Talk:Zimmermann telegram/Archive 1

On Carranza's assessment

Is this citation worthy? "Carranza instructed his military to determine the feasibility of the offer" BLOCKED LINK --alex_mayorga (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Explanation for capitalization:

Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun or is otherwise almost always capitalized, do not capitalize second and subsequent words. (Wikipedia:Naming conventions)

This is the case here. It is almost always referred to as the Zimmermann Telegram. --Eloquence 05:31 17 May 2003 (UTC)

The correct sequence of events?

Extraordinary! I should not have thought it would be possible to write an entry on the Zimmermann Telegram that managed to entirely fail to set out the key sequence of events: i.e., that it was the British who decrypted it, and then found a way to leak it to the US - thus exposing their ability to break German codes. This was, of course, a serious breech of good security, but the message the telegram contained was judged so important that normal security rules were thrown out the window - and quite correctly so, as it turned out. There is any amount of information available on this topic. I am astonished that the 'pedia community could make such a hopeless mess of such an easy task.

(Doubtless, now that Eloquence has started on this entry, he will sort it out with his usual competence before too long; I'll stay out of the entry for the time being so as not to joggle his elbow.) Tannin

Sorry about the mixup. I would have had no objections if you had fixed it yourself, though. That's what "Edit this page" is for. --Eloquence 06:36 17 May 2003 (UTC)

I saw your new illustrations, figured you might be in progress on a major expansion, and I know only too well how frustrating it is to go off line for an hour or two to research and write something, polish it up so that it's just so, then come back to paste it in and discover that someone else has aleady done it. (Grrr! Whichever version we wind up keeping, it's a waste of soeone's effort.) So I usually try to work on something that no-one else is working on right now :) NP: I'll get right on to it. I read up on it in detail at one stage, but that was 5 or 10 years ago, so I better bone up a bit first.Tannin

Oh, hello, you've already done it. Good. I'll go back to expanding Dingo. Tannin 07:13 17 May 2003 (UTC)

The introduction remains confused. It is primarily a summary of the telegraphic advice on what was to be done by the German ambassador in the USA in certain circumstances. Then it concludes by saying that Mexico rejected the proposal. But there was no reference to the USA being about to enter the war or the Ambassador communicating the proposal to Mexico.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of forgery

There needs to be something adressing the allegations that the telegram was actually a forgery by British Intelligence to stir up USA opinion against Germany. -- Infrogmation 06:18 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence has already addressed that. By making it clear that its capture and decoding were an all US affair, he has implied that there is no way that it could be a British forgery. After all, according to the version of events in the article, not only did the UK have nothing to do with the decoding, it didn't even allow the telegram to be sent over its communication network.

Of course that doesn't rule out the possibility that the Marines forged it because they were annoyed at missing out on the Great War but that's another story (and hardly any more unlikely than the one in the current article)! -- Derek Ross 06:39 17 May 2003 (UTC)

This came up again just now; I thought that Zimmermann's own admission regarding the telegram settled any question that this was a British forgery. — Matt Crypto 09:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You know I remember hearing/reading that it was widely believed that the ZT was a hoax. In fact, I remember a college Western Civ Professor telling the class that "we now know" that it was fake, constructed to drag the US into the war. I did some quick seaching online, however, and cannot find any evidence to support the claim, nor any evidence of such a widely-held belief in the historical community. Anyone know better? Thelastemperor 17:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

German wanted to be a great power in the world and to do that you must be able to deal with other great powers. The Zimmerman Telegram was easily intercepted by the British and possibly it was meant to be discovered by the American. I'm proposing that instead of a fake the Germans used the note to become intangled with America. If by gaining Mexico's support, that was a plus. They would have used them as the USSR used Cuba against us.

--I have also been taught in my Western Civ course in college that this note was "most likely" a hoax. If there is truly a debate in the academic community, it should be reflected in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.118.236 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It can only be reflected in the article if you can cite sources to that effect, sources which can substantiate this. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia which deals with facts. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And if it was a hoax, you have to explain why Arthur Zimmermann, the German Foreign Secretary, admitted sending it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• As pointed out in Tuchman (Chapter 11) it was widely suspected of being a forgery even by Anglophone New Yorkers of the Round Table Dining Club - until Zimmermann himself confirmed it! So the Civics teachers above saying it is/may be a forgery are ignorant Hugo999 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's often cited as a forgery because it seems like such a bizarre plan with no chance of success. This is supported by the analysis that a Mexican general performed (according to the article). If Zimmermann admitted to writing it I don't see a point in further discussion, other than to speculate what the Germans were smoking. 151.203.226.138 (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Allegations that the undoubtedly true telegram was a hoax are now only believed by certain acedemics who think it clever to doubt everything, or sympathisers with movements hostile to the US. Some history of the belief, who held it and why, would add to the article. 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:B0C0:26F1:9A03:24CF (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Who is Zimmermann?

Who is Zimmermann? The article does not say, nor does it link to him. The only way I even know Zimmermann was a player in this story is the sentence that says he confirmed the telegram was authentic.

I realize this is probably common knowledge, but surely some people are as ignorant (or more) as me, and at the least the article should provide a link. Jdavidb 14:05, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

eh? it links to Arthur Zimmermann in the first sentence, surely? — Matt 14:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected. :) Jdavidb 22:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And so do I, Matt. Quite right to remove separate "see also" link I had added. Dieter Simon 00:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

inapt category

There's a problem with the propaganda category tag. The telegram was secret (or intended to be) between Mexico and Germany. So it was not intended to be propaganda in the sense of public opinion manipulation. What happened after it was decrypted and disclosed is sufficiently not the article's brief that propaganda doesn't apply there as well. And finally, is not truth a defense to the allegation of 'just propaganda'? Zimmerman publicly admitted, at the time, that it was his telegram. The Germans did not disclaim it; though one wonders why not, after all.

I suggest that this category tag be removed. ww 18:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It certainly changed public opinion; maybe you could argue that the US public was manipulated by the UK government? Is there a school of thought along those lines? "On February 24, 1917, U.S-German relations take a turn for the worst when British intelligence reveals the Zimmermann telegram—a communiqué sent by the German Foreign Ministry to the German ambassador in Mexico that allegedly exhorts an immediate German-Mexican military alliance against the United States (Nelson 38). All these facts were revealed to the American people after the end of the war, and this exposé only fueled their growing belief that the propaganda machinery of the Allied governments had duped them into fighting." — [1] — Matt 18:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Matt, We are dealing with will-o-the-wisps here. Yes, there is a school of thought along those lines. Nevertheless, consider:

You take a poke at me and miss. I return the poke at you and connect. You, or someone else, later claim my contact was unprovoked and thereby blacken my reputation. Have I been the victim of prop? I would think so as the claim would have been false in the Goebbels 'big lie' sense. Was it intended to do so? Probably as I can think of few other reasons to do so deliberately, although I suppose it could happen as an incident toward some other purpose -- as 'demonstrating' the ineffectiveness of British pugilism or the viciousness incident to US urban gang experience.

Not all allegations are deserving of equal weight and some are deserving of none whatsoever. Observers in this world are responsible for evaluating their input for bogosity, and when they fail to do so, I do not think one can claim prop has occured as a result of that failure. An after the fact claim that the Z tele was prop misses now (and missed then) the point that it was not only true but was then admitted to be so by the perp in this case. Your comment crystallizes my conviction that this was not an example of prop.

Now, whether the UK gov should have risked exposing its crypto expertise merely to make the enemy look bad is another question, not addressed in this article. In any case, not all strategms of war = prop. I'm going to remove it unless there is more discussion on point. Comment? ww 15:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that the most effective propaganda is that which uses the shocking truth. The reason that the Zimmerman Telegram made such good propaganda was that it was shocking; it said what the UK government claimed it did; and it was acknowledged as genuine by the German government. There was no need on the UK's part even to exaggerate. Having said that, people normally associate propaganda with lies or at the least exaggeration, so putting an article into that category seems to imply that it describes something untrue. For that reason I would hesitate to put this article into the category, although objectively I would agree that the telegram was the basis of a propaganda coup. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Derek, Yup, that's just about my point. ww 15:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should make it clear that this (ill-judged) move by the German Empire was only to promote a war between the US and Mexico in case the US entered the war. A backup plan in case the German effort to keep the US neutral failed. They made the offer at that point, because they knew resuming unrestricted U-Boat warfare probably did meant war with the US. 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:B0C0:26F1:9A03:24CF (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

frequency analysis citation dubious

Having just reread the article in full, I was struck by the claim that it was fa which Room 40 used (in part) to decrypt. Since this was a diplomatic code, fa would seem to be irrelevant. Does someone know specifically whether this was a code? If so, the fa comment will have to be corrected. ww 15:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes it was a code. However you can apply a form of frequecy analyisis to codes. At the most basic you can normaly work out wheather a code word is a noun or a verb etc by looking at the frequecy with wich the work apears in various parts of sentances. It's use is rather limited but it still has a place.Geni

I thought so! As for that use of the term, it's not the common cryptanalytic use. For what you describe, I seem to recall something like linguistic analysis or something. I'll make a change to reflect the common usage. ww 16:52, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

America upset about germans supporting a just cause?

I find it hilarious how yankees were upset about Germany offering to support the just cause of Mexico restoring its territorial integrity in face of 1846 US invasion. If America wanted safety logically they would hand back the occupied territories to Mexico and then the two countries would live in great friendship and ignorant of Germany. The ZM affair was only an excuse to find a way to make and way sell huge amounts of american industrial products, namely weapons for huge profit. 195.70.32.136 19:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Glad this nonsense is dealt with below. 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:B0C0:26F1:9A03:24CF (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the article. The above comment does not do that and would be better placed somewhere like Usenet. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a pedantic point: the US was already making huge profits off the war in Europe. America recieved a huge economic boom from shipping arms and other supplies to the warring parties. This wasn't at all clear-cut. Today, we take for granted that the US and Britain are "natural allies", but back in the beginning of the war this was by no means a foredrawn conclusion. A cynical, or realist, interpretation of America's entry into the war could be based around the fact that American economic interests DID eventually synchronize with the Allied cause. Britain, France, and Russia owed huge war debts, and the US stock market became increasingly tied to Allied success. American investors were "betting" on the war in effect. If the Allies lost it could be economically disasterous for America. This likely contributed a lot of pressure to America joining the war on the Allies' side. The sinking of the Luisitania didn't prompt America to action, though it did create public outrage and begin to mark a turning point in the way the Wilson Administration viewed Germany. Other clandestine activities being carried out by the Germans against America (sabotage, assymetrical attacks on ports and arms factories) probably contributed a good deal to a growing tendency to favor the Allies over the Central powers. So, if you're suggesting that the ZT was just a pretext, that could be plausible. But this must be taken into a broader context. The article itself should remain neutral as to NPOV protocols, but there is no reason not to discuss the varying interpretations and importance of historical events. I would only caution that such a view or statement in the article would need adequate sourcing and citation and must be made in the view of a particular historian or group of historians. Than that view or interpretation can be reported factually as one particular perspective. However, you have to be careful not to violate NPOV rules and the general neutrality of the article. It's a careful balance.Thelastemperor 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

With such an important subject, possibly the single most justification for influencing the American's into WWI, I think the emphasis should be on motivating further research and discussion, to improve the content of the article for all of us to better understand what actually happened... not stifling other's comments, because of personal reasons, or an esoteric line of thinking, because of drawn on interpertations, that might have been empirically wrong when the analysis was done in 1917. we are in the mess of Iraq today because of narrow minded thinking, let's keep Wikipedia open-minded DonDeigo 22:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Point out that the economic interests were created in an atmoshphere of sympathy by public with the Allies. On a realpolitik basis, it made more sense to back the German Empire; it makes strategic sense for both ends to attack the middle. But the public would not buy that, and investments had to take that into account. Economic determinists ignore such a lot. 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:B0C0:26F1:9A03:24CF (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I really am not into saying insulting things, but the above comment is loony. America did not steal any territory from Mexico (Britain, maybe, Spain, perhaps, Japan...hey, we were fighting WWII against them). Texas declared independance on its own, and then joined the U.S. (not that American soldiers did not fight too). A good chunk of New Mexico and Arizona was bought from Mexico with the Gasden purchase, and the Colorado to California area was handed over because they lost a war over Texas. If you want to consider that stealing, then both Mexico has stolen land from both Spain and the Aztec Empire, and the U.S. has stolen land from France, Spain, and England. That's not even counting the Native American tribes on both sides. Actually, most Americans wanted to stay out of the war, but there was a little thing called "unrestricted submarine warfare" that killed a lot of American citizens. Germany in fact based its ideas of the Zimmermann note's success on a little misunderstanding with Mexico (not the war, but something you might see on Fox News and go...oh...okay, its over). Besides, like the wiki article says, it would be difficult to subdue a large English-speaking population in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, and California. The Germans did not hope the Mexicans would win, but would distract the U.S. for a few more months until Russia surrendered and they could wallop the western front. In short, war changes national boundaries. I'm not saying its right, but if we consider the terms of surrender stealing, then that is just getting loony (except for the Treaty of Versailles, that was a different ballpark altogether). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Please note, I did some digging, and it turns out that the war was fought over Mexico refusing to recognize Texas, and over Texas becoming a republic, and then joining the U.S. While that was the primary reason, there were some land-grabbers and war-hawks who though a war with Mexico could give them more territory." Metalraptor (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The US action against Mexico was most certainly a case of one power conspiring to "steal territory" from another power -- although the "state" of Texas declared its independence, it did so with a fair amount of support and agitation from the US government. The population that declared this "independence" was a mostly White (USA) settler population...that squatted on the territory and then declared it to be a free state...and then ten years later absorbed it as a new part of the USA. The war with Mexico in the 1840s was designed to take more Mexican territory. The US govt. unceasingly chose to increase its land holdings -- at first refusing to recognize the fuzzy boundaries of the first treaty of independence with Britain, then attacking Canada in the war of 1812, then encouraging Texan independence, then absorbing Texas and attacking Mexico directly. The Gadsen Purchase was a small border correction to make the river the border -- it certainly is not true that the US paid for its takings. In fact, the US seized territories from Mexico that are larger in area than the current rump state of Mexico as it exists today. To the person who said that war changes borders -- historically that is true. And aggressive war was not considered a "war crime" until after WW 1. The war with Mexico -- if it happened today -- would be overturned by the UN and any such territories seized would be considered as illegal occupation (re: Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq invasion of Kuwait, etc.) Winners impose losses on the losers (in war) and the current world power structure is designed to keep the current boundaries of all nations intact at all costs -- whether they make sense or not. Even regions that declare their own independence (such as northern Mali) are to be quashed, unless they get the blessing of the UN first (as in South Sudan). For the first time in history, national borders are to be unchanged by war. To tie this to the article...what was shocking about the ZT is not that Mexico might win territory back...as territory in the New World changed hands all the time...but that the Germans were saying that the USA was to *lose* territory -- which had not (and has not) ever happened. It was a rude awakening to Realpolitik 66.19.84.4 (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)chesspride

Egregious, anti-US, misrepresentations of the Texan cause like this (‘Squatters’? They had been invited to settle, under the conditions and liberties of the Constitution of 1824, suspended by the Dictator Santa Ana, which caused revolts in several Mexican provinces) should be in the Mexican War article talk. 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:B0C0:26F1:9A03:24CF (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

aka The Zimmermann Note

I just added that it can also be called the Zimmermann Note. I'm learning about this in History class and that's what my textbook refers to it as.

"Nggnpx ng qnja" baffles Yanks

The Germans were not afraid of using it because the messages were encrypted, because as a matter of principle the United States did not at that time read other countries' diplomatic correspondence and because, unlike Britain, the US did not have any code-breaking capability.

Aside from the fact that this ugly run-on sentence needs rewording, is it really true that the US did not have any code-breaking capability? Not even rudimentary/"borrowed" technology? I find that a little hard to believe. Maybe this sentence is trying to say that the British already had (invaluable) experience with deciphering encrypted German messages, while the US had none? That's not quite the same thing. 82.92.119.11 21:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Back in those days, code-breaking technology was brains and a card file, regardless of who was doing it. But yes, I believe the sentence is trying to assert that the US had no codebreaking experience at that point (we might like to find a source to check that). Mind you, Room 40 was only a couple of years old in January 1917; before that, the British government had had no sigint organisation for some time. — Matt Crypto 00:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The page on William Friedman points out that there was some codebreaking done in "Colonel" Fabyan's Riverbank Laboratories in Geneva, Illinois (how about an article on the lab?), even if largely on Shakespeare's plays, at that time Hugo999 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Britain had all 3 intercepts?

The article stated that Britain had only intercepted and decoded one of the three channels used by Germany. I jus finished Tuchman where I believe it stated that they had all three

• Tuchman (in my opinion) is one of the US's best historians, and I find it astonishing that the article doesn't even refer to her excellent 1958 book, The Zimmermann Telegram. She does indeed believe - and give evidence for - the British interception of all the three channels used to send the Telegram. It would be nonsense to say (as the currrent article does) that she was sticking to this story to keep Room 40 secret: her book is about Room 40. It's also surprising that the Article fails to mention the (false) denials from the Mexican government, nor the follow-up telegram sent by Zimmermann to Eckhardt, telling him not to wait for the US to enter the war. It's an inadequate article and I will try to add a few more comments from Tuchman's book.Thomas Peardew (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Code used

It would be nice to have a description of the code that was used (and, ideally, how it was broken). Was it a simple word-substitution code?

Tuchman says the original text intercepted was not in "Cipher 0075" (??) but in Code 13042 a variant of Code 13040 the German diplomatic code (which they arrogantly continued to use, thinking it could not be broken). It was a word-substitution eg 5905 = Krieg = War, and at the end 97556 = Zimmermann; see the telegram at end of Tuchman. The code-book had been obtained both from the Middle East adventurer Wassmuss and from the German cruiser Magdeburg. The original telegram seems to have been from intercepting the German Radio Station Nauen, though later the versions sent via Sweden and via American diplomatic facilities over cable were obtained - as well as the version sent from America to Mexico via Western Union Hugo999 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Zionist agents

The discussion of how the British got the information and disclosed it to the Americans without revealing their sources is interesting, but mentions Zionist agents without any explanation, which sets off my Kook Detector. I am not qualified to assess the accuracy of this stuff, but it seems like it needs (at a minimum) sound sourcing and clearer explanation. Aaron D. Ball 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It all looks pretty speculative to me and the only citation at the moment seems to be a website... -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Further agreed. This talk of "Zionist agents" sounds like a conspiracy theory straight from some loon website. As far as I'm aware no claims of Jewish involvement were made either in WWI or in the Weimar period, even by the Nazis. Norvo 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

An explanation is provided for the reference to Zionists. The theory appears to be that Britain offered to support the Zionist cause in exchange for Zionist aid in bringing the USA into the war - support which was then supposedly manifested in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

(Hey, I didn't say it was a good explanation.)

Given the absence of any indication that this theory actually has any credibility, and given the presence of much weaselling in the discussion of it, I have tried to improve things for now by separating it from the historical part of the article, cutting it down to a summary, and identifying by name the single person that I am able to verify actually believes in this. — Haeleth Talk 20:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

States mentioned in the telegram

The image of the telegram mentions only that Mexico was to get territory back in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, yet the text adds California, Nevada, Utah, etc. Are these extra states from another source or a previous version of the intercept? The text should either omit the extra states or clarify from where their inclusion comes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.121.90.6 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Who is Sir Thomas Hohler?

Alright, if Thomas Hohler was the Ambassador to Mexico at the time, should he be added to List of Ambassadors from the United Kingdom to Mexico? - Eric 05:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, not every country got a full Ambassador at the time and his title was "Charge d'Afairs" or something. I'm the guy who read his (now out of print) autobiography and it's high on personal recolections and rather lower on the background. John Kingston 82.24.189.160 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't buy it…

That the ZT was the real reason the U.S. entered the war. If, as the article states, the Mexican military concluded it would be completely unfeasible to attack the U.S., presumably the American government would have been of a similar opinion (not that unrealistic invasions are never launched, but if the U.S. took the threat seriously did she at any point move troops to the Texan border with Mexico as a precaution? Something tells me no.)

I realize this is expanding the discussion beyond the simple historical facts of the ZT itself, but (relevant) context seems to me to be something Wikipedia should not, in moderation, shy away from. Perhaps a short paragraph could be added describing controversy about whether the ZT was the "reason" as opposed to a pretext? Critic9328 (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the ZT was "the straw that broke the camel's back". No one sensible would argue that it was the sole reason. The sinking of the Lusitania was probably more important. For other important causes which contributed to the decision to join the war see Wiki Answers -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that it was a hostile act against the US by Germany, not whether mexico represented any real threat. Sandpiper (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Plaintext discrepancies

In the section 'The Telegram', the plaintext message is not coherent with the plaintext in the image under the section 'British interception'. Why is this? There is no reference for the plaintext message in 'The Telegram' either. I think the plaintext message in 'The Telegram' should be changed to reflect the message in the aforementioned image. --F Notebook (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that the telegram was originally written in German. The two plaintext messages given are translations into English. The translation associated with the image still retains the German word order and idiom in some places. The translation in the article has been put into better English. However both translations have the same meaning as anyone can verify by reading them both side-by-side. I don't think that it matters but if you want to make the change, feel free. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation and patience, Derek Ross. If the difference is not significant and the translations are, as you have said, both valid, then it seems that it is not necessary to make a change. --F Notebook (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. You're welcome. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Room 40

Hi Canderson7, you are absolutely right, Room 40 was indeed part of the set up at the Admiralty. Have sourced this in the article. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not going crazy. Thanks for adding the reference. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: US Declares War against Germany Section

The second paragraph of this section is riddled with citation needed flags. The contributor that added this information is attempting to make the point that it was not only the telegram that pushed the US into the war. Instead of having this long explaination, I think it would be dubious to simply quote Katherine Bailey under this section by stating that "“historians remain divided of whether the United States would have entered the war had the Zimmermann Telegraph not been sent.”

Bailey, Katherine. “The Zimmermann Telegraph.” British Heritage. 20.3 (1999): 15

With that in mind, I removed this:

"The Telegram was not an isolated case of German-Mexican collaboration. The Germans had engaged in a pattern of actively arming, funding and advising the Mexicans, as shown by the 1914 SS Ypiranga arms-shipping incident, and German advisors present during the 1918 Battle of Ambos Nogales. The German Naval Intelligence officer Franz von Rintelen had coordinated a 1915 plan to restore the exiled Victoriano Huerta to the Mexican presidency; Huerta and large caches of arms were intercepted by U.S. operatives near El Paso in June 1915. The German saboteur Lothar Witzke, responsible for the March 1917 munitions explosion at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in the Bay Area, and possibly responsible for the July 1916 Black Tom explosion in New Jersey, was based in Mexico City. According to the U.S. Senate testimony of intelligence officer Paul Altendorf, who was undercover with the U.S. Military Intelligence Corps from 1917 through April 1919, President Carranza had aided Witzke. According to Altendorf, Carranza had also approved a plan for an army of 45,000 men, funded by ambassador von Eckardt and trained by German reservists, to march against the U.S. in 1918. "

and left out this:

"Nor was the Telegram the only reason for the U.S. declaration of war. Previously, German U-boats had sunk U.S. ships or ships which carried U.S. citizens, of which the best-known was the RMS Lusitania, torpedoed off the coast of Ireland in May 1915. The RMS Lusitania was, however, flying the flag of a belligerent nation (the United Kingdom) and was sailing through a war zone, and the Germans previously had given warning of the inadvisability of travelling on such ships. Adhering to the view that citizens of neutral nations had the right to sail on such ships regardless, the U.S., under the leadership of President Wilson, ignored such warnings. U.S. ships sunk, less well known, were the SS Housatonic in February 1917 in the Bay of Biscay, and the SS California off the Irish coast."

Both are well-intentioned efforts to put the Note in context. This belongs on "U.S. entry into WW1", or someplace, not here. I'm also deleting this:

"Once the American public believed the Telegram to be real, it was all but inevitable that the U.S. would join the Great War."

It was hardly inevitable. Moreover, it wasn't the public whose opinion mattered, but Congress's, for it was Congress which would be making the decision on war. (The same mistake is made about entry into WW2, exhaustively argued here... That the President declares war, or that the public actually has a say, is a persistent fiction.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

References

The sabotage issue never should have been removed. Your own references say the sabotage issue was important in Mexico's own considerations, as so do many the Spanish language Mexican academic works on it. It was also obviously important in the context of US-Mexican relations since several acts, including a major one, were organized by German agents headquartered in Mexico.

Secondly public opinion was very important in the US entry into WWI as were Wilson's views. The US presidency has a lot input into the use of military force as well as positioning as a neutral. Please see Wikipedia general articles on US entry into the war and on Wilson. Explainador (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Green colors

Am I just being retarded, or is my monitor calibrated poorly, or what? Because I see only 2 different greens in the picture, dark and medium. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 07:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

telegram code was not from Magdeburg

The article currently states:'The British code breakers were able to decipher the German code thanks to codebooks seized early in the war from the SMS Magdeburg in a battle in the Gulf of Finland.[4][5]'

No, it wasnt. See detail In [Room 40], but the Magdebeurg SKM codebook was a code made up of groups of three letters. The picture of a partial decode here shows groups of five numbers. This was the format of the VB code, a copy of which was recovered from a sunk destroyer. It still might not be exactly that same code, but it certainly isnt the one recoverd form Magdeburg. Sandpiper (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Germany and Mexico

Germany's close ties to Mexico are essential to understand why the proposal made sense to berlin in the first place. Therefore I suggest we KEEP:

"The Telegram was not an isolated case of German-Mexican collaboration.[1] The Germans had engaged in a pattern of actively arming, funding and advising the Mexicans, as shown by the 1914 SS Ypiranga arms-shipping incident, and German advisors present during the 1918 Battle of Ambos Nogales. The German Naval Intelligence officer Franz von Rintelen had coordinated a 1915 plan to restore the exiled Victoriano Huerta to the Mexican presidency; Huerta and large caches of arms were intercepted by U.S. operatives near El Paso in June 1915. The German saboteur Lothar Witzke, responsible for the March 1917 munitions explosion at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in the Bay Area,[2] and possibly responsible for the July 1916 Black Tom explosion in New Jersey, was based in Mexico City. According to the U.S. Senate testimony of intelligence officer Paul Altendorf, who was undercover with the U.S. Military Intelligence Corps from 1917 through April 1919, President Carranza had aided Witzke. According to Altendorf, Carranza had also approved a plan for an army of 45,000 men, funded by ambassador von Eckardt and trained by German reservists, to march against the U.S. in 1918.[3] " Rjensen (talk)

Why it did, or didn't, make sense are a part of German-Mexican & German-American relations at the time, of German grand strategy of WW1, & of Anglo-American & Franco-American relations at the time, not of the Telegram itself. It's also part of the reasoning for the U.S. declaration of war. Link to one of those topics if you want (actually, all of them, in the "see also", would be a good idea), but it's off-topic here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Note was one of a series of attempts over several years by Germany to incite a war between the United States and Mexico; those efforts are essential to understand why the Zimmerman note was written in the first place. While it was only one of several attempts, of course it was the only one known at the time. Historians have reconstructed the others, and their work makes it possible to understand why Germany acted as it did. Katz covers the ground very well, and I have summarized it with citations. This context is essential, otherwise the article is mostly about British decoding operations, and Wiki must cover the diplomatic reality of what was happening.Rjensen (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Need to put the Paragraph in - The above is very relevant as it describes the German-Mexican collaboration which the Telegram was part of. There is nothing mentioned about American-Franco relations in the above. The above paragraph puts the Telegram into context, rather than a stand alone document. It is also adds an informative background to the document which increases the historical importance of the document. Lets put it back in, and edit it if needed. Dinkytown talk 21:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If the page was about German-Mexican or German-American relations, or about the U.S. entry into WW1, or about German grand strategy in WW1 (where it might best be placed), I'd agree. It's not. Details about sabotage & restoring Huerta are not about the Telegram, they're about German efforts to distract the U.S.: about the broader issue. Put it on the WW1 page. Put it in a "U.S.-Germany & WW1" page. Put it on Grand strategy of Germany in WW1. Just don't put it here, because here, it's irrelevant. If you want context, a line or two about it being part of German effort to distract U.S. attention from the war, & divert U.S. aid to Britain & France, will do nicely; as it is, the amount of detail is excessive. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a page about the meaning and importance of the Zimmerman Telegram--and as books like Tuchman's and Katz's point out, it was a serious matter indeed. I have issued a 3R warning to TREKphiler for his repeated erasures of solid information that is not in any way controversial, and which explains why the Germans made the decision to invite Mexico to war, --that is, why the Zimmerman Telegram was issued in the first place. I notice that TREKphiler has shown no interest in topics like German-Mexican relations which suggests his advice regarding those topics is not meant seriously. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[ex rjensen talk page] I don't need you "warning" me about 3RR, & if you read my comments on the talk page, you'll see why I think it's needless. As for "sourced", that's not a defense for leaving in needless garbage. You want to make threats, do it somewhere else. I'm not impressed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who delibefrately and repeatedly blanks the work of other editors giving meaningless explanations needs a warning to stop this edit war--which consists not of contesting the truth of information but of deleting non-controversial information added by three other editors. One has a very narrow view of the Zimmerman telegram if one cannot see that it involved the relations between Germany and Mexico regarding the US--that was the substance of it and it why Germany sent it is an important point indeed. Leaving out why Germany did it keeps the readers in the dark. Talk about nonexistent articles is a red herring--and the lack of any RS to support your position is indicative of reckless blanking Rjensen (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

♠"Anyone who delibefrately and repeatedly blanks the work of other editors giving meaningless explanations" And anyone who considers a content dispute "vandalism" needs to get a grip. You appear to want to discourage actual discussion by making threats. I've stated my position.

♠Maybe you'd care to explain why so much detail not related to the Telegram is so essential? This page is not a history of German-Mexican relations, no matter what you think.

♠And perhaps you'd like to point out what part of my reasons are "meaningless"? Or is that "vandalism", too? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:15 & 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What's meaningless? well this statement for example, which is based on nonexistent artciles: Put it in a "U.S.-Germany & WW1" page. Put it on Grand strategy of Germany in WW1. As for vandalism, the deliberate blanking of sourced material is vandalism--the material explains why Germany sent the Zimmerman telegram, a point that TREKphiler completely ignores. And let's add arrogance: "no matter what you think" or "the amount of detail is excessive" (talking about a few sentences), and "needs to get a grip" as a defense of blanking the edits of three other editors. TREKphiler is uninterested in Mexico, and so he should stand aside and let people who are inte4rested add to the article. He is free to skip over matefrial he finds boring. Perhaps the problem is that TREKphiler thinks the telegram was merely a coded message with no history and no context. None of the RS agree with him, and he has not produced a single RS in any case. It suggests he has never read Katz, for example. Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"TREKphiler thinks the telegram was merely a coded message with no history and no context" The problem is your definition of "context". I don't find such a detailed coverage of Germany's reasons useful on this page, whatever the sources say. Take a look at the page title. Is it "Reasons Germany wanted Mexico at war with the U.S."? Is it "German grand strategy in WW1"? Is it "German-Mexican relations in 1917"? It is none of those, & so much detail on a page not expressly dedicated to those issues strikes me as OT, regardless what the sources say. Since I appear to be in a minority, & since any changes by me, of any nature whatever, will be characterized "vandalism" (I suppose the Tuchman ref qualifies, too, hmm...?), you may do what you please. I will have nothing further to do with it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC) (P.S. Go ahead & report my "incivility", too, while you're at it.)

This is not a "detailed coverage of German-Mexican relations." It is a followup and context of the Telegram - that's all. The Note is one of several communications between the two, and the paragraph is adding context to the event. I can't see how this could be "excessive". I re-inserted the paragraph as a post-script. Dinkytown talk 04:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The revelation angered the Americans

Are we children site? Ogomemnon (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

Just a heads up - I'm planning to do a near-total rewrite of this article in advance of nominating it as a featured article candidate. I'm currently doing the rewrite at user:Raul654/Z. Raul654 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

looks interesting. Drop the long footnote on Doughboys--WWI is a huge story & this is a small part. Needs better coverage of American & Mexican responses....keep in mind that the decoding business is a small part of the story, which is that Germany sought a military alliance with Mexico to war against the US. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The rough layout I'm planning is:

• Background
  • The war - (nearly finished - a general description of the status of the war at the time the Zimmerman telegram was sent)
  • Mexico and Japan - A description of why Germany would want to ally with Mexico and Japan. Tuchman's The Zimmerman Telegram has two chapters in her book about this that I'm going to be using.
• Decryption efforts - the transmission, interception, and decryption of the note, as described in Kahn's The Codebreakers and possibly in Tuchman's as well (I haven't finished Tuchman's book yet)
• Spycraft - how and why the note was stolen from Mexico versus actual publication of the intercepted transmission.
• Publication and reaction

Some of this is almost certainly going to change as I finish writing the draft, but that's the game plan right now. Raul654 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You should have read Tuchman first, then Kahn. One should always read original source docs in sequence of when written. You have some facts wrong.12voltlighting (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

suggest dropping background section on the war. the issue was US debate on entering the war. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A proper description of the telegram and its importance requires us to put it into context. If the reader doesn't know how bad the situation was at the front, or how it was the latest in a string of German provocations to the United States, or why the German made use of lines of communication that the Allies could listen in on, then their understanding of the telegram will be substantially incomplete. Raul654 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

happily we have an entire article that covers the war. link to it. Rjensen (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New edits

I dropped some misleading and incorrect information. 1) "an act which German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg feared would draw the neutral U.S. into war" The Chancellor did think that but his views were irrelevant--he did not make decisions on military or war issues; including his views seriously misleads the reader. Hindenburg & the General Staff did and they thought it would indeed lead to war. 2) "He was to offer Mexico material aid in the reclamation of territory lost during the Mexican–American War (the Southeastern section of the area of the Mexican Cession of 1848) and the Gadsden Purchase, specifically of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona." No. first of all Mexico was to go to war with the US with German money & supplies. Second, if the war was won, Mexico would get back lost territories. The note said "Texas New Mexico and Arizona" -- the editor's speculation about about "[Mexican–American War]] (the Southeastern section of the area of the Mexican Cession of 1848) and the Gadsden Purchase" was not in the note and should not be in the article. 3) the Note said "Japan" it did not say the "Japanese Empire". Rjensen (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What Anglos can't understand

It was at that point of time apparent that US could be involved into the war. Actually, they supported UK and were playing games with the German defence. These incidence provoking tactics are common idiosyncracy of Anglos we've seen all over. The telegram says that Germany intended to keep US neutral. If that wasn't possible, they had to deal with US and hence they hoped for Mexican involvement. That's just a natural reaction. How should Germany at that time when facing possible defeat and being outnumbered by far think about starting an additional war against the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.141.119 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think "Anglos can't understand". Yes, Anglos understand that at the time of this telegram, the U.S. was already on the brink of officially entering WWI; our sympathies obviously were with the British. (The same thing happened in WWII before Pearl Harbor.) Germany knew their last, best chance to win was to resume all-out submarine warfare; though they wanted the U.S. to be neutral, they also knew this would more than likely push us over the brink. Thus they wanted Mexico in to distract the U.S. if they went to war, so they threw in the "lost territory" as bait; but it appears the offer wasn't fully thought thru as Mexico's entire "lost territory" (Texas' pre-1850 boundaries as claimed by the Republic of Texas, the Mexican Cession, and the Gadsden Purchase) covered all or part of 7 other states besides Arizona, New Mexico & Texas. (Odds are we'll never know why Germany picked only those three states.) As it turned out, it was the "lost territory" promise itself that pushed the U.S. into war; we saw it not only as an act of war AND a violation of the Monroe Doctrine (in its original form, not the Roosevelt Corollary Latin Americans associate it with) by imposing European influence on the Americas, but also as Germany trying to create an Alsace-Lorraine in North America. (Alsace-Lorraine was a likely subtext behind the Statue of Liberty, as its sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi was originally from Alsace.) If anything, we probably thought a quick U.S. entry into the war would keep Germany from helping Mexico, which everyone knew was the only way Mexico could possibly reclaim its "lost territory". --RBBrittain (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Added link to Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States

I added a link in the "See also" section to the article on Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States. Those were plans ordered by the German Kaiser during the period 1897-1903 for an invasion of the United States. The purpose was not to take over the United States, but to force the United States to acquiesce in Germany's establishment of naval bases in Cuba and/or Puerto Rico and colonies in mainland Latin America. The plans did not become public until 2002, when a researcher discovered them in a German military archives. That article contributes a context for understanding to the Zimmermann Telegram from the point of view of Imperial Germany. We will never know if the U.S. Government had information about these plans during the 1897-1903 time period. The first version of the plans were, however, made obsolete by the Spanish-American War of 1898. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

There was some pubic knowledge, or rumor, of the plans. H.G. Wells starts his ‘War in the Air’ with a German Zepplin attack on New York. 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:B0C0:26F1:9A03:24CF (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

ABC Nations (Argentina, Brazil, Chile)

It is no mystery, the ABC nations that offered to negotiate between Mexico (Huerta) and the USA after Veracruz are simply: Argentina, Brazil and Chile (ABC) at least according to Barbara Tuchman's "The Zimmerman Telegram" last page of Ch. 3. But it was too late for Huerta who was ousted by Carranza; but Huerta did manage to sail into exile aboard the German cruiser Dresden on July 17. Just prior to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.12voltlighting (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The editor Rjensen have just erase important information written by an anonymous editor that is well documented in books. The anonymous writer included information about the effects of the Ziemmermann telegram in Mexico, and this information cannot be deleted because it is well documented and one must present all the historical facts, not only those that are relevant to us.

It is not the same to say that Germany's promises of "generous financial support" were far too good to be true; that to say that the German government had already accepted in June 1916 that they could not give gold to Carranza to stock a completely independent Mexican national back.[[2]] If Germany could not give gold in June 1916, only a fool would believe promises of "generous financial support".

It is not the same to say that the ABC nations help to keep the peace between Mexico and the USA; than to say that The so called ABC nations held the Niagara Falls peace conference in 1914 to avoid a full-war between the US and Mexico over the United States occupation of Veracruz. Specially when this military invasion was one of the mean reasons for keeping Mexican neutrality in WWI.[[3]]

If this article is about the Zimmermann telegram, we have to say it pushed the USA to de jure recognize Carranza government in August 1917 in order to ensure Mexican Neutrality.[[4]] It is a related fact.

I suppose that Rjensen wants to present the Ziemmermann telegram affair as an even when Carranza only received the telegrama and say no. Nevertheless, the historical references tell the reality. Caranza was able to negotiate the best results from the US and German, because both of them recognized de jure Carranza Government. Carranza was selling oils to both, Germany and the US. And even when Carranza did not receive the "generous financial support" for declaring the war to the US, Mexico receive a really generous financial support from the German companies that kept their operations open in Mexico. [[5]]

When we write a historial article, we have to write all the historical facts supported by solid bibliographic references, specially books, we cannot hide the facts that we do not like. --201.141.72.137 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove the part about Mexico having no way to import arms? Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the US was not the only main weapon producer in the Americas, several companies in the ABC nations were producing a lot of weapons at that time, specially in Argentina. For example by 1901, the GDP of Argentina had raised to the 10th place ahead of Germany, Austria and France. I will add a statement on it.

By the way, the book Threats of Intervention: U. S.-Mexican Relations, 1917-1923 [[6]] gives a very nice review of how Mexico negotiated the best position possible between the UK, USA and Germany (the Reich and the Weimar republic). Until the Hyperinflation destroyed the German economy in 1921 and Mexico was again alone and had to sign the Bucareli agreements, by which Mexico agreed to not produce weapons in an industrial way. Moreover, Mexico negotiated again the best position possible between the UK, USA and Germany just before the WWII. For example, he nationalized the oil industry in 1938, knowing that the UK and USA would not go into a war with him and Germany at the same time.

--148.247.186.142 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, even if the Argentinian companies did not produce enough weapons, they could easily buy weapons from everywhere (even from the US) and sell them to Mexico. This is a very common business procedure in the war. For example, along WWI the USA was happily commercializing good with "Casa Boker", a German company based in the neutral Mexico.[[7]]

--148.247.186.142 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Germany could not waste its gold on a neutral country in 1916 but it could promise gold in 1917 to a military ally (it supported all its allies that way). Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Even so, that does not imply that: Mexico could not possibly use any "generous financial support" to buy the arms, ammunition, or other war supplies for the very reason that the U.S. was the only sizable arms manufacturer in the Americas. To make matters worse, Germany could not be counted on to supply Mexico with war supplies directly, as the British Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic shipping lanes.

As the editor 148.247.186.142 has pointed out, Mexico could buy weapons produced in Argentina, or use the Argentinian companies as intermediaries. Moreover, as the same editor also pointed out, the 75% of the fuel used by the British Royal Navy in 1917 was produced in Mexico. Hence, without fuel the British Royal Navy could not control the Atlantic shipping lanes at all. Actually, it is not a coincidence that the UK took Persia in the partition of the Ottoman empire of 1918, considering the fact that the Anglo-Persian oil company was founded there in 1908; and the UK had learnt the lesson: it is really dangerous to depend exclusively on the oil produced in only one foreign country. Well, they learnt the lesson until the oil crisis of 1973. Finally, let us also recall that the US made plans in 1917-1918 for invading Mexico and taking control of Tampico oil fields, but the US also calculated that Mexicans would set in fire the oil fields before they could arrive there; the classical scorched earth technique applied by the Russians against Napoleon and Hitler.

Usually people does not take into consideration that Mexico had a super-weapon in 1917: the oil fields, because mass production of oil in Saudi Arabia began until 1945.--189.203.69.72 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mexico in 1917 was in a helpless profoundly divided position and was incapable of fighting any war with any weapons. A war with the US would have helped Germany by diverting US attention. Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Mexico was in the middle of the civil war (the Mexican Revolution) and he was completely unable to fight a war against the USA. So far so good, but even in the middle of the civil war, the petroleum companies continued producing oil in Mexico. By 1917 Mexico was producing 55 million barrels [[8]] and there were three main petroleum producers in the world: USA, Russia, and Mexico [[9]]. Moreover, Mexico only have to set in fire the oil fields in order to disrupt the production. If not, why did the New York Times complain on March 15 and April 12, 1917, that Mexico did not want to exporte oil for the British fleet [[10]]? Even when Mexico was not able to fight a war against the USA, Carranza played his cards in 1917, including the petroleum card, and he played them very well. --189.203.69.72 (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Entente Powers

Closing down discussion started by banned HarveyCarter, per WP:DENY. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The fact that the United States did not officially join the Entente Powers is irrelevant. The US had clearly sided with Britain and France from the beginning of World War I, and America's entry into the war ensured that the Entente Powers would win. (ErichAldofer (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)) The article is only about the Zimmermann Telegram and it makes no such assumptions. In fact the Germans expected to win even if the US did enter the war. Rjensen (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Germany never had any chance of winning the war because the Entente Powers had far more resources and men, even without US involvement. (ErichAldofer (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)) that's not true. It might have won in 1914 and again in early 1918 -- and in any case it believed it could and acted in that way. That's why it rejected peace proposals. Rjensen (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Germany could not have defeated the forces of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, British India, South Africa, Newfoundland etc, even if it had defeated France and Russia. That is why the entry of the US merely confirmed the inevitable victory of the Entente Powers. (ErichAldofer (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)) New Zealand?? How about Montenegro? Germany wanted to control Europe not the South Pacific. to do that it had to defeat Russia (done) and France (almost). Historians are pretty well agreed on that. Rjensen (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Germany could have defeated France and Russia, but not the full resources of the British Empire. (ErichAldofer (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)) The British Empire only had a navy, and the dominions were all quite weak. the British war goal was to PREVENT German control of continental Europe. If it failed the war is over. (ie German control of Russia, France, Belgium, Italy and all the little countries). Rjensen (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC) The British and Empire forces defeated the German Hundred Days' Offensive, and then successfully counterattacked, before Amrican troops could arrive on the Western Front in sufficient numbers. Germany's two allies Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were already on the verge of collapse when the US declared war. (ErichAldofer (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)) go easy on the British Empire claims (only Canada played much of a role--the others had big defeats at Gallipoli and Kut). Yes the Brits & French held in March 1918. Historians agree it was close then and even closer in 1914 to as German victory. Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Central Powers, not Germany

Closing down discussion started by banned HarveyCarter, per WP:DENY. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mexico was being invited to join the Central Powers, not just form an alliance with Germany. Zimmermann used the term "Germany" in the telegram because the German government decided the entire foreign policy of Germany and its allies from 1914 to 1918. Turkey, Bulgaria and Austro-Hungary were weak countries that were entirely dependent on our help against Britain and Russia. (ErichMilhoffer (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)) No historian says Mexico was being asked to join the Central Powers. The telegram and the discussions about it make no mention of Austria, Turkey etc. There is no evidence that Berlin decided the policies of Vienna (which in fact had independent peace feelers out.) Indeed no one says Berlin even told Vienna about the proposal to Mexico. ErichMilhoffer simply has no reliable sources for his original claims and most important he distorts the meaning of the telegram. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Mexico was being asked to join the Central Powers in the same way that the Empire of Japan was part of the Entente Powers, ie not directly involved in the fighting in Europe. All of the Austro-Hungarian Empire's foreign policy was decided by Berlin as the Austrians never had any success at all against Russia or Italy until Germany intervened. (ErichMilhoffer (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)) Nope. ErichMilhoffer made that up -- none of the scholars say that. Austria had its own policies and was not consulted on the Telegram. Austria did not have a fight to pick with the US and the new emperor had already started negotiations for a separate peace--see Georges de. Mantayer, Austria's Peace Offer, 1916-1917. Emperor Karl negotiated with Allies without telling Berlin says Tucker, Spencer C. (2013). The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia. p. 550. The Z Telegram said "GERMANY" which point is obfuscated. Rjensen (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Which date format is best for this article?

This article covers an event that occurred which was instrumental in bringing the U.S. into the Great War. With that having been said, the dates throughout the article are written in European style format. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this style, but per MOS:TIES, shouldn't this be written in U.S. format? I propose switching the date format to U.S. style (ex: January 1, 2017). Of course, I value a discussion. Thoughts, anyone? Blinkfan (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Realized

Change "Wilson realized" to "Wilson was convinced". In the "effect" section, paragraph two. -Inowen (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC) And what "German and Mexican diplomats" say belongs at the front of the article, not at the rear. -Inowen (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)