American Entry

[Imperious Leader]

How is it not your argument? You say right there (where I added bold to highlight) that USW was not going to trigger the war! And then when I ask for proof for that claim, a historical source or two stating that war would not have occurred if USW had gone on longer without the note, you try to say you made no claim. Is it perhaps because you don’t have any evidence? (rhetorical question).

If USW could trigger the war, the British would never give up the fact that they broke the code. The facts prove themselves. This is basic reasoning except for you. Why give away an advantage if you dont have too?

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 09, 2013, 10:49:39 pm
I do have the fact that the note triggered US entry, no matter how you want to rearrange the blocks. No matter how many times you want to create and invent new arguments, you will fail.

If by my failing, you mean you ignoring the evidence and saying the same thing over and over again, then I suppose yes, I would be “failing.” You made plenty of claims outside of the note being the last straw. I did not invent those. You did. Chief among those are your statements that the note was more important a cause than USW and that Wilson did not mention the note in his war speech because he was worried he would give an intel source away by mentioning the note (even though the note was published in NEWSPAPERS and confirmed by its AUTHOR as authentic long before the speech!).

Then you have your answer. You fail. My argument is not for the millionth time which was a greater influence, but what was the trigger that caused the war, which is the note. Get over it.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 09, 2013, 10:49:39 pm

Quote
That’s good, you are at least admitting now that at least one of your ideas is a guess and not based on evidence. The telegram helped get public opinion against the Germans but as the actual sources (not guesses and not “common knowledge” have shown it was far from the most significant factor, and USW would have caused american antry with or without the note. What the note did likely do, was speed up the entry. But it’s safe to say at this point that according to the evidence the note was hardly the decisive factor, or you would have found SOMETHING substantial to support that. It’s 1 am, so good night.

Another new argument? LOL. The note was the final straw that triggered the war. Get over it. Now read and learn:

What in my post was a new argument? I already said it sped up entry. I already said it affected public opinion. I already said USW was more decisive. I already said that USW would lead to war, note or not. I suppose it’s new that I mention what time it is, but that’s hardly an argument, unless you would like to contest what time it was when I made the post (given your penchant for distraction, I would not be surprised).

Anything that subverts the truth that the note was the trigger that caused US entry, is de facto another argument that i made no claim about. Some of these arguments are entertaining BTW.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 09, 2013, 10:49:39 pm
Quote
Other points influenced entrance to the war, but the Zimmerman Telegram (sometimes called the “Zimmerman note” or “Zimmerman telegraph”) finally pushed the US to war.

I said in post 22 that is was probable that the telegram was the final straw. You keep harping on that one point that was settled pages ago. I suspect it is because you are trying to distract from your other claims that significant evidence has not supported.

Then stop arguing with my point. It is my only point here. Stop inventing other things that you assume are my claims or trying ( and failing ) to get me to answer questions so you can form new arguments from what i posted.

So what can we agree on?
1. The Zimmermann note, either very probably or most definitely, was the last straw in a collection of events that caused the US to go to war. YES
2. Although the note was the last straw, according to the evidence, Unrestricted Submarine Warfare was a more significant cause than the note for the United States’ entry into the war.

Never made any claim about this, this is your claim.

3. Woodrow Wilson’s omission (of the mention of the note in his speech asking Congress for war) was NOT because he worried such mention would compromise intelligence sources (since the note was publicly released and confirmed by its author, there was nothing important to give up that wasn’t already given up)

Never made any claim about this, this is your claim

4. According to the sources, USW would have eventually caused American entry, although probably not as fast as it happened with the note’s release expediting the process.

NO, it that were true they didn’t need the note. Basic reasoning.

Your acceptance, rejection with evidence, or admission of inability to accept or reject these points due to lack of supporting or contrary evidence would go a long way to settling the matters gracefully.

You are really ridiculous and immature.

Please address them point by point to make future discussion more efficient.

Now stop wasting time with continual gibberish.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Imperious:

If USW could trigger the war, the British would never give up the fact that they broke the code. The facts prove themselves. This is basic reasoning except for you. Why give away an advantage if you dont have too?

Whoa there, you are getting ahead of yourself. There is a difference between USW not being able to cause the war and it not being able to cause the war fast enough for the British. Remember, at this time, USW was pretty successful at disrupting supplies to Britain. Britain wanting to accelerate US entry because of their shortages is not the same at all as Britain publishing the note as the last possible chance for the US to EVER enter the war. According to the sources that I have shown already, USW was going to lead the US into war. It’s very likely the case that the release of the note accelerated the entry, perhaps quite a lot. Would the US have entered the war without the note? According the the SOURCES, yes. Would it have been fast enough for what the British wanted? Well, probably not, since they thought it prudent to give up their source to accelerate US entry.

@Imperious:

Then you have your answer. You fail. My argument is not for the millionth time which was a greater influence, but what was the trigger that caused the war, which is the note. Get over it.

You can’t retract arguments you have made and say you never made them just because the evidence has slapped those arguments silly. You can concede those arguments, but you can’t say you never made them and expect to be taken seriously by people with rational minds and a functional understanding of English.

It has become quite the trend with you that once your claim is shown to be against the evidence, you all of a sudden never made it.

@Imperious:

Anything that subverts the truth that the note was the trigger that caused US entry, is de facto another argument that i made no claim about. Some of these arguments are entertaining BTW.

Saying something over and over again doesn’t make it true. You should know that by now. Defend your other claims, concede them, or just admit that you don’t have enough information or sources to either defend or concede (try having evidence supporting your claims BEFORE you make them, instead of just saying your source is something you heard in school one time.

@Imperious:

I said in post 22 that is was probable that the telegram was the final straw. You keep harping on that one point that was settled pages ago. I suspect it is because you are trying to distract from your other claims that significant evidence has not supported.

Then stop arguing with my point. It is my only point here.

That is a LIE.

Proof:
@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.

@Imperious:

2. Although the note was the last straw, according to the evidence, Unrestricted Submarine Warfare was a more significant cause than the note for the United States’ entry into the war.

Never made any claim about this, this is your claim.

LIE. See you post about the note being the “most important factor” above, and the three other posts I quoted a few posts back.

@Imperious:

3. Woodrow Wilson’s omission (of the mention of the note in his speech asking Congress for war) was NOT because he worried such mention would compromise intelligence sources (since the note was publicly released and confirmed by its author, there was nothing important to give up that wasn’t already given up)

Never made any claim about this, this is your claim

LIE. Proof:

@Imperious:

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.

Even though the telegram was released the a month before the speech, you still claimed that he wanted to keep the note secret to avoid tipping the Germans the code was broken.

@Imperious:

4. According to the sources, USW would have eventually caused American entry, although probably not as fast as it happened with the note’s release expediting the process.

NO, it that were true they didn’t need the note. Basic reasoning.

So you can prove that the US would NEVER have entered the war if the note were not released? Forget direct proof, do you even have a legitimate historical opinion saying that? Please refer the the numerous bits of evidence I posted AGAINST that, saying the decision to renew USW made American entry inevitable, regardless of how much or how little the note accelerated it.

There is so much you could do here to be in some measure an adult. You could admit you made the claims I mentioned in 2,3, and 4. You could admit you did not have evidence to support those claims. You could admit the evidence supports the points I have made relative to those claims. You could admit you have been repeating a point over and over again, a point that I already conceded, in order to distract from claims you made evidence does not support.

But at least some of these things might come about to look like you might be making an admission that you were wrong or at least going against the actual evidence in many cases. How can your ego be so big that that is such an impossibility for you? If you are a millionaire as you say, you should be able to afford some help for such an issue. Count that as a blessing. Many who need help cannot get it.

If you insist on continuing to dodge claims you made and double-talk about others, that is unfortunate. Please start citing something other than sources that don’t say what you claim they do, or “common knowledge,” or “basic reasoning,” � or “something that you read in school saying this.”

[Gargantua]

Hmm…

Here’s some interesting FACTS to consider.

Message Sent Jan 17th.
Message Decoded and handed to US Feb 20th.
Wilson sits on message for WEEKS, then releases to press Mid March.
weeks later Wilson asks congress to declare war
April 6 1917, US Formally declares.

Message specifically acknowledges that germany expects american’s to declare war, based on their re-activation of unrestricted sub warfare.

As for the British back story, they told the public they “stole” the pre-deciphered message from the Mexicans.

[Flashman]

Just ploughing through The Lost History of 1914 by Jack Beaty.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Lost-History-1914-Inevitable/dp/1408827964/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357852679&sr=8-1

Rather poorly written, and seemingly unedited, but some interesting theories.

He states that in 1916 President Carranza promised Germany a u-boat base if Germany denounced American interference in Mexico. Ultimately he decided that it was a no-win war for Mexico, but Wilson may have got wind of this offer before Zimmerman.

Another important point is German estimation of American military capability. General Pershing led an American army into Mexico in 1916/7  to hunt down Pancho Villa, who’d raided across the border. Pershing didn’t even FIND Villa, and the following assessment was made by the German armed forces press office:

The United States not only has no army, it has no artillery, no transportation, no aeroplanes, and lacks all means of conducting modern warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition

This persuaded the German High Command that USW would help them defeat Britain before America could exert any serious influence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_FAOk4uMp8

In game terms, I still believe it is absurd to have the Zimmerman note as a “fixed point in time” in a game starting in 1914. There are so many variables leading up to it that it is just too scripted.

By all means have a means by which Germany might intrigue with neutral countries, and that the American government might find out about it, and that this will move America one step nearer declaring war.

The fact that it was the “final straw” in 1917 does not mean that it was inevitably the one fact that caused American entry, especially when other important steps were taken by Germany, which in a game Germany should not be forced to take.

Another point regarding balance: if America joining the war, followed a turn later by Russia dropping out balance each other out, then why can this not take place on turns 14/15, or turns 24/25 rather than on 4/5?

Its also worth noting that America should start the war with virtually no units. It will take time to build up numbers sufficient to make a difference, and even then insistence on America forming its own army formations delayed their being effective.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Flashman:

In game terms, I still believe it is absurd to have the Zimmerman note as a “fixed point in time” in a game starting in 1914. There are so many variables leading up to it that it is just too scripted…

The fact that it was the “final straw” in 1917 does not mean that it was inevitably the one fact that caused American entry, especially when other important steps were taken by Germany, which in a game Germany should not be forced to take.

If the player does not want to make the huge decision of engaging/resuming unrestricted submarine warfare, It would be great for the game if they could make that choice. It can be balanced because even though it holds off US entry, it would allow Britain to become stronger. Not only that, it puts a player in a historical scenario of the war, rather than walking the player through the events as they occured with no choice in the matter.

[Imperious Leader]

Whoa there, you are getting ahead of yourself. There is a difference between USW not being able to cause the war and it not being able to cause the war fast enough for the British. Remember, at this time, USW was pretty successful at disrupting supplies to Britain. Britain wanting to accelerate US entry because of their shortages is not the same at all as Britain publishing the note as the last possible chance for the US to EVER enter the war. According to the sources that I have shown already, USW was going to lead the US into war. It’s very likely the case that the release of the note accelerated the entry, perhaps quite a lot. Would the US have entered the war without the note? According the the SOURCES, yes. Would it have been fast enough for what the British wanted? Well, probably not, since they thought it prudent to give up their source to accelerate US entry.

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.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:53:01 am
Then you have your answer. You fail. My argument is not for the millionth time which was a greater influence, but what was the trigger that caused the war, which is the note. Get over it.

You can’t retract arguments you have made and say you never made them just because the evidence has slapped those arguments silly. You can concede those arguments, but you can’t say you never made them and expect to be taken seriously by people with rational minds and a functional understanding of English.

You can keep ignoring arguments i make and replace them with others either. The note triggered the war. Get over it.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:53:01 am

Anything that subverts the truth that the note was the trigger that caused US entry, is de facto another argument that i made no claim about. Some of these arguments are entertaining BTW.

Saying something over and over again doesn’t make it true. You should know that by now. Defend your other claims, concede them, or just admit that you don’t have enough information or sources to either defend or concede (try having evidence supporting your claims BEFORE you make them, instead of just saying your source is something you heard in school one time.

The note caused the entry of the US. It is a fact. I can say it again more if you like but no matter how many times i do say it, it is still true. Get over it.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:53:01 am
Quote
I said in post 22 that is was probable that the telegram was the final straw. You keep harping on that one point that was settled pages ago. I suspect it is because you are trying to distract from your other claims that significant evidence has not supported.

Then stop arguing with my point. It is my only point here.

That is a LIE.

You are a lie.

Proof:
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.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:53:01 am
2. Although the note was the last straw, according to the evidence, Unrestricted Submarine Warfare was a more significant cause than the note for the United States’ entry into the war.

Never made any claim about this, this is your claim.

LIE. See you post about the note being the “most important factor” above, and the three other posts I quoted a few posts back.

You see what you want to see. that is your problem. May gods have mercy on your soul.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:53:01 am
3. Woodrow Wilson’s omission (of the mention of the note in his speech asking Congress for war) was NOT because he worried such mention would compromise intelligence sources (since the note was publicly released and confirmed by its author, there was nothing important to give up that wasn’t already given up)

Never made any claim about this, this is your claim

LIE. Proof:

?  empty…some proof.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 08, 2013, 07:23:02 pm
Quote
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.

Even though the telegram was released the a month before the speech, you still claimed that he wanted to keep the note secret to avoid tipping the Germans the code was broken.

I said the British would never give up the code, unless it was the last resort to trigger the war. They had to release it because your USW was not enough of an influence to trigger the war. Only after the note was made public did that solidly public opinion decidedly against Germany, allowing Wilson to have the cache to declare war. You must be stupid to keep ignoring what i do say and infer things i dont. You fail, get over it.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 08, 2013, 07:23:02 pm
4. According to the sources, USW would have eventually caused American entry, although probably not as fast as it happened with the note’s release expediting the process.

NO, it that were true they didn’t need the note. Basic reasoning.

So you can prove that the US would NEVER have entered the war if the note were not released? Forget direct proof, do you even have a legitimate historical opinion saying that? Please refer the the numerous bits of evidence I posted AGAINST that, saying the decision to renew USW made American entry inevitable, regardless of how much or how little the note accelerated it.

You need to also then post evidence that the US would have 100% entered the war without the note. Do that first and don’t ask me to defend points that are not my own. The note triggered the war. If USW would have done this, Wilson would DOW before the note, and the British would never let the Germans know they broke the code.

There is so much you could do here to be in some measure an adult. You could admit you made the claims I mentioned in 2,3, and 4. You could admit you did not have evidence to support those claims. You could admit the evidence supports the points I have made relative to those claims. You could admit you have been repeating a point over and over again, a point that I already conceded, in order to distract from claims you made evidence does not support.

I only admit my main claim that the note triggered the war, get over it.

But at least some of these things might come about to look like you might be making an admission that you were wrong or at least going against the actual evidence in many cases. How can your ego be so big that that is such an impossibility for you? If you are a millionaire as you say, you should be able to afford some help for such an issue. Count that as a blessing. Many who need help cannot get it.

Once you admit the note triggered the war without any swiss cheese arguments, you will fell alot better. And stop arguing.

If you insist on continuing to dodge claims you made and double-talk about others, that is unfortunate. Please start citing something other than sources that don’t say what you claim they do, or “common knowledge,” or “basic reasoning,” � or "something that you read in school saying this.

"

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.

Now go away.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@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:

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

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?

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@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>

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

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.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

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?

[Imperious Leader]

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

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@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?

[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.

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.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@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.

[Imperious Leader]

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?