World War III Edit

In "Space Seed" Spock states quiet clearly that World War III, was the Eugenics Wars 1993-1996. If you click on the link here to that ep, you'll see the exact phrasing. Since TNG suggest they were still recovering from WWIII on the early 22ed century I thought maybe some remnants emerged in the early 21st century, that caused another war, as Spock called it "The War to end all Tyranny" that historians sometime refer to as WWIII. This War to end all Tyranny most likely would not invlove Superman, thus not a Eugenics war. --TOSrules 02:40, Oct 30, 2004 (CEST)

I have a few problems with this entry. There is no canon evidence to suggest that the Eugenics Wars and World War III were the same war. There is also no evidence of Vulcan involvement or assistance in the wars. A peckover 09:54, Jun 2, 2004 (CEST)

Apeckover, you are 100% wrong, there is in fact cannon evidence to World War III, and the Eugenics Wars being one and the same, All you need to do is watch "Space Seed" when Spock states that the last world war was in the 1990's, then McCoy confirms the fact they are the same, by calling it the Eugenics Wars. --TOSrules 08:49, Oct 31, 2004 (CET)

Spock's line was: "The 1990s was the era of your so-called third world war."--Lenonn 07:50, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)
In "Borderland", Phlox states the augments were created in the 20th century: "This (genetic engeneering) is extremely sophisticated work for 20th century Earth.". However, we know WW3 ttok place in the 2050s. Davok 11:28, 31 Oct 2004 (CET)

Now I see that the page has been removed. It needs some rewriting anyway. A peckover 09:56, Jun 2, 2004 (CEST)

It was a copyvio, from someone else's non-canon speculation. It has been removed. If you wish to rewrite, please follow the direction on the notice. -- Michael Warren 09:59, 2 Jun 2004 (CEST)
PS. There is a small amount of canon info suggesting the Eugenics Wars were later than 1990s. In "Doctor Bashir, I Presume", the Starfleet Admiral mentions them taking place 200 years ago.
From (AOL chat, 1997): "This is my personal screw-up. When I was writing that speech, I was thinking about Khan and somehow his dialog from "Wrath" starting floating through my brain: "On Earth... 200 years ago... I was a Prince..." The number 200 just stuck in my head and I put it in the script without making the necessary adjustment for the fact that "Wrath" took place almost a hundred years prior to "Dr. Bashir." I wrote it, I get the blame."
That's exactly the problem: We have a clear contradiction here.... "Space Seed" and "Wrath of Kahn" suggest that the war took place in the 1990s. However, "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" and indirectly "Shockwave II" give reason to the assumption that it took place around 2060, 2070, 2080... Either we say that there were actually two Eugenics Wars OR we point out to the contradiction and let the reader decide OR we ignore one of the versions.... --BlueMars 12:49, Jun 2, 2004 (CEST)
I don't recall where I saw/heard it (possibly on the ST2 Special Edition (or whatever) DVD), but I seem to recall hearing that the "200 years" figure quoted by Khan was itself a mistake, and should have been larger to keep with "Space Seed"... if memory serves, the mistake was due to confusion over what year(s) (as in, century) TOS through ST2 actually took place in. I will try to see if I can find this again. --umrguy42 03:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it has been my opinion for a while that the Third World War and the Eugenics Wars should be "unified" in dialogue on Enterprise, that would mean that they would have just finished as Cochrane was preparing to test the Phoenix. Alex Peckover 14:46, Jun 2, 2004 (CEST)
Agreed. Much in the same way that we refer separately to the Cold War and the Vietnam War. In this way, one might say that The Eugenics War was prelud-ary action of WWIII, but considered by later historians to be part of WWIII. Besides the Bashir quotes, is there anything to suggest that this is not the case? --Patton1138 22:33, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Two centuries in Wrath of Khan means that it could even have been spilling during Cochrane's experiment, not the 1990s. And I don't remember other statements of time in the movie; as for ENT, I've not seen the episode yet, but developing a technology and implementing it could well make up for decades in between, and takeover might take some time as well. Think of the visions of Earth fed by Q in the TNG pilot, it's well past Phoenix's launch, it could well be that it didn't exist and that at some point schoolbook historians did a bit like 19th century historians did about the Middle Ages, adding negative preconceptions of pre-UFP earth to limited data for the current century.
I agree. The writers of Enterprise have the chance to settle the issue once and for all. Anyway, it seemed an article from my website was used. Lol. Ottens Jun 6, 2004
Since it looks like ENT is keeping the Wars in the 20th century, going by what Phlox said in "Borderland," does anyone object to the article using the specific dates given in "Space Seed"? "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" doesn't place the Wars in the 21st century anyway-- it says two centuries prior to the episode, which would actually place it after ENT, and after the end of wars on Earth as established in First Contact. --Steve 22:57, 3 Nov 2004 (CET)
I've always thought that we could just say about the comment in DS9 about the Eugenics Wars taking place two centuries to "the character simply mispoke." -- Krevaner 00:23, 4 Nov 2004 (CET)

I really don't like the article in it's current form. It has no strucutre. It is simply an ennumeration of the facts in consequential sentences. If somebody is going to rewrite anyway, could they do something about this. Also it is a bit short. You could change that by giving the facts and give different interpretations (as BlueMars suggests) in indented italics (though that may prove the wrong style, given this discussion). -- Redge 11:34, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I just quickly wrote this up from memory, so there is at least something on this page (quite a lot of pages have linked to it). Feel free to make any changes, I'd say. Ottens 11:38, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Changes by BlueMars on 13:45, 5 Nov 2004Edit

A couple questions: why was the phrase "The 'supermen' usually treated their subjects as slaves" removed? Also, where is the evidence Soong performed his theft in 2134? Archer says, "Their genetically-enhanced DNA matched embryos stolen from a medical facility over 20 years ago." That would place the theft in 2133 at the least, and maybe '32 or '31, which is why I kept the date vague, though maybe 2130s would have been a better choice? --Steve 18:37, 5 Nov 2004 (CET)

The Book?Edit

I forgot what its called but could a reference to the Books, Star Tre: The Eugenics Wars Volumes I & II be made if only as a footnote, they are a very well written adn are faithfull to the TOS timeline. Kahless 07:53, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Historic InterchangabilityEdit

It is quite possible that Spock was refering to the era of the conflict more than the actual war, much in the same way that the Japanese invasion of China is considered by some to be the real start of world war two, or perhaps in the way that World War one and World War two were cause and effect, and have been considered by some to be the same conflict.

If this is the case, then perhaps some of the fallout from the Eugenics Wars led to the problems leading up to the third World War, and is considered by some (especially impartial observers such as Spock) to be the same conflict.

"the era of your last so-called world war" Edit

It should be noted that Spock stated the Eugenics Wars as "the era of your last so-called world war". This could be interpeted that some contemporaries during the conflict optimistically thought it would be the last global war. Much like how people after World War I thought it would be the Last War.

  • Canon material is a little vague about specifics regarding the Eugenics wars/WWIII connection. But, it has been repeatedly implied that, although they are not the same thing, there is a connection between them. The fact that Eugenics Wars is pluralized alone suggests more than one single conflict, a series of conflicts of that "era" beginning in the 1990s reaching conclusion with WWIII and the post atomic horror. Similarly, is the connection of WWI to WWII, which lead to the cold war. None of these are isolated incidents, but dependent on circumstances rising from their predecessor.--Mike Nobody 06:36, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Of interest Edit

On the game review show "X-Play", the announcer introduced the hosts by stating they're "Still waiting for the Eugenics War." (X-Play often has the announcer state odd or humorus comments before introducing the hosts). After the introduction, co-host Adam Sessler quips "Roddenberry promised genocide, and we got squat." The joke is that The Eugenics Wars, in Star Trek, were supposed to occur in 1992. Fortunately, such a war did not occur.

Banning of Genetic Engineering Edit

It had previously read:

<<Phlox later mentions to the Klingons that genetic engineering on Earth was "banned decades ago", likely meaning not more than a century ago. Which could mean that it wasn't until a long time after the Eugenics Wars that genetic engineering was banned.>>

With somewhere around ~150 Nations, one could assume that while many nations banned it, there would still be some nations that allowed it. I doubt it would be until the formation of the United Earth Republic that something could be uniformly proscribed across Earth. Therefore Phlox's comment could be chronologically correct.

Reference reassessmentEdit

Anyway, I chose this page over talk:World War III/archive since this war was referenced in detail first. In effort to resolve this once and for all, I decided to post the actual lines for us to collectively assess what was when, rather then assessing one thing at a time like like was discussed in the now archived info. From what I've read, I am some inclined to believe that WWIII came as a result of the instabilities caused from the Eugenics Wars, based on the very first line every describing either from all started in the 1990s and was likely hot and cold for the next 50 or 60 years. Feel free to add further references in the sections below. --Alan del Beccio 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have since moved the WWIII references to that talk page. --Alan del Beccio 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Discussion & AnalysisEdit

I've discussed this in part on the WWIII page, but I'll summarize here. The Eugenics Wars clearly took place in the 1990s - possibly starting in 1992, 1993, or even 1996. Mid-1990s is all we really know, since a rise in power in 92 or 93 does not equate to immediate breakouts in hostilities. Spock calls the mid-1990s the "era" of the war, so it couldn't have lasted too far beyond the 1990s. All we really know is that the wars took place mid-1990s. The article should state as much. The wars are also known as WWIII prior to the 24th Century, when apparently the mid-2000s conflict was awarded that name. The mid-2000s conflict might not have involved all nations or all continents, and so maybe didn't hit a definitional threshold - who knows. But there is a definite shift in reference in that pre-24th Century calls the Eugenics Wars WWIII, and 24th Century calls the mid-2000s war WWIII. There is also real historical precedence for people to rename conflicts to suit then-current ideas and politics, so I think that fits. Colonel Green operated post-Eugenics Wars (and may have participated in them; don't know), since he is seen making a speech after WWIII (called that since in pre-24th Century that would mean the 1990s conflicts), and "The Savage Curtain" pegs Green in the early 21st Century. Seems pretty straightforward, actually.  :) Aholland 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, assuming one conflict was called WWIII in one era and the other later became known by that name is speculation, which, of course, cannot be placed as fact in the article. There could be several entirely different reasons for both being called World War III, the most likely being the Eugenics Wars was the catalyst of the mid-21st century conlfict. Regardless, one thing is for sure: we don't need two articles discussing the Eugenics Wars. A note on the latter page stating that it is "considered synonymous with World War III" is good enough for me until a future episode or film can give more concrete details. That said, I'm all for compiling dialogue from episodes to try and piece the puzzle together, as there may always be something we missed or something we misunderstood. Knowhatimean? --From Andoria with Love 09:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine as long as any article hits the canon points of (1) Spock placed WWIII in the mid-1990s; (2) TNG-era people placed WWIII in the mid-2000s; and (3) Col. Green was after WWIII, but active in the early 2000s. There is nothing contra-canon about them renaming the war, and nothing else seems to fit. The alternative of saying "WWIII was a big war that happened . . . sometime" doesn't seem very useful to me. Aholland 15:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
A thought on Aholland's point (1): I added a bit of dialogue to "Space Seeed" for context. Spock's comment "The mid-1990s was the era of your last so-called world war.", doesn't strike me as a sweeping statement that pegs WWIII solely in the mid-1990s. The goal of the bridge discussion to that point was analysis of the age and launch of the Botany Bay, and didn't get into historical debate until McCoy butted in. I think the statement, especially the imprecise "era of", does not preclude the idea of a larger, longer, multi-faceted conflict that Spock would have been aware of. McCoy's line, "The Eugenics Wars", could be read as stating the obvious to Spock, identifying the specific mid-1990s period as one aspect of the larger conflict. --Aurelius Kirk 13:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Aurelius Kirk's point echoes a thought I had on the WWIII page: some historians believe (today!) that WWI and WWII are really just one long conflict and should be linked - thereby making both WWI and lasting three decades. So Spock's line would be like someone saying "The mid-1960s was the era of your last so-called cold war." True statement, but doesn't mean the cold war ended in the 1960s. So it could have logically begun in the mid-1990s and continued into the mid-21st century - one long war. There are three data points hanging out, though, with that interpretation: (1) Spock's claim of 37 million dead versus 600 million; (2) Yarnek's statement that Col. Green was a genocidal maniac in the early 21st Century; and (3) Paxton stating that Green's recorded speech as a middle aged man was made two years following the end of WWIII. There is only one data point hanging out with the interpretation that the Eugenics War was alternatively called WWIII up until the 24th Century: Admiral Bennett saying the Eugenics Wars took place circa 2173. The fact that you have three data elements hanging out with the "one big war" theory, and one hanging out with the "renamed war" theory, is what prompts me at the moment to support the renamed war approach: placing the Eugenics wars during the mid-1990s to perhaps early 2000s, having a break for peace, and having a conflict later dubbed WWIII take place mid-21st Century. Aholland 13:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Data point (1): This error is in the WWIII article. Spock said "...the 37 million who died in your third (world war)" in "Bread and Circuses", and thanks to this page, I read Seven said "600 million casualties" in "In the Flesh." That's not the same thing, but one doesn't contradict the other at all. Spock's more specific statement still stands as the WWIII body count.
Data point (2) and (3): If we take Yarnek's word from "Savage Curtain", Green led "a" genocidal war in the 21st century, not "the" war. That's not inconsistent with his war being part of a larger conflict, and that he survived with enough lingering popularity to make speeches after the conflict's end.
Bennett line: Somewhere today, I read that Ron Moore admited to a mistake in writing "200 years" in "Dr. Bashir, I presume" based on his memory of the mistaken "200 years ago" lines in ST:TWOK, which was written before TNG established the chronology. So I'm inclinded to discount it.
I think I have a new lead paragraph for WWIII that covers the "one big war" concept without conflicting canon or speculating. I'll post it shortly. --Aurelius Kirk 14:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Before you go posting, keep in mind that the 600 million figure was also in First Contact. The only way to toss out the 37 million as a total is to assume that Spock's number was a subset, to only address the deaths due to despotism given the context of the discussion and quote. That could also account for his being WAY off in WWI and WWII deaths if we count totals. You would have to postulate that Green was born in about 2000, lead genocide in about 2025 (as late as "early 21st Century" can get in my opinion), and was a very youthful mid-50s in the tape Paxton saw. Moore might have, indeed, screwed up as the figure of about 2173 doesn't work with anything. But as it is canon we must assume the Admiral messed up and no one wanted to contradict a senior officer in the midst of an impassioned speech. What we can't do for purposes of this site is simply dismiss canon; it must be at minimum noted as being contradictory. With all that, WWIII lasting 60 years might work. Aholland 14:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Durn it, I missed that line from First Contact, and prematurely posted my lead. It's been reverted, but in the history, so tell me if it's on the right track. You've got a point about Spock's figures and our own WWI and WWII estimates. I could imagine Spock using the most conservative, verifiable figures availible in his time, and others a more expansive figure from their day. I don't think we have to postulate anything about Green's war or his age appearance - who knows what affinity he had for plastic surgeries (he wasn't running a marathon in that speech) or, like Paxton, secretly playing with genetic manipulation. I think it's fine mentioning Admiral Bennett's bad history in his article, but not including his date in the WWIII article (or keeping it in background) isn't dismissive. --Aurelius Kirk 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Spock may have been using the most conservative figures available, but that still puts deaths in the 20 million range for WWII, even if you exclude all civilians. But that was known in 1967 too, so I don't quite understand the figures provided, unless they were just "despotism" related deaths. I think an aside (italicized inset) stating his figure and pointing out the discrepancies would work. See also Talk:Second World War under War Dead. We do not need to speculate on Green's lifespan, but we would need to identify him as being involved in both genocide in the "early 21st Century", and that he was influencial after the end of WWIII (his speech). Keep in mind, too, that a screenshot from "In a Mirror, Darkly" (see Talk:Earth-Romulan War) says: "2026: Earth's Third World War begins, over the issue of genetic manipulation and Human genome enhancement. Colonel Phillip Green leads a faction of ultra-violent eco-terrorists resulting in 37 million deaths." Now this is on a piece of production art that can only be clearly seen if you examine the original work (not the episode), but it is a valid resource and should be at least noted in an italicized inset piece (but I personally wouldn't build up more based on it any more than Bennett). [FYI, the text was at one point thought to have come from the Star Trek Chronology, but it doesn't; it appears to be a link to the "Earth First" (real world) organization which believes in violence to support ecological goals. Rather like "Terra Prime"?] I agree that Bennett's bad history can be included as an italicized inset. Aholland 15:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I've pasted an attempt to rewrite a World War III page here. It contains limited speculation and background info and links to the Eugenics Wars page instead of repeating things from that page.--Tim Thomason 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Tim's rewrite is well done, and builds on all the above. I've posted a few thoughts about it on the temp page's Discussion page. Aholland 02:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I, too, have posted a rewrite; I've gone ahead and done an overhaul of the Eugenics Wars page, which can be found here. I used all information given in the lines of dialogue above, so there shouldn't be anything left out (if there is, please feel free to add it in). Anyways, lemme know what you guys think. --From Andoria with Love 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see a lot of value in battling articles. Could Shran and Tim Thomason collaborate and come out with a single, consolidated version? Some thoughts on Shran's (which, like Tim's, is also very well done) are:
  • I don't think that "conquered the rest of humanity" is the best way of describing it under rise to power. 40 nations does not a world make. Consider "held power over a large portion of humanity".
  • Also in Rise to Power, think about "some people were treated as little more than slaves under their rule". I think that capture's the inherent argument Tucker had with Soong better.
  • The statements "Although these 'supermen' usually treated their subjects as slaves, there were no massacres or wars under Khan's rule. This changed, however, when Khan was attacked and his position as ruler challenged, and terrible wars ensued both between the normal humans of the free world and the Augments and between rival 'supermen'" doesn't quite track things for me. You cover some of the same material in the next section, too. Consider: "Unlike some other nations ruled by Augments, under Khan's rule there no massacres and no wars of agression; he was thus among the most admired of the so-called tyrants into the 23rd Century."
  • To say "To average inhabitants of the United States of America and other industrialized nations, the wars had very little impact on everyday life, and went unmentioned and possibly unknown to the much of the world population at the time" is going a little far and is too much conjecture. I think you could simply say that while the wars raged across the world, some cities were devestated and others (notably in the United States) were largely unaffected.
  • Saying "Nonetheless, American troops did fight in the wars." is not supported by facts. Archer's great-grandfather could have been Russian for all we know.
  • You should include the 37 million figure from Spock in addition to the 35.
  • I really hate bringing up Stavos Keniclius - it was a bit of silliness about giants that is difficult to reconcile within or outside of Trek. But nothing much I can do about it. *Sigh*.
  • You say "When the United Federation of Planets was created in 2161, this ban would be extended to all member worlds." Really? That's not from any source I'm familiar with.
  • The Background section needs a little work to smooth things out. I think it a tad too conclusive with phrases like "often misinterpreted by viewers" (implying that if you saw it that way you're a dope).
Overall, pretty nicely done. But we shouldn't have a war of articles. Please consider working directly with Tim on one single one. Thanks! Aholland 18:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold there, Aholland. Who said anything about a "war of articles"? Tim revised the World War III page, so I figured the Eugenics Wars page could also use a refit. Anyways, lemme try to address some of the issues you presented above. --From Andoria with Love 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added in some of your suggestions; however, there are a few that I could not get to at the moment.
  • The 37 million figure given in "Bread and Circuses" was never affiliated with the Eugenics Wars, but with World War III. Although it is close to the casualty number given in the Augment trilogy, to say that this is what Spock was referring to would be speculation, as it could refer to any aspect of the Third World War. (Besides, the graphic seen in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" already stated the 37 million count was due to Colonel Green's genocidal war.)
  • There are some parts from the older article that I did not feel the need to rewrite (hence, why I try to call it a reworking or refit rather than a rewrite); this was one of them. This particular case, however, does sound familiar and was likely from an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Then again, it could be complete speculation, in which case, it should be removed.
  • I agree, the background could use some work. I've taken care of the example you gave. Any other suggestions? :) --From Andoria with Love 20:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
How ironic that I would confuse an article Tim wrote for WWIII with one you did for the Eugenics War! Sorry. I'll take a look at the background and try my hand at it. As you probably realize, lack of words and comments is NOT a problem for me. (Good overall job, again.) Aholland 21:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
No worries, mate. I've been known to goof myself (latest example of many can be found here). Anyways, as I said, feel free to make edit what you must (if you haven't already -- will check soon). Oh, and thanks for the compliment. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
As to compliments, I calls 'em as I see 'em! I haven't yet had a chance to play with the background; will try later on today or tonight. Aholland 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

TOSrules removalsEdit

I am removing this line "often misinterpreted by viewers as meaning that the last world war and Eugenics Wars were one and the same. Spock's statement could be interpeted that some contemporaries of the Eugenics Wars optimistically thought it would be the last global conflict." Because this line would require Spock to say "the era of your so-called last world war" which he didn't say. --TOSrules 23:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

March 1st

I Removed this entire part of the main page, "often interpreted by viewers as meaning that the last world war and Eugenics Wars were one and the same. Spock's statement could be interpeted that some contemporaries of the Eugenics Wars optimistically thought it would be the last global conflict (i.e., that it was called the "last world war" at the time, when in fact it wasn't - rather like WWI being "The War to End All Wars")" Because it doesn't even address the point of the "Space Seed" line, the point of the line is, it places the Eugenics Wars as WWIII. So my simple edit now reflects the line more accurately, BTW the explanation later on is pretty good, as a TOS purest I have yet to find a kink in it, yet. --TOSrules 19:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This line has been discussed a LOT here and in WWIII; please let's have a discussion before any more edits in that regard.
  • The issue is that by putting in only one potential interpretation, when in fact there is more than one, it slants the background unnecessarily. I had maintained the same stance, that "the era of your last so-called world war" meant that the Eugenics Wars equalled WWIII - at least in 2266. However, I have come to the realization that an alternative interpretation based off the "so-called" and along the lines in the deleted text is equally valid and meshes well with established events shown elsewhere.
  • I disagree that he would have to have said "your so-called last" instead of "your last so-called"; I understand the linguistic point you are making but it is not conclusive. The "so-called" could apply to either "last" or "world-war", and I speak from some degree of authority having obtained an undergraduate degree in English.  :)
  • I have no problem quoting the episode; I have no problem saying it could be interpreted to mean that WWIII equals the Eugenics War; I do have a problem with only saying that much, though, as it does not represent the alternative that fits with other established events.
  • I'll reinsert the text (modified a bit) and we can discuss it here as to whether it should change yet again. Aholland 21:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well setting aside the fact that the issue is not if this is the last world war, the line calls it a World War, and unless my math (counting) fails me, that would call the Eugenics wars World War III. --TOSrules 22:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Check out the WWIII discussion page. Many conflicts have been deemed "world wars" without being called a "World War #" by the consensus of historians. For example the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the French Revolutionary Wars (1792–1802), and the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) have each been called world wars by people who are well versed in history (like Churchill). Some people call the Cold War a world war; some people call the "War on Terror" a world war. But we'd be up to about WWVIII or so if all these were counted by historians that way. It is not that clear, so it is reasonable to simply use the interpretation that meets all the available data: it was a "world war", but not a "World War". Aholland 23:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Great WarsEdit

Nice job, Gvsualan! I like especially how you structured it such that we don't need yet another page for the "Great Wars". Aholland 19:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Alternative MeaningsEdit

An unknown archivist removed the following, which I have reinserted: "However, the same phrase could also mean that some contemporaries of the Eugenics Wars optimistically thought it would be the last global conflict (i.e., that it was so-called the "last" world war at the time, when in fact it wasn't - rather like WWI being "The War to End All Wars")." Contrary to the archivist's statement, the placement of "so-called" in the sentence is ambiguous in English as to whether it refers to the word "last" or the words "world war"; both understandings are potentially correct. Aholland 02:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

History as seen from The Original SeriesEdit

Over-analyzed background notesEdit

Regarding the following:

Furthermore, when Mr. Okuda in his Star Trek Chronology changed the timeline for the original series, he failed to account for all the changes. In the original, a number of episodes (TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before", "Shore Leave", "Tomorrow is Yesterday", "Space Seed", "The Savage Curtain") place the series in the late 22nd century. So, if events occured two centuries before, naturally they would have occurred in the later 20th century. However, with the series being moved to the mid-23rd century, those events which occurred two centuries before would have to be moved to the mid-21st century. As the Vulcans would say, logically, the Eugenics War took place in the mid-21st century.
Additionally, one of the scientists mentioned by Dr. McCoy in "Space Seed" and seen in "The Infinite Vulcan", Dr. Stavos Keniclius, was born "over 250 years" before the episode, placing the Eugenics War clearly out of the 20th century and into the 21st century.

This is inaccurate, and has been removed until it can be fully discussed. First of all, TNG Season 1 established the Star Trek timeline, not "Mr. Okuda" and "his Chronology." The Chronology was written in 1993, a full 5 years after TNG had premiered, and a number of references had already been made establishing TOS as being in the 23rd century. The first two episodes of TNG alone had already put TNG many "decades" after TOS. The Okuda and the Chronology had absolutely zero to do with this argument, and the so-called, inaccurate timeline.

Secondly, those episodes referenced don't place the series in the late 22nd century, they place it in the future, as none of the references made were wholly concrete. And regardless of what century TOS may have taken place in, you cannot discount the most painfully obvious statement of them all, with regards to the era of the Eugenics War: "Khan Noonien Singh. From 1992 through 1996, absolute ruler of more than a quarter of your world, from Asia through the Middle East. The last of the tyrants to be overthrown." Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Finally, regarding McCoy's statement "he would be over 250 years old!": How does this disprove the previously stated concrete reference to mid-1990s stated above? What I see being argued here are abstract references being used to establish concrete dates...Vulcan logic can't even justify that. At least the 2373 Admiral Bennett reference to Khan "two centuries ago" can be justified with some sort of citeable explanation.

I also removed:

Some fans have speculated that, since real life history does not support the existence of the Eugenics Wars, the Star Trek universe takes place in a parallel reality, in which case, conflicts with factual events would be moot. It has also been speculated that the Eugenics Wars were fought and won in secret, which could explain instances in Star Trek canon that do not directly support their existence during the 1990s. This is how they were portrayed in the novels by Greg Cox.

As it clearly states off the bat, "some fans have speculated..." and concludes with the obvious. If today in 2007 and the Eugenics Wars of a decade never happened then well, they never happened and the Star Trek timeline is a fictional timeline and Star Trek is a fictional TV series. Let's just be glad they were wrong about their future and our past, and leave the speculation out of the article as a whole. --Alan del Beccio 03:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm new to this discussion, but I think the perspective is all wrong. This is not a real event that we are trying to determine the date of. The anacronism exists because of sloppy, inconsistent, writing done by writeres who had no idea that the basic facts would be examined in such detail. They thought they were writing one-shot episodes not small parts of a massive sci-fi universe. This is a situation like the number of moons that Bajor has, where we must simply pick the strongest reference, in my opinion it is the one gv mentions with exact dates (1992-1996), and then make a note about all the contradictions. This is the best that can be done. --Bp 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
del Beccio represents the majority. The majority is the dominant, with the minority bowing to their will. I bow, no I kneel, before the awesomeness of del Beccio and the majority. Forgive me, my lords, for my blasphemy.--Airtram3 00:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This is based on Airtram's original statement: I attempted rather poorly to say that the original was placed in the mid-to-late 22nd century, possibly even the early 23rd century allowing for leeway in years, yet every time I make the attempt I am told that I am operating on a wrong assumption. How funny it is that Mr. Okuda and others who work with him are permitted this latitude when assigning events to dates. Under del Becchio's belief, if Mr. Okuda was simply a fan like me and attempted to place the loss of the S.S. Valiant in 2065 or 1996 (if this event is recognized as occuring in the same era as the writing of "Nightingale Women", which itself is placed within a two hundred year period), wouldn't he be accused of incorrectly hearing the dialogue as the event was stated to occur a couple of centuries before as I often told by del Becchio and others who share his belief and that "Nightingale Women" has a definite date, thus implying this event has a different standing? It's a mess, it is, and an unmovable boulder to boot. And del Becchio and others who share his beliefs have won this bout, and I resigned my fighting gloves, for now.--Airtram3 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What does Okuda have to do with anything? The Star Trek Chronology isn't considered canon here, so (canon-wise) there's no reason to bring up Okuda, Airtram. And "Nightingale Women" is firmly placed in 1996 per the line:
"Nightingale Woman, written by Phineas Tarbolde on the Canopius planet back in 1996. It's funny you picked that one, Doctor."
Also, what does the user known as "Gvsualan" have to do with this discussion. He was not involved in Star Trek in any way (no offense), and like you and I, is simply analyzing the data from the show.--Tim Thomason 00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason Tim why you choose to discuss what I apparently attempted to erase? I have admitted the error of my ways, so why have you decided to bring up my old transgressions when I am willing to bury them, when I ready to bathe in the baptismal waters of this new orthodoxy?--Airtram3 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I did that because I got into an edit conflict when you removed that info. Instead of deleting my comment along with re-deleting yours, I just thought it would be okay if I separated them (with italics) and indicated that they were your original thoughts on the subject. I didn't realize that you had actually made a mistake there (I just thought that you tried a different approach), and I'm sorry for rehashing old arguments. My two questions (I forgot a question mark) are both my own misunderstanding of your statement (you seem to have understood the 1996 according to other talk pages) and also have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Again, sorry for that.--Tim Thomason 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

New Trek FanboyeryEdit

I've removed, hopefully once and for all, the ludicrous retconn analysis of Spock's "Space Seed" line. The line is "The last of your so-called 'world wars'". If he had said "The so-called 'last of your world wars'" the analysis would be true. But "last" comes before "so-called". It's called proper english grammar, people. Learn it so you don't come up with silly things to argue about in the future.-- 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

30 or 35/37 million? Edit

There's a little edit problem going on in that one user thinks that there's 35/37 causalities from the Eugenics War, though "Borderland" states 30 million. What's the scoop? - Enzo Aquarius 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

37 million is attributed to World War III (whatever that is) in "Bread and Circuses"; 35 million is what some (not all) historians believe to be the real casualty figure according to Archer, although the official number is 30 million from "Cold Station 12".--Tim Thomason 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha Edit

No mention is here made of the recent books by Greg Cox that go into great detail on these wars, Kahn, etc. Perhaps there should be an Apocrypha secton here?

Go for it! ;) -- Renegade54 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I was wondering about this myself after the recent editing/removal of some of the previous background info. --From Andoria with Love 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

just a thoughtEdit

In Voyager the ship goes to 1996 and LA is not effected by the war, in Enterprise the Augment Crises, and in TOS states that it took place in the late 1990's. but in Storm Front (Enterprise) the "reset timeline" shows nothing about this war, but does show the 911 attacks, what if the war started in 2001 and not 1993 and the real life War on Terror (WoT) became the Eugenics War (EW) below are some key links for this:

1. The WoT is a "global war" as was the EW

2. after the first few years the press has cut back on the WoT, per the information on Spock's computer the information was sketchy at best (30 or 37 million dead, what area's effected, the general population not knowing all that much on how it started, ect)

the only bad thing (bad for the Star Trek shows is the "supermen" issue but the WoT is also called a war of religion, and the belief in a god or "superman")

like i said it's a thought but it would fit and still give us humans time to kiss and make up before the nuclear bombs of WW3 started to fall -- (marc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Speculation and not what we do here. There is no need to try and fit real life with star trek. — Morder 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Khan's Age Edit

I feel that the 1996 reference from "Space Seed" has to be regarded as an error, or a reference to a Vulcan dating system, or something like that. If Khan had been in stasis since 1996 and thus had not aged appreciably, it's obvious from looking at him that he was born before the original airdate of the TOS episode. Since there is no evidence to suggest that TOS was trying to imply that the technology needed to produce genetic supermen already existed at the time of the episode's premiere, how can 1996 be correct? 11:03, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Based on what? Character appearance? Remember, this is also supposed to be an Indian, yet is being played by a Mexican. I think we can go by what the episode says for dates, and certainly not assume Vulcan dates. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:15, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, based on character appearance. I don't see how the fact that the actor is a Mexican is related; his name contains indicators of different heritage and he is wearing makeup, so I am willing to accept his appearance as someone of a mixed Eastern heritage, but you cannot seriously claim that he looks under thirty or that the episode appears to be trying to make us think so. Ricardo Montalban was born in 1920. Something's wrong with the dates, and since they don't match up to reality either, it seems like we should find some way to reinterpret them. 21:20, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

So you're OK rejecting his appearance of looking Mexican because...they tell us he isn't, but you aren't OK rejecting his appearance when we're told 1996? Nevermind that we are never even given a birthdate for Khan, we ARE given a year. No, this is not going to happen. We are not going to invent a system of "Vulcan years" just to make you happy. Not when Spock isn't the only character to even say those years. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:27, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
Based on "real-world" aging of world leaders, I would say it's completely possible for Khan to be the age stated in the episode. It's perfectly reasonable that even an Augment should prematurely age after spending years planing and executing a takeover, creating a police state while fighting multiple wars across India and Asia, eventually being overthrown and then spending years in hibernation, which in the "real-world" doesn't actually stop you from aging, it just slows it down. So yeah, he looks older than he should, but considering all that, it's a wonder he wasn't gray by the time the Enterprise found him. - Archduk3 23:35, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

"Just to make you happy" is a silly way to describe your implied claim, which is that genetic engineering existed before the airdate of the episode. It didn't. What age do you claim he is and what year do you claim the advanced genetic engineering technology existed? I accept he is not Mexican because they tell us he isn't and *because it doesn't cause obvious difficulty with the real world technology or dates.* Your comparison of those two things misses the point. Furthermore, other references also support moving the dates, so suggesting that it is "just to make me happy" is discrediting those references (just to make YOU happy, I suppose). 21:16, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

You have no basis on which to claim genetic engineering doesn't exist in the Star Trek universe prior to the airing in our universe of The Original Series - it does, in fact. Trek and real Earth history begin to seriously diverge in the twentieth century, with the Trekverse seeing faster advancement in genetics and spaceflight, while reality sees greater developments in information technology. Also, while Khan matured normally, the Augments of the Darwin Genetic Research Station matured acceleratedly.
Memory Alpha's page on the Eugenics Wars:
The Augments were created by 1950s Cold War-era scientists in the hopes that these supermen would lead to peace a world which had known only war. (Star Trek: Into Darkness)
Memory Beta's page on the Eugenics Wars:
The wars' roots lie in the "Chrysalis Project," an ambitious 1960s program of selective breeding and genetic engineering conducted by a group of scientists trying to create a new, artificially-improved breed of men and women: smarter, faster, stronger than ordinary Human beings, a superrace to take command of the entire planet.
- Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 16:09, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

Quote originEdit

Could someone clearify the quote "Superior ability breeds superior ambition." Was it Spock or "one of the Augments' creators"? tryffel (talk) 05:07, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

It was Spock itself. In fact, he states that the augment's creators "overlooked" this fact. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:44, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
This section also infers then that Spock was killed by one of the Augments. When did this happen?? -- 16:03, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the quote infers that, but Spock was indirectly killed by an Augment, but revived later. 31dot (talk) 16:49, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

It's not the quote itself but the section that follows it. It is not clear from that section that the 'creator' in question is in fact Spock, hence the need for clarification. Many thanks. -- 01:23, August 23, 2013 (UTC)