Talk:Zimmermann Telegram
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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?
[edit] 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)
-
[edit] 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).
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)

