@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
-
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.
-
Cool. I am a undergraduate university student as the author of your paper was when he wrote it. Therefore, I can submit a paper I write as evidence in the argument. Just let me get my books out. Â :roll:
-
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.
Back to your point, it’s not ridiculous at all to think of a scenario where Germany decided not to risk unrestricted submarine warfare. So concurrent is the historical opinion and research on the subject that since the sub attacks were more than anything else what motivated the US to declare war, a scenario where the German player chooses not to use its subs that way (however that is translated into the game) is not laughable at all, in fact it’s quite plausible.
There are a few obstacles of course. One of them is that it would suck if the US was your only power and you had to sit out because the German player did not risk sinking your ships. So such a game would be hard to justify as being an 8-player game. Perhaps in such a case France and USA would be combined or something.
Another issue is that the map being designed without the historical cause-and-effect US entry might create some problems too, but we won’t know that until we see the map fully. Of course if the map and playtesting were done with the historical entry in mind instead of the simpler but less historical scheduled entry, it wouldn’t be that hard to balance, but I am willing to work a bit to make the more historical entry work.
-
Cool. I am a undergraduate university student as the author of your paper was when he wrote it. Therefore, I can submit a paper I write as evidence in the argument. Just let me get my books out
More comic books? OMG
Back to your point, it’s not ridiculous at all to think of a scenario where Germany decided not to risk unrestricted submarine warfare. So concurrent is the historical opinion and research on the subject that since the sub attacks were more than anything else what motivated the US to declare war, a scenario where the German player chooses not to use its subs that way (however that is translated into the game) is not laughable at all, in fact it’s quite plausible.
Again the note triggered the war, if you want to have me make new arguments wait for me to make them, i wont and the wait might give you time to clean the rabid foam from your mouth. The only thing i set to prove and validate is that the note triggered US entry, now get over it.
There are a few obstacles of course. One of them is that it would suck if the US was your only power and you had to sit out because the German player did not risk sinking your ships. So such a game would be hard to justify as being an 8-player game. Perhaps in such a case France and USA would be combined or something.
Another issue is that the map being designed without the historical cause-and-effect US entry might create some problems too, but we won’t know that until we see the map fully. Of course if the map and playtesting were done with the historical entry in mind instead of the simpler but less historical scheduled entry, it wouldn’t be that hard to balance, but I am willing to work a bit to make the more historical entry work.
Son, this is Axis and Allies. IN that world you get a scant trace of reality with a map and plastic pieces thrown in. Thats it. The game will never have all this nonsense you speak of. It will contain fixed dates when it starts and fixed dates when nations enter and begin to have collapse issues. Get over it.
-
We now come to my parade and victory celebration.
My sword has vanquished your armies on the field of the battle of ideas.
What was proven many times has finally resounded into a crescendo of adulation and praise for Imperious Leader. Enjoy the celebration but don’t drink too much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vySMTmOXO_s
I got a shot of party goers celebrating:
-
Back to your point, it’s not ridiculous at all to think of a scenario where Germany decided not to risk unrestricted submarine warfare. So concurrent is the historical opinion and research on the subject that since the sub attacks were more than anything else what motivated the US to declare war, a scenario where the German player chooses not to use its subs that way (however that is translated into the game) is not laughable at all, in fact it’s quite plausible.
Again the note triggered the war, if you want to have me make new arguments wait for me to make them, i wont and the wait might give you time to clean the rabid foam from your mouth. The only thing i set to prove and validate is that the note triggered US entry, now get over it.
In that quoted post I wasn’t even talking to you. Yet you come after me full bore and have the audacity to call me rabid? It seems like you are feeling a little insecure about something, or you just can’t stand not being the center of attention anymore. I’m trying to get back to productive discussion about a historical system for US entry with honest and fair community members. In that spirit, I am asking as politely as possible if you would please stop posting in the thread? I am not telling you what to do, just requesting for the sake of progress.
-
You are rabid and foaming at the mouth since your 4th post. Get over it, the note triggered US entry.
Get that mange dog checked out, he must have bit you. Drink some beer, the celebration continues…
-
Since you insist on being the center of attention, let’s get down to brass tacks.
http://teamplayergaming.gameme.com/playerinfo/166677
Is that your profile?
-
You need to come to the party, or at least march
-
Jeez, so evasive. It’s almost as if you have something to hide…
I read another evasive post from you in the morning. Good night.
-
Jeez, so evasive. It’s almost as if you have something to hide…
I read another evasive post from you in the morning. Good night.
What i read from you is never really acknowledging the note triggered the war. The fact that i stay on topic and you don’t, speaks volumes.
Enjoy the party.
-
@Imperious:
Jeez, so evasive. It’s almost as if you have something to hide…
I read another evasive post from you in the morning. Good night.
What i read from you is never really acknowledging the note triggered the war. The fact that i stay on topic and you don’t, speaks volumes.
Enjoy the party.
You have now made it 100 posts since this post:
@vonLettowVorbeck1914:It can be admitted that it was the “last straw,” but for the last straw to matter, there has to be many other straws. No one is saying the Zimmerman telegram is totally irrelevant, but please find a source (if you can) that states that as being a more important reason than USW (don’t forget that the note was sent because Germany was planning on resuming USW)
A good chunk, perhaps a majority of the posts since then have been you ignoring what I already said on the matter. What’s quite disturbing is the fact that you suggest that your point has become the topic. The arrogance and need to be the center of attention on your part is shocking. You must have spent too much time with Paris Hilton.
Let’s not forget this one too:
@vonLettowVorbeck1914:@Imperious:
That does not mean the note was not the final straw that triggered the war. If you got one old women who hates Germany because of Jan 31st you got increased sentiment, but you don’t have the trigger. The note was the final trigger. Get over it.
I already have:
@vonLettowVorbeck1914:It can be admitted that it was the “last straw,” but for the last straw to matter, there has to be many other straws. No one is saying the Zimmerman telegram is totally irrelevant, but please find a source (if you can) that states that as being a more important reason than USW (don’t forget that the note was sent because Germany was planning on resuming USW)
It wasn’t until you posted your undergraduate paper source (which stated that Wilson still wanted to and still thought he could avoid war on the 26th, TWO DAYS AFTER HE SAW THE TELEGRAM), did it need to be seriously considered that the note was not the last straw. But I cannot be responsible for your attacks on your own arguments, can I? I was comfortable with the note being the last straw, but it seems you have done more to damage your point than anything I posted.
You may have heard the classic definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” You keep posting your alleged "“only point” over and over again, thinking it will distract from your � unsupportable points and your repeated lies and distractions.
Billy Joel once sang in “Moving Out” that “You can never argue with a crazy mind,” and I’m starting to see exactly what he was singing about. It’s clear you are clinging to your last reasonably defensible point like it’s a palm tree on a tiny island in the cyclone of historical evidence. If there is to be a game mechanic based on what the most important cause of US entry into the war was, the mechanic will be based on unrestricted submarine warfare.
What really speaks volumes is your silence on the matter of the gaming account where ONE user has had ‘Lucas McCain “The Rifleman”’ AND “Imperious Leader” as screen names, and now they show up in the same thread on the same � site voicing the same opinion in an argument. It’s pretty obvious that isn’t on the up-and-up.
-
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 was thinking more about it, and Larry said there was already going to be an Unrestricted sub warfare phase in the game. Why not tie that to US entry? I obviously don’t know the details of the phase, but my guess is that we can maintain balance by making that phase more damaging to the British and perhaps give them a bonus if Germany doesn’t damage them with it. Therefore, Germany would have more incentive to do it against britain, but in so doing they move the US along to war. Additionally, Russia dropping out of the war could have a small impact on the US entering as well, although it would not as much as the unrestricted sub warfare. Germany could be very risky or very careful or somewhere in between with their political choices, just like they could have been in the real war. I understand the financial reasons why Larry wants a simpler game, but there’s no reason why the community can’t collaborate on house rules that enhance realism.
-
Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 11, 2013, 10:36:42 pm
Quote
Jeez, so evasive. It’s almost as if you have something to hide…I read another evasive post from you in the morning. Good night.
What i read from you is never really acknowledging the note triggered the war. The fact that i stay on topic and you don’t, speaks volumes.
Enjoy the party.
You have now made it 100 posts since this post:
Quote from: vonLettowVorbeck1914 on January 08, 2013, 06:43:21 pm
It can be admitted that it was the “last straw,” but for the last straw to matter, there has to be many other straws. No one is saying the Zimmerman telegram is totally irrelevant, but please find a source (if you can) that states that as being a more important reason than USW (don’t forget that the note was sent because Germany was planning on resuming USW)I don’t need to find this because it is NOT MY ARGUMENT. I made the same claim in almost every post and you just argue about something that it is not my own. Get over it the Note triggered the war and you have been defeated. You never really want to address this truth, which was the source of entertainment for 7 pages until we had the parade and celebration of victory.
A good chunk, perhaps a majority of the posts since then have been you ignoring what I already said on the matter. What’s quite disturbing is the fact that you suggest that your point has become the topic. The arrogance and need to be the center of attention on your part is shocking. You must have spent too much time with Paris Hilton.
Lets get this straight. I post and YOU REPLY TO ME. I said the note triggered the war and from that point you invent all sorts of secondary arguments which i never entertained. I don’t take that bait and you know it. I stick with the central point which is the note triggered the war, so get over it.
Let’s not forget this one too:
Quote from: vonLettowVorbeck1914 on January 08, 2013, 09:48:42 pm
Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 08, 2013, 09:22:20 pm
That does not mean the note was not the final straw that triggered the war. If you got one old women who hates Germany because of Jan 31st you got increased sentiment, but you don’t have the trigger. The note was the final trigger. Get over it.I already have:
Quote from: vonLettowVorbeck1914 on January 08, 2013, 06:43:21 pm
It can be admitted that it was the “last straw,” but for the last straw to matter, there has to be many other straws. No one is saying the Zimmerman telegram is totally irrelevant, but please find a source (if you can) that states that as being a more important reason than USW (don’t forget that the note was sent because Germany was planning on resuming USW)It wasn’t until you posted your undergraduate paper source (which stated that Wilson still wanted to and still thought he could avoid war on the 26th, TWO DAYS AFTER HE SAW THE TELEGRAM), did it need to be seriously considered that the note was not the last straw. But I cannot be responsible for your attacks on your own arguments, can I? I was comfortable with the note being the last straw, but it seems you have done more to damage your point than anything I posted.
Yes the note caused the war, that was what the celebration was about. You should really pay attention.
You may have heard the classic definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” You keep posting your alleged "“only point” over and over again, thinking it will distract from your � unsupportable points and your repeated lies and distractions.
Billy Joel once sang in “Moving Out” that “You can never argue with a crazy mind,” and I’m starting to see exactly what he was singing about. It’s clear you are clinging to your last reasonably defensible point like it’s a palm tree on a tiny island in the cyclone of historical evidence. If there is to be a game mechanic based on what the most important cause of US entry into the war was, the mechanic will be based on unrestricted submarine warfare.
Yes what speaks volumes is me proving that the note triggered the war and YOU trying to bait me into some argument i never made and failing, which triggered the celebration.
-
@Imperious:
Lets get this straight. I post and YOU REPLY TO ME.Â
Then why do you attack me for a response I wrote to another member’s post?
@Imperious:[My response to another members post:]
Back to your point, it’s not ridiculous at all to think of a scenario where Germany decided not to risk unrestricted submarine warfare. So concurrent is the historical opinion and research on the subject that since the sub attacks were more than anything else what motivated the US to declare war, a scenario where the German player chooses not to use its subs that way (however that is translated into the game) is not laughable at all, in fact it’s quite plausible.[Your attack on me for responding to another member’s post:]
Again the note triggered the war, if you want to have me make new arguments wait for me to make them, i wont and the wait might give you time to clean the rabid foam from your mouth. The only thing i set to prove and validate is that the note triggered US entry, now get over it.Bold added to describe context. You attacked me when I was responding on-topic to another member’s on-topic post. If you want a thread to be about the note triggering the war and people getting over that opinion, then start a thread called “The note triggered the war, get over it.”
I am trying to get the thread back on topic. I have taken Billy Joel’s sound advice. Quit attacking me.
-
Then why do you attack me for a response I wrote to another member’s post?
Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 11, 2013, 09:42:04 pmI didn’t. I am not arguing with any point you made, you are arguing with my point, which is what triggered the war. And that was my main point.
Quote
[My response to another members post:]
Back to your point, it’s not ridiculous at all to think of a scenario where Germany decided not to risk unrestricted submarine warfare. So concurrent is the historical opinion and research on the subject that since the sub attacks were more than anything else what motivated the US to declare war, a scenario where the German player chooses not to use its subs that way (however that is translated into the game) is not laughable at all, in fact it’s quite plausible.[Your attack on me for responding to another member’s post:]
Again the note triggered the war, if you want to have me make new arguments wait for me to make them, i wont and the wait might give you time to clean the rabid foam from your mouth. The only thing i set to prove and validate is that the note triggered US entry, now get over it.Bold added to describe context. You attacked me when I was responding on-topic to another member’s on-topic post. If you want a thread to be about the note triggering the war and people getting over that opinion, then start a thread called “The note triggered the war, get over it.”
Sounds like a great idea!
I am trying to get the thread back on topic. I have taken Billy Joel’s sound advice. Quit attacking me.
LOL
-
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 was thinking more about it, and Larry said there was already going to be an Unrestricted sub warfare phase in the game. Why not tie that to US entry? I obviously don’t know the details of the phase, but my guess is that we can maintain balance by making that phase more damaging to the British and perhaps give them a bonus if Germany doesn’t damage them with it. Therefore, Germany would have more incentive to do it against britain, but in so doing they move the US along to war. Additionally, Russia dropping out of the war could have a small impact on the US entering as well, although it would not as much as the unrestricted sub warfare. Germany could be very risky or very careful or somewhere in between with their political choices, just like they could have been in the real war. I understand the financial reasons why Larry wants a simpler game, but there’s no reason why the community can’t collaborate on house rules that enhance realism.
Suggested Topics
