Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're implying that the war couldn't have been won without the US. Which is debatable.
This is not debatable, while the US entry into the war in 1917 had certainly hastened the defeat of Central Powers, the Entente was already winning and would've won regardless. May be in 1919 not 1918. Remember, Great Britain was still a great empire, and French still had some fight left in them, and by 1917 the Central Powers were on the defensive.
Mexico attacking the US in 1917 would be a very glorious suicide. Actually scratch that, nothing glorious - just dumb. They were not dumb.
Mexico attacking the US in 1917 would be a very glorious suicide. Actually scratch that, nothing glorious - just dumb. They were not dumb.
The Mexicans, particularly, Venustiano Carranza the "leader" of the Mexican government couldn't wage war even if he was so inclined. Carranza had enough trouble with Villa and Zapata much less going to war with the U.S. and declined Zimmerman's message out of hand. What is strange is Zimmerman's total obviousness of Carranza's situation.
If Mexico had said "Agreed. If the US makes any move to go to war with you, Germany, then we will accept your offer and go to war with the United States."
With that out in the open, the US has two choices:
1. Not go to war with Germany
2. Declare war on Germany, but be unable to actually do anything beyond the declaration because now they're too busy fighting Mexico over Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.
Either way, Germany wins, right?
Got another question:
Would the US have entered the war without the Zimmerman note?
Probably, since Germany was sinking everything they saw floating, and that included a LOT of US ships.
But maybe not. Maybe this note, which Wilson printed in the papers, was just what Wilson needed to get past his old promise of peace. Without the note there may never have been a US involvement in WW I combat.
I toy with the idea that the world may have been better off if Germany had won WWI.
The U.S. could have easily fought a two-front war. We drafted over 24 million troops for WW1 and only sent 3 million to Europe. Another 1 million troops would have been sufficient for a border defense against Mexico, and 2 million would have been a full scale conquest of Mexico.
Got another question:
Would the US have entered the war without the Zimmerman note?
Probably, since Germany was sinking everything they saw floating, and that included a LOT of US ships.
But maybe not. Maybe this note, which Wilson printed in the papers, was just what Wilson needed to get past his old promise of peace. Without the note there may never have been a US involvement in WW I combat.
I toy with the idea that the world may have been better off if Germany had won WWI.
1) The Zimmerman telegram was just an excuse. The US wanted to help the Entente for geopolitical reasons.
2) As I said earlier, the Entente was already winning the war by the time the US entered it. Even with Russia and Italy knocked out, the Great Britain and France would've eventually overpowered Germany and Austria. Too big a discrepancy in resources and manpower.
3) US not entering the war didn't mean that the US industry would not be supplying Entente with war materiel.
As to the Germany winning WWI... surely it would be better than Hitler, but then there could still be a Hitler.
The U.S. could have easily fought a two-front war. We drafted over 24 million troops for WW1 and only sent 3 million to Europe. Another 1 million troops would have been sufficient for a border defense against Mexico, and 2 million would have been a full scale conquest of Mexico.
300,000 troops would be enough to overthrow the Mexican government and install a puppet one. Mexico was really weak at that time.
I toy with the idea that the world may have been better off if Germany had won WWI.
They certainly weren't an evil regime. The only problem was that they didn't believe in Democracy. A German victory in WWI would have brought about the end of democracy in Europe.
All three Central Powers were on the edge of collapse by summer of 1918, there were awful food shortages in Germany and Austria Hungary, and they would not have lasted much into 1919 without America. In fact, the Ottoman Empire and Austria Hungary collapsed almost without American influence.
They certainly weren't an evil regime. The only problem was that they didn't believe in Democracy. A German victory in WWI would have brought about the end of democracy in Europe.
Precisely. They were a typical old European conservative monarchy and would only tolerate a small measure of democracy, mainly a degree of self-rule on local level. Although they were still probably far more democratic than, say, the absolutist Russian Empire. But I wouldn't call them "evil".
Precisely. They were a typical old European conservative monarchy and would only tolerate a small measure of democracy, mainly a degree of self-rule on local level. Although they were still probably far more democratic than, say, the absolutist Russian Empire. But I wouldn't call them "evil".
Exactly. It wasn't as it they were running an overbearing dictatorship. Germany throughout that period made immense contributions to science and the arts. The country was also well run, arguably possessing the world's most successful economy. In many ways it was the pinnacle of western civilization during that time, but Western Civilization isn't complete without a dose of Democracy. I like my Democracy, the illusion that I can make a difference keeps me happy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.