- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did Britain REALLY intercept Germany's message to Mexico?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:10 am to diddydirtyAubie
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:10 am to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
They attacked Russia for no reason
false
0
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:12 am to RBWilliams8
No.
Woodrow Wilson was an Anglophile who was willing to get played.
The USA had just as much reason to go to war against Great Britain in WWI.
Woodrow Wilson was an Anglophile who was willing to get played.
The USA had just as much reason to go to war against Great Britain in WWI.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:49 am to RBWilliams8
A lot of factors played in the US involvement in WWII. The intercept was just one of may straws...
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 7:51 am
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:56 am to RBWilliams8
quote:
I find it hard to believe that Germany would really want another power on their arse (whom of which is remaining neutral). I understand that they thought they were the supreme military... But it just doesn't make sense. Hindsight and whatnot but from the outside looking in, it looks like Britain was facing defeat after Churchill screwed the pooch. Then they sparked confrontation by claiming to intercept a message from Germany.
Are you talking about the Zimmermann Note of World War 1? Churchill had nothing to do with this.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:13 am to RBWilliams8
lol all these condescending history "buffs" didn't know churchill played a key role in WWI too
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:17 am to LSUinMA
quote:
And it's SHOCKING that people here are unaware of the role Churchill played in WWI as First Lord of the Admiralty
Is it really? I mean, all I learned in K-12 of WWI was that Franz Ferdinand was shot, the Lusitania was sunk, Germans were bad, and Wilson helped formed the League of Nations but America never joined. Hell I'm 30, graduated in History, and I just learned about the Battle of Verdun in the past 6 months.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:54 am to Swoopin
quote:
lol all these condescending history "buffs" didn't know churchill played a key role in WWI too
What was his role with the Zimmerman Note?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:56 am to RBWilliams8
quote:
Can you tell me where I got wars mix up or was it an assumption and everyone following suit Per norm. If it's wrong I'd like to correct it.
quote:
They were trying to overpower the continent and gain control. They wanted to overtake a socialist Russia
Russia was led by a Czar Nicholas II, when WWI started in 1914. They had a few other governements before the USSR was founded in 1922, a few years after WWI ended.
The Bolsheviks when the came to power in late '17 early '18 made peace with Germany.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 9:01 am to colorchangintiger
No. It's not really shocking at all. Most Americans learn very little about our involvement in World War I. If you were to ask a random American on the street in what years World War I took place the majority wouldn't be able to give you an answer. Even fewer still would be able to tell you the exact reasons we got ourselves involved. It's such a glossed over conflict in American history because its precise origins are difficult to explain and understand.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 9:04 am to RollTide1987
quote:
No. It's not really shocking at all. Most Americans learn very little about our involvement in World War I. If you were to ask a random American on the street in what years World War I took place the majority wouldn't be able to give you an answer. Even fewer still would be able to tell you the exact reasons we got ourselves involved. It's such a glossed over conflict in American history because its precise origins are difficult to explain and understand.
I wish I had taken Dr. Roider's WW1 class when I was at LSU.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 9:07 am to The Boat
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 9:07 am
Posted on 10/15/14 at 9:13 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
OP never linked him directly to the Zimmerman telegraph and neither am I. His failures were provided as context contributing to why the Zimmerman note might have been suspiciously convenient for the UK to have found.
My post in this thread was making fun of people who said OP had the wrong war because they saw the name Churchill.
My post in this thread was making fun of people who said OP had the wrong war because they saw the name Churchill.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 9:14 am
Posted on 10/15/14 at 9:20 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
Zimmermann telegram
Posted on 10/15/14 at 9:21 am to Swoopin
quote:
OP never linked him directly to the Zimmerman telegraph and neither am I. His failures were provided as context contributing to why the Zimmerman note might have been suspiciously convenient for the UK to have found.
I'm not sure how Gallipoli in 1915 links with the Zimmerman note in 1917 (even as background or context). I think that is the more troubling thing that is confusing people now.
As far as the question presented, Room 40 intercepted all transatlantic cable messages, even those on US cables because of the relay station at Porthcurno. So in short, yes, yes they did. Also, Mexico formally turned down the German offer after the US entered the war. So we know it was made and made sincerely and that Mexico didn't want none.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 9:50 am to RBWilliams8
Germany believed that victory over Russia was imminent (they were right). The U.S. was the primary food supplier keeping England and France afloat. They believed that if Mexico could keep the U.S. pinned down in America, those food shipments to Europe would have to stop, Britain and France would starve, and the allies would capitulate. The U.S. would deal with Mexico, but the war in Europe would be over before the U.S. could involve itself abroad, basically keeping the U.S. out of it completely. Actually, would have been a brilliant plan for Germany (not so much for Mexico) if it had come to fruition.
Of course, Wilson being the dangerous S.O.B. that he was, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if he had the letter faked in order to provide pretense to involve the U.S. in that war and expand federal government control (see Income Tax).
Of course, Wilson being the dangerous S.O.B. that he was, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if he had the letter faked in order to provide pretense to involve the U.S. in that war and expand federal government control (see Income Tax).
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:39 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
What was his role with the Zimmerman Note?
It was a catastrophic failure that was Possibly a huge factor in the English being on the losing side.... The lost a LOT bc of his frick up. Like 200k+ men, artillery and other military support. That's kind of a big advantage in a war with a much smaller population that we have today.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:42 pm to udtiger
quote:
The USA had just as much reason to go to war against Great Britain in WWI.
Interesting. Can you expand on this?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:42 pm to kingbob
Some nice explanations in here. 
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:39 pm to colorchangintiger
quote:why would you admit this?
Hell I'm 30, graduated in History, and I just learned about the Battle of Verdun in the past 6 months.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:57 pm to udtiger
quote:
The USA had just as much reason to go to war against Great Britain in WWI.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News