Why was the Zimmerman Telegram so important?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38581861

by sohkamyung • 10 years ago

93 80 10 years ago

The thing that most amazes me about the Great War is how so many fought and died to prevent the EU [1].

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

Edit. It seems my brevity has caused some people to miss my point (or maybe not). I am lamenting the huge loss of life that flowed from the Great War that was fought trying to prevent the creation of the EU.

On a personal note my great uncle died in the Great War and the effect this had on my family is still with with us to this day.

emj• 10 years ago

Your comment is short and slightly offensive, but sure there's some truth to that the diplomatic/economic European Union could have happend faster if people just hadn't warmongered so much.

The people living there were, to put it midly worse off, but I'm sure the leaders thought it was a great idea to expand their culturaly influence just a little bit too far.

But is unification really always the answer?

danieltillett7• 10 years ago

The history of Europe in the 20th C. is really the long march towards a EU with Germany at the heart. It is more than a shame that so many died to end up exactly where we would have been if the Schlieffen Plan had worked [1].

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan

aaron-lebo2• 10 years ago

Warfare is much more economic in nature these days. One of the reasons we don't go to war as much is because if you have the economic clout it's much easier to dominate nations and less destructive to boot.

The EU is a remarkable construct, and obviously in its roots has the desire to prevent conflict. At the same time, there's plenty of parties that can use that same construct (and have) to dominate in other ways. If you are an unscrupulous German leader of industry, the ability and desire to gain more power is not so different from Krupp or other German businesses serving the Nazis. They are different in kind and end results, yes, and this economic warfare is kinder and more acceptable to peace. At the core, though is domination.

The OP's comment is offensive because it is so short, but he's right in that Germany dominates the EU, for good and bad.

ggame11• 10 years ago

I second your statement. The EU is another attempt at a global power structure that has been going on since people were people. It's most recognizably German, and once the realities of governing a superstate are take into account, this was how I imagine a post WWI German victory to look.

pjc507• 10 years ago

This is highly offensive and will no doubt be flagged off HN soon. The EU as it presently stands is extremely different to the empires of the early 20th century.

Declaring that people who fought in the Great War were fighting to "prevent" something completely different that came 50 years later is highly offensive to their memory.

danieltillett7• 10 years ago

Rather than being offended about a historical statement, what were the German war aims in 1914? Why did the British Empire enter the war? The British didn't die in their millions to defend the neutrality of the Belgians.

WildUtah• 10 years ago

Why the EU was necessary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

To divide and disunite Europe and make a complete pig's breakfast of the continent.

aaron-lebo2• 10 years ago

Interesting article, though the answer in the title seems pretty obvious: Germany was offering a previously hostile neighbor of the US land as long as they'd enter the war. No matter whether that was transmitted in secret, in the open, or through diplomatic channels, that's virtually a declaration of war.

Even without unrestrained submarine warfare, that alone might have been enough to bring the US into the war in 1915. It took some restraint from Wilson to prevent an earlier entry, anyway.

mafribe2• 10 years ago

    virtually a declaration of war.

Have you reflected properly on why Germany felt a need to defend itself against the US?

jessaustin2• 10 years ago

Silly Germans. Don't go to war with opponents you can't beat without closing down all international trade. Because you can't actually close down all international trade.

USA's external actions in that time frame were much more defensible than they have been since then.

chiph• 10 years ago

Because they were already in a stalemate with France, the UK, and Russia. And their allies the Austro-Hungarian Empire were more concerned with Serbia and Italy than France, etc. So this was a move intended to counter the US should we enter the war ("give them something besides Germany to worry about" was likely the thinking)

mikeash• 10 years ago

What's your theory for a reason that absolves this? Or did I misunderstand your implication?

bainsfather3• 10 years ago

Code interception and breaking. Cutting undersea cables. Parallel construction. Carefully managed release to manipulate public opinion.

It's nice to have an inside view on an intelligence coup - albeit from 100 years ago.

dx034• 10 years ago

It somehow shows that what we see at the moment isn't new at all. Yes, there is a different scale of information gathering, but that's just because there's more information flowing. 100 years ago it was very hard to communicate over a distance without traffic being intercepted, and the same is true today.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make communication more secure, but it indicates that we are not heading towards an ever worse surveillance state.

sametmax2• 10 years ago

I find it scary. If they could do that 100 hundred years ago, what are they doing now with the added century of experience and the new tech ?

bainsfather3• 10 years ago

I agree with all of that, apart from your last conclusion.

The British intelligence service was, it appears, acting logically given its motivations and capabilities. It achieved the outcome it wanted.

Note that the motivations do not always align with what is good for Britain (nor, rather obviously, other countries) - see e.g. Iraq intelligence.

From what is visible (e.g. Snowden data), GCHQ continues to do the same thing. But it has vastly greater capabilities, both in collection and analysis. This means we have been heading towards an ever more capable/powerful surveillance state.

noir-york• 10 years ago

Thanks for posting this! That knowledge is power is not in doubt. We in the West would be fools to hamstring our own intelligence services in their mission to defend national security.

Is privacy important - absolutely - but the correct mechanism to protect not just privacy but against abuse is not to reduce the agencies intel capabilities but strengthen our democratic means of oversight.

Why was the Zimmerman Telegram so important?

Related Stories