Talk:Airstrip One


 * But also accurately predicted the United Kingdom's subsequent isolation from the mainstream of European politics and subordination to the interests of the United States.

For the next 30 years, anyway, which is pretty good in comparison with the novel's other views of the future.

On the other hand, Britain did join the European Common Market in the 70s and has proceeded apace with EU accession, although a bit slowly.

Article needs a bit of expansion.Ellsworth 23:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ireland
Is it ever indicated that Airstrip One includes Ireland? I always imagined that Ireland would be Airstrip Two. -- 22:18, 21 September 2005 User:Ben-w


 * Orwell doesn't say anything about Ireland in chapter 3 (what he does say is rather vague geographically). AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought Australia or at a stretch New Zealand, would be Airstrip 2. As far as I can recall there is no evidence of this in 1984, but from the geo-poltics of the 40s I would think this makes much more sense than Ireland, which geographically and even culturally and politically to some extent, especially Northern Ireland, is part of the Brit Isles. I think Ireland would effectively have been subsumed to be part of Airstrip One and not considered a separate entity. If consider the British Isles as a great big unsinkable air craft carrier for US aircraft and troops, i.e. the last bastion and sally port of (what we now call) the anglosphere before occupied Europe, which is pretty much what the Brit Isles were in a strategic and geo-politcal sense during world war II and the cold war that is why I think Orwell called the Brit Isles airstrip one, then I think there is an argument that that is the context behind the name Airstrip One.

Australia played the same role in World War II and immediately post Word War II -it was the last Anglo/European bastion before the Japanese occupied East Asia and the staging post for the US/allied counterattack through Asia. Arguably Japan took over this role in the post world war two cold war, though that certainly was not the case when 1984 was written, so at the time Australia was the last bastion before east Asia and though Japan does enjoy close relationships with the US they are probably not as close as the US-Aust relationship (e.g. the UK-USA agreement whcih includes US, UK, Canada, Aust and NZ). In addition the what is now called the anglosphere, pretty much makes up (Orwell's) Oceania, and that makes sense from a political and cultural sense as the US, UK, Canada, Aust and NZ are reasonably culturally and politically similar - probalby more so than the UK and Europe was at the time and certainly ore so than say Aust/NZ and the South East or East Asian countries. In that context Australia or NZ would be the second unsinkable aircraft carrier in the second theatre, in the second ocean (the Pacific), in the second direction (east). As such I think it makes a far better fit as Airstrip Two than Ireland. Especially if you take into account Orwell's having seen through Stalinism and Leninism as being basically imperialist authoritarian regimes - it would nto be difficult to believe that rwell foresaw the expansion of the Sovietn Union through the rest of Europe and possibly into parts of centeal/east asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.232.233 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references
Back in the Greenham Common days of the 1980's, writers who supported the protesters sometimes used "Airstrip One" as an anti-US metaphor... AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Single Source
Why is it a prolem that this article cites a single source? 208.79.94.252 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

--It's not really a problem the majority of wikipedia articles don't conform with the wikipedia ideals. Wikipedia editors like to point this out as it makes them feel they are contributing and is far easier than actually fixing the problems they are tagging. In my experience the people that add these inane tags write pretty "bad" (by wikipedia ideal standards) articles and when push comes to shove rarely read/conform the the guidelines they profess to be enforcing. Just ignore them.

The more party line-ish answer is something like: an encylopedic reference should have multiple reference for each fact it presents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.129.208 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)