There’s nothing new about calling George Orwell’s most influential novel prescient. However, the focus has usually been on his portrayal of the oppressive aspects of life in Oceania. Oceania is the superstate in which Nineteen Eighty-Four is set.
Today, however, a different feature is getting more attention: its vision of a world divided into three spheres. Some critics dismissed it as “obsolete” as recently as 2019. This world is controlled by autocratic governments that constantly form and then break alliances.
by Emrah Atasoy, University of Warwick and Jeffrey Wasserstrom, University of California, Irvine
In 2022, Vladimir Putin initiated Russia’s full-on invasion of Ukraine. This year began with the US mounting a raid on Venezuela. They snatched its president. Donald Trump speculated about US actions against various other countries in Latin America. He also speculated about Greenland. Meanwhile, Xi Jinping regularly repeats China’s intention to “reunify” with Taiwan – by force if necessary.
“Orwell-as-prophet” commentators began showing more interest in the superstate idea early in the decade, often leading with references to Putin’s imperial ambitions. This trend became more pronounced when Trump’s second term began.
Last year, American historian Alfred McCoy led with a tripolar reference in his Foreign Policy essay: “Is 2025 the New 1984?” A Bloomberg report on the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska last August was headlined: “It Looks Like a Trump-Putin-Xi World, But It’s Really Orwell’s”. The article described Nineteen Eighty-Four’s fictional model of global affairs as “prophetic”.
Many observers now see Big Brother-like leaders wielding power in Washington, as well as in Moscow and Beijing. In her first essay of 2026, Anne Applebaum wrote in The Atlantic. She stated: “Orwell’s world is fiction. However, some want it to become reality.”
The American journalist and historian noted a dangerous desire of some. They wish for “an Asia dominated by China.” They also desire “a Europe dominated by Russia.” Lastly, they envision “a Western Hemisphere dominated by the United States.” Social media is awash with comments and maps in the same vein.
Orwell’s influences
Analysts have claimed that elements of Orwell’s portrayal of politics inside Oceania were similar to parts of dystopian novels. These novels were written before Nineteen Eighty-Four. Several novels, such as Jack London’s The Iron Heel (1908) and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932), were highlighted. They specifically mention Jack London’s The Iron Heel (1908) and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932). Orwell discussed these works in a 1940 essay.
Then there’s Yevgeny Zamyatin’s novel We (1921), which Orwell wrote about in 1946. He also wrote about Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon (1940) in 1941. Both inspired him with their criticism of the real Soviet Union.
Could these or other utopian and dystopian texts have given him ideas about future geopolitics? Examples include Ayn Rand’s Anthem (1938). Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here (1935). Noël Coward’s play Peace in Our Time (1946).
In fact, most of the works mentioned downplay or ignore international issues. Koestler focuses on one unnamed totalitarian country. Zamyatin and Huxley focus on a single world-state. London and Lewis look at an America transformed by a domestic tyrannical movement. Coward portrays a Britain conquered by Hitler.
Two other novels provide partial precedents. The first is The War in the Air (1908) by H.G. Wells, an author Orwell read throughout his life. It has a tripolar side, depicting a war between Germany, the US and Britain, and a Chinese and Japanese force. The second is Swastika Night by Katharine Burdekin (writing as Murray Constantine).
Orwell never referred to Swastika Night in any publication, and his most prominent biographer, D.J. Taylor, has claimed there is no definitive evidence that he read it. The book was a Left Book Club selection. Orwell was also a Left Book Club author. He would at least have known about it. The novel describes a world divided into two rival camps, not three, but portrays allies becoming rivals. The competing superstates are Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, who were on the same side when the book was written.
In his own words
Orwell’s own experiences provide the most satisfying source for Nineteen Eighty-Four’s geopolitical vision. Additionally, his non-fiction reading offers inspiration. Before the 1940s, Orwell dedicated a substantial amount of time to understanding three oppressive systems. He critically wrote about capitalism, fascism, and Soviet communism.
Working as a colonial police officer in Burma in the 1920s left him disgusted. In terms of capitalism, he called it the “dirty work of empire”. Living in England later led him to write works on class injustices such as The Road to Wigan Pier (1937).
In terms of fascism, he wrote scathingly about Hitler and Franco. Orwell was also appalled by accounts of repression under Stalin. His time fighting in Spain reinforced his dark view of Moscow. He saw erstwhile allies become arch-enemies as the anti-Franco coalition broke down. The Soviets began treating groups that had been part of it as villains.
Second world war news stories had an impact as well. In 1939, newspapers were full of reports of Moscow and Berlin signing a non-aggression pact. Then, in 1941, there were reports of Moscow switching sides to join the Allies.
And in a 1945 essay, Orwell mocked news of many people on the left. They embraced the fervently anti-Communist Chinese Nationalist Party leader, Chiang Kai-shek, once he was with the Allies. They seemingly forgot their earlier disdain for Chiang’s brutal effort to exterminate the Chinese Communist Party.
But perhaps the most notable 1940s news story of all relating to Nineteen Eighty-Four’s geopolitics was highlighted by Taylor. He mentioned it as one that broke in 1943. He notes that Orwell sometimes claimed his final novel was inspired by certain reports. These reports were from Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill. These reports inspired him. They talked at the 1943 Tehran conference about carving up the post-war world into three spheres.
Nineteen Eighty-Four has had extraordinary longevity as a go-to text for political commentary. There are many explanations for its staying power. Currently, a key feature may be its relevance to thinking about repression of dissent. It also relates to Newspeak-style propaganda in many individual countries. Furthermore, it addresses the unsettling geopolitical tensions in the world at large.
Emrah Atasoy, Associate Fellow of English and Comparative Literary Studies & Honorary Research Fellow of IAS, the University of Warwick and Upcoming IASH Postdoctoral Research Fellow, the University of Edinburgh, University of Warwick and Jeffrey Wasserstrom, Professor of Chinese and World History, University of California, Irvine
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
