As even a quick glimpse into the Headscratchers page would note, for all the claims of the Party's omnipotence and hyper-efficiency, it's arguable that the very fact that Oceanian society is clearly falling apart in several fundamental ways means that even if the Party is omnipotent and hyper-efficient, realistically it wouldn't be able to remain so for very long no matter how much the Party boasts that it will last forever. Keep in mind, however, that our primary viewpoint character is a somewhat credulous and weak-willed man who has been subjected to bombastic, self-aggrandising state propaganda about how powerful and omnipotent and untouchable the Party and Big Brother is almost his entire life — whether it's true or not, he's going to believe it almost despite himself, even if he doesn't want to.
Goldstein's comment about how all revolutions involve the Middle Class manipulating the Lower Class against the Upper only for them to be supplanted is a very effective observation of totalitarianism, but it's also the truth for 2 party democracy. One party is in government while the opposition gains the trust of the populace so they can replace the government, only to become much the same type of government themselves. It's our healthy way of dealing with this psychological need.
It's only a hypothesis, but: Remember at the end, when Winston contemplates the ongoing war with Eurasia? Namely, if part of the Oceanian forces could ambush the Eurasian armies from behind? And then exactly that is announced?. Well, then Winston declares he "loves Big Brother" because he doesn't even need to doublethink anymore; he sees the world the way he is "supposed" to, with an eternal and invincible Party.
The name "Winston Smith." "Winston" would immediately call to mind the name of Winston Churchill, one of the heroes of World War II, to the reader when it was first published. "Smith" is a surname for the generic everyman. Orwell deliberately chose this character's name to demonstrate how powerful and how total the Party's control of this world is.
Winston freaking out at the thought of sex near the end. Why? Well, consider that extreme psychological trauma can cause impotence note The phenomenon has been observed in Holocaust survivors.. Now consider everything Winston went through in the Miniluv, from near-daily beatings (including repeated Groin Attacks) to selling out his love under threat of being devoured by rats. That's right, ladies and gentlemen: Winston was rendered impotent by the Ministry of Love.
Also that Winston has finally accepted The Party's ideal view of sex, that it's a disgusting act which should only ever be done for breeding purposes, the exact reason he hated his wife so much. He has become everything he used to hate.
God Is Power. Orwell wrote the book. Therefore Orwell is god of everything that happens within, and has the power to keep the dystopia running.
O'Brian could "float off the ground like a soap bubble if he wanted to". Well, if Orwell wanted him to, he really would.
The very fact that Charrington's shop is still in business really makes no sense until you find out he's a member of the Thought Police and thus the whole store is most likely secretly run by The Party as a trap to draw out thought criminals: It's basically an antique shop in an area where people seem to have very little interest in the past, and the odd Outer Party member wandering in and surreptitiously buying things probably wouldn't bring in enough money to pay rent, let alone turn a profit - Winston himself points out that he never sees any other customers. Furthermore, while Charrington rents Winston a room and shows him things from the past, he doesn't really try to sell him anything more: If you were a struggling business owner, and one of the few people who seemed interested in your wares was now making frequent stops in your store, you'd probably be making more effort to unload some of your old stock on him.
Fridge horror abounds when you read back the passages that Winston reads from Theory and Practices of Oligarchical Collectivism with the knowledge that O'Brien collaborated with other Party intellectuals in writing it; whilst it mostly dispenses with the Party lies and doublethink and tells the truth about the perpetual war, there is nothing in it that actually CRITICISES the Party at all.
Try as you might, you can't find a way for the side of "Truth" to defeat The Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Think about the very concept of The Party itself. It is an all-seeing, all-knowing, incomprehensible entity that can essentially bend the reality of those it controls. Any naysayers or free thinkers? It WILL find them, it WILL rape their very souls and WILL bend them to its will. It likely will never die, and could likely claim that it had been around since the dawn of eternity. Sounds more like an Eldritch Abomination than a government.
Humanity creates its own 'cosmic horror.' The punchline to 1984 is that Humans Are Cthulhu.
Quite a big horror moment comes when you realise that Orwell created the world of Oceania by extrapolating the real world rise of Nazism and Stalinism. This rooting in the real world is absolutely terrifying.
A similar In-Universe horror is that the founders of The Party looked at Nazism and Stalinism and decide they hadn't gone far enough.
Even if you're in the Inner Party, you're leading a shallow life of self-gratification at the expense of others, with nothing to show for it because as soon as you die, you will be written out of history so that your successors can be the ones who made your accomplishments and have always been around until the same thing happens to them. If doublethink were a beverage, you'd be downing it faster than your liquor.
Even if the reader can console themselves with the implication, real or imagined, that Oceania will eventually one day fall and the reign of Big Brother cannot last, the novel is still brimming with Fridge Horror — the horror of Ingsoc might end one day, but that's cold consolation for Winston Smith and the millions more like him who are broken, defeated and ultimately destroyed by it on a daily basis until it does. And even if it does collapse, the way it collapses — and what's left after it does — is most likely not going to be very pleasant...
There are subtle hints throughout the book that O'Brien wasn't just monitoring Smith, but that he actively set Winston up to commit Party treason just so that O'Brien could catch him and break him, seemingly just for his own amusement. Gets even more chilling when you consider the "How does one man prove his power over another?" dialogue they have in the Ministry of Love.
Mind you, it's not for amusement. The Party needs enemies of the people so that it can uphold the perpetual crusade against traitors and Goldsteinists. So, what should it do after there are no enemies left as a result of the Purges? But of course, create new ones!
At the end when Winston's last encounter with Julia is described, the narration mentions her having a scar across her forehead and temple. This, combined with the seemingly-devoid-of-emotion-and-rebellion mindset, implies the Party found despite Room 101, Julia needed further brainwashing. Thus, she had her pre-frontal cortex removed in a lobotomy.
Of course, it could have been that the notion of a lobotomy may have been as anathema to her as the rats were to Winston — after all, something so "crude" as a lobotomy seems like it would be below The Party's tastes in methods.
Given how horrid the children in this world are to their own parents, who's to say Parson's daughter was telling the truth when she reported him for sleep talking? He isn't the kind of guy to oppose or even doubt the Party, and it's been established that kids in this world will lie and turn their own parents in to the Party if they don't do as the children want.
People talk about the Appendix being written in past tense as something of a Happy Ending, in that the Party clearly met its end and the world the Appendix lives in is looking back on the world the Party tried to create. But with Goldstein's book talking about how the Middle conspires to replace the Top's tyranny, only for the Middle (now the new-Top) to be tyrannical in their own right, AND how the Book and O'Brien talk about how previous states failed because they didn't adhere to their rules as strictly as they should... This may mean that Ingsoc may have been replaced by an even MORE tyrannical government (which is the world that the Appendix lives in).
Many people have pointed out that there's no way the Party could survive, since the inability to even verbalize their own philosophy makes it impossible to insure that its always passed on 100% correctly... Then you realize, they DO verbalize it... Within a very short period. Winston was promoted after his treason. Committing treason is part of the initiation into the Inner Party. That's why Goldstein's book so thoroughly described the workings of the Party: It allows the Inner Party to be made up of people who fully understand the philosophy, while no Inner Party members have to verbalize it.
Imagine how HORRID the toilets are! It never gets mentioned in the novel, but considering how everything else is utterly grotty, I bet the toilets are horrific.
Think back to all the Proles that Winston meets; the ones Winston talks to in the course of the story seem almost incapable of forming coherent thoughts. The only Prole who seems to have any decent mental faculties is Mr. Charrington, and he later turns out to be a member of the Thought Police. So perhaps O'Brien is correct in assuming that the Proles will never be a threat to The Party.
One particularly famous example: Oceania is dominated by the Americas, with the British Isles being little more than a convenient Airstrip One for attacking Eurasia. So why would the Oceanians base their whole society on "Ingsoc" — English Socialism?
This of course leads to all sorts of Wild Mass Guessing about the true extent of Oceania...
Maybe it has a different name in every country of Oceania? "Libertysoc" in the US, "Neomateship" in Australia, "Modern Bolivarianism" in South America, etc.
Or it could be a reference to the Anglosphere (considering that the full implementation of Newspeak will eliminate the concept of Ingsoc — the name itself implies a definition in comparison to something else — we can expect generic references to 'the Party' to prevail over time).
Or perhaps since the author was British, he assumed that Britain had dominated the Americas, not the other way around.
Except the in-universe explanation was that it was, in fact, the other way around.
It could even be that Ingsoc is the equivalent of something like the DDR to the USSR. The USSR run the show but the DDR has its own puppet government. Ingsoc could be the puppet government/party of whatever the American party is.
In the extreme symmetry between the three identical countries, somehow Oceania always allies with either Eurasia or Eastasia. We never see a point when it would be alone, with Eurasia allying Eastasia. It surely would be a burden for their respective Ministries of Truth to switch between "having an ally" and "having no ally." There is one solution to that problem though: A fourth country (Africa?) with which Oceania never interacts; When Oceania is allied with Eurasia, Eastasia is allied with the fourth country. That way symmetry is retained.
Or the wars are completely imaginary and are pure propaganda. We only have The Party's word that the war is even happening in the first place. For all we know, there is no war and The Party is manipulating the people. Even Goldstein acknowledged that the Party is manipulating the people through the wars, so they would have reason to make them up. This would also explain why the bombs seem to only fall in prole neighborhoods. The Party is bombing its own country but ensures no loyal members are harmed.
This would also help to keep the economy stagnant and unchanging. Given the majority of production is put into "the war", as production goes up there are more bombs to direct back onto the country, thus lowering production back down.
Another possibility is that, since the wars are to maintain the balance of power (and thus the two weaker countries ally against the strongest), the three countries are not quite symmetrical - if Oceania is clearly weaker than the other two, than it would always ally against the second strongest against the strongest. This would make sense if the population distribution of the world was similar to what it is today, in which Oceania would have significantly fewer people than Eastasia and probably fewer than Eurasia as well, depending on how much of the Middle East Eurasia controls.
The scene in the Ministry of Love with a starved prisoner struggling against being dragged to room 101? His pleads to take someone else in his place? It foreshadows Winston's future betrayal of Julia even more completely once we realize who the prisoner asks to get punished instead of him: First his wife and children, then the fat co-prisoner. Note that the fat prisoner was the one who attempted to share a piece of bread with him (and got subsequently beaten up for that). Room 101's ultimate purpose is conditioning people to betray specifically the ones who care and show compassion to them.
The Party's strategy hinges on the idea that an eternal war will force the citizens to accept any deprivation. However, in the real world, the Soviets came to power because the peasants could not tolerate the Tsar's wars anymore, and were willing to accept anything - even defeat - to return to peace. As a result, one of Lenin's first acts in office was to cede territories containing over a third of the Russian empire's population to Germany. And Orwell was surely aware of this - 1984 was based on the Soviet Union. Maybe the party's strategy isn't as foolproof as it seems...
You are overstating Russian antiwar sentiment - it was more a question of the redirection of hostility from external to internal enemies (the people who defected from the eastern front were quite happy to fight the Russian Civil War after WWI was over). And one of the virtues of fighting a phony war instead of a real one (whether Oceania's wars were entirely or just partially phony) is that the government can tailor its militarism to its interest in maintaining power, rather than finding itself overreaching into warfare which undermines itself (as happened to WWI Russia). And the history of Russia suggests that even if The Party's strategy for dominance is less than foolproof, this is just another example of a false hope spot, because the fall of one totalitarian regime is merely prelude to the rise of another one. Even the fall of the Soviet Union, one of the most improbable bright spots of human history, was just a prelude for Putin's totalitarianism.
Vladimir Putin is not a nice man, but calling his government totalitarian is quite hyperbolic.