@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:
