StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In 1961 Eisenhower said this:

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country.

I'm assuming the three wars that America was involved in were WWI and WWII and the Korean war. My question is what was the fourth major war? There were certainly plenty of 20th century wars at that point, from the Russo-Japanese war to the First Indochina war, Which was considered major enough to be listed along with the world wars?

Spanish-American, I do believe.

Edit: One WITHOUT America in it...

You mean the Spanish Civil War? The Spanish-American War was near the end of the 19th century.

spanish civil war
WWI
WWII
Korea

I think that's 4

Maybe he considered the Cold War a major war?

Isolder74 wrote:spanish civil war
WWI
WWII
Korea

I think that's 4

Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 (way more bloody than the Spanish Civil War)
French Indochina War (closer to the era)
Mexican Civil War
Italian-Aethiopian wars

...and countless other civil wars.

It is simply impossible to say which one he meant. My personal favorites would be WWI, WWII, Korea, French Indochina - because they are the closest to 1961 and had a lot of press coverage.

It would be funny if it's just he counted the Pacific Theater and European Theater separately, and let it hang like that so people would keep guessing.

Was there only one War Declaration for Japan and Europe authorized by Congress, because I'm pretty sure those were actually two separate declarations of war.

FOG3 wrote:It would be funny if it's just he counted the Pacific Theater and European Theater separately, and let it hang like that so people would keep guessing.

Was there only one War Declaration for Japan and Europe authorized by Congress, because I'm pretty sure those were actually two separate declarations of war.

Germany et al declared war on the USA, not the other way around.

I do not see how Ike would have considered the two theatres of WWII as seperate wars.

Isolder74 wrote:I do not see how Ike would have considered the two theatres of WWII as seperate wars.

Not only that, but his quote stipulated that only three of the conflicts involved the USA. That rules this idea out entirely.

Since he says "wars among great nations", the Russo-Japanese war sounds most likely, since it involved two great powers in direct conflict, unlike any of the other 20th century wars listed beyond the three everyone agrees with.

One could easily incorporate the Second Sino-Japanese war that started in 1937.

Though in my opinion Eisenhower was referring to the Russo-Japanese War, since Ethiopia, Indochina, and the Mexican Civil War are not "wars among great nations."

Isolder74 wrote:I do not see how Ike would have considered the two theatres of WWII as seperate wars.

Because there's been a war going on for almost 5 years before there was a Pacific Theater? Seriously, does no one here realize there was a lot more to the war in the Pacific than American island-hopping?

Seriously, I fail to see how any other war would qualify. The Spanish Civil war was not a war between Great Nations, and neither were the other wars people mentioned in this thread. The only exception was the RJW, which was more than half a century in the past at the time, and nowhere near important enough on the global scale (and MUCH less costly in terms of both lives and capital when compared to the later wars).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:

Isolder74 wrote:I do not see how Ike would have considered the two theatres of WWII as seperate wars.

Because there's been a war going on for almost 5 years before there was a Pacific Theater? Seriously, does no one here realize there was a lot more to the war in the Pacific than American island-hopping?

Seriously, I fail to see how any other war would qualify. The Spanish Civil war was not a war between Great Nations, and neither were the other wars people mentioned in this thread. The only exception was the RJW, which was more than half a century in the past at the time, and nowhere near important enough on the global scale (and MUCH less costly in terms of both lives and capital when compared to the later wars).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The difference is that Eisenhower's generation of American's was still being taught and could understand at a gut level the pride form Teddy Roosevelt's Nobel after presiding over the peace conference that ended the Russo-Japanese War. Since the US was involved in the end of it, and it involved two world powers (who would fight with and against the US in the future) I think it likely this was the reference.

A little late chiming in here, but might he have been referring to the Franco-Prussian and/or Austro-Prussian Wars (Wars of German Unification)? More casualties than the Russo-Japanese War, and just as significant, if not moreso.

Robert Treder wrote:A little late chiming in here, but might he have been referring to the Franco-Prussian and/or Austro-Prussian Wars (Wars of German Unification)? More casualties than the Russo-Japanese War, and just as significant, if not moreso.

That seems rather unlikely, as he is referring to the 20th century and those conflicts were nearly half a century too soon.

Oh good call, I misread the quote, thinking he was referring to the century that preceded 1950. It's gotta be the Russo-Japanese War then.