I’m not having the USA entering automatically on turn 4. This makes absolutely no sense. What if the Allies are doing very nicely without them? What if Germany is doing nothing to provoke America? What if there is a reasonably realistic timeline in which one turn represents rather less than an entire year?
It all comes down to economics.
As I’ve proposed elsewhere, I think a separate armaments unit or “shells” should have to be produced in order for artillery to be able to fire, certainly in regard to opening barrages. Time and again descriptions of battles tell of artillery running out of ammunition; if they didn’t the war would be nothing more than one long barrage.
Shells are produced in factories at say 10 units for 1 IPC. They must be transported to the fronts, and can be carried by any land unit or transport ship, or railed during strategic movement.
However, most Powers will be unable to produce enough shells without restricting their factory capacities to build other units, so a solution to shortages is to purchase armaments from America, a country which was quite happy to make money arming both sides before entering the war itself.
Transport ships must convey purchased units across the Atlantic.
What should happen:
Due to a relatively compact territorial block, and heavy industry, the Central Powers will be less reliant on imported munitions. They will also, for obvious reasons, find it harder to get the goods into home ports. Nevertheless, if they don’t make some attempt, they free the Allied navies to hunt down CP ships at will.
Initially, both sides will attempt to blockade the other by blocking passage of ships, or sinking them mid passage. All of this affects American attitudes, including the Allies stopping American ships sailing to Germany.
Eventually, the balance should favour the Allies, which should provoke the CPS into a sink on sight policy, in turn probably provoking America into joining the war on the Allied side, thus authentically representing the course of American entry without artificial scripting.
Money paid can be seen in the form of loans, which America expects to collect at high interest after the war. Therefore, the more armaments a side buys, the more likely America is to support that side in the war.
There are various other factors affecting US declaration of war, for example the Presidential election in Fall 1916 - either side can give money to a candidate. If Hughes wins, America is likely to declare war immediately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1916
Then you broke the game because that force pool is predicated to arrive on turn 4. How bout just play the game first before changing it?
If nations don’t enter when the game allows them too, you upset the delicate balance ( presumably that it was properly play-tested).
I’m not having the USA entering automatically on turn 4. This makes absolutely no sense. What if the Allies are doing very nicely without them? What if Germany is doing nothing to provoke America?
All very important questions. If the Allies are doing great, why would the US need to enter to protect its economic interests when they would be doing fine?
I like a game where the worse the allies are doing, the sooner USA enters, where the better the allies are doing, the later (or even not at all). This isn’t absurdly difficult to balance; in some ways it seems it balances itself; The more the Allies need the US, the more they get the US, the more the CP would be devastated by the US entry, the less conditions there probably were to have the CP gain an advantage.
Hopefully there will be no one so silly to suggest that people changing the US entry rule will be the only change and will ignore all other aspects of the game. Rules changes can be balanced if they keep balance in mind.
Hopefully there will be no one so silly to suggest that people changing the US entry rule where the worse the allies are doing, the sooner USA enters, where the better the allies are doing, the later (or even not at all). It was fixed events in time that decided when and how and why belligerents entered. If Paris falls on turn one, US don’t just feel sorry and get a die modifier to enter the war early. On the contrary, the US entered for her own measure which was the direct threat made to get Mexico fighting the US.
Obviously, the Zimmerman note which had no bearing on how the entente was doing, triggered the US entry. That would be just like another event that triggered the war by the assassination of the Duke. These events are fixed and not subject to variable entry. The US had no plans on entering the war whether or not France falls, rather the direct threat of aggression by proxy on the southern border. That galvanized support for the war. When France was getting pulverized in 1870, US had no influence to enter on her behalf. When you make a game based on History, you don’t come up with conclusions that are unrelated and based on nonsense. Most of you confuse the Great War with World War Two. The Great War did not have the concept of America saving Europe from naked aggression. We fought for our own interests.
Also, 4 turns in the game could mean 3 years in terms of how it plays out, so perhaps play the game first and not change it?
The Zimmermann telegram had everything to do with how the allies were doing; Germany was about to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare again because they knew they were in serious trouble, and anticipated that this would cause the US to join.
It’s historically unsound to say the telegram would have been sent at a fixed date because it was entirely dependent on whether or not Germany wanted to risk unrestricted sub warfare again, based on their fortunes up to that point in the war.
Please take a moment to look up investment statistics for the US for France and the UK before and during WWI, and the actual likelihood and ability of Mexico to declare war on the US. You’ll see that the telegram was a convenient propaganda victory for those in the US who wanted war, and little more.
You say that US fought for its own interests; that is one of the few correct points of your post. The telegram was a lucky break for the big shot investors who wanted the war in order to protect their investments, as they had something to make the general population worried about. But to suggest that the US officials were actually worried about a Mexican invasion is looking too much at the face value and not at what was really going on.
US didn’t stand a whole lot to lose if Mexico declared war. They did if the Allies lost and defaulted on the US investments.
Whether or not Mexico actually was a threat, the Z. note had VERY much to do with how the CP and allies were doing, as its sending was in anticipation of resuming unrestricted sub warfare. Had even just a few events gone differently, it would be crazy to think that the telegram would have still been sent at the same time or even at all.
You can’t (well you can, but it is a disservice to historical thought) think of events as happening in a vacuum. Even the Assasination of the Archduke wouldn’t have started the war had there not been other important factors at play before and after.
@MidnightExpress:
@Imperious:
   Hopefully there will be no one so silly to suggest that people changing the US entry rule where the worse the allies are doing, the sooner USA enters, where the better the allies are doing, the later (or even not at all). It was fixed events in time that decided when and how and why belligerents entered. If Paris falls on turn one, US don’t just feel sorry and get a die modifier to enter the war early. On the contrary, the US entered for her own measure which was the direct threat made to get Mexico fighting the US.
   Obviously, the Zimmerman note which had no bearing on how the entente was doing, triggered the US entry. That would be just like another event that triggered the war by the assassination of the Duke. These events are fixed and not subject to variable entry. The US had no plans on entering the war whether or not France falls, rather the direct threat of aggression by proxy on the southern border. That galvanized support for the war. When France was getting pulverized in 1870, US had no influence to enter on her behalf. When you make a game based on History, you don’t come up with conclusions that are unrelated and based on nonsense. Most of you confuse the Great War with World War Two. The Great War did not have the concept of America saving Europe from naked aggression. We fought for our own interests.Also, 4 turns in the game could mean 3 years in terms of how it plays out, so perhaps play the game first and not change it?
I have to agree with this. From my perspective, as a player in this game you’re not the political leader of your nation, you’re basically the commander-in-chief of it’s armed forces. Things like the Zimmerman note for US entry, the Russian Revolution, etc are out of your hands as they happen behind the scenes while you’d be solely concerned with building and commanding your armies.
That’s not exactly how its been played in past games, and its definitely not how it needs to be played in every future game (this is a whole new war from what we are used to seeing, after all). Plenty has been innovated over the years. In global you decide when to declare war. In classic even, you violate countries’ neutrality.
The revolution (and even telegram) are hardly out of the hands of a military commander in real life. If a Naval Commander is strongly against or unable to effectively conduct submarine warfare, it is unlikely that the telegram would be sent as there would be no need to anticapte US entry, just like if there was no need at all for sub warfare (blockade was broken, for example), the telegram would not have been sent. Similarly, if Russian commanders are doing well, there is little reason to believe that the revolution would have happened as soon as it did or even at all.
There is a BIG difference between something being out of your hands directly and something being tied strongly and indirectly to what you do as a military commander. Even if you don’t choose the revolution date, your success or lack thereof influences it.
Let’s not forget that X event happening on Y turn isn’t automatically easier to balance than X event happening after Y and Z conditions are met. Designers have to be careful to deal with situation where a player is banking on a major event like russian withdrawal happening entirely on schedule.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about Axis and Allies in general with “this game,” since I was pretty sure you were not talking about WWI (which was my first inclination of what you meant)
I might still contest that success in the war would have actually helped the Tsar with the situation at home, but I feel that is getting a little too off-topic.
Back to the USA; I am not saying that I don’t want US in the game, but to give Germany the challenge of avoiding angering the US by not challenging its economic interests would truly make this a World War I scenario instead of a World War I replay (if I am not clear on the distinction let me know).
Perhaps it is not KISS, but neither is global. To me it was pretty clear from the first post of this thread that Flashman will be working on an alternate US entry if the OOB one isn’t too appealing.
As for the note being sent in different situations I suppose that is plausible but only when the Germans anticipated imminent US involvement anyways.
It doesn’t seem too hard to me to have a US entry based conceptually on threats to US economic interests and still have the game be balanced (and actually even MORE historical assuming we think of history not as inevitable destiny but-cause and-effect (Why study history if we can’t see patterns and learn from choices?)).
If Germany is having success in blockading UK in some manner, that threatens US shipping. If Germany has success against France, that affects the chances of France to win and then pay back loans. The more success the CP has, the more the allies need the US, and the less success they have, the less the allies need the US. Just like in the real war, Germany had to balance angering the US with other efforts to win. I realize that might be too complex for the level of complexity in the game about to be released, but it seems to me this thread is about a system that would work for a more historical US entry than (it sounds) like the one we are getting.
The Zimmermann telegram had everything to do with how the allies were doing; Germany was about to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare again because they knew they were in serious trouble, and anticipated that this would cause the US to join.
That is an interpretation, nothing more.
It’s historically unsound to say the telegram would have been sent at a fixed date because it was entirely dependent on whether or not Germany wanted to risk unrestricted sub warfare again, based on their fortunes up to that point in the war.
I suppose you can roll for when the Zimmerman note gets released, but that would be the trigger for US entry, not this stupid notion that US just enters the war because the Entente is failing.
Please take a moment to look up investment statistics for the US for France and the UK before and during WWI, and the actual likelihood and ability of Mexico to declare war on the US. You’ll see that the telegram was a convenient propaganda victory for those in the US who wanted war, and little more.
Wrong. It was a diplomatic gaff that showed the hand of German aggression and a direct threat against US interests. It woke up the US public who had no inclination for war now toward fighting Germany. It was not the case of two factions like before WW2 fighting for public opinion for or against war.
You say that US fought for its own interests; that is one of the few correct points of your post. The telegram was a lucky break for the big shot investors who wanted the war in order to protect their investments, as they had something to make the general population worried about. But to suggest that the US officials were actually worried about a Mexican invasion is looking too much at the face value and not at what was really going on.
This “big shot investors” argument is completely bogus. That is not why we went to war. The direct threat was the possibility of ceding former Mexican areas back to Mexico, which for public opinion ( especially the people living in these areas) would turn these folks against Germany in a second. Unrestricted submarine warfare could be another event to trigger war, but the Zimmerman note came out first. Most people would not hate Germany for sinking ships as much as knowing if Germany wins Mexico could take back large parts of US.
The bottom line which sinks the variable argument is if Paris falls in 1914 or even till 1916, US does not enter the war or is even influenced in that direction. Only the treat veiled under the note could do that.
So what DO people want: a game starting in 1914 simulating the world falling into the chaos of a global war in which virtually anything could happen, depending on what the leaders in government and armed forces do, or even on which way the wind is blowing on a particular Tuesday morning; or a text-book re-enactment of the major events of 1914-1918 with a few minor military variables thrown in via a bit of dice rolling?
Really, if you’re going to make such random events as the Zimmerman telegram set in stone, then on what possible criteria does the German government NOT inform Ludendorff that they’re going to ask the Allies for an Armistice in November 1918?
As I’ve mentioned before, if you make momentous events like Russian collapse and American declaration of war set to a rigid timetable, then players will inevitably plan for them, in a way that is totally unrealistic. At the appropriate point, Germany will strip its eastern front of forces and send them to the west BEFORE the Russian revolution occurs, because they know its due next turn according to the script, so there’s no point wasting troops building defences against an enemy that’s going to beam up with Captain Kirk before it can do you any serious damage.
Once the opening setup has been put in place, then an exact historical play-out is possible, but highly unlikely. The roll of a single die in any battle could radically alter the course of the entire conflict, including countries opting out or in.
To take a minor example: Bulgaria. This country flip-flopped (if I may borrow a phrase), with both alliances offering bribes and incentives for it to join them. In the end it was their enmity to Serbia that swung the decision, but it was only made when they knew that there was going to be a massive Austrian invasion of Serbia, making it a fairly safe project with no risk of defeat. Bulgaria would not have gone to war at that time without the Austrian action, so unless you make the invasion as solidly set in stone as every other “fixed event” in your script, then Bulgaria entering the war on turn X is nonsense. And If you DO force Austria into the move, then where’s the game anyway? You might just as well scrap the strategic game and fight a series of battle board replays of the major fights.
Any country might have collapsed internally under the stresses of the war; France nearly went that way in 1917, and Austria & Germany were on the brink of it when they decided to surrender rather than risk letting the reds take over.
Yes, Russia is the most likely to be the first country to go (if nothing else its the one power that is most difficult for friends to prop up in a crisis), but there is nothing inevitable about it. A series of victories, better leadership preventing such high casualties, capturing a vital city, a successful Dardanelles campaign allowing the western Allies to send supplies by sea - all these things could have kept Russia in the war.
Yes, a historical scenario where Russia collapses, then Germany shifts west in a desperate attempt to win before America gets into 2nd gear is an exciting prospect, but only one of an unlimited number. If it’s the same every game because of a tight script it’ll soon become as boring and predictable as those columns of Japanese tanks heading for Moscow.
As for chronology, are people seriously suggesting that the first 4 turns represent a year each, but that the game can go on for afterwards for another 10 turns? That represents a serious misunderstanding of the way the war actually went. By 1919 every country would have been on the verge of collapse, so a sensible turn record should not run to more than 1920 at the very latest.
If this really is being done just to get America into the war artificially early, then shame on the designers. If players are that narrow minded wouldn’t they rather play Fortress America, or Axis and Allies - the Mexican-American war?
WWI was a long war of attrition: if the Americans turn up to tip the balance while its barely got started then its really not a game about WWI, is it?
I have heard about Germany wooing Mexico to join the Central Powers and declare war on the United States. I think it was the “last straw” for President Wilson and why he decided to declare war on the Central Powers. However, I have not heard of anything past that.
Mexico never attacked us and we never attacked them. Did anything ever happen on that front? Or did Mexico simply decline Germany and that was the end of it?
What if Mexico had agreed with Germany? Even as small as the US Army was at that time, I wouldn’t think that the Mexican Army back then would have really posed a substantial threat to the US. However, might it have affected US entry into the European front? If Mexico really got it’s stuff together and invaded in some kind of force, all those guys we had to train to build a real army would have been needed here, defending US soil, and not sent over to France to fight the Germans. With the US busy fighting Mexico, is it possible the Central Powers could have won in Europe?
Another idea regarding the Russian Revolution. It actually started before the end of WW1 and there was pretty heavy Western Allied involvment with the White Army to try and stop the Reds. I was just wondering if that will be demonstrated in this game. There were advisors and troops from six different nations up in Murmansk and Archangel that were there to advise the Whites but often came into direct conflict with the Reds.
So, in the game, when the Russian Revolution happens and Russia pulls out of the war, should the Western Allies have to send a certain number of their troops to Russia to show historical support?
@Imperious:
The Zimmermann telegram had everything to do with how the allies were doing; Germany was about to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare again because they knew they were in serious trouble, and anticipated that this would cause the US to join.
That is an interpretation, nothing more.
Did you try actually reading the document?
The document clearly states that Germany anticipates their submarine warfare will draw the US in, although they want the US to stay neutral. The document clearly pledges German support ONLY IF the US enters the war.
@Imperious:
It’s historically unsound to say the telegram would have been sent at a fixed date because it was entirely dependent on whether or not Germany wanted to risk unrestricted sub warfare again, based on their fortunes up to that point in the war.
I suppose you can roll for when the Zimmerman note gets released, but that would be the trigger for US entry, not this stupid notion that US just enters the war because the Entente is failing.
Why is it stupid? Did you actually look up US investments in the Entente relative the the CP? Or did you just go by what you think you read in one history book once 10 years ago? Don’t forget that it’s not necessarily just that the entente is failing, but also Germany’s decisions at sea that I am talking about as causes.
@Imperious:
Please take a moment to look up investment statistics for the US for France and the UK before and during WWI, and the actual likelihood and ability of Mexico to declare war on the US. You’ll see that the telegram was a convenient propaganda victory for those in the US who wanted war, and little more.
Wrong. It was a diplomatic gaff that showed the hand of German aggression and a direct threat against US interests. It woke up the US public who had no inclination for war now toward fighting Germany. It was not the case of two factions like before WW2 fighting for public opinion for or against war.
So the telegram is what really showed the hand to Americans of German aggression, even though it became publicly relevant it over 4 weeks after Germany resumed unrestricted sub warfare? Don’t you think the sub warfare showed the hand first?
@Imperious:
You say that US fought for its own interests; that is one of the few correct points of your post. The telegram was a lucky break for the big shot investors who wanted the war in order to protect their investments, as they had something to make the general population worried about. But to suggest that the US officials were actually worried about a Mexican invasion is looking too much at the face value and not at what was really going on.
This “big shot investors” argument is completely bogus. That is not why we went to war. The direct threat was the possibility of ceding former Mexican areas back to Mexico, which for public opinion ( especially the people living in these areas) would turn these folks against Germany in a second. Unrestricted submarine warfare could be another event to trigger war, but the Zimmerman note came out first. Most people would not hate Germany for sinking ships as much as knowing if Germany wins Mexico could take back large parts of US.
Please find a historian or two who actually supports your claim that the US leaders were worried about losing territory to mexico. I would love to go to their house and try on one of their tinfoil hats and play with their 57 cats while sipping their favorite beverage of urine and gasoline out of a horse skull as they tell me their argument in pig latin.
There is a difference between people being upset at the audacity of the telegram and people actually being legitimately concerned that Mexico could succeed (or even wanted to go to war) even if Germany won.
http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/WWI/parallelsToIraq.htm
Since you are unable or unwilling to do actual research there is some for you. Read the section on American loans.
Let’s put it this way. If the American investment in the CP and Allies were inverted, would the US have gone to war against the CP? � The simple fact is that America was allegedly neutral but was financially profiting immensely from its much stronger ties to the allies. Once the Germans started to strongly threaten American economic interests, that’s when those whose opinions really mattered began to resolve to go to war. The telegram came to the forefront later and was excellent for getting American public opinion behind the war that many investors began to want as the ships started sinking.
I have heard about Germany wooing Mexico to join the Central Powers and declare war on the United States. I think it was the “last straw” for President Wilson and why he decided to declare war on the Central Powers. However, I have not heard of anything past that.
Mexico never attacked us and we never attacked them. Did anything ever happen on that front? Or did Mexico simply decline Germany and that was the end of it?What if Mexico had agreed with Germany? Even as small as the US Army was at that time, I wouldn’t think that the Mexican Army back then would have really posed a substantial threat to the US. However, might it have affected US entry into the European front? If Mexico really got it’s stuff together and invaded in some kind of force, all those guys we had to train to build a real army would have been needed here, defending US soil, and not sent over to France to fight the Germans. With the US busy fighting Mexico, is it possible the Central Powers could have won in Europe?
I’m all for “what-if’s,” but when you get to a certain point (what that point is is opinion of course), they need not be considered anymore as being. Everything that I can recall reading on the subject discusses the possible entry of Mexico as strongly or completely implausible. Using the resources immediately at hand (I have to go soon) Wikipedia cites a book that allegedly states that the Mexican general in charge of determining the feasibility of war with the US called it impossible and undesirable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram#Mexican_response
From what I have read Mexican entry against the US is beyond plausible consideration as a “what-if?”.
Please read the thread on this subject.
All we know for sure is that the Russian Revolution “will be represented”.
At one extreme of the argument (IL) is the notion that in November 1917 (this will be on a specific game turn) Russia simply drops out of the war. Russian forces are removed, and (presumably) no other power can enter Russian tt. What happens to CP forces on Russian soil, and how much of Russia the CP gets to keep has not been explained. As far as this argument is concerned, the Russian civil war is an entirely different event of no relevance to “WWI”.
I would expect Larry’s game will follow a similar pattern: “this is A&A, not Flames of War” (whatever that is).
At the other extreme (Me) is the view that what happened in Russia after the Bolsheviks grabbed power is very relevant to the world outside; as you say the western Allies intervened to try getting Russia back into the war. The Reds negotiated an armistice with Germany, refused the terms offered, were attacked again, and were then forced to give Germany all of Russia’s western areas, which were then occupied by CP forces, who remained there until 1918 in order to keep hold of what was very unstable (but valuable) country.
See also Siberian intervention, the largest Japanese contribution to the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Intervention
My suggestion is that in Russia (and any other country falling into revolution) you determine which units are loyal (whites), which are Bolshevik (reds), and which are non-Russian nationalists (blacks). This is very hard for some people to understand, but in practice quite simple. The CP gets control of the Bolshevik units, the Allies keep control of the “whites”. The blacks setup their own independent states. None of these can operate outside Russia until the civil war is won.
The CPs should have to physically occupy Russian tt in order to collect income from it, so a CP garrison remains in tts such as Ukraine, Belarus and Baltic States.
To maintain that these events were irrelevant to WWI is like having Japan and the USSR starting at war with each other in a WWII game…
I tend to see “WWI” and “WWII” each as a series of local conflicts which happened to occur at the same time; the other view sees them as stand-alone events that occurred in isolation of other political happenings, and according to a strict and unalterable schedule.
Another idea regarding the Russian Revolution. It actually started before the end of WW1 and there was pretty heavy Western Allied involvment with the White Army to try and stop the Reds. I was just wondering if that will be demonstrated in this game. There were advisors and troops from six different nations up in Murmansk and Archangel that were there to advise the Whites but often came into direct conflict with the Reds.
So, in the game, when the Russian Revolution happens and Russia pulls out of the war, should the Western Allies have to send a certain number of their troops to Russia to show historical support?
America was heavily involved in the Mexican revolution, first supporting the revolutionaries, then invading Mexico to punish the likes of Pancho Villa.
General Pershing found that hunting rebels in Mexico was no easier than fighting local militias in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_the_Mexican_Revolution
However Mexico was an annoyance to the USA, not a serious military threat. America could easily deal with the Mexicans without getting involved in a European war.
I think it was the “last straw” for President Wilson and why he decided to declare war on the Central Powers.
That is exactly right. It was the last straw, not unrestricted submarine warfare. To not know that is a poor student of History.
However, I have not heard of anything past that.
Mexico never attacked us and we never attacked them. Did anything ever happen on that front? Or did Mexico simply decline Germany and that was the end of it?
The issue was never the actual threat of “Mexico”. It was rather the notion that Germany had boundless designs against real or perceived enemies. It just showed that Germany was not favorable to our own interests.
What if Mexico had agreed with Germany? Even as small as the US Army was at that time,
It was not the value of the Mexican army, which was pathetic. Pancho Villa did conduct raids, but with any effort US could have just retaken Mexico City ( and probably exacted more land)
At one extreme of the argument (IL) is the notion that in November 1917 (this will be on a specific game turn) Russia simply drops out of the war. Russian forces are removed, and (presumably) no other power can enter Russian tt. What happens to CP forces on Russian soil, and how much of Russia the CP gets to keep has not been explained. As far as this argument is concerned, the Russian civil war is an entirely different event of no relevance to “WWI”.
Just to clarify, In Larry’s game Russia most likely drops out of the war most likely not before a fixed date, and only if conditions are met. If the conditions are not met, it probably does not trigger collapse. My only notion is that YOU DON’T ROLL FOR COLLAPSE BEFORE A FIXED TURN. The modifiers don’t apply till that moment. If it were any different the game could not be balanced at all, as the possibility of collapse early would ruin allied chances.
Did you try actually reading the document?
The document clearly states that Germany anticipates their submarine warfare will draw the US in, although they want the US to stay neutral. The document clearly pledges German support ONLY IF the US enters the war.
Yes many times before. What you seem to keep missing is that the note drew US into the war not unrestricted submarine warfare. Fixed dates in History trigger the simulation. Otherwise why not change the starting date of the war by introducing variable die rolls each turn? The game has a few fixed dates that trigger events and you don’t start changing them or the game is no longer a simulation of world war one, but some other war.
I suppose you can roll for when the Zimmerman note gets released, but that would be the trigger for US entry, not this stupid notion that US just enters the war because the Entente is failing.
Why is it stupid? Did you actually look up US investments in the Entente relative the the CP? Or did you just go by what you think you read in one history book once 10 years ago? Don’t forget that it’s not necessarily just that the entente is failing, but also Germany’s decisions at sea that I am talking about as causes.
Because it’s not what happened. Why not add in space aliens and the death Star? Because that’s not what happened.
So the telegram is what really showed the hand to Americans of German aggression, even though it became publicly relevant it over 4 weeks after Germany resumed unrestricted sub warfare? Don’t you think the sub warfare showed the hand first?
The note was what triggered the war. When on this earth will you stop dancing around this white elephant?
Please find a historian or two who actually supports your claim that the US leaders were worried about losing territory to mexico. I would love to go to their house and try on one of their tinfoil hats and play with their 57 cats while sipping their favorite beverage of urine and gasoline out of a horse skull as they tell me their argument in pig latin.
Wrong again. I didn’t say anybody was worried about losing territory. I said the note triggered the war. To find this fact, just look up any book. Then go on dancing with the stars as a white elephant dancer.
There is a difference between people being upset at the audacity of the telegram and people actually being legitimately concerned that Mexico could succeed (or even wanted to go to war) even if Germany won.
nobody claimed otherwise.
http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/WWI/parallelsToIraq.htm
Since you are unable or unwilling to do actual research there is some for you. Read the section on American loans.
Let’s put it this way. If the American investment in the CP and Allies were inverted, would the US have gone to war against the CP? � The simple fact is that America was allegedly neutral but was financially profiting immensely from its much stronger ties to the allies. Once the Germans started to strongly threaten American economic interests, that’s when those whose opinions really mattered began to resolve to go to war. The telegram came to the forefront later and was excellent for getting American public opinion behind the war that many investors began to want as the ships started sinking.
more dancing. The note triggered the war. Stop avoiding the facts in order to make up more bogus arguments.
@Imperious:
I think it was the “last straw” for President Wilson and why he decided to declare war on the Central Powers.
That is exactly right. It was the last straw, not unrestricted submarine warfare. To not know that is a poor student of History.
Something being the “last straw” is hardly the same as something being the most important factor or an even-more-than-barely-significant factor.
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.
