In this other question I ask about what happens to Winston Smith at the end of 1984. Without going into spoilers, arguments can be made for two different endings. Much of that is based on a statement made earlier in the book, by O'Brien, who basically states that the Party doesn’t “just” execute people; they break them down and teach them to love Big Brother. Then, when they’re broken and soulless and content to be a member of the party, that’s when they’re executed. (Not an exact quotation, so it's not marked as such, but that's the point O'Brien makes.)
Is there any evidence in the form of interviews, letters from Orwell, essays, or anything else, that tells us that Orwell intended the ending to be ambiguous? Is there any evidence that Orwell did not think it was an ambiguous ending? (Maybe, for example, a record of correspondence with his publisher?)
While I, and, apparently a number of other people on the site, feel the ending was intentionally ambiguous, that is, by no means, authoritative and it's quite possible it wasn't intended as such, at least not originally.
Any evidence of Orwell's intent for the ending would certainly be germain and a possible answer to this question.