@SuperbattleshipYamato Being damaged does not stop battleships from bombarding.
American Entry
-
@Imperious:
The Zimmermann telegram had everything to do with how the allies were doing; Germany was about to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare again because they knew they were in serious trouble, and anticipated that this would cause the US to join.
That is an interpretation, nothing more.
Did you try actually reading the document?
The document clearly states that Germany anticipates their submarine warfare will draw the US in, although they want the US to stay neutral. The document clearly pledges German support ONLY IF the US enters the war.
@Imperious:
It’s historically unsound to say the telegram would have been sent at a fixed date because it was entirely dependent on whether or not Germany wanted to risk unrestricted sub warfare again, based on their fortunes up to that point in the war.
I suppose you can roll for when the Zimmerman note gets released, but that would be the trigger for US entry, not this stupid notion that US just enters the war because the Entente is failing.
Why is it stupid? Did you actually look up US investments in the Entente relative the the CP? Or did you just go by what you think you read in one history book once 10 years ago? Don’t forget that it’s not necessarily just that the entente is failing, but also Germany’s decisions at sea that I am talking about as causes.
@Imperious:
Please take a moment to look up investment statistics for the US for France and the UK before and during WWI, and the actual likelihood and ability of Mexico to declare war on the US. You’ll see that the telegram was a convenient propaganda victory for those in the US who wanted war, and little more.
Wrong. It was a diplomatic gaff that showed the hand of German aggression and a direct threat against US interests. It woke up the US public who had no inclination for war now toward fighting Germany. It was not the case of two factions like before WW2 fighting for public opinion for or against war.
So the telegram is what really showed the hand to Americans of German aggression, even though it became publicly relevant it over 4 weeks after Germany resumed unrestricted sub warfare? Don’t you think the sub warfare showed the hand first?
@Imperious:
You say that US fought for its own interests; that is one of the few correct points of your post. The telegram was a lucky break for the big shot investors who wanted the war in order to protect their investments, as they had something to make the general population worried about. But to suggest that the US officials were actually worried about a Mexican invasion is looking too much at the face value and not at what was really going on.
This “big shot investors” argument is completely bogus. That is not why we went to war. The direct threat was the possibility of ceding former Mexican areas back to Mexico, which for public opinion ( especially the people living in these areas) would turn these folks against Germany in a second. Unrestricted submarine warfare could be another event to trigger war, but the Zimmerman note came out first. Most people would not hate Germany for sinking ships as much as knowing if Germany wins Mexico could take back large parts of US.
Please find a historian or two who actually supports your claim that the US leaders were worried about losing territory to mexico. I would love to go to their house and try on one of their tinfoil hats and play with their 57 cats while sipping their favorite beverage of urine and gasoline out of a horse skull as they tell me their argument in pig latin.
There is a difference between people being upset at the audacity of the telegram and people actually being legitimately concerned that Mexico could succeed (or even wanted to go to war) even if Germany won.
http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/WWI/parallelsToIraq.htm
Since you are unable or unwilling to do actual research there is some for you. Read the section on American loans.
Let’s put it this way. If the American investment in the CP and Allies were inverted, would the US have gone to war against the CP? � The simple fact is that America was allegedly neutral but was financially profiting immensely from its much stronger ties to the allies. Once the Germans started to strongly threaten American economic interests, that’s when those whose opinions really mattered began to resolve to go to war. The telegram came to the forefront later and was excellent for getting American public opinion behind the war that many investors began to want as the ships started sinking.
-
I have heard about Germany wooing Mexico to join the Central Powers and declare war on the United States. I think it was the “last straw” for President Wilson and why he decided to declare war on the Central Powers. However, I have not heard of anything past that.
Mexico never attacked us and we never attacked them. Did anything ever happen on that front? Or did Mexico simply decline Germany and that was the end of it?What if Mexico had agreed with Germany? Even as small as the US Army was at that time, I wouldn’t think that the Mexican Army back then would have really posed a substantial threat to the US. However, might it have affected US entry into the European front? If Mexico really got it’s stuff together and invaded in some kind of force, all those guys we had to train to build a real army would have been needed here, defending US soil, and not sent over to France to fight the Germans. With the US busy fighting Mexico, is it possible the Central Powers could have won in Europe?
I’m all for “what-if’s,” but when you get to a certain point (what that point is is opinion of course), they need not be considered anymore as being. Everything that I can recall reading on the subject discusses the possible entry of Mexico as strongly or completely implausible. Using the resources immediately at hand (I have to go soon) Wikipedia cites a book that allegedly states that the Mexican general in charge of determining the feasibility of war with the US called it impossible and undesirable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram#Mexican_response
From what I have read Mexican entry against the US is beyond plausible consideration as a “what-if?”.
-
Please read the thread on this subject.
All we know for sure is that the Russian Revolution “will be represented”.
At one extreme of the argument (IL) is the notion that in November 1917 (this will be on a specific game turn) Russia simply drops out of the war. Russian forces are removed, and (presumably) no other power can enter Russian tt. What happens to CP forces on Russian soil, and how much of Russia the CP gets to keep has not been explained. As far as this argument is concerned, the Russian civil war is an entirely different event of no relevance to “WWI”.
I would expect Larry’s game will follow a similar pattern: “this is A&A, not Flames of War” (whatever that is).At the other extreme (Me) is the view that what happened in Russia after the Bolsheviks grabbed power is very relevant to the world outside; as you say the western Allies intervened to try getting Russia back into the war. The Reds negotiated an armistice with Germany, refused the terms offered, were attacked again, and were then forced to give Germany all of Russia’s western areas, which were then occupied by CP forces, who remained there until 1918 in order to keep hold of what was very unstable (but valuable) country.
See also Siberian intervention, the largest Japanese contribution to the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Intervention
My suggestion is that in Russia (and any other country falling into revolution) you determine which units are loyal (whites), which are Bolshevik (reds), and which are non-Russian nationalists (blacks). This is very hard for some people to understand, but in practice quite simple. The CP gets control of the Bolshevik units, the Allies keep control of the “whites”. The blacks setup their own independent states. None of these can operate outside Russia until the civil war is won.
The CPs should have to physically occupy Russian tt in order to collect income from it, so a CP garrison remains in tts such as Ukraine, Belarus and Baltic States.To maintain that these events were irrelevant to WWI is like having Japan and the USSR starting at war with each other in a WWII game…
I tend to see “WWI” and “WWII” each as a series of local conflicts which happened to occur at the same time; the other view sees them as stand-alone events that occurred in isolation of other political happenings, and according to a strict and unalterable schedule.
Another idea regarding the Russian Revolution. It actually started before the end of WW1 and there was pretty heavy Western Allied involvment with the White Army to try and stop the Reds. I was just wondering if that will be demonstrated in this game. There were advisors and troops from six different nations up in Murmansk and Archangel that were there to advise the Whites but often came into direct conflict with the Reds.
So, in the game, when the Russian Revolution happens and Russia pulls out of the war, should the Western Allies have to send a certain number of their troops to Russia to show historical support? -
America was heavily involved in the Mexican revolution, first supporting the revolutionaries, then invading Mexico to punish the likes of Pancho Villa.
General Pershing found that hunting rebels in Mexico was no easier than fighting local militias in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_the_Mexican_Revolution
However Mexico was an annoyance to the USA, not a serious military threat. America could easily deal with the Mexicans without getting involved in a European war.
-
I think it was the “last straw” for President Wilson and why he decided to declare war on the Central Powers.
That is exactly right. It was the last straw, not unrestricted submarine warfare. To not know that is a poor student of History.
However, I have not heard of anything past that.
Mexico never attacked us and we never attacked them. Did anything ever happen on that front? Or did Mexico simply decline Germany and that was the end of it?The issue was never the actual threat of “Mexico”. It was rather the notion that Germany had boundless designs against real or perceived enemies. It just showed that Germany was not favorable to our own interests.
What if Mexico had agreed with Germany? Even as small as the US Army was at that time,
It was not the value of the Mexican army, which was pathetic. Pancho Villa did conduct raids, but with any effort US could have just retaken Mexico City ( and probably exacted more land)
-
At one extreme of the argument (IL) is the notion that in November 1917 (this will be on a specific game turn) Russia simply drops out of the war. Russian forces are removed, and (presumably) no other power can enter Russian tt. What happens to CP forces on Russian soil, and how much of Russia the CP gets to keep has not been explained. As far as this argument is concerned, the Russian civil war is an entirely different event of no relevance to “WWI”.
Just to clarify, In Larry’s game Russia most likely drops out of the war most likely not before a fixed date, and only if conditions are met. If the conditions are not met, it probably does not trigger collapse. My only notion is that YOU DON’T ROLL FOR COLLAPSE BEFORE A FIXED TURN. The modifiers don’t apply till that moment. If it were any different the game could not be balanced at all, as the possibility of collapse early would ruin allied chances.
-
Did you try actually reading the document?
The document clearly states that Germany anticipates their submarine warfare will draw the US in, although they want the US to stay neutral. The document clearly pledges German support ONLY IF the US enters the war.
Yes many times before. What you seem to keep missing is that the note drew US into the war not unrestricted submarine warfare. Fixed dates in History trigger the simulation. Otherwise why not change the starting date of the war by introducing variable die rolls each turn? The game has a few fixed dates that trigger events and you don’t start changing them or the game is no longer a simulation of world war one, but some other war.
I suppose you can roll for when the Zimmerman note gets released, but that would be the trigger for US entry, not this stupid notion that US just enters the war because the Entente is failing.
Why is it stupid? Did you actually look up US investments in the Entente relative the the CP? Or did you just go by what you think you read in one history book once 10 years ago? Don’t forget that it’s not necessarily just that the entente is failing, but also Germany’s decisions at sea that I am talking about as causes.
Because it’s not what happened. Why not add in space aliens and the death Star? Because that’s not what happened.
So the telegram is what really showed the hand to Americans of German aggression, even though it became publicly relevant it over 4 weeks after Germany resumed unrestricted sub warfare? Don’t you think the sub warfare showed the hand first?
The note was what triggered the war. When on this earth will you stop dancing around this white elephant?
Please find a historian or two who actually supports your claim that the US leaders were worried about losing territory to mexico. I would love to go to their house and try on one of their tinfoil hats and play with their 57 cats while sipping their favorite beverage of urine and gasoline out of a horse skull as they tell me their argument in pig latin.
Wrong again. I didn’t say anybody was worried about losing territory. I said the note triggered the war. To find this fact, just look up any book. Then go on dancing with the stars as a white elephant dancer.
There is a difference between people being upset at the audacity of the telegram and people actually being legitimately concerned that Mexico could succeed (or even wanted to go to war) even if Germany won.
nobody claimed otherwise.
http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/WWI/parallelsToIraq.htm
Since you are unable or unwilling to do actual research there is some for you. Read the section on American loans.
Let’s put it this way. If the American investment in the CP and Allies were inverted, would the US have gone to war against the CP? � The simple fact is that America was allegedly neutral but was financially profiting immensely from its much stronger ties to the allies. Once the Germans started to strongly threaten American economic interests, that’s when those whose opinions really mattered began to resolve to go to war. The telegram came to the forefront later and was excellent for getting American public opinion behind the war that many investors began to want as the ships started sinking.
more dancing. The note triggered the war. Stop avoiding the facts in order to make up more bogus arguments.
-
@Imperious:
I think it was the “last straw” for President Wilson and why he decided to declare war on the Central Powers.
That is exactly right. It was the last straw, not unrestricted submarine warfare. To not know that is a poor student of History.
Something being the “last straw” is hardly the same as something being the most important factor or an even-more-than-barely-significant factor.
-
Something being the “last straw” is hardly the same as something being the most important factor or an even-more-than-barely-significant factor.
Right and in this case, the note was the most important factor. It caused our entry in the war. No denying that.
-
@Imperious:
So the telegram is what really showed the hand to Americans of German aggression, even though it became publicly relevant it over 4 weeks after Germany resumed unrestricted sub warfare? Don’t you think the sub warfare showed the hand first?
The note was what triggered the war. When on this earth will you stop dancing around this white elephant?
You are the one who is dancing around the fact that the UK withheld the note in order to allow anti-german sentiment to grow because of the effect unrestricted sub warfare (USW from now on) would have on American opinion. The note being the last straw does not mean it was the only or even the most important cause.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/
It can be admitted that it was the “last straw,” but for the last straw to matter, there has to be many other straws. No one is saying the Zimmerman telegram is totally irrelevant, but please find a source (if you can) that states that as being a more important reason than USW (don’t forget that the note was sent because Germany was planning on resuming USW)
@Imperious:
Please find a historian or two who actually supports your claim that the US leaders were worried about losing territory to mexico. I would love to go to their house and try on one of their tinfoil hats and play with their 57 cats while sipping their favorite beverage of urine and gasoline out of a horse skull as they tell me their argument in pig latin.
Wrong again. I didn’t say anybody was worried about losing territory. I said the note triggered the war. To find this fact, just look up any book. Then go on dancing with the stars as a white elephant dancer.
There is a difference between people being upset at the audacity of the telegram and people actually being legitimately concerned that Mexico could succeed (or even wanted to go to war) even if Germany won.
nobody claimed otherwise.
Actually, you did:
@Imperious:
This “big shot investors” argument is completely bogus. That is not why we went to war. The direct threat was the possibility of ceding former Mexican areas back to Mexico, which for public opinion ( especially the people living in these areas) would turn these folks against Germany in a second. Unrestricted submarine warfare could be another event to trigger war, but the Zimmerman note came out first. Most people would not hate Germany for sinking ships as much as knowing if Germany wins Mexico could take back large parts of US.
Bold added. That speaks for itself. It no wonder you can’t keep track of what historians write on the subject when you can’t keep track of what you yourself say.
Let’s look at the italicized section (I added those italics btw). When did the Zimmermann note come out? Fact is, it was not given to Wilson until Feb 24, and not released to the public until March 1.
Strange how the US severed diplomatic relations with Germany on the 3rd of February, at least 3 weeks before the public or even Wilson knew the telegram existed. Strange also how this was just three days after the declaration of USW. Severing of diplomatic relations isn’t war, but it is a pretty huge step, don’t you agree?
Don’t forget to read this part:
“Hollweg’s announcement prompted Wilson to break relations three days later.
Wilson and Congress moved toward declaring war over the next two months. Their decisions were also influenced by a telegram sent by Arthur Zimmerman, the German foreign minister, to Germany’s Mexican ambassador.”So yes, the note mattered, but as the above site shows the redeclaration of USW might not have been the last straw, but it was a bigger pile of straw than the note was. If the note is supremely important, why did another event cause severing of relations (including sending the German ambassador home) and the movement toward war BEFORE the note was released?  If the note was supremely important, why does The Beard’s Basic History of the United States (Doubleday, 1944) not mention the telegram at all but DOES mention the six torpedoed American ships in Feb and March 1917 (That’s the book I happen to have on the shelf at the moment on the topic).
Still not convinced? Â Let’s take a look at Wilson’s speech to congress on Dec. 2nd.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm
First of all, a quick search of the document shows at least 8 mentions of “submarine.” How many COMBINED mentions of Zimmerman(n), note, or telegram do we find? Zero. Zilch. Nada. This is the president’s speech asking congress for war. If the note was more important than USW wouldn’t it make sense that the note would be mentioned somewhere close to as much as USW? Maybe just once? But it isn’t mentioned. Not once. Was it relevant in turning public opinion against the Germans? Sure. Was it the last straw, the one thing that took it over the edge? Possibly. But was it the most important cause? If we are to answer honestly after carefully looking at the evidence, the answer is no.
I wonder why you haven’t brought any sources into the discussion? Do they not say what you want them to? When that happens sir, it usually means its time to reflect on your historical opinions.
-
So what DO people want: a game starting in 1914 simulating the world falling into the chaos of a global war in which virtually anything could happen, depending on what the leaders in government and armed forces do, or even on which way the wind is blowing on a particular Tuesday morning; or a text-book re-enactment of the major events of 1914-1918 with a few minor military variables thrown in via a bit of dice rolling?
Honestly, somewhere in between (but definitely closer to the first). I am not saying that you are asking for anarchy in the game, I am merely pointing out that it would be a lot more fun for at least two people for sure, and probably many, many more to have a hand in changing the course of events that military fortunes had a large impact on as the fortunes change, instead of having historically dubious events happening when it is far from necessary for game balance (Russia going into revolution when they are spanking the Germans, for example.)
Really, if you’re going to make such random events as the Zimmerman telegram set in stone, then on what possible criteria does the German government NOT inform Ludendorff that they’re going to ask the Allies for an Armistice in November 1918?
A good question. There is a difference between having some limits to make the game manageable and scheduling the whole thing.
As I’ve mentioned before, if you make momentous events like Russian collapse and American declaration of war set to a rigid timetable, then players will inevitably plan for them, in a way that is totally unrealistic.
Exactly. It’s not actually historical in any meaningful sense UNLESS, of course, player decision follows the actual course very well. Scheduling like that is effect that ignores cause.
Yes, a historical scenario where Russia collapses, then Germany shifts west in a desperate attempt to win before America gets into 2nd gear is an exciting prospect, but only one of an unlimited number.
More possibilities is like having more possible games to play. I like getting multiple games for the price of one.
-
You are the one who is dancing around the fact that the UK withheld the note in order to allow anti-german sentiment to grow because of the effect unrestricted sub warfare (USW from now on) would have on American opinion. The note being the last straw does not mean it was the only or even the most important cause.
Funny how you invent new points after the ones i shot down. :roll: I only said the Zimmerman note was the vital influence to draw US into war. Now if you want to create new arguments in an effort to bury the truth that the Zimmerman Note was the key factor and not UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE, OR THIS NEW THING YOU INVENT. It is common knowledge that what triggered the war was the note and you have not once acknowledge that fact, and instead harp on other factors that DID NOT DIRECTLY TRIGGER THE WAR. I FIND THAT AMUSING.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/
It can be admitted that it was the “last straw,” but for the last straw to matter, there has to be many other straws. No one is saying the Zimmerman telegram is totally irrelevant, but please find a source (if you can) that states that as being a more important reason than USW (don’t forget that the note was sent because Germany was planning on resuming USW)
sure ANY History BOOK WILL TELL YOU THE NOTE WAS THE TRIGGER THAT CAUSED THE WAR. Please find one that says it was not the note, but unrestricted submarine warfare or pancakes or whatever.
Actually, you did:
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:57:24 am
This “big shot investors” argument is completely bogus. That is not why we went to war. The direct threat was the possibility of ceding former Mexican areas back to Mexico, which for public opinion ( especially the people living in these areas) would turn these folks against Germany in a second. Unrestricted submarine warfare could be another event to trigger war, but the Zimmerman note came out first. Most people would not hate Germany for sinking ships as much as knowing if Germany wins Mexico could take back large parts of US.Bold added. That speaks for itself. It no wonder you can’t keep track of what historians write on the subject when you can’t keep track of what you yourself say.
So i guess you cant read then. read the words “The direct threat was the possibility of ceding former Mexican areas back” The threat of aggression and not actual a realistic outcome of what Mexico was capable of was the key factor. It was what Germany was capable of doing in order to win the war, which became a direct threat to USA. The actual threat of “Mexico” did not worry America, but if Germany won the war they would be prepared to follow up with partitioning the states to foreign powers.
Let’s look at the italicized section (I added those italics btw). When did the Zimmermann note come out? Fact is, it was not given to Wilson until Feb 24, and not released to the public until March 1.
Strange how the US severed diplomatic relations with Germany on the 3rd of February, at least 3 weeks before the public or even Wilson knew the telegram existed. Strange also how this was just three days after the declaration of USW. Severing of diplomatic relations isn’t war, but it is a pretty huge step, don’t you agree?
Funny how you invented yet another salient point about what caused the war, rather than admitting that the Note caused the war. That white elephant must be getting heavy and i won’t relieve you of it’s burden.
Don’t forget to read this part:
“Hollweg�s announcement prompted Wilson to break relations three days later.
Wilson and Congress moved toward declaring war over the next two months. Their decisions were also influenced by a telegram sent by Arthur Zimmerman, the German foreign minister, to Germany�s Mexican ambassador.”LOLOL
Their decisions were also influenced by a telegram sent by Arthur Zimmerman
Case closed. Check and Mate.
So yes, the note mattered, but as the above site shows the redeclaration of USW might not have been the last straw, but it was a bigger pile of straw than the note was. If the note is supremely important, why did another event cause severing of relations (including sending the German ambassador home) and the movement toward war BEFORE the note was released? � If the note was supremely important, why does The Beard’s Basic History of the United States (Doubleday, 1944) not mention the telegram at all but DOES mention the six torpedoed American ships in Feb and March 1917 (That’s the book I happen to have on the shelf at the moment on the topic).
Because that book was written in 1944 ( during ww2) and real Historians have had time to sort out the actual influences. It takes many decades of reflection to sort out the causes, and everybody knows the Note was the major contribution. Just acknowledge that and move on.
Still not convinced? � Let’s take a look at Wilson’s speech to congress on Dec. 2nd.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm
First of all, a quick search of the document shows at least 8 mentions of “submarine.” How many COMBINED mentions of Zimmerman(n), note, or telegram do we find? Zero. Zilch. Nada. This is the president’s speech asking congress for war. If the note was more important than USW wouldn’t it make sense that the note would be mentioned somewhere close to as much as USW? Maybe just once? But it isn’t mentioned. Not once. Was it relevant in turning public opinion against the Germans? Sure. Was it the last straw, the one thing that took it over the edge? Possibly. But was it the most important cause? If we are to answer honestly after carefully looking at the evidence, the answer is no.
This is why you should not be involved in understanding History. The Note was a sensitive paper which got intercepted by the British. So to acknowledge the code was broken would subvert future interceptions. It would be the same problem if in WW2, FDR says “we broke the Japanese code because we tricked them by reporting the water tanks at Midway were out.”
Don’t just read facts without tying them together to make sense of it all.
I wonder why you haven’t brought any sources into the discussion? Do they not say what you want them to? When that happens sir, it usually means its time to reflect on your historical opinions.
Because it is a well known fact that the Zimmerman Note was the trigger for US entry. It is so basic and you keep inventing new crap to pile out that truth because you lost this argument so long ago and I’m just amusing myself with the entertainment you provide.
-
To make the most ahistorical game possible:
- Allow variable war starts ( need to roll 12 each turn) roll twice or three times for each year…so the war could start as late as 1985
- Allow the US to enter as soon as one of the entente falls ( Paris falls on turn 2, US forces appear on turn 3)
- Allow any nation to switch sides, like RISK
- Allow any neutral to fight on any side
- Allow Russia to stay in the game as long as they make their saving roll
-
Zimmermann note, secret telegram sent on Jan. 16, 1917, by German foreign secretary Arthur Zimmermann to Count Johann von Bernstorff, the German ambassador to the United States. In it Zimmermann said that in the event of war with the United States, Mexico should be asked to enter the war as a German ally. In return, Germany promised to restore to Mexico the lost territories of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. British intelligence intercepted and deciphered the telegram and sent it to President Woodrow Wilson, who released it on Mar. 1, 1917, to the press. The Zimmermann note helped turn U.S. public opinion against Germany during World War I and strengthened the advocates of U.S. entry into the war.
Bibliography
See B. W. Tuchman, The Zimmermann Telegram (1966).
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/zimmermann-note#ixzz2HRiKC8Kl
-
“President Wilson went before Congress on February 3 to announce that he had severed diplomatic relations with Germany. However, he refrained from asking for a declaration of war because he doubted that the American public would support him unless there was ample proof that Germany intended to attack U.S. ships with no warning. Wilson left open the possibility of negotiating with Germany if its submarines refrained from attacking American shipping. Nevertheless, throughout February and March 1917, German submarines targeted and sunk several American ships, and many American passengers and seamen died.”
So it was the direct cause.
“The British had initially not shared the news of the Zimmerman Telegram with U.S. officials, because they did not want the Germans to discover that British code breakers had cracked the German code. However, following Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in February, the British decided to use the note to help sway American official and public opinion to join the war. The British finally forwarded the intercept to Wilson on February 24. The American press carried the story the following week.”
Now you know what Wilson didn’t mention the note, because it would tip the hat to Germany and give them the knowledge that British had broken the German code.
"Despite the shocking news of the Zimmerman Telegram, Wilson still hesitated to ask for a declaration of war. He waited until March 20 before convening a Cabinet meeting to broach the matter–almost a month after he had first seen the telegram. The precise reasons for Wilson’s decision to choose war in 1917 remain the subject of debate among historians, especially in light of his efforts to avoid war in 1915 after the sinking of the British passenger liners Lusitania and Arabic, which had led to the deaths of 131 Americans.
However, by 1917, the continued submarine attacks on American merchant and passenger ships, and the “Zimmerman Telegram’s” implied threat of a German attack on the United States, had served to sway American public opinion in support of a declaration of war."
The Note was the final straw. It is not the case that if the note never occurred, that with certainty, the US would enter the war.
-
@Imperious:
You are the one who is dancing around the fact that the UK withheld the note in order to allow anti-german sentiment to grow because of the effect unrestricted sub warfare (USW from now on) would have on American opinion. The note being the last straw does not mean it was the only or even the most important cause.
Funny how you invent new points after the ones i shot down. :roll: I only said the Zimmerman note was the vital influence to draw US into war. Now if you want to create new arguments in an effort to bury the truth that the Zimmerman Note was the key factor and not UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE, OR THIS NEW THING YOU INVENT. It is common knowledge that what triggered the war was the note and you have not once acknowledge that fact, and instead harp on other factors that DID NOT DIRECTLY TRIGGER THE WAR. I FIND THAT AMUSING.
I invented nothing new. I cite numerous sources that show USW as the main concern of the US. You cite for your view “common knowledge.” That is funny. I literally lol’ed. Only someone as delusional as you could think you are making progress at shooting my points down. The last straw only matters if there were other straws before it.
“In an effort to protect their intelligence from detection and to capitalize on growing anti-German sentiment in the United States, the British waited until February 24 to present the telegram to Woodrow Wilson.”
from
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/Why was there "growing anti-german sentiment? Did anything important happen before that? Perhaps on January 31st? Hmm.
@Imperious:
sure ANY History BOOK WILL TELL YOU THE NOTE WAS THE TRIGGER THAT CAUSED THE WAR. Please find one that says it was not the note, but unrestricted submarine warfare or pancakes or whatever.
Already did. I quoted from it. Here’s another:
"In mid-march 1917, German U-boats sank three American merchant ships. Outraged about the violation of American neutrality, President Wilson called a meeting with his cabinet. Each cabinet member argued for war. On April 2, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany to “make the world safe for democracy.” -American Anthem, Holt-Rinehart-Winston, 2007
If we put any more nails in your argument’s coffin the price of steel will get out of hand.
Couldn’t find one about pancakes, sorry. I don’t feel that bad though since I never made any claims about pancakes. Until just now I suppose.
@Imperious:
So i guess you cant read then. read the words “The direct threat was the possibility of ceding former Mexican areas back” The threat of aggression and not actual a realistic outcome of what Mexico was capable of was the key factor. It was what Germany was capable of doing in order to win the war, which became a direct threat to USA. The actual threat of “Mexico” did not worry America, but if Germany won the war they would be prepared to follow up with partitioning the states to foreign powers.
The fact that you assume that Germany winning the war (unless Germany or Mexico occupied American possessions they would be hard pressed to force them to give them up) means it would be willing or able to force the United States to cede territory to Mexico is so asinine that I am not even going to waste time asking for the source of that “information.”
@Imperious:
Let’s look at the italicized section (I added those italics btw). When did the Zimmermann note come out? Fact is, it was not given to Wilson until Feb 24, and not released to the public until March 1.
Strange how the US severed diplomatic relations with Germany on the 3rd of February, at least 3 weeks before the public or even Wilson knew the telegram existed. Strange also how this was just three days after the declaration of USW. Severing of diplomatic relations isn’t war, but it is a pretty huge step, don’t you agree?
Funny how you invented yet another salient point about what caused the war, rather than admitting that the Note caused the war. That white elephant must be getting heavy and i won’t relieve you of it’s burden.
I’ve already admitted the note was relevant. But to say it caused the war for the US is standing on shaky, and at the moment, unsourced or dubiously sourced ground. Got anything substantial?
@Imperious:
Don’t forget to read this part:
“Hollweg�s announcement prompted Wilson to break relations three days later.
Wilson and Congress moved toward declaring war over the next two months. Their decisions were also influenced by a telegram sent by Arthur Zimmerman, the German foreign minister, to Germany�s Mexican ambassador.”LOLOL
Their decisions were also influenced by a telegram sent by Arthur Zimmerman
Case closed. Check and Mate.You say I am not able to read. Look at the part where it says “also influenced,” meaning there were other influences. If the note was the main cause, wouldn’t it be written about as such rather than an “also” afterthought? It takes a truly remarkable mind to take that to mean that that sentence says the telegram caused the war. You ignore the statement that the US was moving toward war before the telegram was even revealed to the US.
@Imperious:
So yes, the note mattered, but as the above site shows the redeclaration of USW might not have been the last straw, but it was a bigger pile of straw than the note was. If the note is supremely important, why did another event cause severing of relations (including sending the German ambassador home) and the movement toward war BEFORE the note was released? � If the note was supremely important, why does The Beard’s Basic History of the United States (Doubleday, 1944) not mention the telegram at all but DOES mention the six torpedoed American ships in Feb and March 1917 (That’s the book I happen to have on the shelf at the moment on the topic).
Because that book was written in 1944 ( during ww2) and real Historians have had time to sort out the actual influences. It takes many decades of reflection to sort out the causes, and everybody knows the Note was the major contribution. Just acknowledge that and move on.
I was pretty sure you’d come up with this lame and arrogant excuse, that since the book is old the authors can’t possibly know what they are talking about. Now I quoted from a book from 2007 that states USW caused the war. Is that not recent enough? Perhaps next time I will quote a book from the future?
@Imperious:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm
First of all, a quick search of the document shows at least 8 mentions of “submarine.” How many COMBINED mentions of Zimmerman(n), note, or telegram do we find? Zero. Zilch. Nada. This is the president’s speech asking congress for war. If the note was more important than USW wouldn’t it make sense that the note would be mentioned somewhere close to as much as USW? Maybe just once? But it isn’t mentioned. Not once. Was it relevant in turning public opinion against the Germans? Sure. Was it the last straw, the one thing that took it over the edge? Possibly. But was it the most important cause? If we are to answer honestly after carefully looking at the evidence, the answer is no.
This is why you should not be involved in understanding History. The Note was a sensitive paper which got intercepted by the British. So to acknowledge the code was broken would subvert future interceptions.
Oh the delicious, succulent irony. This is so rich I will need to skip dessert for a long time.
You claim he would not have mentioned the note because it would have subverted future interceptions. You fail to realize (OMG this is too good! I can’t contain myself!) that the note was already released to the public A WHOLE MONTH before this speech! So he did not mention it in the speech because he needed to keep it secret even though it was available to the public for a month?
lol.
@Imperious:
Don’t just read facts without tying them together to make sense of it all.
Indeed!
-
@Imperious:
Zimmermann note, secret telegram sent on Jan. 16, 1917, by German foreign secretary Arthur Zimmermann to Count Johann von Bernstorff, the German ambassador to the United States. In it Zimmermann said that in the event of war with the United States, Mexico should be asked to enter the war as a German ally. In return, Germany promised to restore to Mexico the lost territories of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. British intelligence intercepted and deciphered the telegram and sent it to President Woodrow Wilson, who released it on Mar. 1, 1917, to the press. The Zimmermann note helped turn U.S. public opinion against Germany during World War I and strengthened the advocates of U.S. entry into the war.
Bold added. “helped.” “strengthened.” I agree. I have been agreeing that it did such things. But this quote hardly states the telegram as the main cause.
-
@Imperious:
“President Wilson went before Congress on February 3 to announce that he had severed diplomatic relations with Germany. However, he refrained from asking for a declaration of war because he doubted that the American public would support him unless there was ample proof that Germany intended to attack U.S. ships with no warning. Wilson left open the possibility of negotiating with Germany if its submarines refrained from attacking American shipping. Nevertheless, throughout February and March 1917, German submarines targeted and sunk several American ships, and many American passengers and seamen died.”
So it was the direct cause.
Lol. Did you even read what you quoted? He wanted proof that the Germans would attack Ami shipping before before asking for war, and the Germans gave it to him by attacking “throughout February and March” When did Wilson get the telegram from the Brits? LATE FEBRUARY.
The national archive source I quoted in a post above stated that the british waited for intelligence reasons AND to capitalize on growing anti-german sentiment. Why was the sentiment growing? Could it have had anything to do with the fact that Germans were attacking throughout February, well before the telegram was released?
@Imperious:
“The British had initially not shared the news of the Zimmerman Telegram with U.S. officials, because they did not want the Germans to discover that British code breakers had cracked the German code. However, following Germany�s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in February, the British decided to use the note to help sway American official and public opinion to join the war. The British finally forwarded the intercept to Wilson on February 24. The American press carried the story the following week.”
Now you know what Wilson didn’t mention the note, because it would tip the hat to Germany and give them the knowledge that British had broken the German code.
Even though the speech was made a month after the American public ALREADY knew about the note? Did you read the speech? Did you even glance at it? April 2nd, 1917. The note was released on March 1.
@Imperious:
"Despite the shocking news of the Zimmerman Telegram, Wilson still hesitated to ask for a declaration of war. He waited until March 20 before convening a Cabinet meeting to broach the matter–almost a month after he had first seen the telegram. The precise reasons for Wilson�s decision to choose war in 1917 remain the subject of debate among historians, especially in light of his efforts to avoid war in 1915 after the sinking of the British passenger liners Lusitania and Arabic, which had led to the deaths of 131 Americans.
Hmm, I wonder if that cabinet meeting is the same one I referenced in the the quote from the American Anthem textbook, the meeting that was called after the sinking of American ships in mid-march, by guess what! German subs engaging in unrestricted sub warfare.
@Imperious:
However, by 1917, the continued submarine attacks on American merchant and passenger ships, and the �Zimmerman Telegram�s� implied threat of a German attack on the United States, had served to sway American public opinion in support of a declaration of war."
Note that the sub attacks are mentioned right alongside (and even before) the telegram in the second quote. Note also that this refers only to public opinion. Yet, the president’s speech, asking for war does not mention the note. The Zimmermann note is important for American public support of the war. And of course public opinion is relevant in deciding to go to war. But the note is not the critical factor in causing the US leaders to decide to go to war.
@Imperious:
The Note was the final straw. It is not the case that if the note never occurred, that with certainty, the US would enter the war.
So what? It’s also not the case that if the note never occurred, the US would have certianly NOT entered the war.
-
You are the one who is dancing around the fact that the UK withheld the note in order to allow anti-german sentiment to grow because of the effect unrestricted sub warfare (USW from now on) would have on American opinion. The note being the last straw does not mean it was the only or even the most important cause.
But it was the final cause leading to war. It was the final straw just like i have been saying all along.
Funny how you invent new points after the ones i shot down. rolleyes I only said the Zimmerman note was the vital influence to draw US into war. Now if you want to create new arguments in an effort to bury the truth that the Zimmerman Note was the key factor and not UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE, OR THIS NEW THING YOU INVENT. It is common knowledge that what triggered the war was the note and you have not once acknowledge that fact, and instead harp on other factors that DID NOT DIRECTLY TRIGGER THE WAR. I FIND THAT AMUSING.
I invented nothing new. I cite numerous sources that show USW as the main concern of the US. You cite for your view “common knowledge.” That is funny. I literally lol’ed. Only someone as delusional as you could think you are making progress at shooting my points down. The last straw only matters if there were other straws before it.
Sure you did. You fail to acknowledge that the Note was the final straw and the key influence to trigger war. You still defend other things before it or after the note.
“In an effort to protect their intelligence from detection and to capitalize on growing anti-German sentiment in the United States, the British waited until February 24 to present the telegram to Woodrow Wilson.”
from
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/Why was there "growing anti-german sentiment? Did anything important happen before that? Perhaps on January 31st? Hmm.
That does not mean the note was not the final straw that triggered the war. If you got one old women who hates Germany because of Jan 31st you got increased sentiment, but you don’t have the trigger. The note was the final trigger. Get over it.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 07:23:02 pm
sure ANY History BOOK WILL TELL YOU THE NOTE WAS THE TRIGGER THAT CAUSED THE WAR. Please find one that says it was not the note, but unrestricted submarine warfare or pancakes or whatever.Already did. I quoted from it. Here’s another:
"In mid-march 1917, German U-boats sank three American merchant ships. Outraged about the violation of American neutrality, President Wilson called a meeting with his cabinet. Each cabinet member argued for war. On April 2, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany to “make the world safe for democracy.” -American Anthem, Holt-Rinehart-Winston, 2007
If we put any more nails in your argument’s coffin the price of steel will get out of hand.
Couldn’t find one about pancakes, sorry. I don’t feel that bad though since I never made any claims about pancakes. Until just now I suppose.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 07:23:02 pm
So i guess you cant read then. read the words “The direct threat was the possibility of ceding former Mexican areas back” The threat of aggression and not actual a realistic outcome of what Mexico was capable of was the key factor. It was what Germany was capable of doing in order to win the war, which became a direct threat to USA. The actual threat of “Mexico” did not worry America, but if Germany won the war they would be prepared to follow up with partitioning the states to foreign powers.The fact that you assume that Germany winning the war (unless Germany or Mexico occupied American possessions they would be hard pressed to force them to give them up) means it would be willing or able to force the United States to cede territory to Mexico is so asinine that I am not even going to waste time asking for the source of that “information.”
The fact that i assume Germany winning the war? Where do you get this from? How bout assume the note was the final straw that triggered US entry…as you well know.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 07:23:02 pm
Quote
Let’s look at the italicized section (I added those italics btw). When did the Zimmermann note come out? Fact is, it was not given to Wilson until Feb 24, and not released to the public until March 1.Strange how the US severed diplomatic relations with Germany on the 3rd of February, at least 3 weeks before the public or even Wilson knew the telegram existed. Strange also how this was just three days after the declaration of USW. Severing of diplomatic relations isn’t war, but it is a pretty huge step, don’t you agree?
Funny how you invented yet another salient point about what caused the war, rather than admitting that the Note caused the war. That white elephant must be getting heavy and i won’t relieve you of it’s burden.
I’ve already admitted the note was relevant. But to say it caused the war for the US is standing on shaky, and at the moment, unsourced or dubiously sourced ground. Got anything substantial?
Yes the note was the final cause that triggered US entry in the war. To argue against that fact for 30 posts seems like a failing proposition no?
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 07:23:02 pm
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/feb-3-1917-u-s-breaks-relations-with-germany-plans-to-declare-war/Quote
Don’t forget to read this part:
“Hollweg�s announcement prompted Wilson to break relations three days later.
Wilson and Congress moved toward declaring war over the next two months. Their decisions were also influenced by a telegram sent by Arthur Zimmerman, the German foreign minister, to Germany�s Mexican ambassador.”
LOLOL
Their decisions were also influenced by a telegram sent by Arthur Zimmerman
Case closed. Check and Mate.You say I am not able to read. Look at the part where it says “also influenced,” meaning there were other influences. If the note was the main cause, wouldn’t it be written about as such rather than an “also” afterthought? It takes a truly remarkable mind to take that to mean that that sentence says the telegram caused the war. You ignore the statement that the US was moving toward war before the telegram was even revealed to the US.
Dear Santa: The final straw that drew US into the war could be counted but with only one event: the Zimmerman note. Other influences also contributed, but the Note was the final straw that leads US into war. Get over it.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 07:23:02 pm
Quote
So yes, the note mattered, but as the above site shows the redeclaration of USW might not have been the last straw, but it was a bigger pile of straw than the note was. If the note is supremely important, why did another event cause severing of relations (including sending the German ambassador home) and the movement toward war BEFORE the note was released? � If the note was supremely important, why does The Beard’s Basic History of the United States (Doubleday, 1944) not mention the telegram at all but DOES mention the six torpedoed American ships in Feb and March 1917 (That’s the book I happen to have on the shelf at the moment on the topic).Because that book was written in 1944 ( during ww2) and real Historians have had time to sort out the actual influences. It takes many decades of reflection to sort out the causes, and everybody knows the Note was the major contribution. Just acknowledge that and move on.
I was pretty sure you’d come up with this lame and arrogant excuse, that since the book is old the authors can’t possibly know what they are talking about. Now I quoted from a book from 2007 that states USW caused the war. Is that not recent enough? Perhaps next time I will quote a book from the future?
You can quote anybody saying anything, but the Note was the final straw that triggered US entry into the war. Get over it.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 07:23:02 pm
Quote
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htmFirst of all, a quick search of the document shows at least 8 mentions of “submarine.” How many COMBINED mentions of Zimmerman(n), note, or telegram do we find? Zero. Zilch. Nada. This is the president’s speech asking congress for war. If the note was more important than USW wouldn’t it make sense that the note would be mentioned somewhere close to as much as USW? Maybe just once? But it isn’t mentioned. Not once. Was it relevant in turning public opinion against the Germans? Sure. Was it the last straw, the one thing that took it over the edge? Possibly. But was it the most important cause? If we are to answer honestly after carefully looking at the evidence, the answer is no.
This is why you should not be involved in understanding History. The Note was a sensitive paper which got intercepted by the British. So to acknowledge the code was broken would subvert future interceptions.
Oh the delicious, succulent irony. This is so rich I will need to skip dessert for a long time.
You claim he would not have mentioned the note because it would have subverted future interceptions. You fail to realize (OMG this is too good! I can’t contain myself!) that the note was already released to the public A WHOLE MONTH before this speech! So he did not mention it in the speech because he needed to keep it secret even though it was available to the public for a month?
Link to substantiate the public knew the British broke the German code?
-
Lol. Did you even read what you quoted? He wanted proof that the Germans would attack Ami shipping before before asking for war, and the Germans gave it to him by attacking “throughout February and March” When did Wilson get the telegram from the Brits? LATE FEBRUARY.
The national archive source I quoted in a post above stated that the british waited for intelligence reasons AND to capitalize on growing anti-german sentiment. Why was the sentiment growing? Could it have had anything to do with the fact that Germans were attacking throughout February, well before the telegram was released?
Sentiment was not the trigger that got US into war. It was the Note. Get over it.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 07:40:39 pm
“The British had initially not shared the news of the Zimmerman Telegram with U.S. officials, because they did not want the Germans to discover that British code breakers had cracked the German code. However, following Germany�s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in February, the British decided to use the note to help sway American official and public opinion to join the war. The British finally forwarded the intercept to Wilson on February 24. The American press carried the story the following week.”Now you know what Wilson didn’t mention the note, because it would tip the hat to Germany and give them the knowledge that British had broken the German code.
Even though the speech was made a month after the American public ALREADY knew about the note? Did you read the speech? Did you even glance at it? April 2nd, 1917. The note was released on March 1.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 07:40:39 pm
"Despite the shocking news of the Zimmerman Telegram, Wilson still hesitated to ask for a declaration of war. He waited until March 20 before convening a Cabinet meeting to broach the matter–almost a month after he had first seen the telegram. The precise reasons for Wilson�s decision to choose war in 1917 remain the subject of debate among historians, especially in light of his efforts to avoid war in 1915 after the sinking of the British passenger liners Lusitania and Arabic, which had led to the deaths of 131 Americans.Hmm, I wonder if that cabinet meeting is the same one I referenced in the the quote from the American Anthem textbook, the meeting that was called after the sinking of American ships in mid-march, by guess what! German subs engaging in unrestricted sub warfare.
Yes and the Note was the final straw that triggered US entry. Without it, it was not clear if he could get a DOW.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 07:40:39 pm
However, by 1917, the continued submarine attacks on American merchant and passenger ships, and the �Zimmerman Telegram�s� implied threat of a German attack on the United States, had served to sway American public opinion in support of a declaration of war."Note that the sub attacks are mentioned right alongside (and even before) the telegram in the second quote. Note also that this refers only to public opinion. Yet, the president’s speech, asking for war does not mention the note. The Zimmermann note is important for American public support of the war. But it’s not the critical factor in causing the US leaders to decide to go to war.
The note was the last straw that caused US entry into the war. Get over it.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 07:40:39 pm
The Note was the final straw. It is not the case that if the note never occurred, that with certainty, the US would enter the war.
So what? It’s also not the case that if the note never occurred, the US would have certianly NOT entered the war.
Well now you finally agree. I guess you learned something…finally.
Suggested Topics
