Started By
Message

re: Did Britain REALLY intercept Germany's message to Mexico?

Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:59 pm to
Posted by The Boat
Member since Oct 2008
177170 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:59 pm to
They've been non-militarily doing it for a while now. Look at demographic maps.
Posted by KosmoCramer
Member since Dec 2007
80517 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:59 pm to
What was Churchill's screwing of the pooch in 1917?
Posted by RBWilliams8
Member since Oct 2009
54025 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 6:02 pm to
He was a young lord who got some military power. Insisted on sending ships for support but failed miserably and lost his position of power before Enlisting in the military... 1915
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 6:13 pm
Posted by Teddy Ruxpin
Member since Oct 2006
40815 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:06 pm to
quote:

Even if by some chance Mexico had the military means to win the conflict with the U.S. and retake the area in question, Mexico would have had severe difficulty accommodating the large, primarily English-speaking population in that region who were better supplied than most populations with arms.



From Wikipedia, one of the reasons they determined invading the US was a bad idea.

2nd Amendment
Posted by FlagLake
"Da Ship"
Member since Feb 2006
2479 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:12 pm to
quote:

Posted by KosmoCramer What was Churchill's screwing of the pooch in 1917?


Gallipoli baw!
Posted by USMCTiger03
Member since Sep 2007
71176 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:20 pm to
You fricked up the wars, didn't you? I kinda had it screwed up in my head too.
Posted by RBWilliams8
Member since Oct 2009
54025 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:31 pm to
I didn't edit my OP and was specifically talking about when Churchill fricked up as a Britain commander... I've been wondering WTF I fricked up but second guessed myself after everyone said it. It went along with everything else so I had no clue what everyone was saying
Posted by RBWilliams8
Member since Oct 2009
54025 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:33 pm to
quote:

From Wikipedia, one of the reasons they determined invading the US was a bad idea.


They did invade us. Poncho Vila. The mf man Patton single handily shite all over that plan when he mowed pancho's second in command down with his new invention.... Machine gun mounted on an automobile! Those fricks had horses and rifles.
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 7:34 pm
Posted by TDFreak
Coast to Coast - L.A. to Chicago
Member since Dec 2009
9250 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:46 pm to
I was unaware of Churchill's purported impact on WWI.

I would be surprised he was the catalyst of a major conspiracy given he would have been relatively young.
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 7:51 pm
Posted by lsu480
Downtown Scottsdale
Member since Oct 2007
92903 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:51 pm to
quote:

Are you talking about the Zimmermann Telegram? That was WWI brah.



No that was Trayvon and he wasn't a Mexican, he was white! Don't you watch the news?
Posted by colorchangintiger
Dan Carlin
Member since Nov 2005
30979 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:37 pm to
quote:

Us not being involved was because Wilson was a gigantic pussy


Also because of the Monroe Doctrine which said we wouldn't meddle in European affairs. Seriously, why would we have wanted to get involved in WWI if we didn't have to? It was the worst war in the history of the world.
Posted by LSUinMA
Commerce, Texas
Member since Nov 2008
4961 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:37 pm to
quote:

Spanish decent


Your Spanish decent.

Decent.

In an edited post, too.

You mean descent.

And it's SHOCKING that people here are unaware of the role Churchill played in WWI as First Lord of the Admiralty.
Posted by RBWilliams8
Member since Oct 2009
54025 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:42 pm to
quote:

I would be surprised he was the catalyst of a major conspiracy given he would have been relatively young.


He was fired and low level military before the Telegram... He couldn't/wouldn't have had shite to do with it.



Decent. I meant I'm the decent kind. Colombian. Not the dirty Mexican kind. Yeah, we're gonna go with that.
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 8:53 pm
Posted by RBWilliams8
Member since Oct 2009
54025 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:43 pm to
quote:

And it's SHOCKING that people here are unaware of the role Churchill played in WWI as First Lord of the Admiralty.


Enough to act like I didn't know wtf I was talking about... Nice job, OT.
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 8:55 pm
Posted by RBWilliams8
Member since Oct 2009
54025 posts
Posted on 10/14/14 at 11:12 pm to
quote:

Because he wanted to take the politically advantageous position, which ever way the wind blew, which was eventually to go to war He ran on keeping us out of war to get reelected, so we stayed out for a while and then got us into a war because it was politically advantageous for him to do so


Props for this
Posted by SirWinston
Say NO to War
Member since Jul 2014
104464 posts
Posted on 10/15/14 at 12:01 am to
Somebody's reading Ken Follett.
Posted by Napoleon
Kenna
Member since Dec 2007
74175 posts
Posted on 10/15/14 at 12:18 am to
I think most people here don't know that in your OP, your reference to Churchill, was not as Prime minister, but as the head of the Navy. His Gallopi campaign was a major blunder.

After that, the War was not looking good for England.


quote:

At the forefront of politics for fifty years, he held many political and cabinet positions. Before the First World War, he served as President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary, and First Lord of the Admiralty as part of Asquith's Liberal government. During the war, he continued as First Lord of the Admiralty until the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign caused his departure from government. He then briefly resumed active army service on the Western Front as commander of the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers.


quote:

The Gallipoli Campaign, also known as the Dardanelles Campaign, the Battle of Gallipoli or the Battle of Çanakkale (Turkish: Çanakkale Savasi), was a campaign of World War I that took place on the Gallipoli peninsula[6] in the Ottoman Empire between 25 April 1915 and 9 January 1916. The peninsula forms the northern bank of the Dardanelles, a strait that provides a sea route to what was then the Russian Empire, one of the Allied powers during the war. Intending to secure it, Russia's allies Britain and France launched a naval attack followed by an amphibious landing on the peninsula with the eventual aim of capturing the Ottoman capital of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul).[7] The naval attack was repelled and, after eight months' fighting, with many casualties on both sides, the land campaign also failed and the invasion force was withdrawn to Egypt.

The campaign was one of the greatest Ottoman victories during the war and a major Allied failure. In Turkey, it is regarded as a defining moment in the nation's history: a final surge in the defence of the motherland as the Ottoman Empire crumbled.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 12:22 am
Posted by RBWilliams8
Member since Oct 2009
54025 posts
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:27 am to
Right. So after England (the fam) was about to get their shite pushed in, they miraculously find evidence that shows their enemy plotting against a neutral power. How convenient.

History is written by the victors. I question the legitimacy of that message being intercepted. It just seems like a move that they would make. This scenario seems more likely than Germany using Mexico to make a push. Not ruling it out, but bullshite.
Posted by RollTide1987
Baltimore, MD
Member since Nov 2009
71010 posts
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:46 am to
quote:

Us not getting involved wasn't a direct result from the general public not wanting to?



The United States was about to declare war before the Zimmerman Telegram even became a story. The Germans had discontinued unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic after the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 due to pressure from the Wilson Administration. U.S. merchant ships were likely to have come under fire of German submarines if that policy were to have continued.

In late 1916, however, as the outcome of the war remained uncertain, Germany wanted to finally bring Great Britain to her knees. The only way to do that was to attack British ships in the North Atlantic and sink them. But some British ships were flying false flags to hide from the Germans. So that meant going back to the practice of unrestricted submarine warfare.

American merchant ships began to get sunk and U.S. sailors began to get killed. Wilson no longer had any options. He had made a threat to the Germans in 1915 and he now had to honor it. He declared war on Germany in April 1917 because of the German practice of unrestricted submarine warfare. The Zimmerman Telegram was simply an added bonus.

The reason why the Germans sent that telegram to their embassy in Mexico was because they KNEW unrestricted submarine warfare would bring the United States into the war. Their hope was for Mexico to keep U.S. forces bogged down in the southwest long enough for them to finish off the war in Europe, thereby making the Americans a non-factor.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 1:49 am
Posted by chesty
Flap City C.C.
Member since Oct 2012
12731 posts
Posted on 10/15/14 at 6:54 am to
Best answer so far
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram