@Running-Away Per page 22 of the rulebook, units of another power may be transported only if that power is friendly. Per page 12, the US is not considered to be either friend or enemy to any other power while it remains neutral. Therefore, the US cannot transport units belonging to any other power while it is neutral.
American Entry
-
@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, 2007Whatever angle you try to take, you aren’t proving your point with actually corroborative evidence. It seems as though what you have really done is make the case that the note was not the final straw, but that that sinking of the three ships was, since Wilson still thought the US should stay out but resolved for war only after the sinking of those 3 ships (due to USW).
Hilarious.
You have done far more to argue against your main point about what was the last straw (a point which I earlier conceded as plausible) than I ever did. Argument suicide. It’s ugly even when I suppose I am the beneficiary.
But please, cite “something you remember reading in school” That will settle things.</yawn>
-
Seriously though, why would you post: “I remember in school something that i read saying this.”
Enough dodging. Why did you post this? Why would you think that to be a legitimate source? What does that add to the thread?
If you think that is a legitimate source, we might as well all support our arguments with “momma says” like in The Waterboy.
-
The Germans said they would try to keep the US neutral in a political message. However, historical commentators have said (as I have shown) that Germany knew that the US would enter the war.
Keep posting “evidence” that doesn’t actually support the claims you make. Perhaps you will get lucky and find one that puts our arguments on equal footing. But mine is already firmly established as sound. You can possibly tie, but you can’t win. And no amount of money you spend, people you bully, or evidence you ignore will change that.
What you posted is nothing that helps you. But this is how you work, ask for “links” then when it goes against you, just move on and never address why the information says this.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 10, 2013, 06:24:00 pm
Quote
Not necessarily. USW was taking its toll on Britain. The note was a gamble that would get the US involved sooner than USW inevitably would have. See previous posts for the sources (and below). I really have no responsibility to repost what you ignore.You don’t gamble unless you have to.
I’m inclined to agree. Britain had to gamble that the note would get the USA in the war earlier than USW was already going to do on its own. So yes, you don’t need to gamble unless you have to, but in this case, Britain gambled to SPEED the US entry. They would have entered anyways. No matter how many times you “cite” common knowledge or what you read in school one time, the actual evidence will keep slapping your unfounded claims around.
The information concludes that the US would not have entered based on the information you ignore and choose to ignore. You have been defeated, just surrender and you will feel better about yourself. And whats this school thing?
Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 10, 2013, 06:24:00 pm
You posted crap. No source you could ever find will say “it is 100% true that the USW would have drawn the US into war and bringing up the note was not needed.”Then why did those sources say that USW made US entry inevitable? Just because it shows how Imperiously Wrong you are (see what I did there?) doesn’t make it “crap.”
The information shows both Wilson and the British did not feel they could not make the note known because public support for war was not gaining. So get over it.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 10, 2013, 06:24:00 pm
The note brought the US finally into the war which is an indisputable fact. Get over it.But you also claimed that USW would not have been enough on its own (not to mention other unsupportable claims). The historical sources firmly state otherwise. Get over that. And I didn’t just read that in school one time. I read it from several historical sources.
You read from comic books and since you are still in school, stay in school.
Quote
Besides, the real reason you are right(rolleyes) is because you “remember in school something that you read saying this.” � rolleyes I read some interesting things about classmates written in the bathroom stalls, perhaps that’s where you read that tidbit at school?� �Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 10, 2013, 06:24:00 pm
The note triggered the war, get over it.Did you “remember in school something that you read saying this?” Or do you just keep repeating the note trigger comment over and over again because it is the 1% (a guess, I haven’t measured) of your total posting in this thread that might have some real evidentiary basis (assuming that when you say the note triggered the war that is the same as saying it was the last straw)?
What? I think you got rabies. The note triggered the war, get over it.
People who keep saying the same thing over and over and who can’t ever admit they are wrong tend to be in need of psychiatric help. Or at least I “remember in school something that I read saying this”
What? OK.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 10, 2013, 06:37:01 pm
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1990-1/guichet.htmQuote
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, 2007Whatever angle you try to take, you aren’t proving your point with actually corroborative evidence. It seems as though what you have really done is make the case that the note was not the final straw, but that that sinking of the three ships was, since Wilson still thought the US should stay out but resolved for war only after the sinking of those 3 ships (due to USW).
Yes keep posting that one source, i posted many others that show the war was triggered by the note, get over it.
You have done far more to argue against your main point about what was the last straw (a point which I earlier conceded as plausible) than I ever did. Argument suicide. It’s ugly even when I suppose I am the beneficiary.
But please, cite “something you remember reading in school” That will settle things.
You have done nothing but increase your post count. The note triggered the war, and you can’t even admit that. The sheer ignorance of reality you demonstrate of basic facts is lunacy. Now go walk your dog before he does a #2 on the floor again.
-
I have already clearly established that several historical sources (the most recent from textbooks written by collaborations of PhD’s in the subject) indicate that USW made the war inevitable. If the undergraduate student paper you quoted (a paper that uses the phrase “These negotiations were in vein” (that should be “vain,” in case you didn’t know.)) is correct, Wilson wanted the US to remain neutral even after he already saw the note. Your source states he still wanted to keep the US neutral on the 26th. He saw the note on the 24th. So why did Wilson and his cabinet resolve for war RIGHT AFTER the sinking of three ships in mid-march? If your source is reliable, it turns out that the telegram wasn’t even the final straw. It was just a major impact on public opinion, and we both know that public opinion is not the same as the actual decision by a country’s leaders to go to war.
@Lucas:
I remember in school something that i read saying this.
Turns out that sentence that I have quoted was posted from a different account. I kept asking you why you thought " I remember in school something that i read saying this" was a good source and why you thought such a post added to the conversation, but it turns out this was posted by a different account. Why didn’t you say that wasn’t your account that posted that?
-
I have already clearly established that several historical sources (the most recent from textbooks written by collaborations of PhD’s in the subject) indicate that USW made the war inevitable. If the undergraduate student paper you quoted (a paper that uses the phrase “These negotiations were in vein” (that should be “vain,” in case you didn’t know.)) is correct, Wilson wanted the US to remain neutral even after he already saw the note. Your source states he still wanted to keep the US neutral on the 26th. He saw the note on the 24th. So why did Wilson and his cabinet resolve for war RIGHT AFTER the sinking of three ships in mid-march? If your source is reliable, it turns out that the telegram wasn’t even the final straw. It was just a major impact on public opinion, and we both know that public opinion is not the same as the actual decision by a country’s leaders to go to war.
I clearly posted everything needed to debunk any argument that the note didnt cause the war. Get over it you lost.
Quote from: Lucas McCain on January 09, 2013, 08:06:56 pm
I remember in school something that i read saying this.Turns out that sentence that I have quoted was posted from a different account. I kept asking you why you thought " I remember in school something that i read saying this" was a good source and why you thought such a post added to the conversation, but it turns out this was posted by a different account. Why didn’t you say that wasn’t your account that posted that?
Are you crazy? Perhaps you do stand up in a local bar?
Did you hear the one about what triggered US entry in the Great War?
Answer: Some bloke called vonLettowVorbeck1914 started it with posts of gibberish.
-
@Imperious:
I clearly posted everything needed to debunk any argument that the note didnt cause the war. Get over it you lost.
Saying the note caused the war and saying the note was the last straw are separate things.
@Imperious:
Quote from: Lucas McCain on January 09, 2013, 08:06:56 pm
I remember in school something that i read saying this.Turns out that sentence that I have quoted was posted from a different account. I kept asking you why you thought " I remember in school something that i read saying this" was a good source and why you thought such a post added to the conversation, but it turns out this was posted by a different account. Why didn’t you say that wasn’t your account that posted that?
Are you crazy? Perhaps you do stand up in a local bar?
Did you hear the one about what triggered US entry in the Great War?
Answer: Some bloke called vonLettowVorbeck1914 started it with posts of gibberish.
Why are you so evasive about that post by Lucas?
-
I have read much of this thread, but not all of it I will admit this right away. I have a question then everyone can get back to the Historical point in which the US should enter into the game.
I have always wondered what incentive the US player has for NOT entering the war. From an “in game” perspective the US stands to gain much from being declared war upon and entering into conflict with an Axis Power. They can assist the Allies with their ecomony (which blossoms when at war) and the US player finally gets to join in the fun, rather than being a spectator.
SO…. If your the US, why wouldn’t you be chomping at the bit to get into the action? Has anyone considered a victory condition involving the US never entering the war? I know it seems ridiculous, sure laugh, but what if the US never entered the war. Just a thought I figured I would throw at the collective for an opinion.
I understand that this would require an almost rebuild of many aspects of the game, but I was curoius if anyone had thought, heard, or condidered in the past.
-
I have read much of this thread, but not all of it I will admit this right away. I have a question then everyone can get back to the Historical point in which the US should enter into the game.
I have always wondered what incentive the US player has for NOT entering the war. From an “in game” perspective the US stands to gain much from being declared war upon and entering into conflict with an Axis Power. They can assist the Allies with their ecomony (which blossoms when at war) and the US player finally gets to join in the fun, rather than being a spectator.
SO…. If your the US, why wouldn’t you be chomping at the bit to get into the action? Has anyone considered a victory condition involving the US never entering the war? I know it seems ridiculous, sure laugh, but what if the US never entered the war. Just a thought I figured I would throw at the collective for an opinion.Â
I understand that this would require an almost rebuild of many aspects of the game, but I was curoius if anyone had thought, heard, or condidered in the past.
I think it has a chance at being pretty cool. It can also be quite historical if the German player is VERY conservative with how he or she uses his or her submarines. Would it be a little hard to balance and require a lot of other changes? Sure. But one factor that helps the balance is that if Germany does not provoke the US, they are also most likely not strangling Britain. So a US-less war would have a stronger UK.
It would be a cool balance challenge to make a more historical game.
-
Saying the note caused the war and saying the note was the last straw are separate things.
In that case they are the same as they always have been. To say the note didn’t trigger the war is basically going against every established fact. Everything points to the consideration that the British had to play the note card and that Wilson had to sit on the info to consider the effects of bringing the note to the public. Your stupid word count truth quotient from Wilson’s political speech and your associated reasoning have been proven faulty.
The note triggered the war get over it.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 12:36:35 pm
Quote
Quote from: Lucas McCain on January 09, 2013, 08:06:56 pm
I remember in school something that i read saying this.Turns out that sentence that I have quoted was posted from a different account. I kept asking you why you thought " I remember in school something that i read saying this" was a good source and why you thought such a post added to the conversation, but it turns out this was posted by a different account. Why didn’t you say that wasn’t your account that posted that?
Are you crazy? Perhaps you do stand up in a local bar?
Did you hear the one about what triggered US entry in the Great War?
Answer: Some bloke called vonLettowVorbeck1914 started it with posts of gibberish.
Why are you so evasive about that post by Lucas?
I can only make sense of gibberish with comedy. I don’t make sense of why you bring up this “school thing”. Its’ stupid like 99% of what you post.
Now then are you evasive to your own comedy? Why? Do you like Red Foxx or not? -
Why are you so evasive about that post by Lucas?
No need to answer my question anymore IL, I found the real reason why you are evading the post in a 10-second Google search:
http://teamplayergaming.gameme.com/playerinfo/166677
Scroll down to where it says  “Player Aliases”
Interesting list of names used by this SAME PLAYER.
We see:
Imperious Leader
Sgt. Saunders
Sgt Saunders
(and, most interestingly of all:)
Lucas McCain “The Rifleman”It’s very fascinating that a “Lucas McCain” came on this thread to post his 3rd and 4th posts  in support of Imperious Leader’s argument. When I said in another thread that you should go to a place where you could have a bunch of accounts posting in agreement to everything you say, I didn’t mean this site!
You probably didn’t object to my statements that you posted the “read something in school” comment because you forgot you posted it from your second account and not under Imperious Leader! Hilarious!
I can’t wait for you to keep lying and say it’s just a coincidence that both of these names happen to be so closely associated on both sites.
You’re caught. Red. Handed.
Bonus fun fact: “Lucas McCain” had only 2 posts before this thread, but had 146 post votes (good enough for top 5). Imperious Leader has a post score (under 10 Most Respected) of 44 at the moment. I wonder how much in the negative IL’s post score without “Lucas McCain” voting up IL’s posts?
It’s pretty obvious you used a second account to act like another person was supporting your argument. Truly pathetic. I wonder how long it will take for the link I posted to have the profile deleted in an attempt to delete the smoking gun of your lies? Oh well. I saved a full copy of the webpage.
-
Has anyone considered a victory condition involving the US never entering the war?
I think the war could be averted too, so we don’t need a game either.
If you allow all sorts of variables ( they go to war, they don’t go to war…just roll the damm dice man)
You can’t balance the game except with artificial and ahistorical ( faulty reasoning). The setup is in stone and based on a force pool and amounts of time it takes for some nations to project their force pool. The game will most likely not have NO’s because this is a new game with new ideas, not a rehash of Global.
You only need to set up the fixed events as a starting point for the game and build basic political rules for entry/collapse.
Imagine if Germany does not back up Austro-Hungary. How fun would such a war be? probably a 3 turn war and defeat of Ottomans/Hungary.
You can’t pick and choose what you want in ignorance of basic facts. The game must contain a basic foundation of what is going on based on what actually happened, especially when dealing with a light wargame style. The rules do not allow for all sorts of variations of the facts.
-
It’s very fascinating that a “Lucas McCain” came on this thread to post his 3rd and 4th posts � in support of Imperious Leader’s argument. When I said in another thread that you should go to a place where you could have a bunch of accounts posting in agreement to everything you say, I didn’t mean this site!
You probably didn’t object to my statements that you posted the “read something in school” comment because you forgot you posted it from your second account and not under Imperious Leader! Hilarious!
I can’t wait for you to keep lying and say it’s just a coincidence that both of these names happen to be so closely associated on both sites.
You’re caught. Red. Handed.
LOL.
Bonus fun fact: “Lucas McCain” had only 2 posts before this thread, but had 146 post votes (good enough for top 5). Imperious Leader has a post score (under 10 Most Respected) of 44 at the moment. I wonder how much in the negative IL’s post score without “Lucas McCain” voting up IL’s posts?
I am not this McCain.
It’s pretty obvious you used a second account to act like another person was supporting your argument. Truly pathetic. I wonder how long it will take for the link I posted to have the profile deleted in an attempt to delete the smoking gun of your lies? Oh well. I saved a full copy of the webpage.
The note triggered the war, no matter how many webpages you save.
-
@Imperious:
I am not this McCain.
8-) We all know that is a lie.
-
I looked you up and found out you have been dead since 1964. So you must be a fake account, or so the reasoning you provide makes it true.
-
@Imperious:
I looked you up and found out you have been dead since 1964. So you must be a fake account, or so the reasoning you provide makes it true.
More distraction from another fact I am burning you on.
You posted from a dummy account in support of your own argument. And I caught you on it.
Btw, whose gaming account for Left 4 Dead is that, yours or Lucas’?
I wait for your lie with baited breath. Keep digging that hole for yourself. It would probably be better for you if you just came clean. It might be your last chance at avoiding the ban hammer.
-
More distraction from another fact I am burning you on.
You posted from a dummy account in support of your own argument. And I caught you on it.
Btw, whose gaming account for Left 4 Dead is that, yours or Lucas’?
I wait for your lie with baited breath. Keep digging that hole for yourself. It would probably be better for you if you just came clean. It might be your last chance at avoiding the ban hammer.
Distraction? But this is how you avoid the truth that you have been dead since 1964? Or is it how you avoid the FACT THAT THE NOTE TRIGGERED THE ENTRY INTO WAR?
This is how you obfuscate the truth.
-
Not only has the evidence shown my claims to be historically sound, but your lies and malfeasance defeat any personal credibility you may have had as well. Your sources don’t support your arguments, and your actions prove your arguments should not be taken in good faith. You are utterly defeated. You have established that no claims of yours can ever be trusted on their own merits because of your blatantly dishonest actions. Since you are clearly incapable of supporting your arguments with actual evidence, and you have no credibility of your own, I wish you luck in citing “common knowledge” as why your claims are correct.
Perhaps now is the time to permanently retreat to your own website where you can have hundreds of dummy accounts to tell imperious leader how “right” he is? Be sure to name one Lucas McCain, like yours here.
Or perhaps give up on the humiliated “Imperious Leader” name altogether and start a new account, trolling from there? But that would destroy your precious post count! What a dilemma. It’s good that honest people do not have to face such choices.
Unrestricted submarine warfare, according to the vast majority of legitimate historical sources, was the chief cause of US entry into the war, and would have caused US entry even if the Zimmerman note had not helped to expedite the process.
So, I would like to get back to speculating on how such a historical system might be implemented for US entry into the war in the game, now that your “argument” is routed.
-
By the way, is that your Left4dead account?
-
Not only has the evidence shown my claims to be historically sound, but your lies and malfeasance defeat any personal credibility you may have had as well. Your sources don’t support your arguments, and your actions prove your arguments should not be taken in good faith. You are utterly defeated. You have established that no claims of yours can ever be trusted on their own merits because of your blatantly dishonest actions. Since you are clearly incapable of supporting your arguments with actual evidence, and you have no credibility of your own, I wish you luck in citing “common knowledge” as why your claims are correct.
And i wish you luck with that comedy routine, because the note triggered the war and as much as you deny it, makes you look silly. Actual evidence on your part is either quoting the same source time and again or counting up the words in a speech. Both are failures like you.
Perhaps now is the time to permanently retreat to your own website where you can have hundreds of dummy accounts to tell imperious leader how “right” he is? Be sure to name one Lucas McCain, like yours here.
Perhaps your fake name account ( since you have been dead since 1964) brings to light how fraudulent you can be.
Or perhaps give up on the humiliated “Imperious Leader” name altogether and start a new account, trolling from there? But that would destroy your precious post count! What a dilemma. It’s good that honest people do not have to face such choices.
The choice you face is knowing the note triggered the war. I hope you can sleep in peace, but i really don’t wish this.
Unrestricted submarine warfare, according to the vast majority of legitimate historical sources, was the chief cause of US entry into the war, and would have caused US entry even if the Zimmerman note had not helped to expedite the process.
The note was the trigger for war and everything posted supports that fact. YOU fail.
So, I would like to get back to speculating on how such a historical system might be implemented for US entry into the war in the game, now that your “argument” is routed.
I would rather get you to admit the note triggered the war without equivocation. The gibberish you posted only raised your post count, nothing more.
-
The fact that the telegram before him bore Arthur Zimmermann’s name made its contents that much harder for Walter Hines Page to believe. Page was the American ambassador to Great Britain and on a cold London morning in late February 1917 the British foreign minister Arthur Balfour stood before him with what Page called a “bombshell.” Page had had high hopes for Zimmermann, recently named the new German foreign minister. Zimmermann was a member of the middle class, not the aristocracy that President Wilson’s administration so deeply mistrusted. He had thus far said all the right things and shown a receptiveness to Wilson’s cherished efforts to end the war through peace negotiations. The telegram Page stared at in numb disbelief proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Zimmermann had been lying all along. Far from being a man the Americans could see as a partner for peace, he was instead the author of the most notorious message Page had ever seen.[1]
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.
Page picked up the telegram one more time and read the words that he knew would force the United States into the war it had been trying desperately to avoid for three years:
Hide Full EssayWe intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare STOP We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral STOP In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona STOP The settlement in detail is left to you STOP You will inform the President [of Mexico] of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves STOP Please call the President’s attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace STOP Signed ZIMMERMANN[2]
It did not surprise Page that the Germans intended to resume sinking merchant ships. He knew the Germans were contemplating such a move and that the United States Congress was even then debating a bill to arm merchant ships in response. The shocking parts of the telegram involved Mexico and Japan. Germany was effectively proposing an alliance to tear the United States apart in the event of American belligerence. The telegram was therefore an act of war. It was also so obviously in Britain’s interests to share it with him that Page knew his countrymen would suspect it was a forgery or a British trick.
Page knew, as did Wilson, that German agents were active in Mexico. They were trying to take advantage of the extremely poor state of Mexican-American relations that had existed since the start of the Mexican Revolution in 1911. Wilson had sent American forces to intervene in Mexico in an attempt to remove leaders he disliked. In his own words, he was trying to teach the Mexicans to elect good men. Most significantly, he had ordered American sailors and marines into Veracruz for six months in 1914, partly to prevent the German government from sending arms to the Mexican strongman Victoriano Huerta. Violence in Veracruz eventually resulted in the deaths of nineteen Americans and 129 Mexicans. As part of the fallout, the Americans stopped sending arms to another aspirant to power, Mexican General Pancho Villa. Villa’s men responded by raiding New Mexico in March 1916, killing eighteen Americans. America’s ambassador in Berlin was convinced that the Germans were supporting Villa, hoping that if he became president he would grant Germany the right to build a port on Mexico’s Caribbean coastline.[3] An American expedition to find and punish Villa commanded by General John Pershing failed, leaving American relations with Mexico on a hair trigger.
American relations with Japan were also tense. Several western states had passed or were considering laws that banned Japanese men and women (including American citizens) from owning land. Word had also reached Washington of Japanese arms sales to Mexico as well as negotiations to build a Japanese naval base on Mexico’s Pacific coast. One of the sites mentioned was on the Baja peninsula where a Japanese cruiser suddenly appeared in April 1915. The Americans saw these events as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine and a source of significant concern. The Wilson administration also knew that the Germans were trying to sway the Japanese with promises of territorial gains in China if they would declare war on Russia.
The Germans themselves were a headache for Wilson, who was trying as hard as he could to keep the United States neutral. The Germans were not making it easy for him. The sinking of the Lusitania in May 1915, which killed 128 Americans, had turned most Americans anti-German, if not yet pro-Allied. German spies were also active across the United States. They pulled off a spectacular incident of what we would today call state-sponsored terrorism when they blew up the Black Tom munitions depot in Jersey City, New Jersey, in April 1916. The blast killed seven people and was powerful enough to shatter windows as far away as Times Square. Suspicion initially fell on a workman who had lit fire pots to keep mosquitos away. By the time investigators uncovered a German connection, the perpetrators had vanished.
Still, Wilson did not want to take the nation to war in large part because he believed that only as a neutral statesman could he bring the two sides to peace. He also knew that neutrality was popular with key constituencies of his Democratic Party, including the rural South and Midwest and the large Irish and German American communities whose sympathies were decidedly anti-English.
But even while Wilson was feeling pressure from the isolationists to stay out of the war, his biggest political rival, former President Theodore Roosevelt, was leading a vocal group that was urging Wilson to stand up to Germany. Already colored by their pro-British and pro-French sensibilities and furious at German atrocities in Belgium and on the high seas, Roosevelt and his allies urged America to get ready to fight a war to defend democracy and freedom in Europe. Roosevelt began giving speeches and writing regular newspaper articles lambasting Wilson as a coward who refused to stand up for American values and American rights. The longer the war went on and the more Germany infringed on American interests, the harsher Roosevelt’s tone grew. He and his political allies had begun voluntary camps at Plattsburg, New York, to train young men in military service, although the real purpose of the movement was to shame Wilson into ordering the American Army to prepare for war.
Wilson’s extremely narrow victory in the 1916 election had given him four more years, but it had not solved his foreign policy dilemmas. Mexico remained an ulcer and Pershing’s inability to find Villa was a humiliation. Nor had the election silenced Roosevelt, who had supported Wilson’s opponent, Charles Evans Hughes. Roosevelt and his friend, Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, eyed a Republican victory in the 1918 midterm election, and Roosevelt had begun to hint that he might run for the presidency in 1920. Facing all of these problems and distant even from his own Cabinet, it was perhaps not surprising that Wilson seemed confused and unsure of how to deal with a world crisis that threatened to pull America into a war in Mexico or, worse still, into the trenches of the western front.
The telegram that Page transmitted to Washington was indeed a bombshell for Wilson. Although Wilson trusted Page’s assurances that the telegram was genuine, Wilson knew that he would need more than the ambassador’s word to convince the American people and the isolationists in Congress. He therefore sent an American intelligence expert to Room 40 to verify both the telegram and the cipher used to decode it. Admiral Hall had been reluctant, but eventually agreed, especially once he figured out how to protect his source. Hall’s men had intercepted a second version of the telegram, sent from the German embassy in Washington to the German mission in Mexico. The second telegram contained just enough changes in wording from the original that when the Americans published it, the Germans would likely conclude that someone in Mexico had leaked it. The existence of Room 40 could therefore remain Britain’s most important wartime secret.
The Zimmermann telegram appeared in American newspapers on March 1 and set off the reactions Wilson and Page had expected. For many Americans, the potential combination of Mexico, Japan, and Germany represented nothing less than a nightmare. Newspapers across the country equated the telegram with a German declaration of war. Many of them also used racist imagery about the Japanese and Mexicans to depict them as servile agents of the smarter and more highly developed Germans. The fear was greatest in the West and Southwest, regions that had traditionally been isolationist. The Zimmermann telegram painted a future for people from Texas to California of invasion, the loss of their land, and conquest by the soldiers of Mexico and Japan. Supposition that the Germans might seize Canada from Britain in the event they won the war further stoked American fears. In a flash the war was no longer about events in Europe. It was now about threats to America itself.
Also predictably, many of Wilson’s political opponents refused to believe the telegram’s legitimacy. Republicans, Irish Americans, German Americans, and even some members of Wilson’s own party either thought the British were playing an elaborate ruse on the naïve president or refused to believe any diplomat could send anything as stupid as that telegram. Wilson shared all the information he had with key isolationist senators who were even then preparing to filibuster the bill to arm merchant ships. Zimmermann gave Wilson one more gift by admitting to an amazed German media that he had indeed sent the telegram. Zimmermann saw no value in denying what the British and Americans could presumably prove. He also saw the value of having his offer of alliance out in the open, allowing him to pursue further diplomatic negotiations with the Japanese and Mexican governments. Japan’s ambassador to Germany, however, called the idea of an alliance “too ridiculous for words,” and, after giving it some thought, the Mexicans, too, backed away.[4] Zimmermann’s gamble had failed.
It remained to be seen, however, how Wilson would react. Roosevelt was so incensed he told a friend that if the President did not declare war he would “skin him alive.” He then petitioned Wilson for the right to raise and command his own division and lead it in combat in France. Wilson, predictably, refused, leading Roosevelt to remark “I don’t understand. After all, I’m only asking to be allowed to die.”[5] An irate House of Representatives, which had been hotly debating the issue of arming merchant ships, reversed course and voted 500 to 13 in favor. It also added a provision to the bill authorizing the President to use the armed forces of the United States in any way he saw fit to protect American property and lives. Although it was unclear if the Senate would follow suit, it was perfectly clear that the mood in the country had changed dramatically. The isolationist and pro-German press, unable to defend Zimmermann or deny the telegram’s existence, simply went quiet or voiced support for the United States.
On March 20, with the American media still enraged, Wilson met with his Cabinet and found them for the first time unanimously in favor of war. Even the intensely pacifist Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, voiced his support for war. The next day Wilson told Congress to assemble on April 2, a full two weeks earlier than scheduled, to hear him address “grave matters of national policy.” Zimmermann’s telegram had been the final straw. Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war and took the first steps toward leading his nation into the most terrible war the world had ever known.
[1] Burton J. Hendrick, The Life and Letters of Walter Hines Page (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1925), 3:324.
[2] Details of the process of decoding the telegram, as well as much else, can be found in Barbara W. Tuchman, The Zimmermann Telegram (New York: Ballantine Books, 1958).
[3] Tuchman, The Zimmermann Telegram, 95.
[4] Hendrick, The Life and Letters of Walter Hines Page, 3:352.
[5] Edward J. Renehan Jr. The Lion’s Pride: Theodore Roosevelt and His Family in Peace and War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 129. All five of Roosevelt’s children served in World War I. His son Quentin died when the Germans shot down his plane during the Second Battle of the Marne.
So now you lost again. The note was the final straw and your arguments fail yet again.
Suggested Topics
