American Entry

@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.

OMG! You hit on the REAL reason behind the US entry into WW1 IL! I remember reading a report that in the early months of 1917 Germany flooded US markets with their potato pancakes. Americans just HATED them and President Wilson had no choice but to declare war on Germany. I heard that he signed the declaration right after taking his first bite of one.

@knp7765:

@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.

OMG! You hit on the REAL reason behind the US entry into WW1 IL! I remember reading a report that in the early months of 1917 Germany flooded US markets with their potato pancakes. Americans just HATED them and President Wilson had no choice but to declare war on Germany. I heard that he signed the declaration right after taking his first bite of one.

Come to think of it Potato Pancake Street name in my town was changed to French Fries Drive in 1917.
Some years later it was changed to Liberty Fries Drive but that’s another story.

@Imperious:

One more for good measure:

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/WWI

“Germany’s resumption of submarine attacks on passenger and merchant ships in 1917 was the primary motivation behind Wilson’s decision to lead the United States into World War I.”

Funny how that comes from the SAME SOURCE you quoted in post 27. That’s not just unsporting. That’s unethical, unless you somehow didn’t see it.

And if you also READ THE DOCUMENT:

Wilson cited Germany�s violation of its pledge to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and its attempts to entice Mexico into an alliance against the United States, as his reasons for declaring war.

Funny how you left this part out of your quoted source. Funny how they list the note second meaning it was the final influence to trigger war.

Note the distinction I have always made. I have not cared what came last. I have cared what was most important. The first quote is a definitive statement that USW was the most important.

All your quote says is that both the telegram and USW were reasons. This I have admitted countless times. It does not say in your quote which was more important, but in mine it does. Now, if you had a quote from the same article saying that the note was more important, you might have something.

It’s pretty clear you are far from confident in your argument because I keep saying I don’t really care that it’s the last straw, only that USW is the most important factor, and over and over you keep saying it was the last straw as some sort of diversion tactic.

You keep double-talking, acting sometimes like the note being the last straw and it being the most important factor are not the same thing, and other times acting like they are the same thing: “But my insistence was that the Note was the last straw. The most important factor was not USW.”

Saying the same thing over when I am not contesting the point (that the note was the “last” straw) is starting to make you look a little crazy. � Is there someone on here arguing over and over again that its not the last straw?

Regarding the Zimmerman Note:

More than anything else, it hardened the peace-loving American people to the conviction that war with Germany was an absolutely necessary step.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/zimmermann.htm

Finally, you have a source that definitively states that the note was the most important factor in something. This would usually mean that at this point we would have competing, contradictory sources, in which case the debate is open and both positions are tenable. The small issue with that is that, as I have admitted, this quote only says that the note � was the critical factor in public opinion (I have already said the note was a huge propaganda victory that made the decision to go to war that US leaders made for USW reasons more palatable to the American people). No one is denying that the note had huge PO implications. But that is not the same as being the cause for the war. Public opinion is of course important, but not necessarily definitive.

That source does help your argument, however it deals more with public opinion that with the definitive reason(s) leading into war. Until you provide evidence showing that the Telegram was the most important cause for the US to go to war (not the most important cause for US public opinion to be for war, which are two separate things), the evidence supports USW as the most important cause for the US to go to war.

Some of those in the United States who still held out for neutrality at first claimed the telegram was a fake. This notion was dispelled two days later, when Zimmermann himself confirmed its authenticity.Public opinion in the United States now swung firmly toward American entrance into World War I. On April 2, Wilson went before Congress to deliver a message of war.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/zimmermann-telegram-published-in-united-states

Once again, public opinion. One thing to note is that this quote states that it swung firmly toward American entrance. Could there have been anything that swung it significantly before that? Maybe we can learn something from the sentence right before before the lines you quoted: “Germany had already aroused Wilson’s ire—and that of the American public—with its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and its continued attacks against American ships.”

The thing about a last straw is that its often such a little thing in a long series of things that finally breaks the camel’s back. Just because the last straw is the one the breaks the back does not mean it compares in weight to the previous straws. Maybe there is � a source that definitively states the note was why the US went to war (instead of why the public became convinced they wanted war)

�  �  Until that point, the United States had tried to remain neutral in World War I. However, the British and other allies were begging and pleading for help. Attitudes in the US were shifting towards war, and the telegram acted as a catalyst. The British capitalized on that attitude, and in a politically smart move, they showed the United States the telegram on February 24, 1917.
�  �  The United States published the telegram, making the public aware of it on March 1. The public opinion quickly became a definite pro-war. Congress officially declared war against Germany and its allies on April 6, 1917.

http://library.thinkquest.org/28005/flashed/timemachine/courseofhistory/zimmerman.shtml

So it seems that what the telegram did was speed things up. I have always admitted that. However, what made the attitudes shift towards war in the first place? You guessed it (or maybe you didn’t), USW. Germany knew that resuming USW would draw the US in. THAT’S WHY THEY MADE THE OFFER TO MEXICO. Imagine if you can a scenario in which Germany sent the note without engaging in USW (let’s forget for a second that the note was sent because of USW). Now imagine a situation where they engage in USW without sending the note. Which is more likely to draw the US in? I have a feeling what you will say out of stubbornness, but we both know that that is the uneducated answer.

@Imperious:

You are now dismissed from class. None of these sources say USW was the main cause, but they do say that the note was the final cause of the US entry or they also say it was the main cause of entry.

No, they deal with public opinion. An important factor to be sure, but none of what you have is as definitive as this:
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/WWI
“Germany’s resumption of submarine attacks on passenger and merchant ships in 1917 was the primary motivation behind Wilson’s decision to lead the United States into World War I.”

That makes 2 statements: 1. Wilson led USA into war; he was the primary actor in the event and 2. The primary motivation of the primary actor was submarine attacks.

There still might be some historian who states the telegram was the most important cause for war (not for public opinion being for the war, if you weren’t such a double-talker you might admit the difference). But until you supply such evidence, our viewpoints cannot be on equal evidentiary basis, as my evidence is more definitive. Keep looking if you want, but the most you can do is tie. I realize you think winning the argument is more important than the truth of the matter (your dirty tactics make that clear), so I am sorry you can’t win. Hopefully if you find your evidence, your ego can settle for both viewpoints being tenable.

But hey, at least you are citing something other than “common knowledge.” I am glad I could help introduce you to the idea of supporting claims with evidence.

Now to this one:

Balfour, knowing full well that the telegram might lead the Americans to enter the war on Britain and France�s side, had nevertheless hesitated to show it to Page. The Royal Navy admiral whose office, codenamed Room 40, had intercepted and decoded the telegram had also been wracked with doubt about what to do. Although Admiral Sir William Hall knew exactly how important the telegram was, he had to find a way to show it to the Americans without revealing that his office had broken the German codes. Once the Germans learned that their codes and ciphers were no longer secure, they would stop using them and a veritable gold mine of information would stop flowing into Hall�s office. Only once he was convinced that he had found a way to protect his precious secret did he give the telegram to Balfour.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-i/essays/zimmermann-telegram-and-american-entry-world-war-i

Is that some sort of attempt to dismiss this blunder of yours, quoted below? Just admit you seriously messed up your interpretation of the note and events. You are only making things � worse for yourself.

@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. 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.

Again, why should Wilson be afraid to mention the note when it was published in NEWSPAPERS a month before? It was no longer sensitive. The British ALREADY waited. They had ALREADY protected their source of the information.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/
“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.”

Let’s look at the chronology.
January: British discover note.
Feb 24: British release note to Wilson
March 1: Note released to the American press
March 3: Zimmermann confirms note is authentic to an american journalist
March 29: Zimmermann gives speech confirming note is genuine
April 2: Wilson addresses congress to declare war, he mentions unrestricted submarine warfare as a motivation to go to war at least 8 times, does not mention the note once.

It’s absolutely absurd to think that Wilson withheld mentioning the note to protect his sources after the british gave it to him a over month before and he released it to the PRESS( the PUBLIC PRESS!) a month before. If he were to have mentioned the note would he have needed to spill how the British got it (if he even knew)? OF COURSE NOT! It was no longer sensitive. Let’s not forget the fact that Zimmermann himself confirmed the note’s authenticity twice before the speech. It was publicly released. Confirmed by its author. Somehow Wilson mentioning the note in his war speech tips to the Germans that they have a leak, but the note being in most every American newspaper one month prior to the speech doesn’t? If you think that, you underestimate us Germans. We may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, but we are sharp enough to figure that out. We know what newspapers are, and where to get them, even those of us who are not spies. � :roll:

In summary, the evidence we have leads to the conclusion that unrestricted submarine warfare (USW to save my fingers) was the most significant/important cause of the US entry into World War I, while the Zimmermann telegram probably sped the US entry in that it had significant effects on strengthening public opinion for the war in addition to what USW was doing to American public opinion before and after the note’s release.

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/WWI

Germany’s resumption of submarine attacks on passenger and merchant ships in 1917 was the primary motivation behind Wilson’s decision to lead the United States into World War I.

There it is in black and white. Wilson led the US into war, and he did so because of USW.

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

It was sub attacks that caused Wilson to call the meeting in which the cabinet resolved for war.

Wilson’s speech to Congress, Apr. 2, 1917
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm

If there is a mention of the note in Wilson’s speech as to why the US needed to go to war, I couldn’t find it. On the other hand, submarines are mentioned at least 8 times, and it doesn’t take a doctorate in English to see that unrestricted submarine warfare is the theme of the speech.

Explaining the absence of mention of the note in the speech being because the note was a sensitive document and such mention would tip to the Germans that there was a leak is an exceedingly poor argument. The Germans had several opportunities to know that the note had gotten out, most obviously the publishing of the note in American newspapers after March 1. Not only that, Zimmermann himself confirmed the note’s authenticity at least twice publicly before Wilson’s speech. The only thing Wilson could possibly have wanted to protect was how exactly the British got the note (if he even knew how they got it), and it was hardly necessary to give away those secrets when the note was publicly confirmed to be true by Zimmermann himself.

So we need another reason, a legitimate reason, for why the note was not mentioned, otherwise it is evidence supporting (although not as slam-dunk as the first quote at top)  that USW was the most important cause for the US to go to war.

Until you provide definitive evidence stating that the note was the most important cause as to why the US went to war, I don’t really have much more to say since I have already firmly established my viewpoint. There is plenty of room for other tenable viewpoints, if you have definitive evidence for them. If you keep posting on the topic without such evidence, I will try to ignore  such baiting and misdirection, but to be honest I may just bite if it gets too juicy. I really hope you will actually just provide real definitive evidence or gracefully bow out though, not that I have much hope since you ignored a quote that definitively supports my argument while quoting from the same article.

@Flashman:

Initially, both sides will attempt to blockade the other by blocking passage of ships, or sinking them mid passage. All of this affects American attitudes, including the Allies stopping American ships sailing to Germany.

This seems like an interesting dynamic if the a rule like the munitions one you posted is introduced in some fashion.

The Germans would likely be in a position where they can only stop transports by sinking, whereas the Brits, with surface ships, can do so peacefully, and tick the US off, but not as much. Perhaps if the Germans get surface ships out they can also blockade peacefully.

A lot depends on whether the munitions are transported on US ships or the ships of the power to which they are headed.

Depending on whether each ship being sunk angers the US or not and whether or not US ships can be defended, the UK might actually have incentive to allow ships (For some reason in 1917 they refused to re-institute convoys even though they were effective earlier) to be sunk by the Germans. Harsh, but not implausible.

Anyways, I very much like the direction its headed, and am interested in helping iron out some details either now or after release.

Note the distinction I have always made. I have not cared what came last. I have cared what was most important. The first quote is a definitive statement that USW was the most important.

It was not In 1915 we lost 120+ men to the Lusitania and it had not effect. USW was not the cause that triggered the war and thats what i have been saying all along.

All your quote says is that both the telegram and USW were reasons. This I have admitted countless times. It does not say in your quote which was more important, but in mine it does. Now, if you had a quote from the same article saying that the note was more important, you might have something.

But this is your invented argument. I keep saying it was the trigger that caused the war. You on the other hand keep inventing other arguments that attempt to bury that fact.

It’s pretty clear you are far from confident in your argument because I keep saying I don’t really care that it’s the last straw, only that USW is the most important factor, and over and over you keep saying it was the last straw as some sort of diversion tactic.

No this is only what you are saying now, since all the other arguments were defeated quite easily. I always maintained it was the final straw that triggered the war.

You keep double-talking, acting sometimes like the note being the last straw and it being the most important factor are not the same thing, and other times acting like they are the same thing: “But my insistence was that the Note was the last straw. The most important factor was not USW.”

Nope. The most important factor was the trigger that caused the war because it caused the war. Simple fact. I look at the last trigger that caused the war and to say what was a greater influence is proven by the event that actually caused action, which was the note. IN addition perhaps you got some supporting evidence that USR was the main cause ( other than one source)?

Saying the same thing over when I am not contesting the point (that the note was the “last” straw) is starting to make you look a little crazy. � Is there someone on here arguing over and over again that its not the last straw?

Then you are arguing against the facts, like a crazy person.

Regarding the Zimmerman Note:
Quote
More than anything else, it hardened the peace-loving American people to the conviction that war with Germany was an absolutely necessary step.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/zimmermann.htm

Finally, you have a source that definitively states that the note was the most important factor in something. This would usually mean that at this point we would have competing, contradictory sources, in which case the debate is open and both positions are tenable. The small issue with that is that, as I have admitted, this quote only says that the note � was the critical factor in public opinion (I have already said the note was a huge propaganda victory that made the decision to go to war that US leaders made for USW reasons more palatable to the American people). No one is denying that the note had huge PO implications. But that is not the same as being the cause for the war. Public opinion is of course important, but not necessarily definitive.

History is a study of interpretations. This propaganda victory was for bringing up the Note to the Americans, but letting them (German High Command) know at the same time that the German code had been broken.

That source does help your argument, however it deals more with public opinion that with the definitive reason(s) leading into war. Until you provide evidence showing that the Telegram was the most important cause for the US to go to war (not the most important cause for US public opinion to be for war, which are two separate things), the evidence supports USW as the most important cause for the US to go to war.

If USW was the main cause, it would have triggered the war. But that took the note to trigger the war, which i have said all along.

Quote
Some of those in the United States who still held out for neutrality at first claimed the telegram was a fake. This notion was dispelled two days later, when Zimmermann himself confirmed its authenticity.Public opinion in the United States now swung firmly toward American entrance into World War I. On April 2, Wilson went before Congress to deliver a message of war.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/zimmermann-telegram-published-in-united-states

Once again, public opinion. One thing to note is that this quote states that it swung firmly toward American entrance. Could there have been anything that swung it significantly before that? Maybe we can learn something from the sentence right before before the lines you quoted: “Germany had already aroused Wilson’s ire—and that of the American public—with its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and its continued attacks against American ships.”

No because if it did it would have triggered the war. Public opinion was solidified only after the note was made public. Get over it.

The thing about a last straw is that its often such a little thing in a long series of things that finally breaks the camel’s back. Just because the last straw is the one the breaks the back does not mean it compares in weight to the previous straws. Maybe there is � a source that definitively states the note was why the US went to war (instead of why the public became convinced they wanted war)

The funny thing is it takes something the be the last straw. USW was not it no matter how many posts you make, it was the note.

Quote
� � � � Until that point, the United States had tried to remain neutral in World War I. However, the British and other allies were begging and pleading for help. Attitudes in the US were shifting towards war, and the telegram acted as a catalyst. The British capitalized on that attitude, and in a politically smart move, they showed the United States the telegram on February 24, 1917.
� � � � The United States published the telegram, making the public aware of it on March 1. The public opinion quickly became a definite pro-war. Congress officially declared war against Germany and its allies on April 6, 1917.

http://library.thinkquest.org/28005/flashed/timemachine/courseofhistory/zimmerman.shtml

So it seems that what the telegram did was speed things up. I have always admitted that. However, what made the attitudes shift towards war in the first place? You guessed it (or maybe you didn’t), USW. Germany knew that resuming USW would draw the US in. THAT’S WHY THEY MADE THE OFFER TO MEXICO. Imagine if you can a scenario in which Germany sent the note without engaging in USW (let’s forget for a second that the note was sent because of USW). Now imagine a situation where they engage in USW without sending the note. Which is more likely to draw the US in? I have a feeling what you will say out of stubbornness, but we both know that that is the uneducated answer.

No you don’t admit it was the trigger that caused US entry into the war. If the note was never revealed, the US would need to be triggered on something else. But in reality it was the note and not USW.

There still might be some historian who states the telegram was the most important cause for war (not for public opinion being for the war, if you weren’t such a double-talker you might admit the difference). But until you supply such evidence, our viewpoints cannot be on equal evidentiary basis, as my evidence is more definitive. Keep looking if you want, but the most you can do is tie. I realize you think winning the argument is more important than the truth of the matter (your dirty tactics make that clear), so I am sorry you can’t win. Hopefully if you find your evidence, your ego can settle for both viewpoints being tenable.

But the trigger that caused the war was the note, Not USW.

Quote
Balfour, knowing full well that the telegram might lead the Americans to enter the war on Britain and France�s side, had nevertheless hesitated to show it to Page. The Royal Navy admiral whose office, codenamed Room 40, had intercepted and decoded the telegram had also been wracked with doubt about what to do. Although Admiral Sir William Hall knew exactly how important the telegram was, he had to find a way to show it to the Americans without revealing that his office had broken the German codes. Once the Germans learned that their codes and ciphers were no longer secure, they would stop using them and a veritable gold mine of information would stop flowing into Hall�s office. Only once he was convinced that he had found a way to protect his precious secret did he give the telegram to Balfour.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-i/essays/zimmermann-telegram-and-american-entry-world-war-i

Is that some sort of attempt to dismiss this blunder of yours, quoted below? Just admit you seriously messed up your interpretation of the note and events. You are only making things � worse for yourself.

No silly it shows the British didn’t want to give up the note because it would tip the Germans into knowing that their code was broken. This is what i was saying before. They did obviously, because they needed the US to be in the war and USW was not enough to do it…

Again, why should Wilson be afraid to mention the note when it was published in NEWSPAPERS a month before? It was no longer sensitive. The British ALREADY waited. They had ALREADY protected their source of the information.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/
“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.”

Only proving my point. The USW was not enough to get the US in the war, so they released the Note knowing it would compromise the British codebreakers in room 40 and tip the Germans that the code was broken. So they sacrificed it because they needed a trigger to get US into the war and USW was not it.

Let’s look at the chronology.
January: British discover note.
Feb 24: British release note to Wilson
March 1: Note released to the American press
March 3: Zimmermann confirms note is authentic to an american journalist
March 29: Zimmermann gives speech confirming note is genuine
April 2: Wilson addresses congress to declare war, he mentions unrestricted submarine warfare as a motivation to go to war at least 8 times, does not mention the note once.

It’s absolutely absurd to think that Wilson withheld mentioning the note to protect his sources after the british gave it to him a over month before and he released it to the PRESS( the PUBLIC PRESS!) a month before. If he were to have mentioned the note would he have needed to spill how the British got it (if he even knew)? OF COURSE NOT! It was no longer sensitive. Let’s not forget the fact that Zimmermann himself confirmed the note’s authenticity twice before the speech. It was publicly released. Confirmed by its author. Somehow Wilson mentioning the note in his war speech tips to the Germans that they have a leak, but the note being in most every American newspaper one month prior to the speech doesn’t? If you think that, you underestimate us Germans. We may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, but we are sharp enough to figure that out. We know what newspapers are, and where to get them, even those of us who are not spies.

This is more fluff arguments to sidetrack the central truth that the note and not USW triggered US entry into the war. When you finally are going to understand the fact?

In summary, the evidence we have leads to the conclusion that unrestricted submarine warfare (USW to save my fingers) was the most significant/important cause of the US entry into World War I, while the Zimmermann telegram probably sped the US entry in that it had significant effects on strengthening public opinion for the war in addition to what USW was doing to American public opinion before and after the note’s release.

You got nothing. What triggered the war was the note. The public opinion turned decidedly only after the note was made public. It is what triggered the war. Get over it.

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/WWI
Quote
Germany’s resumption of submarine attacks on passenger and merchant ships in 1917 was the primary motivation behind Wilson’s decision to lead the United States into World War I.

There it is in black and white. Wilson led the US into war, and he did so because of USW.

OK if you look hard enough you may find anything. The note triggered the war, not USW. Get over it.

Quote
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

It was sub attacks that caused Wilson to call the meeting in which the cabinet resolved for war.

No it was what WILSON said. The public opinion changed when the note was made public and that allowed Wilson the cache to DOW, because so many people were upset with that note, not the stupid USW.

Wilson’s speech to Congress, Apr. 2, 1917
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm

If there is a mention of the note in Wilson’s speech as to why the US needed to go to war, I couldn’t find it. On the other hand, submarines are mentioned at least 8 times, and it doesn’t take a doctorate in English to see that unrestricted submarine warfare is the theme of the speech.

But this is how you gather the “truth” you just count up words and if one word is mentioned more than another word, the “truth” becomes clear. If that’s how you do things, i pity you.

Explaining the absence of mention of the note in the speech being because the note was a sensitive document and such mention would tip to the Germans that there was a leak is an exceedingly poor argument. The Germans had several opportunities to know that the note had gotten out, most obviously the publishing of the note in American newspapers after March 1. Not only that, Zimmermann himself confirmed the note’s authenticity at least twice publicly before Wilson’s speech. The only thing Wilson could possibly have wanted to protect was how exactly the British got the note (if he even knew how they got it), and it was hardly necessary to give away those secrets when the note was publicly confirmed to be true by Zimmermann himself.

So we need another reason, a legitimate reason, for why the note was not mentioned, otherwise it is evidence supporting (although not as slam-dunk as the first quote at top) � that USW was the most important cause for the US to go to war.

The reason why it was not mentioned earlier is because the British were hoping that just USW would be enough to trigger the war, but it didn’t so they played the last card and the note triggered the war. Yep check and mate.

Until you provide definitive evidence stating that the note was the most important cause as to why the US went to war, I don’t really have much more to say since I have already firmly established my viewpoint. There is plenty of room for other tenable viewpoints, if you have definitive evidence for them. If you keep posting on the topic without such evidence, I will try to ignore � such baiting and misdirection, but to be honest I may just bite if it gets too juicy. I really hope you will actually just provide real definitive evidence or gracefully bow out though, not that I have much hope since you ignored a quote that definitively supports my argument while quoting from the same article.

Nobody cares about how you count up the word ‘submarine’ in a speech. I care about how public opinion turned only after the note was made public and that it triggered the war, and not USW.

Let’s say for the sake of example and clarity, a country needs to be 100% provoked to go to war. (Obviously these numbers are for the sake of example and I am not putting exact values on an event that is hard to measure.)

Let’s say one event provokes them 25%. Another event provokes them 75%. Which one is a more important factor?

Does it change if we flip the order the events happened in?

Let’s say for the sake of example and clarity, a country needs to be 100% provoked to go to war. (Obviously these numbers are for the sake of example and I am not putting exact values on an event that is hard to measure.)

Let’s say one event provokes them 25%. Another event provokes them 75%. Which one is a more important factor?

Does it change if we flip the order the events happened in?

Lets rather say for the sake of the truth. The Americans lost many citizens to sinkings of passenger ships and or transports years earlier. USW was introduced and still it didn’t trigger the war. The British had to tip their hand and finally expose the contents of the note. Public opinion then got solidified decidedly against the Germans and this triggered the support that Wilson needed to get the US into the war.  If the Damm USW could trigger the war, the British would never release the contents of the note, and keep the codebreaking efforts a secret allowing them to keep dycipering German code. They had to play this hand because USW was not gonna do it.

Simple fact. I am not getting into another one of your swiss cheese arguments. The note triggered it, not USW. Case closed.

@Imperious:

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/WWI
Quote
Germany’s resumption of submarine attacks on passenger and merchant ships in 1917 was the primary motivation behind Wilson’s decision to lead the United States into World War I.

There it is in black and white. Wilson led the US into war, and he did so because of USW.

OK if you look hard enough you may find anything. The note triggered the war, not USW. Get over it.

I think you just confirmed your insanity. You look right at an established historical source and won’t even admit it as plausible.

@Imperious:

Quote
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

It was sub attacks that caused Wilson to call the meeting in which the cabinet resolved for war.

No it was what WILSON said. The public opinion changed when the note was made public and that allowed Wilson the cache to DOW, because so many people were upset with that note, not the stupid USW.

Calling it stupid doesn’t make it any less of a cause. Stop pouting and provide some legitimate sources explicitly supporting your point. I think it’s possible that some sources do state the note to be the primary cause for US entry. But from the sources we do have, that is not a tenable position at the moment.

@Imperious:

Wilson’s speech to Congress, Apr. 2, 1917
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm

If there is a mention of the note in Wilson’s speech as to why the US needed to go to war, I couldn’t find it. On the other hand, submarines are mentioned at least 8 times, and it doesn’t take a doctorate in English to see that unrestricted submarine warfare is the theme of the speech.

But this is how you gather the “truth” you just count up words and if one word is mentioned more than another word, the “truth” becomes clear. If that’s how you do things, i pity you.

Almost a good diversionary tactic. The point was that this is a speech where Wilson calls for war. In this speech he repeatedly mentionss the German submarines as the reason for why the US should declare. He does not mention the note. The 8 mentions is just a nice corroborative statistic.

@Imperious:

Explaining the absence of mention of the note in the speech being because the note was a sensitive document and such mention would tip to the Germans that there was a leak is an exceedingly poor argument. The Germans had several opportunities to know that the note had gotten out, most obviously the publishing of the note in American newspapers after March 1. Not only that, Zimmermann himself confirmed the note’s authenticity at least twice publicly before Wilson’s speech. The only thing Wilson could possibly have wanted to protect was how exactly the British got the note (if he even knew how they got it), and it was hardly necessary to give away those secrets when the note was publicly confirmed to be true by Zimmermann himself.

So we need another reason, a legitimate reason, for why the note was not mentioned, otherwise it is evidence supporting (although not as slam-dunk as the first quote at top) � that USW was the most important cause for the US to go to war.

The reason why it was not mentioned earlier is because the British were hoping that just USW would be enough to trigger the war, but it didn’t so they played the last card and the note triggered the war. Yep check and mate.

Mentioned earlier? It WAS mentioned earlier than his speech! In probably every American newspaper. If the note was the most important reason, why did Wilson not mention it in his April 2 speech, when he DID mention submarines sinking shipping over and over? You really, really suck at chess. � :-P

@Imperious:

Nobody cares about how you count up the word ‘submarine’ in a speech. I care about how public opinion turned only after the note was made public and that it triggered the war, and not USW.

Part of the reason I counted up “submarine” is because I was pretty sure you would be too lazy or incompetent to actually read the speech. Do you not realize that public opinion going against Germany is not the same thing as causing the war? It helped to cause the war, but it was not the main factor. You can say over and over again the same stuff, but it seems I am the only one actually providing direct evidence. Maybe you should start caring about something other than the note, because USW clearly had more of an effect than you realize.

Whoops, couldn’t stay out of it long.

@Imperious:

Let’s say for the sake of example and clarity, a country needs to be 100% provoked to go to war. (Obviously these numbers are for the sake of example and I am not putting exact values on an event that is hard to measure.)

Let’s say one event provokes them 25%. Another event provokes them 75%. Which one is a more important factor?

Does it change if we flip the order the events happened in?

Lets rather say for the sake of the truth. The Americans lost many citizens to sinkings of passenger ships and or transports years earlier. USW was introduced and still it didn’t trigger the war. The British had to tip their hand and finally expose the contents of the note. Public opinion then got solidified decidedly against the Germans and this triggered the support that Wilson needed to get the US into the war.  If the Damm USW could trigger the war, the British would never release the contents of the note, and keep the codebreaking efforts a secret allowing them to keep dycipering German code. They had to play this hand because USW was not gonna do it.

Simple fact. I am not getting into another one of your swiss cheese arguments. The note triggered it, not USW. Case closed.

Or perhaps did you not answer the question because you know I am making a critical point and you won’t answer honestly because of your ego?

It’s a rhetorical question.

BTW,
Where is your proof that USW was not going to do it?

Bonus question:

If the note was the most important cause, why didn’t Wilson and his cabinet resolve for war right after its release, when they DID resolve for war right after 3 American ships were sunk in mid-march?

Of course you won’t face the facts in these questions because the historical evidence decimates your position.

I think you just confirmed your insanity. You look right at an established historical source and won’t even admit it as plausible.

I ONLY ADMIT FACTS. THE NOTE TRIGGERED THE ENTRY OF USA. GET OVER IT.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:37:43 am

Quote
Quote
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

It was sub attacks that caused Wilson to call the meeting in which the cabinet resolved for war.

No it was what WILSON said. The public opinion changed when the note was made public and that allowed Wilson the cache to DOW, because so many people were upset with that note, not the stupid USW.

Calling it stupid doesn’t make it any less of a cause. Stop pouting and provide some legitimate sources explicitly supporting your point. I think it’s possible that some sources do state the note to be the primary cause for US entry. But from the sources we do have, that is not a tenable position at the moment.

I already did that before. The note triggered the war. get over it. It is not tenable only to you because you are arguing against the fact that the note triggered the war because that’s the only point i made and you keep coming up with rubbish to dance around that fact.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:37:43 am

Quote
Wilson’s speech to Congress, Apr. 2, 1917
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm

If there is a mention of the note in Wilson’s speech as to why the US needed to go to war, I couldn’t find it. On the other hand, submarines are mentioned at least 8 times, and it doesn’t take a doctorate in English to see that unrestricted submarine warfare is the theme of the speech.

But this is how you gather the “truth” you just count up words and if one word is mentioned more than another word, the “truth” becomes clear. If that’s how you do things, i pity you.

Almost a good diversionary tactic. The point was that this is a speech where Wilson calls for war. In this speech he repeatedly mentionss the German submarines as the reason for why the US should declare. He does not mention the note. The 8 mentions is just a nice corroborative statistic.

It could work if for truth validation we just count up words…then yes. But in the real word we just don’t arrive to the facts in that manner. Your shallow reasoning to what caused the war being found in a speech is quite funny.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:37:43 am
Quote
Explaining the absence of mention of the note in the speech being because the note was a sensitive document and such mention would tip to the Germans that there was a leak is an exceedingly poor argument. The Germans had several opportunities to know that the note had gotten out, most obviously the publishing of the note in American newspapers after March 1. Not only that, Zimmermann himself confirmed the note’s authenticity at least twice publicly before Wilson’s speech. The only thing Wilson could possibly have wanted to protect was how exactly the British got the note (if he even knew how they got it), and it was hardly necessary to give away those secrets when the note was publicly confirmed to be true by Zimmermann himself.

So we need another reason, a legitimate reason, for why the note was not mentioned, otherwise it is evidence supporting (although not as slam-dunk as the first quote at top) � that USW was the most important cause for the US to go to war.

The reason why it was not mentioned earlier is because the British were hoping that just USW would be enough to trigger the war, but it didn’t so they played the last card and the note triggered the war. Yep check and mate.

Mentioned earlier? It WAS mentioned earlier than his speech! In probably every American newspaper. If the note was the most important reason, why did Wilson not mention it in his April 2 speech, when he DID mention submarines sinking shipping over and over? You really, really suck at chess. � tongue

Because it was a political speech and he was still dealing with some factions that felt the note was a fraud perpetrated by the British to get us into war and he had to come up with info that could not be compromised as the official reason for going into war. It was still possible that the note could be a fake and he didn’t want to make his case for war on a false premise. IN case you didn’t know, the public did solidify against Germany only after the note was introduced, but they had some factions doubting the note was real. You really need to look below the surface to gain the truth.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:37:43 am

Nobody cares about how you count up the word ‘submarine’ in a speech. I care about how public opinion turned only after the note was made public and that it triggered the war, and not USW.

Part of the reason I counted up “submarine” is because I was pretty sure you would be too lazy or incompetent to actually read the speech. Do you not realize that public opinion going against Germany is not the same thing as causing the war? It helped to cause the war, but it was not the main factor. You can say over and over again the same stuff, but it seems I am the only one actually providing direct evidence. Maybe you should start caring about something other than the note, because USW clearly had more of an effect than you realize.

The reason why you counted up the words was because you favor shallow reasoning. The note was the trigger that caused the war, not 8 mentions of submarine in a speech you idiot.
Whoops, couldn’t stay out of it long.

Or perhaps did you not answer the question because you know I am making a critical point and you won’t answer honestly because of your ego?

It’s a rhetorical question.

No its swiss cheese rhetoric. Once you admit the note was the trigger for war the better you will be. It will free you from ignorance of the facts.

BTW,
Where is your proof that USW was not going to do it?

Because the British could not get US to join the war due to USW. It didn’t work before in 1915 with the Lusitania. They had to sacrifice the fact that they broke the German code, in order to finally trigger outrage of the American public to join Wilson to fight Germany. The British had to play their last card. Otherwise, they should say nothing and let USW cause the war, but that didn’t work.

Bonus question:

If the note was the most important cause, why didn’t Wilson and his cabinet resolve for war right after its release, when they DID resolve for war right after 3 American ships were sunk in mid-march?

You can keep making the same false point that i am not making. The note was a trigger for war, get the soap out of your ears. I say the same thing over and over again because it is true and you try to make up other things because you know my claims are correct.

The note triggered the war  I am not arguing which was the most important factor as a claim for truth, because that is open to interpretation. So stop making up arguments that are not part of my claim. Holy Christ.

Of course you won’t face the facts in these questions because the historical evidence decimates your position.

The note caused the trigger to allow the US into the war, not USW. Get over it. You failed yet again to prove anything and instead fought against my main point with other unrelated arguments

You keep doing that and i wonder why.

February 1, 1917 Germany begins unrestricted submarine warfare
February 3 German U-boat sinks U.S. cargo ship Housatonic United States breaks off diplomatic relations with Germany
February 24 United States learns of Zimmermann telegram
March 1 Zimmermann telegram published in American press
April 2 Wilson asks Congress to declare war
April 6 United States declares war on Germany

The Zimmerman note was the last straw that allowed the US to enter war. It solidified public opinion decidedly against Germany for it’s implied threat against the western hemisphere. To argue otherwise is silly.

Here is why you fail to make any credible argument:

“Obviously, the Zimmerman note which had no bearing on how the entente was doing, triggered the US entry.”

This is my first point made in this thread. The note triggered the entry.

After that post you initiated alot of fluffy posts of nothing inventing all sorts of other things i didn’t say in a bogus attempt to make my claims seem incorrect. I am not or ever argued any claims regarding something else.

All you need to do is properly understand what i was saying which is the truth. What you seem to be doing is getting me to admit i said something about which had a stronger influence on public opinion as my main argument. But this tactic was proven to lead to failure like all your others.

The note triggered the war and i will keep saying this because it is a fact. USW did not trigger the war, otherwise the British would not need to reveal the note to American authorities. They could keep breaking the German code and not have to deal with a new code. The note triggered the war.

So if the British hadn’t decoded the message and published it America wouldn’t have gone to war?

In terms of what triggered the war, it was the note. That is what actually happened. In some vague hypothetical scenario, it was not clear that USW could cause public opinion to turn against Germany. IN terms of reality the note triggered the war.

Was it a reason to go to war or a pretext to justify a war already decided upon?

The note allowed the president the cache to get his DOW, because the note more than other things solidified opinion against Germany to a greater extent than anything else.

Now that we know what triggers the war, you assign this as a fixed event in time from where the US player enters the game because that is a fact we can count upon since it is what caused the US entry.

If Paris falls in late 1914, there is not way the US can go to war so making some silly ideas about “if the entente starts losing the US has a earlier option to enter the war” as some variable entry is based on faulty reasoning.  The US could care less about what is going on in Europe. They cared only about how the war effected them, and the note was a implied threat against our continent.

Sinking a few ships would not turn opinion as fast as a note with instructions ceding 20% of our territories to Mexico of all places.

@Imperious:

Here is why you fail to make any credible argument:

“Obviously, the Zimmerman note which had no bearing on how the entente was doing, triggered the US entry.”

This is my first point made in this thread. The note triggered the entry.

After that post you initiated alot of fluffy posts of nothing inventing all sorts of other things i didn’t say in a bogus attempt to make my claims seem incorrect. I am not or ever argued any claims regarding something else.

It’s understandable that with so many posts under your belt you can’t keep track of all of your claims:

@Imperious:

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.

You agreed there that “the last straw” is not automatically also the most important factor, but then go further and say that in this case the note is also the most important factor. That claim, which you have yet to support with definitive evidence, is what I have been arguing against.

It’s understandable that with so many posts under your belt you can’t keep track of all of your claims:

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 08, 2013, 03:20:04 pm
Quote
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.

You agreed there that “the last straw” is not automatically also the most important factor, but then go further and say that in this case the note is also the most important factor. That claim, which you have yet to support with definitive evidence, is what I have been arguing against.

There you go again when your arguments fail, you keep harping on claims that are not my central point. My central point again is that the note triggered the war. Either argue against that or move on. It is getting boring. So keep inferring claims that are not my point, in an attempt to save your failing arguments that you alone ascribe to me.

The note triggered the war, get over it.

You agreed there that “the last straw” is not automatically also the most important factor, but then go further and say that in this case the note is also the most important factor. That claim, which you have yet to support with definitive evidence, is what I have been arguing against.

Only thing is you have been arguing BEFORE JAN 8TH with my central point. Go look again where you see my first post and how you began your failing arguments.  :-D

The note triggered the war. Get over it.