There's such thing as "double-thinking", so each people in Oceania would think that they're at war and peace with both superpowers at the same time and get will ask no questions about how such thing is possible.
I wasn't expectIng this mod from you, though it totaly makes sence! Great video. Are you pretty hardset on hoi4 or will you branch out to other games once your channel grows some more?
One thing I would change is that in east Asia there would be a rebellion called the second yellow turban rebellion to free all of Asia. This would replace the rebellion that takes place in east Asia during the game.
Yeah but i don’t think this could have happened in that world. The amount of power each state held was so immense, no one could stand against it. Do you have any evidence to support this? I’d love to hear it.
@@youraveragejackson788 not evidence per say but some questions that could bring a superstate down. In the book it is described how history can be rewritten to quote “and thus a soldier became just as real as Julius Caesar.” However this is not as easy as you think because you can track when the records were made and also cross reference data. Winston as the book confesses has to make things up and assuming the same dozens will make their own records without consulting each other. That means contradictions, on a large scale. Anyone who has a good memory, works in the records department can see the inconstancies. In the middle of the book the war switches and the old records were “changed” assuming no records prior to the switch are mixed then the details of the original war would be harder to change. This is made worse by the fact that the narratives between Winston in his coworkers are made up. Later on in Goldstein’s book it describes how people who are “naturally bright” are taken care of early. A question arises in how does one determine who is naturally bright. If you say the state does it then we must remember that the education system is flawed and only teaches propaganda. That means no practical education such as agriculture, industry, organization and the sciences are off the table otherwise the brain would grow smarter. It is likely that the state with the fake information can’t do accurate census because it is impossible to tell the real information from the fake. That means that it is impossible for the government both small and large to implement any policy good or bad. Back to the practicality there is no way to fix issues because all the skilled workers wouldn’t exists (remembered they were taken care of) so it becomes harder to built/repair any infrastructure or carry out any industrial planning. The book describes how such a nation with all of this functions (at best case the British isles) to maintain a social hierarchy that is oppressive for the sake in it. O’Brien says it is power but in reality what ideology really wants to have their population lied to in perpetuity. If a few are willing then what about the people they work with and their apparatus? Not a single state in history could pull off getting 100% loyalty; even the prime examples could not pull this off. There is a scene where Winston is walking down and a building blows up. Knowing that the government is lying about the war then who shot at the building? We can say the military did this but why would they on any strategic level? If we believed that the superstates existed and made eternal war then there is problems with that narrative too because it is said that no side attacks the homelands “because breaking the balance”. That means not only is the government trying to kill us but convince the other two superstates to not attack us on the basis that we won’t attack them. Sounds plausible until you realize that it’s like a Mexican standoff where all the people wanting to shoot each other are suddenly going to trust each other and only shoot a couple blanks. Anyways I’m getting off track but I believe when you poke holes at the superstates you see it no more thicker than a balloon.
@@Naturewalkingthrough Genuinely impressed by the thoroughness of one's analysis in a youtube video. In my opinion making genuine superstates with an actual, detailed system were not the author's intention but to make a point (and that point being flawed but we'll get to that later). It was allegory through and through. Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia have some sort of thought put into them. But not by the author; the author was not well versed in the cultural differences(the eastasians's ideology being 'self-obliteration' and the leader being the 'immortal father' has a LOT of sense in context, as much as Eurasia's leader being 'Mother Russia' and it following 'Neobolshevism' but those are exegesis. The 1984 book does not have a 'world' outside of Airstrip One and has been imagined/extrapolated by the fanbase) and that was not necessary to his story So let's take Oceania only, and mostly Airstrip One because that's the one we actually do know. It shows a socialist state obsessed with world revolution('liberating' the others) yet hating all the other states and wanting to acaparate them. This led some to believe 1984 builds a fascist dystopia but that is not the case. It plays to a background issue. For us communism is simply communism, the way we know it from the USSR. To Orwell it was a more complex issue. He saw communist cults forming opposed to eachother, mostly of 3 types: -Statist-stateless(supposed to have an absolute state organize and carry them through the counterrevolution then dismiss itself and become stateless) -Stateless(supposed to have the people themselves organize and defend from counterrevolution then remain stateless) -Labourist-democratic(supposed to bypass the revolutionary phase altogether by slow, gradual change) Stalin, Mao and all 'successful' communist states were of the first category and turned out to be quite brutal and dystopic, all of the second were dysfunctional and collapsed quickly, those of the third paradoxically 'won' the race and live on to this day but with problems of their own. Orwell was of the third category(roughly) and fought in the spanish civil war, where he saw stalinists and anarchists and social-democrats firing at eachother for disagreements in doctrine and intentions. His support for mainstream, orthodox communism died that day and he began believing in a less top-heavy socialist state Later he saw Mao's china rise and the frictions between it and the USSR: they were both soviet republics yet did not fuse, did not integrate and did not pursue a common agenda. Unlike the internationalist doctrine, they both followed their own interests first and foremost much like nationalist states(due to pragmatic realities, but some believing due to a 'betrayal' of internationalist socialist ideals). His belief in internationalism died too, understanding that socialist states will inevitably end up eating eachother, however he limited it to the orthodox, statist branch, believing that it was the state that 'did communism wrong' One may argue he failed to understand pragmatic realities precede ideological goals and internationalism by itself is unattainable, yet he wanted to still believe in a workers's state, that's another issue. The point is oceania, eurasia and eastasia were an oversimplification of this issue, of socialist nations virtually conquering the world and then turning upon eachother. Then it demonizes the entity of the State, ascribing it all the monstruous(but embellished) traits he observed in the USSR, PRC, Groza-Pauker's Romania(the inspiration for room 101 was quite possibly the Pitesti Experiment) and so on. There could be 50 socialist states in the world and the story wouldn't change, it'll still be a message of 'gubmint bad, ruined revolution and became totalitarian dystopia'. It's not meant to represent exactly how the Party functions, who's in it and what each wants. It's meant to represent that it's vaguely bad and oppressive and everywhere and inescapable. The oppression is supposed to be for its own sake and the government 'wanting to secure power at any price' but that's the author superposing his belief over the statist fraction of socialist movements without facing a reality: the statist ones who are dystopical, began like the idealistic other two ones and 'broke eggs to make an omelette' until the amount of sacrifices was monstruous and the omelette perpetually needed more eggs broken. The state being oppressive was the only way to make a functional revolution. Because without it there is no revolution. It was the Revolution socialists for a century dreamed of... but put into reality. Because reality ruins even the most perfect ideology.
@@andreikovacs3476 cool. Thanks for the input. Was more criticizing the world building of the book due to how poorly written and thought out it was. Honestly glad someone noticed. In an artistic note I thought a rebellion inspired by the yellow turban rebellion would be cool for East Asia.
Yeah I would have to say that resistance is actually quite a big problem in the end there considering eastasia is now theirs, but eh fair point to end it there
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Eastasia and Eurasia other way round 🤦♂
YOU FOOL!
Immortal father = Mao Zedong
Mother Russia = Valentina Tereshkova
Big Brother = Oswald Mosley
i don't think big brother look like mosley that much
@@thegreatdothai he looks like old mosley
the cosmonaut one? (V.Tereshkova)
@@gameredgaryt yup
Big Brother isn't Mosley, it's the same still used in the 1984 movie.
"Eurasia headed by Mao Zedong, Eastasia headed by Mother Russia" 💀
You’d think a mod based on 1984 would be boring, but this proves to be quite interesting.
We have always been at war with eurasia
We have always been at peace with eastasia
Are you high?
Because we have always have been at war with Eastasia and at peace with Eurasia
@@unskilledwarthunderplayer4011Haven't you heard the news? We have always been at war with Eurasia and always been at peace with Eastasia
@@NubDiePie No, no, no! Are you dumb? We have always have been at war with Eastasia and at peace with Eurasia!
There's such thing as "double-thinking", so each people in Oceania would think that they're at war and peace with both superpowers at the same time and get will ask no questions about how such thing is possible.
POV: you can’t wash your balls out in the Burger King soda dispenser
11:19 The last man is dead.
Useless fact: in the China flag there is a Text 死 Which if translate into death
「死すべき時は、今なるぞ！
人に遅れて恥かくな！」
Not 1984; 1984 war only takes place in africa and the objective is to not win.
This reminds me of George Orwell’s book, 1984
hmm this seems reminiscent to the hit novel story called "Nineteen-Eighty-Four" written by George Orwell.
This is like George Orwell's er, book nineteen eighty four
I love how you mistaken Eurasia as "Eastasia", and Eastasia as "Eurasia". 😂😂
Afroeurasia
Love the video man, and was not expecting this!
Literally 1984
Literally 1984
Literally 1984
Literally 1984
Literally 1984
Literally 1984
This mod is literally 1984
I wasn't expectIng this mod from you, though it totaly makes sence! Great video. Are you pretty hardset on hoi4 or will you branch out to other games once your channel grows some more?
Not sure yet, we’ll see
Well we got the answer lol
I don't like how weird the borders in the mod are
but nice video
One thing I would change is that in east Asia there would be a rebellion called the second yellow turban rebellion to free all of Asia. This would replace the rebellion that takes place in east Asia during the game.
Yeah but i don’t think this could have happened in that world. The amount of power each state held was so immense, no one could stand against it. Do you have any evidence to support this? I’d love to hear it.
@@youraveragejackson788 not evidence per say but some questions that could bring a superstate down. In the book it is described how history can be rewritten to quote “and thus a soldier became just as real as Julius Caesar.” However this is not as easy as you think because you can track when the records were made and also cross reference data. Winston as the book confesses has to make things up and assuming the same dozens will make their own records without consulting each other. That means contradictions, on a large scale. Anyone who has a good memory, works in the records department can see the inconstancies. In the middle of the book the war switches and the old records were “changed” assuming no records prior to the switch are mixed then the details of the original war would be harder to change. This is made worse by the fact that the narratives between Winston in his coworkers are made up.
Later on in Goldstein’s book it describes how people who are “naturally bright” are taken care of early. A question arises in how does one determine who is naturally bright. If you say the state does it then we must remember that the education system is flawed and only teaches propaganda.
That means no practical education such as agriculture, industry, organization and the sciences are off the table otherwise the brain would grow smarter. It is likely that the state with the fake information can’t do accurate census because it is impossible to tell the real information from the fake. That means that it is impossible for the government both small and large to implement any policy good or bad. Back to the practicality there is no way to fix issues because all the skilled workers wouldn’t exists (remembered they were taken care of) so it becomes harder to built/repair any infrastructure or carry out any industrial planning.
The book describes how such a nation with all of this functions (at best case the British isles) to maintain a social hierarchy that is oppressive for the sake in it. O’Brien says it is power but in reality what ideology really wants to have their population lied to in perpetuity. If a few are willing then what about the people they work with and their apparatus? Not a single state in history could pull off getting 100% loyalty; even the prime examples could not pull this off. There is a scene where Winston is walking down and a building blows up. Knowing that the government is lying about the war then who shot at the building? We can say the military did this but why would they on any strategic level?
If we believed that the superstates existed and made eternal war then there is problems with that narrative too because it is said that no side attacks the homelands “because breaking the balance”. That means not only is the government trying to kill us but convince the other two superstates to not attack us on the basis that we won’t attack them. Sounds plausible until you realize that it’s like a Mexican standoff where all the people wanting to shoot each other are suddenly going to trust each other and only shoot a couple blanks.
Anyways I’m getting off track but I believe when you poke holes at the superstates you see it no more thicker than a balloon.
@@Naturewalkingthrough
Genuinely impressed by the thoroughness of one's analysis in a youtube video.
In my opinion making genuine superstates with an actual, detailed system were not the author's intention but to make a point (and that point being flawed but we'll get to that later). It was allegory through and through.
Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia have some sort of thought put into them. But not by the author; the author was not well versed in the cultural differences(the eastasians's ideology being 'self-obliteration' and the leader being the 'immortal father' has a LOT of sense in context, as much as Eurasia's leader being 'Mother Russia' and it following 'Neobolshevism' but those are exegesis. The 1984 book does not have a 'world' outside of Airstrip One and has been imagined/extrapolated by the fanbase) and that was not necessary to his story
So let's take Oceania only, and mostly Airstrip One because that's the one we actually do know. It shows a socialist state obsessed with world revolution('liberating' the others) yet hating all the other states and wanting to acaparate them. This led some to believe 1984 builds a fascist dystopia but that is not the case.
It plays to a background issue. For us communism is simply communism, the way we know it from the USSR. To Orwell it was a more complex issue. He saw communist cults forming opposed to eachother, mostly of 3 types:
-Statist-stateless(supposed to have an absolute state organize and carry them through the counterrevolution then dismiss itself and become stateless)
-Stateless(supposed to have the people themselves organize and defend from counterrevolution then remain stateless)
-Labourist-democratic(supposed to bypass the revolutionary phase altogether by slow, gradual change)
Stalin, Mao and all 'successful' communist states were of the first category and turned out to be quite brutal and dystopic, all of the second were dysfunctional and collapsed quickly, those of the third paradoxically 'won' the race and live on to this day but with problems of their own.
Orwell was of the third category(roughly) and fought in the spanish civil war, where he saw stalinists and anarchists and social-democrats firing at eachother for disagreements in doctrine and intentions. His support for mainstream, orthodox communism died that day and he began believing in a less top-heavy socialist state
Later he saw Mao's china rise and the frictions between it and the USSR: they were both soviet republics yet did not fuse, did not integrate and did not pursue a common agenda. Unlike the internationalist doctrine, they both followed their own interests first and foremost much like nationalist states(due to pragmatic realities, but some believing due to a 'betrayal' of internationalist socialist ideals). His belief in internationalism died too, understanding that socialist states will inevitably end up eating eachother, however he limited it to the orthodox, statist branch, believing that it was the state that 'did communism wrong'
One may argue he failed to understand pragmatic realities precede ideological goals and internationalism by itself is unattainable, yet he wanted to still believe in a workers's state, that's another issue.
The point is oceania, eurasia and eastasia were an oversimplification of this issue, of socialist nations virtually conquering the world and then turning upon eachother. Then it demonizes the entity of the State, ascribing it all the monstruous(but embellished) traits he observed in the USSR, PRC, Groza-Pauker's Romania(the inspiration for room 101 was quite possibly the Pitesti Experiment) and so on.
There could be 50 socialist states in the world and the story wouldn't change, it'll still be a message of 'gubmint bad, ruined revolution and became totalitarian dystopia'.
It's not meant to represent exactly how the Party functions, who's in it and what each wants. It's meant to represent that it's vaguely bad and oppressive and everywhere and inescapable.
The oppression is supposed to be for its own sake and the government 'wanting to secure power at any price' but that's the author superposing his belief over the statist fraction of socialist movements without facing a reality: the statist ones who are dystopical, began like the idealistic other two ones and 'broke eggs to make an omelette' until the amount of sacrifices was monstruous and the omelette perpetually needed more eggs broken. The state being oppressive was the only way to make a functional revolution. Because without it there is no revolution.
It was the Revolution socialists for a century dreamed of... but put into reality. Because reality ruins even the most perfect ideology.
@@andreikovacs3476 cool. Thanks for the input. Was more criticizing the world building of the book due to how poorly written and thought out it was. Honestly glad someone noticed.
In an artistic note I thought a rebellion inspired by the yellow turban rebellion would be cool for East Asia.
@@andreikovacs3476 1984 was written before the Chinese civil war, the rest of the analysis is correct even though I disagree with your conclusion
Could you imagine how absolutely fucked the Soviet and Chinese parties are?
I wish we had other books following characters from each.
Book says they are not different from ingsoc.
Yeah I would have to say that resistance is actually quite a big problem in the end there considering eastasia is now theirs, but eh fair point to end it there
Also i want to see a brother hood take over that would be cool
Watching this video on its first anniversary.
Bro how does this guy have under 2000 subs
music : 88:88 album by makeup and vanity set:)-
What's the mod?
Litterraly Hearts of Iron IV
jorjor well
that was so 1984
great video!!
whats the link for the mod?
Damn this video was great
But how did you spend 7 years in the year 1984?
mmm 1984 mod
I thought this mod was dead?
how can you stay 7 years in one year???????
😱
war is peace 💯💯
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Colonelcam is the worst hoi4 youtuber
Jorjor well
the way that russia and china ssrs are divided is stupid
God's Plan
Great mod but its bareboned
日本からこんにちは
#savehoi4
video++
i love how you said in the start how bb knows even whats inside you'r head but the whole porpouse of the book is that he cant
Literally 1984
Literally 1984
Literally 1984
Literally Fahrenheit 451
Literally 1985
@@bukanIqbal375 Literally 232.778 *C
Literally 1983
Literally 1984bc
Literally 1984
Literally 1984
Literally 1984
Literally 1984
Literally 1984