American Entry

@Imperious:

According to the sources, it is not a fact that USW alone could trigger the entry. If it could trigger the war alone, the British are stupid for wasting all that effort breaking the code, just to force the Germans into making a new code and losing all the intelligence. According the the sources you provided, nothing is conclusive except that the note triggered the war.

Not necessarily. USW was taking its toll on Britain. The note was a gamble that would get the US involved sooner than USW inevitably would have. See previous posts for the sources (and below). I really have no responsibility to repost what you ignore.

@Imperious:

You need to also then post evidence that the US would have 100% entered the war without the note.

Already have, but here’s some more with maybe a couple I’ve already posted. Grab a dictionary so you actually understand what is being said this time. Perhaps pay a tutor. (Side note, it would be interesting to see you with a tutor. I can imagine some expert on a subject going into the session to tutor you and coming out bullied into accepting all sorts of ridiculous ideas about the topic. Maybe you shouldn’t get a tutor after all.)

World History, McDougal-Littell, 1997: “When the Germans returned to unrestriced submarine warfare in 1917, they knew their decision would lead to war with the United States.”

The Americans, 1999, McDougal Littell: “Secretary of State Robert Wilson undercut Wilson’s peace initiatives and France, hoping Germany would resume unrestricted U-boat attacks and thus draw America into the war.” From the same book: “On January 31 the Kaiser announced that U-boats would sink all ships in British waters–hostile or neutral— on sight. Wilson was stunned. The decision meant the United States would have to go to war.”

I hardly need to go on. But I will:

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/WWI/sub.htm
"In February 1917, with U-boats available in quantity, the Germans again declared their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. This time not only allied but neutral ships (such as those of the U.S.) would be sunk on sight. It was a big gamble. The Germans knew it would bring America into the war."

Boom! And one more for good measure:

American Anthem, Holt-Rinehart-Winston, 2007: Any hope for peace ended when Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917. Two days later, the United States ended diplomatic relations with Germany."

I would have settled for a peace without victory, just an admission that you made claims that the evidence didn’t support, not necessarily that those claims were outright wrong, but at this point total domination of your capital combined with a Victory Point and Victory City win (metaphorically, of course), is actually even more satisfying.

@Imperious:

The note triggered the war, there you go.� Â If the British could get away and keep the German code they would. They had to give it up because all the others influences were not working. It would be stupid to give up something if you didn’t have to, and stop asking me to find sources to prove that because it is basic knowledge.

OK, now I say it is basic knowledge that America would have entered the war eventually without the telegram. And since I say it’s basic knowledge I am right and I don’t need real sources. That is the exact same argument you are using.

The moon is made of cheese and I don’t have to give you sources to prove it because it’s basic knowledge. And, I don’t have to prove that it’s basic knowledge because it’s basic knowledge that it’s basic knowledge. And I don’t have to prove that that is basic knowledge that it is basic knowledge because it’s basic knowledge that it’s basic knowledge that it’s basic knowledge… etc, etc. Â :roll:

Besides, the real reason you are right(:roll:) is because you “remember in school something that you read saying this.”  :roll: I read some interesting things about classmates written in the bathroom stalls, perhaps that’s where you read that tidbit at school?

Not necessarily. USW was taking its toll on Britain. The note was a gamble that would get the US involved sooner than USW inevitably would have. See previous posts for the sources (and below). I really have no responsibility to repost what you ignore.

You don’t gamble unless you have to. Get over it the note was the trigger.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 02:24:27 pm
You need to also then post evidence that the US would have 100% entered the war without the note.

Already have, but here’s some more with maybe a couple I’ve already posted. Grab a dictionary so you actually understand what is being said this time. Perhaps pay a tutor. (Side note, it would be interesting to see you with a tutor. I can imagine some expert on a subject going into the session to tutor you and coming out bullied into accepting all sorts of ridiculous ideas about the topic. Maybe you shouldn’t get a tutor after all.)

You posted crap. No source you could ever find will say “it is 100% true that the USW would have drawn the US into war and bringing up the note was not needed.”

World History, McDougal-Littell, 1997: “When the Germans returned to unrestriced submarine warfare in 1917, they knew their decision would lead to war with the United States.”

The Americans, 1999, McDougal Littell: “Secretary of State Robert Wilson undercut Wilson’s peace initiatives and France, hoping Germany would resume unrestricted U-boat attacks and thus draw America into the war.” From the same book: “On January 31 the Kaiser announced that U-boats would sink all ships in British waters–hostile or neutral— on sight. Wilson was stunned. The decision meant the United States would have to go to war.”

And i already posted that the note made the conditions possible for Wilson to ask for war. The note triggered the war, get over it.

I hardly need to go on. But I will:

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/WWI/sub.htm
“In February 1917, with U-boats available in quantity, the Germans again declared their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. This time not only allied but neutral ships (such as those of the U.S.) would be sunk on sight. It was a big gamble. The Germans knew it would bring America into the war.”

Boom! And one more for good measure:

American Anthem, Holt-Rinehart-Winston, 2007: Any hope for peace ended when Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917. Two days later, the United States ended diplomatic relations with Germany."

I would have settled for a peace without victory, just an admission that you made claims that the evidence didn’t support, not necessarily that those claims were outright wrong, but at this point total domination of your capital combined with a Victory Point and Victory City win (metaphorically, of course), is actually even more satisfying.

The note brought the US finally into the war which is an indisputable fact. Get over it.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 02:24:27 pm
The note triggered the war, there you go.�  If the British could get away and keep the German code they would. They had to give it up because all the others influences were not working. It would be stupid to give up something if you didn’t have to, and stop asking me to find sources to prove that because it is basic knowledge.

OK, now I say it is basic knowledge that America would have entered the war eventually without the telegram. And since I say it’s basic knowledge I am right and I don’t need real sources. That is the exact same argument you are using.

Thats fine nobody cares if that’s your opinion. All i am saying is the trigger for war was the note. Get over it.

The moon is made of cheese and I don’t have to give you sources to prove it because it’s basic knowledge. And, I don’t have to prove that it’s basic knowledge because it’s basic knowledge that it’s basic knowledge. And I don’t have to prove that that is basic knowledge that it is basic knowledge because it’s basic knowledge that it’s basic knowledge that it’s basic knowledge… etc, etc. Â rolleyes

Thats fine keep that opinion, but the note triggered the war no matter how much cheese you want to post.

Besides, the real reason you are right(rolleyes) is because you “remember in school something that you read saying this.” � rolleyes I read some interesting things about classmates written in the bathroom stalls, perhaps that’s where you read that tidbit at school?

The note triggered the war, get over it.

BERLIN, January 19, 1917.
On the 1st of February we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America.
If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and together make peace. We shall give general financial support, and it is understood that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The details are left to you for settlement.
You are instructed to inform the President of Mexico of the above in the greatest confidence as soon as it is certain that there will be an outbreak of war with the United States, and suggest that the President of Mexico, on his own initiative, should communicate with Japan suggesting adherence at once to this plan. At the same time, offer to mediate between Gen, any and Japan.
Please call to the attention of the President of Mexico that the employment of ruthless submarine warfare now promises to compel England to make peace in a few months.
ZIMMERMAN.

The Germans made the intention that USW would be possible and at the same time the US would remain neutral. Germany felt it was possible based on their own summation of the situation.
Must likely the British felt they needed something bigger to play in order to draw the US into the conflict and they sacrificed the knowledge that they broke the code and could read the German code. Wilson himself might have delayed in announcing the existence of the note in order to wait and see if USW could turn public opinion, but it didn’t. Once the note was released and authenticated, the American public solidified their resentment against Germany and Wilson had his support for war.

The note was essentially a declaration of war, the USW was basically saying “if you help our enemies with war material, etc we will sink any ship that attempts to enter a British port”

The note is far more powerful as it lays plans to direct attacks on the US mainland, and the public cares far more about something like that, than some transport getting sunk delivering ammo and corn to Britain.

So get over it the note triggered the war.

http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1990-1/guichet.htm

However, without knowledge of the Germans, British Naval Intelligence had, since the outbreak of war in 1915, been working to break the German military code used to send information across the globe. On January 17, 1917, having already broken the code, the telegram was intercepted and ciphering work began. Specialists Reverend William Montgomery and Nigel de Grey, hired by the English to aid in the deciphering of codes intercepted from the Germans, looked over the paper without knowing that the key to the war’s deadlock lay concealed within. <12> Once deciphered, the importance in mobilizing sentiment in America in favor of the war was immediately recognized by the British. <13> The United States, having no knowledge of the telegram or its contents, continued attempts to bring the European powers to a peaceful settlement to end the war.

This action, however, failed to bring about a favorable response from the American public. On February 19, President Wilson disclosed to the French philosopher, Henri Bergson, that Americans were still badly divided, and that many Westerners were for peace at any price. <18> British reports of American opinion also showed very clearly the widespread reluctance to fight Germany. <19> It was this lack of support that created difficulty for Wilson in deciding on a course of action. In response to the sinking of the Housatonic and the Lyman M. Law, Wilson appealed to Congress on February 26 for authority “to supply our merchant ships with defensive arms, should that become necessary, and with the means of using them.” <20> Concerned that the public fear of war may lead to the decline of his request, the President stated within his appeal, “I am not now proposing or contemplating war or any steps that need lead to it.” <21> This statement clearly expresses the fact that as of February 26, 1917, President Wilson did not feel that U.S. intervention in the War was inevitable, In addition, the strength of public opinion and that of the President’ s Cabinet is exemplified. Fearing such an armament would indeed closen the U.S. to the stage of entering the European war, a filibuster of the Senate was begun.

@Imperious:

BERLIN, January 19, 1917.
On the 1st of February we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America.

<yawn>The Germans said they would try to keep the US neutral in a political message. However, historical commentators have said (as I have shown) that Germany knew that the US would enter the war.

Keep posting “evidence” that doesn’t actually support the claims you make. Perhaps you will get lucky and find one that puts our arguments on equal footing. But mine is already firmly established as sound. You can possibly tie, but you can’t win. And no amount of money you spend, people you bully, or evidence you ignore will change that.

@Imperious:

Not necessarily. USW was taking its toll on Britain. The note was a gamble that would get the US involved sooner than USW inevitably would have. See previous posts for the sources (and below). I really have no responsibility to repost what you ignore.

You don’t gamble unless you have to.

I’m inclined to agree. Britain had to gamble that the note would get the USA in the war earlier than USW was already going to do on its own. So yes, you don’t need to gamble unless you have to, but in this case, Britain gambled to SPEED the US entry. They would have entered anyways. No matter how many times you “cite” common knowledge or what you read in school one time, the actual evidence will keep slapping your unfounded claims around.

@Imperious:

You posted crap. No source you could ever find will say “it is 100% true that the USW would have drawn the US into war and bringing up the note was not needed.”

Then why did those sources say that USW made US entry inevitable? Just because it shows how Imperiously Wrong you are (see what I did there?) doesn’t make it “crap.”

@Imperious:

The note brought the US finally into the war which is an indisputable fact. Get over it.

But you also claimed that USW would not have been enough on its own (not to mention other unsupportable claims). The historical sources firmly state otherwise. Get over that. And I didn’t just read that in school one time. I read it from several historical sources.

Besides, the real reason you are right(rolleyes) is because you “remember in school something that you read saying this.” � rolleyes I read some interesting things about classmates written in the bathroom stalls, perhaps that’s where you read that tidbit at school?� �

@Imperious:

The note triggered the war, get over it.

Did you “remember in school something that you read saying this?” Or do you just keep repeating the note trigger comment over and over again because it is the 1% (a guess, I haven’t measured) of your total posting in this thread that might have some real evidentiary basis (assuming that when you say the note triggered the war that is the same as saying it was the last straw)?

People who keep saying the same thing over and over and who can’t ever admit they are wrong tend to be in need of psychiatric help. Or at least I “remember in school something that I read saying this”

@Imperious:

http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1990-1/guichet.htm

However, without knowledge of the Germans, British Naval Intelligence had, since the outbreak of war in 1915, been working to break the German military code used to send information across the globe. On January 17, 1917, having already broken the code, the telegram was intercepted and ciphering work began. Specialists Reverend William Montgomery and Nigel de Grey, hired by the English to aid in the deciphering of codes intercepted from the Germans, looked over the paper without knowing that the key to the war’s deadlock lay concealed within. <12> Once deciphered, the importance in mobilizing sentiment in America in favor of the war was immediately recognized by the British. <13> The United States, having no knowledge of the telegram or its contents, continued attempts to bring the European powers to a peaceful settlement to end the war.

This action, however, failed to bring about a favorable response from the American public. On February 19, President Wilson disclosed to the French philosopher, Henri Bergson, that Americans were still badly divided, and that many Westerners were for peace at any price. <18> British reports of American opinion also showed very clearly the widespread reluctance to fight Germany. <19> It was this lack of support that created difficulty for Wilson in deciding on a course of action. In response to the sinking of the Housatonic and the Lyman M. Law, Wilson appealed to Congress on February 26 for authority “to supply our merchant ships with defensive arms, should that become necessary, and with the means of using them.” <20> Concerned that the public fear of war may lead to the decline of his request, the President stated within his appeal, “I am not now proposing or contemplating war or any steps that need lead to it.” <21> This statement clearly expresses the fact that as of February 26, 1917, President Wilson did not feel that U.S. intervention in the War was inevitable, In addition, the strength of public opinion and that of the President’ s Cabinet is exemplified. Fearing such an armament would indeed closen the U.S. to the stage of entering the European war, a filibuster of the Senate was begun.

Ah but there is a difference between changing public opinion and the actual totality of the decision to go to war, is there not?

Let’s not forget that Wilson’s willingness to avoid war and the historical inevitability of war once USW was redeclared ( the latter or which  is supported by the sources I have posted and still others) are separate notions. Is it quite possible that Wilson still wanted to or thought he had a chance to avoid war? Sure. But historical sources say it was inevitable as soon as USW was declared and maintained.

And if Wilson got the note on the 24th as we know, and still thought the US could stay out on the 26th, then why did it take this event ( quoted below) for Wilson to resolve to declare war? It seems that the note did have a lot to do with public opinion (as I already said), but it has even LESS to do with actually causing the war than our sources indicated before!
"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

Whatever angle you try to take, you aren’t proving your point with actually corroborative evidence. It seems as though what you have really done is make the case that the note was not the final straw, but that that sinking of the three ships was, since Wilson still thought the US should stay out but resolved for war only after the sinking of those 3 ships (due to USW).

Hilarious.

You have done far more to argue against your main point about what was the last straw (a point which I earlier conceded as plausible) than I ever did. Argument suicide. It’s ugly even when I suppose I am the beneficiary.

But please, cite “something you remember reading in school” That will settle things.</yawn>

Seriously though, why would you post: “I remember in school something that i read saying this.”

Enough dodging. Why did you post this?  Why would you think that to be a legitimate source? What does that add to the thread?

If you think that is a legitimate source, we might as well all support our arguments with “momma says” like in The Waterboy.

The Germans said they would try to keep the US neutral in a political message. However, historical commentators have said (as I have shown) that Germany knew that the US would enter the war.

Keep posting “evidence” that doesn’t actually support the claims you make. Perhaps you will get lucky and find one that puts our arguments on equal footing. But mine is already firmly established as sound. You can possibly tie, but you can’t win. And no amount of money you spend, people you bully, or evidence you ignore will change that.

What you posted is nothing that helps you. But this is how you work, ask for “links” then when it goes against you, just move on and never address why the information says this.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 10, 2013, 06:24:00 pm
Quote
Not necessarily. USW was taking its toll on Britain. The note was a gamble that would get the US involved sooner than USW inevitably would have. See previous posts for the sources (and below). I really have no responsibility to repost what you ignore.

You don’t gamble unless you have to.

I’m inclined to agree. Britain had to gamble that the note would get the USA in the war earlier than USW was already going to do on its own. So yes, you don’t need to gamble unless you have to, but in this case, Britain gambled to SPEED the US entry. They would have entered anyways. No matter how many times you “cite” common knowledge or what you read in school one time, the actual evidence will keep slapping your unfounded claims around.

The information concludes that the US would not have entered based on the information you ignore and choose to ignore. You have been defeated, just surrender and you will feel better about yourself. And whats this school thing?

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 10, 2013, 06:24:00 pm
You posted crap. No source you could ever find will say “it is 100% true that the USW would have drawn the US into war and bringing up the note was not needed.”

Then why did those sources say that USW made US entry inevitable? Just because it shows how Imperiously Wrong you are (see what I did there?) doesn’t make it “crap.”

The information shows both Wilson and the British did not feel they could not make the note known because public support for war was not gaining. So get over it.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 10, 2013, 06:24:00 pm
The note brought the US finally into the war which is an indisputable fact. Get over it.

But you also claimed that USW would not have been enough on its own (not to mention other unsupportable claims). The historical sources firmly state otherwise. Get over that. And I didn’t just read that in school one time. I read it from several historical sources.

You read from comic books and since you are still in school, stay in school.

Quote
Besides, the real reason you are right(rolleyes) is because you “remember in school something that you read saying this.” � rolleyes I read some interesting things about classmates written in the bathroom stalls, perhaps that’s where you read that tidbit at school?� �

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 10, 2013, 06:24:00 pm
The note triggered the war, get over it.

Did you “remember in school something that you read saying this?” Or do you just keep repeating the note trigger comment over and over again because it is the 1% (a guess, I haven’t measured) of your total posting in this thread that might have some real evidentiary basis (assuming that when you say the note triggered the war that is the same as saying it was the last straw)?

What? I think you got rabies. The note triggered the war, get over it.

People who keep saying the same thing over and over and who can’t ever admit they are wrong tend to be in need of psychiatric help. Or at least I “remember in school something that I read saying this”

What?  OK.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 10, 2013, 06:37:01 pm
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1990-1/guichet.htm

Quote
However, without knowledge of the Germans, British Naval Intelligence had, since the outbreak of war in 1915, been working to break the German military code used to send information across the globe. On January 17, 1917, having already broken the code, the telegram was intercepted and ciphering work began. Specialists Reverend William Montgomery and Nigel de Grey, hired by the English to aid in the deciphering of codes intercepted from the Germans, looked over the paper without knowing that the key to the war’s deadlock lay concealed within. <12> Once deciphered, the importance in mobilizing sentiment in America in favor of the war was immediately recognized by the British. <13> The United States, having no knowledge of the telegram or its contents, continued attempts to bring the European powers to a peaceful settlement to end the war.

Quote
This action, however, failed to bring about a favorable response from the American public. On February 19, President Wilson disclosed to the French philosopher, Henri Bergson, that Americans were still badly divided, and that many Westerners were for peace at any price. <18> British reports of American opinion also showed very clearly the widespread reluctance to fight Germany. <19> It was this lack of support that created difficulty for Wilson in deciding on a course of action. In response to the sinking of the Housatonic and the Lyman M. Law, Wilson appealed to Congress on February 26 for authority “to supply our merchant ships with defensive arms, should that become necessary, and with the means of using them.” <20> Concerned that the public fear of war may lead to the decline of his request, the President stated within his appeal, “I am not now proposing or contemplating war or any steps that need lead to it.” <21> This statement clearly expresses the fact that as of February 26, 1917, President Wilson did not feel that U.S. intervention in the War was inevitable, In addition, the strength of public opinion and that of the President’ s Cabinet is exemplified. Fearing such an armament would indeed closen the U.S. to the stage of entering the European war, a filibuster of the Senate was begun.

Ah but there is a difference between changing public opinion and the actual totality of the decision to go to war, is there not?

And that difference was the note, case closed.

Let’s not forget that Wilson’s willingness to avoid war and the historical inevitability of war once USW was redeclared ( the latter or which � is supported by the sources I have posted and still others) are separate notions. Is it quite possible that Wilson still wanted to or thought he had a chance to avoid war? Sure. But historical sources say it was inevitable as soon as USW was declared and maintained.

Lets not forget you have been wrong in nearly every claim you made and the truth finally shot down whatever you posted. The sources all say the war was triggered by the note, and all sides felt they needed to disclose the note because public opinion had not solidified against Germany due to USW. The facts support that claim and no other.

And if Wilson got the note on the 24th as we know, and still thought the US could stay out on the 26th, then why did it take this event ( quoted below) for Wilson to resolve to declare war? It seems that the note did have a lot to do with public opinion (as I already said), but it has even LESS to do with actually causing the war than our sources indicated before!
"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

Whatever angle you try to take, you aren’t proving your point with actually corroborative evidence. It seems as though what you have really done is make the case that the note was not the final straw, but that that sinking of the three ships was, since Wilson still thought the US should stay out but resolved for war only after the sinking of those 3 ships (due to USW).

Yes keep posting that one source, i posted many others that show the war was triggered by the note, get over it.

You have done far more to argue against your main point about what was the last straw (a point which I earlier conceded as plausible) than I ever did. Argument suicide. It’s ugly even when I suppose I am the beneficiary.

But please, cite “something you remember reading in school” That will settle things.

You have done nothing but increase your post count. The note triggered the war, and you can’t even admit that. The sheer ignorance of reality you demonstrate of basic facts is lunacy. Now go walk your dog before he does a #2 on the floor again.

I have already clearly established that several historical sources (the most recent from textbooks written by collaborations of PhD’s in the subject) indicate that USW made the war inevitable. If the undergraduate student paper you quoted (a paper that uses the phrase “These negotiations were in vein” (that should be “vain,” in case you didn’t know.)) is correct, Wilson wanted the US to remain neutral even after he already saw the note. Your source states he still wanted to keep the US neutral on the 26th. He saw the note on the 24th. So why did Wilson and his cabinet resolve for war RIGHT AFTER the sinking of three ships in mid-march? If your source is reliable, it turns out that the telegram wasn’t even the final straw. It was just a major impact on public opinion, and we both know that public opinion is not the same as the actual decision by a country’s leaders to go to war.

@Lucas:

I remember in school something that i read saying this.

Turns out that sentence that I have quoted was posted from a different account. I kept asking you why you thought " I remember in school something that i read saying this" was a good source and why you thought such a post added to the conversation, but it turns out this was posted by a different account. Why didn’t you say that wasn’t your account that posted that?

I have already clearly established that several historical sources (the most recent from textbooks written by collaborations of PhD’s in the subject) indicate that USW made the war inevitable. If the undergraduate student paper you quoted (a paper that uses the phrase “These negotiations were in vein” (that should be “vain,” in case you didn’t know.)) is correct, Wilson wanted the US to remain neutral even after he already saw the note. Your source states he still wanted to keep the US neutral on the 26th. He saw the note on the 24th. So why did Wilson and his cabinet resolve for war RIGHT AFTER the sinking of three ships in mid-march? If your source is reliable, it turns out that the telegram wasn’t even the final straw. It was just a major impact on public opinion, and we both know that public opinion is not the same as the actual decision by a country’s leaders to go to war.

I clearly posted everything needed to debunk any argument that the note didnt cause the war. Get over it you lost.

Quote from: Lucas McCain on January 09, 2013, 08:06:56 pm
I remember in school something that i read saying this.

Turns out that sentence that I have quoted was posted from a different account. I kept asking you why you thought " I remember in school something that i read saying this" was a good source and why you thought such a post added to the conversation, but it turns out this was posted by a different account. Why didn’t you say that wasn’t your account that posted that?

Are you crazy? Perhaps you do stand up in a local bar?

Did you hear the one about what triggered US entry in the Great War?

Answer: Some bloke called vonLettowVorbeck1914 started it with posts of gibberish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfOqXFcycB8

@Imperious:

I clearly posted everything needed to debunk any argument that the note didnt cause the war. Get over it you lost.

Saying the note caused the war and saying the note was the last straw are separate things.

@Imperious:

Quote from: Lucas McCain on January 09, 2013, 08:06:56 pm
I remember in school something that i read saying this.

Turns out that sentence that I have quoted was posted from a different account. I kept asking you why you thought " I remember in school something that i read saying this" was a good source and why you thought such a post added to the conversation, but it turns out this was posted by a different account. Why didn’t you say that wasn’t your account that posted that?

Are you crazy? Perhaps you do stand up in a local bar?

Did you hear the one about what triggered US entry in the Great War?

Answer: Some bloke called vonLettowVorbeck1914 started it with posts of gibberish.

Why are you so evasive about that post by Lucas?

I have read much of this thread, but not all of it I will admit this right away.  I have a question then everyone can get back to the Historical point in which the US should enter into the game.

I have always wondered what incentive the US player has for NOT entering the war.  From an “in game” perspective the US stands to gain much from being declared war upon and entering into conflict with an Axis Power.  They can assist the Allies with their ecomony (which blossoms when at war) and the US player finally gets to join in the fun, rather than being a spectator.

SO…. If your the US, why wouldn’t you be chomping at the bit to get into the action?  Has anyone considered a victory condition involving the US never entering the war?  I know it seems ridiculous, sure laugh, but what if the US never entered the war.  Just a thought I figured I would throw at the collective for an opinion.

I understand that this would require an almost rebuild of many aspects of the game, but I was curoius if anyone had thought, heard, or condidered in the past.

@Bombadill10:

I have read much of this thread, but not all of it I will admit this right away.  I have a question then everyone can get back to the Historical point in which the US should enter into the game.

I have always wondered what incentive the US player has for NOT entering the war.  From an “in game” perspective the US stands to gain much from being declared war upon and entering into conflict with an Axis Power.  They can assist the Allies with their ecomony (which blossoms when at war) and the US player finally gets to join in the fun, rather than being a spectator.

SO…. If your the US, why wouldn’t you be chomping at the bit to get into the action?  Has anyone considered a victory condition involving the US never entering the war?  I know it seems ridiculous, sure laugh, but what if the US never entered the war.  Just a thought I figured I would throw at the collective for an opinion.Â

I understand that this would require an almost rebuild of many aspects of the game, but I was curoius if anyone had thought, heard, or condidered in the past.

I think it has a chance at being pretty cool. It can also be quite historical if the German player is VERY conservative with how he or she uses his or her submarines. Would it be a little hard to balance and require a lot of other changes? Sure. But one factor that helps the balance is that if Germany does not provoke the US, they are also most likely not strangling Britain. So a US-less war would have a stronger UK.

It would be a cool balance challenge to make a more historical game.

Saying the note caused the war and saying the note was the last straw are separate things.

In that case they are the same as they always have been. To say the note didn’t trigger the war is basically going against every established fact. Everything points to the consideration that the British had to play the note card and that Wilson had to sit on the info to consider the effects of bringing the note to the public. Your stupid word count truth quotient from Wilson’s political speech and your associated reasoning have been proven faulty.

The note triggered the war get over it.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 12:36:35 pm
Quote
Quote from: Lucas McCain on January 09, 2013, 08:06:56 pm
I remember in school something that i read saying this.

Turns out that sentence that I have quoted was posted from a different account. I kept asking you why you thought " I remember in school something that i read saying this" was a good source and why you thought such a post added to the conversation, but it turns out this was posted by a different account. Why didn’t you say that wasn’t your account that posted that?

Are you crazy? Perhaps you do stand up in a local bar?

Did you hear the one about what triggered US entry in the Great War?

Answer: Some bloke called vonLettowVorbeck1914 started it with posts of gibberish.

Why are you so evasive about that post by Lucas?

I can only make sense of gibberish with comedy. I don’t make sense of why you bring up this “school thing”. Its’ stupid like 99% of what you post.
Now then are you evasive to your own comedy? Why? Do you like Red Foxx or not?

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Why are you so evasive about that post by Lucas?

No need to answer my question anymore IL, I found the real reason why you are evading the post in a 10-second Google search:

http://teamplayergaming.gameme.com/playerinfo/166677

Scroll down to where it says  “Player Aliases”
Interesting list of names used by this SAME PLAYER.
We see:
Imperious Leader
Sgt. Saunders
Sgt Saunders
(and, most interestingly of all:)
Lucas McCain “The Rifleman”

It’s very fascinating that a “Lucas McCain” came on this thread to post his 3rd and 4th posts  in support of Imperious Leader’s argument. When I said in another thread that you should go to a place where you could have a bunch of accounts posting in agreement to everything you say, I didn’t mean this site!

You probably didn’t object to my statements that you posted the “read something in school” comment because you forgot you posted it from your second account and not under Imperious Leader! Hilarious!

I can’t wait for you to keep lying and say it’s just a coincidence that both of these names happen to be so closely associated on both sites.

You’re caught. Red. Handed.

Bonus fun fact: “Lucas McCain” had only 2 posts before this thread, but had 146 post votes (good enough for top 5). Imperious Leader has a post score (under 10 Most Respected) of 44 at the moment. I wonder how much in the negative IL’s post score without “Lucas McCain” voting up IL’s posts?

It’s pretty obvious you used a second account to act like another person was supporting your argument. Truly pathetic. I wonder how long it will take for the link I posted to have the profile deleted in an attempt to delete the smoking gun of your lies? Oh well. I saved a full copy of the webpage.

Has anyone considered a victory condition involving the US never entering the war?

I think the war could be averted too, so we don’t need a game either.

If you allow all sorts of variables ( they go to war, they don’t go to war…just roll the damm dice man)

You can’t balance the game except with artificial and ahistorical ( faulty reasoning). The setup is in stone and based on a force pool and amounts of time it takes for some nations to project their force pool. The game will most likely not have NO’s because this is a new game with new ideas, not a rehash of Global.

You only need to set up the fixed events as a starting point for the game and build basic political rules for entry/collapse.

Imagine if Germany does not back up Austro-Hungary. How fun would such a war be? probably a 3 turn war and defeat of Ottomans/Hungary.

You can’t pick and choose what you want in ignorance of basic facts. The game must contain a basic foundation of what is going on based on what actually happened, especially when dealing with a light wargame style. The rules do not allow for all sorts of variations of the facts.

It’s very fascinating that a “Lucas McCain” came on this thread to post his 3rd and 4th posts � in support of Imperious Leader’s argument. When I said in another thread that you should go to a place where you could have a bunch of accounts posting in agreement to everything you say, I didn’t mean this site!

You probably didn’t object to my statements that you posted the “read something in school” comment because you forgot you posted it from your second account and not under Imperious Leader! Hilarious!

I can’t wait for you to keep lying and say it’s just a coincidence that both of these names happen to be so closely associated on both sites.

You’re caught. Red. Handed.

LOL.

Bonus fun fact: “Lucas McCain” had only 2 posts before this thread, but had 146 post votes (good enough for top 5). Imperious Leader has a post score (under 10 Most Respected) of 44 at the moment. I wonder how much in the negative IL’s post score without “Lucas McCain” voting up IL’s posts?

I am not this McCain.

It’s pretty obvious you used a second account to act like another person was supporting your argument. Truly pathetic. I wonder how long it will take for the link I posted to have the profile deleted in an attempt to delete the smoking gun of your lies? Oh well. I saved a full copy of the webpage.

The note triggered the war, no matter how many webpages you save.

@Imperious:

I am not this McCain.

8-) We all know that is a lie.

I looked you up and found out you have been dead since 1964. So you must be a fake account, or so the reasoning you provide makes it true.

@Imperious:

I looked you up and found out you have been dead since 1964. So you must be a fake account, or so the reasoning you provide makes it true.

More distraction from another fact I am burning you on.

You posted from a dummy account in support of your own argument. And I caught you on it.

Btw, whose gaming account for Left 4 Dead is that, yours or Lucas’?

I wait for your lie with baited breath. Keep digging that hole for yourself. It would probably be better for you if you just came clean. It might be your last chance at avoiding the ban hammer.