Talk:Zimmerman Telegram: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Russell D. Jones (my confusion) |
imported>Richard Pinch (→Major Problem: reply on the archival evidence) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::On (2), what is problematic? The wording you object to is in the copy you link to at the US National Archive, and in the transcript at the UK National Archive [http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=The_Zimmerman_Telegram#top%20idtop here] and in the photocopy [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2005/highlights_oct/oct17/popup/hw_3_187_2.htm here]. It can hardly be described as a "factual error". Why would you be unwilling to use it? Do you have a serious reason for believing that this is all incorrect? Why use the word "ostensibly" -- is there a serious reason to doubt the description? What do you mean by "Nice" in this context? [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | ::On (2), what is problematic? The wording you object to is in the copy you link to at the US National Archive, and in the transcript at the UK National Archive [http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=The_Zimmerman_Telegram#top%20idtop here] and in the photocopy [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2005/highlights_oct/oct17/popup/hw_3_187_2.htm here]. It can hardly be described as a "factual error". Why would you be unwilling to use it? Do you have a serious reason for believing that this is all incorrect? Why use the word "ostensibly" -- is there a serious reason to doubt the description? What do you mean by "Nice" in this context? [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::Alright, now I'm confused about the difference between [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2005/highlights_oct/oct17/popup/hw_3_187_1.htm this document] and [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2005/highlights_oct/oct17/popup/hw_3_187_2.htm this document]. I guess the CZ article was claiming that "make war together" means "attack the US." I still don't see evidence that Germany wanted to make Mexico a satellite. Jones 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | :::Alright, now I'm confused about the difference between [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2005/highlights_oct/oct17/popup/hw_3_187_1.htm this document] and [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2005/highlights_oct/oct17/popup/hw_3_187_2.htm this document]. I guess the CZ article was claiming that "make war together" means "attack the US." I still don't see evidence that Germany wanted to make Mexico a satellite. Jones 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::The two documents in file HW/3/187 which you refer to are described [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=8522849&j=1 here] as "copies (the originals are not available) of typescripts of two versions of the Zimmermann Telegram". | |||
::::I think the phrase "reconquer the lost territory ..." pretty clearly implies "attack the US". | |||
::::I find the word satellite apt to describe the relationship between Germany and Mexico proposed by Zimmermann. I do not agree that it is a "slur". | |||
::::Am I right in guessing you have a position on the reliability, veracity or accuracy of this archival evidence? [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:54, 4 January 2009
Major Problem
This article has a couple of problems; one of which I fixed.
- "Germany had designs on taking over Mexico as its satellite." Which source made this claim or is this just a slur against Germany? (It may still be a slur against Germany even with a source.)
- "Mexico ... was to attack the United States on its Southwestern border and recover Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona." This is more problematic. Neither copy of the telegram here (at the US National Archives) or here (from the UK National Archives) indicates anything about what Mexico was to do. Indeed, strangely enough, the British document doesn't even mention what Mexico was to receive should Germany win the war with a Mexican alliance; only in the copy in the US archives (ostensibly the copy given to the US by British intelligence) mentions specifically US territories. Nice. So I removed this factual error from the article.
- Why do all the books in the bibliography (including Link) refer to the Zimmermann (two "n's") Telegram, yet this article is titled the Zimmerman (one "n") Telegram? Russell D. Jones 12:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- On (1), it seems a reasonable assessment that when a Great Power wants another country to accept funding to subordinate its war- and peace-making decisions to the aims of the Great Power, that it aims to turn that other country into a "satellite".
- On (2), what is problematic? The wording you object to is in the copy you link to at the US National Archive, and in the transcript at the UK National Archive here and in the photocopy here. It can hardly be described as a "factual error". Why would you be unwilling to use it? Do you have a serious reason for believing that this is all incorrect? Why use the word "ostensibly" -- is there a serious reason to doubt the description? What do you mean by "Nice" in this context? Richard Pinch 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, now I'm confused about the difference between this document and this document. I guess the CZ article was claiming that "make war together" means "attack the US." I still don't see evidence that Germany wanted to make Mexico a satellite. Jones 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The two documents in file HW/3/187 which you refer to are described here as "copies (the originals are not available) of typescripts of two versions of the Zimmermann Telegram".
- I think the phrase "reconquer the lost territory ..." pretty clearly implies "attack the US".
- I find the word satellite apt to describe the relationship between Germany and Mexico proposed by Zimmermann. I do not agree that it is a "slur".
- Am I right in guessing you have a position on the reliability, veracity or accuracy of this archival evidence? Richard Pinch 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)