vietnamese jungles south east, and seas west) but it also makes it a b***h for them to try and gain land. they'll have trouble expanding and probably wont even be able to take australia.
Going by the "world island" idea, Oceania has the weakest position but the best maneuverability. Still, all sides are nuclear so true victory will always be impossible.
Airstrip One bothers me though, it's de facto impossible to retain it with post-WW2 weapons being available. The map is most likely fake and there is no Eurasia/Eastasia.
There's three options really. 1. Airstrip One is the only territory controlled by Oceania.
2. "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" is giving an accurate portrayal of the world situation and all the three states are engaging in a perpetual war in order to consume the productive abilities of the state and keep living standards low
3. The entire globe is controlled by one state.
The first option being the most plausible. Considering we see that right now in our world with North Samsungistan.
Eurasia if they maintain the global % of industrial capacity, technology and numbers of 1949. Mainland Eastasia has numbers a defensive positions but once things go bad - say a breakout that knock out Beijing and pushes down the coast - it gets really bad in a way the other powers don't suffer.
In theory Oceania has great offensive power but if Eurasia can dominate the world island then it doesn't matter. It just becomes a game of Eurasia slowly grinding down Oceania over potentially hundreds of years.
It doesn't make sense in the context of the rocket attacks or seeing captured Eurasian soldiers though. And Orwell was a hack making OG grimdark based on WWI-II
Well, would not be the first time someone bombs himself to cement his power. Remember the apartment bombings in Moscow in 2000. As for the prisoners, people can be kidnapped...
>Airstrip One bothers me though, it's de facto impossible to retain it with post-WW2 weapons being available.
Why? If Oceania has the best navy then there's no reason why it can't be held, especially since the war hasn't gone nuclear.
Oceania needs to achieve naval and air SUPREMACY to be supplied and reinforced. The catch of being an island fortress is that the British isles are incredibly susceptible to turning into a prison once the enemy pushes you out of free access to the sea.
I can see Oceania pulling back to Iceland just because the cost to maintain it far outweighs the strategic value of uncoordinated bombing of mainland Europe. Then it can focus on the absolute disaster of having Australia cut-off and work on pushing Eastasia out of the South Pacific. Or use Eurasia's new focus on the eastern front to make an enduring alliance with Eastasia.
Oceania taking land and air supremacy is very likely. It would need to focus on it in order to defend its core territory, as that's the only way that someone could threaten them. The U.S. was able to achieve global naval and air dominance alone, add all these territories together and it's not an unreasonable claim. Especially if your only enemies are stuck in a land war in asia and the middle east, they may have other pressing needs.
The strategic value of holding Airstrip One would absolutely be worth any cost. WWII showed just how valuable that land is, as both an air field for bombing the production facilities of the Germans and a staging ground for a naval invasion into mainland Europe. Losing it would be a massive blunder that they would do anything to avoid.
Oceania is only England while the rest of the world is normal though.
The blue faction most likely due to size and resources, but besides that the red faction then the yellow faction
>Blue faction
>Clearly already lost land to the white faction
Face it, white is right.
>it's the "they're not really fighting it's just all for show" cope again
The war is real, and they really are just that incompetent.
the thought of the states of 1984 being run by monkes and woodcarvers is pretty funny
They are fighting for real but it's not a world war they are just pissing around in Ireland or something
1984 doesn't provide enough information to answer this question.