Just a deterrent?

[Gladys]

I think the difference between metaphorical and real killing matters hugely because the first is sadder than the second.

A literal execution likely follows the metaphorical killing, perhaps after a year or two. In 1984 the ultimate killing of Outer Party dissidents is probable, since we are repeatedly told: 'Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford men who were executed'. Men, or rather 'only the shells of men', who Winston saw but once at the Chestnut Tree Cafe.

From the viewpoint of Winston, his humanity similarly shattered, 'The long hoped−for bullet was entering his brain' almost matters as a release from incomprehensible pain. Metaphorical annihilation and real killing seem to merge.

From the Inner Party's perspective, metaphorical killing is a crucial step in maintaining power over Outer Party members. The eventual execution of dissenters can take place leisurely, once the political impact of human annihilation and subservience has had its sobering effect on bystanders.

The Nazi dictatorship could have had the same implications, but that was only 10 years.

Interesting it is that 1984, written on the brink of the cold war, is set in London the heart of democracy.

O'Brien seems to me as a very much indoctrinated, hard-line Party-member. Someone who believes in the ideology...

Does he believe? I'm not sure that O'Brien's doublethink amounts to belief. It may be something more pernicious like the fanatical worship of power and self-interest.

[kiki1982]

But were those people really executed, or was it a propaganda-rumour that was just used to frighten the people?

Metaphorical killing and literal killing seem to merge, but do they? I think if Orwell had intended to really kill Julia ad Winston he had not left them at the end of the book, in a sad robotic state of believing in the party and no longer their own ideals.

But you are right in saying that metaphorical killing is a crucial step in both frightening the dissident citizens and the Outer Party members.

The place was London, the place of democracy in an undemocratic Europe with Germany (great-), fascit Spain, Vichy France, Musolini Italy, and other fascist states in the east of Europe (Hungary, Slovakia etc). Despite London having al governments of the invaded nations on its premises, democracy was far to seek. If you were a foreigner you were not allowed to leave the UK, you regularly had to report at the police station, if you were German you were deported to the Isle of Man (if I am right about the place, anyway, you got deported to a place where you would not be able to contact your fellow countrymen. Even people who were immigrants and had been living there for years were deported with families and everything. You were not famished though, the whole thing was much like a holiday, but still, it is hardly fair), being a dissident (whether communist, anarchist or fascist) was dangerous as they could spy on you. After the war, we could imagine that the problems were over and that everything went back to normal (a state of war always needs more precautions for national security), but that wasn't true. Anarchists and communism was still a risk. Up to files of the MI5 (Inland secret service) (true. Mr Wannamaker, who was an immigrant from the US got watched as he was deemed a threat by the US. The only thing the man ever did was build The Globe Theatre...). So, London place of democracy... Yes and No. That was probably what Orwell was getting at. We were reproaching the Russians and Nazis, but we ourselves were not much better.

O'Brien is a spy and comes in contact with dissident people. If he was not convinced of the ideology, he would be a very dangerous spy because he could be captured by dissident beliefs and then start to act as a double-spy (Big Broter thinking he is his spy while all the while he is been spying for the resistence). He might be able to make out that he can think diferently, but he should believe in the ideology strongly enough to be able not to be converted as it were. Worship of power and self-interest is a very dangerous thing in a totalitarian regime, at least for the subordinate members. Because of that they could start to ask themselves why that one is the leader and not themselves... The only one who can be that narcistic is the leader himself (Big Brother), and he'd beter do so because only being worshipped (as The Higest Power) saves him from having his place usurped by another.