That's a good timeline, i think. According to my personal point of view, the economic crisis of 1950 is unnecessary, because the real point of divergence is the victory of the WW3 by the Soviet Union (in fact, if the whole of Western Europe falls under the USSR, I would call that "victory"). Western nations, defeated by the Soviets, would have united in a federation (Oceania) but, because the post-crisis war, some revolutionaries could have seized power. I think is a quite smooth path. I really like your clarification on the subject of the church: I think that one of the priorities of these new totalitarianisms would have been to eradicate cults. Christianity would have disappeared almost completely (perhaps Ethiopia would have remained the last sanctuary). Islam, on the other hand, could still be safe, considering that the majority of the Muslim population lives in the area outside the control of the three totalitarian powers. Who knows how that part of the world would be organised: I find it would be very interesting to digress on this. My biggest doubts instead concern the constant parallelism between the three totalitarian regimes. Goldstein's book explains to us that the three totalitarian regimes are the same, however at the end of the story the evil O'Brien claims to have written it himself. Regardless of who actually wrote it, what is explained in the book cannot be completely trusted. It may be that the internal party sadistically wrote the truth in it, knowing full well that whoever reads it is destined to be mentally destroyed in room 101. Or the book contains a truth that is convenient for the party and the mind games of the thought police.
I included the crisis in the USA 1950 to create a revolutionary environment. Traditionally, the American people has not been very receptive to socialism. (Ingsoc at least pretends to be socialist.) You may be right that it wasn't necessary, though. It would be very interesting to explore the Middle East in the world of 1984! I imagine that the Arab countries would be left alone, but then again, the oil fields could be valuable to Eurasia. I simply took it for granted that the three superpowers have very similar systems and draw inspiration from each other but that was probably a mistake. They are probably more heterogeneous than that.
@@DarkFutures-101 It's possible but state socialism is usually a very secular ideology, especially Maoism. The worship of a particular concept, which in this case would be death, or dying for the sake of the state or it's values, is a right wing concept. Similar doctrines to death worship existed in states like Tibet, China under Chiang Kai Shek, and the Empire of Japan. The CCP is ideologically much closer to Eurasia than it is to Eastasia.
That's a good timeline, i think. According to my personal point of view, the economic crisis of 1950 is unnecessary, because the real point of divergence is the victory of the WW3 by the Soviet Union (in fact, if the whole of Western Europe falls under the USSR, I would call that "victory"). Western nations, defeated by the Soviets, would have united in a federation (Oceania) but, because the post-crisis war, some revolutionaries could have seized power. I think is a quite smooth path.
I really like your clarification on the subject of the church: I think that one of the priorities of these new totalitarianisms would have been to eradicate cults. Christianity would have disappeared almost completely (perhaps Ethiopia would have remained the last sanctuary). Islam, on the other hand, could still be safe, considering that the majority of the Muslim population lives in the area outside the control of the three totalitarian powers. Who knows how that part of the world would be organised: I find it would be very interesting to digress on this.
My biggest doubts instead concern the constant parallelism between the three totalitarian regimes. Goldstein's book explains to us that the three totalitarian regimes are the same, however at the end of the story the evil O'Brien claims to have written it himself. Regardless of who actually wrote it, what is explained in the book cannot be completely trusted. It may be that the internal party sadistically wrote the truth in it, knowing full well that whoever reads it is destined to be mentally destroyed in room 101. Or the book contains a truth that is convenient for the party and the mind games of the thought police.
I included the crisis in the USA 1950 to create a revolutionary environment. Traditionally, the American people has not been very receptive to socialism. (Ingsoc at least pretends to be socialist.) You may be right that it wasn't necessary, though.
It would be very interesting to explore the Middle East in the world of 1984! I imagine that the Arab countries would be left alone, but then again, the oil fields could be valuable to Eurasia.
I simply took it for granted that the three superpowers have very similar systems and draw inspiration from each other but that was probably a mistake. They are probably more heterogeneous than that.
Death Worship originating from the CCP is a VERY weird choice, it came off to me as extremely right wing, as if it would have came from ROC or Japan.
Death Worship being fascist is definitely a possibility. I just assumed that it's pseudo-communist like Ingsoc and Neobol.
@@DarkFutures-101 It's possible but state socialism is usually a very secular ideology, especially Maoism. The worship of a particular concept, which in this case would be death, or dying for the sake of the state or it's values, is a right wing concept. Similar doctrines to death worship existed in states like Tibet, China under Chiang Kai Shek, and the Empire of Japan. The CCP is ideologically much closer to Eurasia than it is to Eastasia.