What was the point of the Zimmerman telegram? I mean, even if

All the european powers were pretty much making requests and promises out of their ass during the war.

>>774383

I'm not even talking about the impossibility of the Germans offering meaningful aid; I'm talking about the fact that from the German point of view, Mexico's aid is worth less than the likely cost in terms of angering the U.S. you have in obtaining it.

Why even ask at this point?

>>774375
If the US gets involved in the war Mexico can distract them in North America so Germany doesn't need to deal with ten million American troops on the front lines and can still potentially kick France and Britain's shit in

>>774417
But America had literally JUST SPENT 2 years operating in Mexico. They got so angry over a fucking bandit they sent troops across the border and effectively occupied the northern parts of the country. Mexico was powerless to stop them, and was powerless to stop the American Navy from occupying Veracruz.

What on EARTH could Mexico have done to be enough of a threat to the US to distract them from Europe?

>>774456
Exist on the southern border of the country when Europe is 3,000 miles away.

>>774478
>in the midst of being ravaged by a civil war
>powerless to stop the US from invading anytime it wishes

We haven't even gotten into how dumb of an idea it would have been for Mexico to take part in the first place.

>>774456

While USA is buttfucking Mexico it buys Germany time to secure Europe. Then push for peace with USA and "sorry Mexico I really had no idea you would get fucked gg no re" or something similar.

>>774495
Point is that Mexico in 1917 was so powerless it wouldn't have diverted American attention for longer than about a month.

>>774504
And you don't seem to understand that time to knock France and Britain out of the war would be so crucial if America declared war that one month is worth it.

>>774491
And it's still directly on the border of the US which means the US would NEED to divert resources to Mexico that can't bother Germany in Europe
Are you really so stupid that you don't get it?

>>774515
But by the time America entered the war Germany wasn't in any position to do that. At the best they would have just delayed their downfall through the winter of 1918...and then just fallen to the planned 1919 Spring Offensives.

>>774520
Are you really so stupid to not see how little the US would have to divert? If we were talking a theoretical neutral Canada that would be one thing, but Mexico was fucking powerless during WW1. If anything this would just give the various state militia something to do during WW1 instead of them just sitting on their asses doing nothing.

>>774528
Did you just argue Germany fought the war with the intention to lose?

>>774536
What's your point? No help at all is better than only a little help?

>>774541
He's saying that by that point the war was basically over. I'm wondering if the Germans simply weren't aware of how much Mexico had gotten their shit pushed in very recently.

>>774547

Not him, but I think his point is that when you balance it against as to how little help Mexico would be, the risk of angering the U.S. by asking for that help in the first place means that asking for the Mexicans' help is quite literally worse than doing nothing.

>>774541
No, I'm saying by the time the Zimmermann Telegram was sent Germany was no longer capable of winning the war.

>>774375
What is that on his face?

>>774528
>>774536
I don't think you fully appreciate how effective a guerrilla campaign can be. The time we spent in Mexico chasing Poncho Villa was essentially a counterinsurgency operation. We wanted to put a stop to the mexican bandits so they wouldn't grow into a larger movement and begin causing suffering and destruction to American towns on the border. Were they ever going to be an existential threat to the US? Highly doubtful, but the US government still isn't just going to let ants keeping biting its toes. The Zimmerman Telegram was Germany basically asking Mexico to support more Poncho Villa-type guerilla attacks against America to tie up any resources it could. The less troops available to go be sent to the European frontline, the better. Was it already too late for Germany anyway though? Maybe, but Germany wasn't just going to sit back and not try for victory still.

>>774646
But they wouldn't have been involved at all if the Zimmermann Telegram hadn't been sent. Asking Mexico to distract the US from the European war was the act that got the US involved in it to begin with.

That's the funny thing about WW1 and WW2. Sure, the US probably would have joined in both wars eventually if they had been left alone, but the manner the Central Powers/Axis chose to force their involvement had the direct effect to piss the US off enough to see the war through to the end. Germany flat-out sucks at keeping America out of their wars.

>>774671
German uboat attacks got the US in the war. Germany wanted to bomb US ships and war with the US.

>>774671

Germany in WW1 overestimated the Americans isolationism (up until WW1 USA did not intervene in worldwide conflicts without obvious gains like annexation of land) and the impact of Americans of German ancestry on the government.

The Germans figured that Americas supposed non-interest mixed with a large population of Americans of German ancestry would either make the USA unwilling to send military aid to Europe or unwilling to get involved at all.

You need to remember that USA on the eve of WW1 involvement was not the strongest nation in the world and was not particularly interested in dealing with Europe.

>>774721

>up until WW1 USA did not intervene in worldwide conflicts without obvious gains like annexation of land

Except you know, the opening of Japan, the various pressure put against European spheres of influence in China, the sending out of the Great White Fleet, the enthusiastic participation in naval arms racing, etc.

>>774550
Honestly, this is the simplest explanation. That and simple desperation.

File: 1384746762817.jpg (87KB, 516x598px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 516x598px

>>774721
...then why would Germany need to enlist Mexico in keeping them out of the war?

>>774745
Because America was aiding Britain and providing supplies. If America got in a war with Mexico they'd keep the resources for themselves and leave Allied forces with steady supplies.

>>774750
Without I mean.

>>774750

Or you know, do both, since sealift capacity was the number one constraining point for both what they could send overseas to Britain and France, and how many troops they could ship over directly.

>>774550
I think it's a combination of this and perhaps an unawareness of just how unrealistic the help they were offering Mexico was, i.e., what a feat it would have been to reconquer the southwestern US. I think this is both due to underestimating the U.S.'s strength, overestimating their own, and a basic misunderstanding of the scope of the landscapes involved. Remember, Germany had never been much of a colonial power, and I think a British or French government would have taken a look at a map and thrown the idea out. I'm not saying that all individual Germans were geographically ignorant, but I think that there was an institutional ignorance involved at a high level. I think the basic ignorance about the region can be seen in the fact that that they offer to help Mexico "reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona," but don't mention California, which then far more than even now was far more valuable than the rest of the southwestern US.

>>774729

The military posturing the USA did does not equal or come anywhere close to equaling engaging in a huge land war in Europe.

Trade deals and bluster is nothing in comparison to what the USA started doing after WW1. USA had a completely different foreign policy. Specifically speaking, the opening of trade with Japan massively and obviously benefited USA. How does the USA benefit from one European power winning over another in a land war in Europe? In a way far more vague than opening trade with the east.

>>774745
Germany was treating USA like a European nation. The telegram said that Mexico and Germany should ally only IF USA joined the war, not that USA WOULD join. Standard European 'make 10000 alliances with everyone that isn't worth colonizing' pre WW2 diplomacy.

Hamfisted diplomacy has been a hallmark of post-1871 Germany.

>>774767

>The military posturing the USA did does not equal or come anywhere close to equaling engaging in a huge land war in Europe.

Moving the goalposts much?

>pecifically speaking, the opening of trade with Japan massively and obviously benefited USA. How does the USA benefit from one European power winning over another in a land war in Europe? In a way far more vague than opening trade with the east.


Well, let's see, you have the shared cultural and economic ties with Britain and France that are enormously more extensive than Germany's, especially once the blockade got going.

>>774780

>Moving the goalposts much?

No.

This:

The military posturing the USA did does not equal or come anywhere close to equaling engaging in a huge land war in Europe.


Is further explaining my point here:

up until WW1 USA did not intervene in worldwide conflicts without obvious gains like annexation of land

Same point, and it is correct.

>Well, let's see, you have the shared cultural and economic ties with Britain and France that are enormously more extensive than Germany's, especially once the blockade got going.

And you have the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 with Britain, and debts to France, not to mention the problems in diplomatic relations between the USA and France since the several revolutions France had and the several changes of Government, including Napoleon who not so secretly wanted to build up a military empire on the new world. USA has baggage with most of Europe, but especially Britain and France - and if Germany expands in continental Europe USA can just make trade deals with them. USA had a lot less baggage with Germany pre WW1 than Britain or France.

>>774588
Probably a fencing scar. Fencing and dueling with actual pointed swords was a thing in german universities late 19th and early 20th Century.

People in here are seriously overestimating erly XX century US Army, a small inexperienced force who had not seen action against a well organized army, or anything you could call an army for that matter, maybe except for this time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrizal

>>774406
Germans where about to start Unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic to starve Great Britain out and they knew it would anger the US , when their ships would be sunk and lead to Declaration of War . So I would imagine Zimmerman was counting on distraction from Mexico to stop US from mobilising fully into the Western Front against Germany.

>>774800

>up until WW1 USA did not intervene in worldwide conflicts without obvious gains like annexation of land

Except it isn't, and it's obviously incorrect, as you'd only have to look at the Boxer Rebellion or the Great White Fleet. for about 2 seconds to realize that it's simply wrong.

>And you have the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 with Britain, and debts to France, not to mention the problems in diplomatic relations between the USA and France since the several revolutions France had and the several changes of Government, including Napoleon who not so secretly wanted to build up a military empire on the new world. USA has baggage with most of Europe, but especially Britain and France - and if Germany expands in continental Europe USA can just make trade deals with them. USA had a lot less baggage with Germany pre WW1 than Britain or France.

Why don't you go look up volume of trade that the U.S. had with Germany, France, and Great Britain in that shortly before the war period?

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/imts/Historical%20data%201900-1960.pdf

>>774814
And you're seriously overestimating the amount of resistance Mexico was able to muster against the US occupying it's most important port just three years prior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Veracruz

>>774456
Which is precisely why Mexico said no thanks?

>>774829
Well yes. But the idea was so absurd on the face of it that the Germans should have never bothered asking.

>>774827
Are you aware of why the US took the port in the first place and why it left? Mexico was fighting a Civil War, most of the Army was diverted on the North/South of the country, less than 200 mexican soldiers defended Veracruz against more than 2K american marines and ships, even then occupation only lasted half a year.

Once the Civil War was over the US tried their best to avoid a second mexican war, not because it was out of their interest (Wilson madly wanted to secure mexican oil and the tehuantepec isthmus) but because taking post revolutionary Mexico would have been a nightmare, even the Villa expedition was backed off the moment it messed with the actual mexican army.

>>774825
>Except it isn't, and it's obviously incorrect, as you'd only have to look at the Boxer Rebellion or the Great White Fleet. for about 2 seconds to realize that it's simply wrong.
The boxer rebellion is completely different than german expansion like the guy you are writing to ment. The boxer rebellion was to protect/secure european trade with china.

Is Wilson the biggest hypocrite that has ever lived?

>>774375
If ANY Major peader wasn't a massive Moron during that time WW1 wouldn't have happened
The real question is why did everyone go full retard ?

>>775332

Yes, truly a an intervention in a faraway conflict with an obvious gain like annexation of land.

It wasn't even clear that if the U.S. cleared things up that there would be any trade increase for the U.S., given how much of China's ports were carved up into different European spheres of influence beforehand.

>>774375
WILSON FALSEFLAG

>>775881

>faraway land
>not a country right next to your overseas colonies and territories
>intervention doesn't have an obvious gain

Ayyyyy

>>774814
The Yanks were outnumbered and inflicted more losses.

>>774560
I'd argue that Germany was past the point of being able to win after Operation Michael of the Kaiserschlatt (sp?), since they were trading lives at such a fast rate.

>I'm going to launch this offensive to break the western allies before the Americans show up in their millions
>oh fuck I'm losing as many people as I'm killing

For a guy who was worried about being swamped by numbers of Americans, he was losing people way too quickly to have any chance after that. But if the Kaiserschlatt had broken through then I think the will of *someone's* army would have broken. I mean, France had just put in a new government and had several individual mutinies before this. Petain had barely just been able to quell the troops into stiffening their resolve and even then the troops would only defend France, not be willing to go on the offensive for a while.

File: 1561752114.jpg (2MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1936px

>>774808
>was a thing

>>775972
>maybe except for this time
Reading is hard

for mexico to have been able to help germany the revolution would have had to be stopped from starting.
fro the revolution to have stopped from starting germany should have kept the US ambassador out of mexican politics, and promising support to the coup that made the war last 7 more years.
the usa knew mexico was very friendly to prussia, and actively gave out aid to norther bandits and to central opposition. pancho villa only attacked the USA because he was never given the aid he was promised.
Mexico before the revolution had machine guns, semi automatic rifles, and good communications infrastructure, and steam warships, and a good professional army.
by the time of the the zimmerman telegram came, 7 years of war and a million people dead with bombed out cities mexicans were pretty much fighting with sticks stones.
So the zimmerman telegram was too late, and useless.

>>776314
It was a thing to do it intentionally to get scars, yes.

>>774375

It was a false flag.

File: Wilhelm.png (307KB, 407x437px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 407x437px

>>779180
>if not for Zimmermann's affirmation of it

It makes even less sense for him to have actually owned up to doing something that fucking stupid. He could have at least TRIED to say the British faked it when he saw how mad the Americans were getting. Was the entire Imperial German government autistic or something?

>>774671
The Germans were assuming that unrestricted u-boat warfare was going to piss off the Americans enough to get them into the war (and it almost certainly would've by itself), the Zimmerman telegram was a contingency plan.

Learning that the Germans were trying to get Mexico to invade the US (when the US was technically neutral at this point) certainly didn't help public opinion, though, and I'm sure that it shifted it towards war.

>>774729
The US had also just gotten its shit pushed in trying to deal with a bunch of bandits in a third-rate country like Mexico. And the US only really became the richest country in the world during WW1 because it made bank off the Allied war machine

>>774814
This.

On the eve of WW1 the US military was rated 13th in the world, just after Portugal. It's conflicts with Mexico in the lead-up to WW1 were little more than skirmishes. Mexico might not have been much, but while a full-scale war would almost certainly have ended in a US victory, it would very much have kept the US busy. Especially if it tried to occupy Mexican land; occupying parts of the north might have been feasible but there was no way the US had the military force needed to keep the whole country subdued.

That's just Mexico on its own, though. Ship over some German arms, and maybe a German division or two, and suddenly the whole picture changes drastically. Not that there was much likelihood of that happening, given the Entente naval blockade, but if the Germans had managed to send troops, fresh from the western front, to Mexico then US cavalry who were more used to dealing with Mexican bandits and the last remaining Indians probably wouldn't have fared well.

>>779903


>On the eve of WW1 the US military was rated 13th in the world, just after Portugal.


Except that's counting armies in being, not potential to mobilize. The U.S. had an enormous population and a tremendous amount of industry, and could easily swell its army as big as it wanted, anytime it wanted. They only remained at sub-Portugal troop levels because really, who is going to attack them?

>the Germans had managed to send troops, fresh from the western front, to Mexico then US cavalry who were more used to dealing with Mexican bandits and the last remaining Indians probably wouldn't have fared well.

Even ignoring the absurdity of getting them there, which you note, 1-2 divisions aren't going to do jack shit. They'll just be overwhelmed. The U.S. mobilized about 3 million men into the Army, only of which 2/3 (roughly) made it over the Atlantic. The remaining million or so would have just swamped under a division or two.

>>778202
He meant German University Frats still do it.

>>780405
He's wrong though. Look at the fedora spergs in the picture. There's only a handful of weirdos who do it today, while it was mainstream back in the day.

My professor said it was probably a false flag.

But, who knows? German diplomacy really went downhill once Bismarck left.

>>780583

If it's a false flag, you have to come up with an answer to the question as to why Zimmerman would personally confirm the telegram's accuracy, despite no evidence of pressure being put on him, and the obvious negative consequences both for him personally and for his country.

>>774375
Mexico had a much larger standing army than the USA did pre WW1. At least they could provide a distraction and slow USA's entrance into the yurop theater. I doubt Germany actually expected Mexico to win or anything, just slow the USA down.

>>780597

No idea. Maybe he thought that they wouldn't believe him if he denied it, so he might as well as pretend that it's true, in the hopes of encouraging Mexico to actually do something.