Posted on 09/28/2010 6:49:01 AM PDT by C19fan
The Zimmerman was not part of a Pearl Harbor type conspiracy. Germany said it would only kick in if the U.S. entered the war against Germany. Here is what it said:
"On the first of February we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavour to keep neutral the United States of America.
If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and together make peace. We shall give general financial support, and it is understood that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona."
Mighta have been better if they hadn’t supported The Black Hand in the first place, don’t ya think?
Source and timing please? Please note that there were never any negotiations in the real sense of the term. Truman refused these. Certainly, after Potsdam he refused to consider any quibbling so when were these “terms” proposed by the Japanese? Truman only compromised on the Declaration after Nagasaki.
Is your hate America revisionist history punch card in need of a few MORE chits punched?
Gonna cry more tears over the poor Japanese civilians ‘murdered in their crib’ at Nagasaki? Does it register to you for even a second that it was either them, or many millions more (including US troops)?
But what are a few hundred thousand US troops to you? Obviously not much of a consideration.
So they are all responsible.
However, Austrio-Hungary actually STARTED the war.
So, what happened was that the Germans considered themselves far from being “vanquished.” The government sued for peace, the Prussians went along with it, the people didn’t LIKE it, but they accepted it, until the final armistice arrangements were settled some months later, with the humiliating and devastating reparations to France. THEN many Germans wanted to restart the war, but the troops had been demobilized and they realized they were in no position to do such a thing. As has been pointed out, the paybacks were very grudging, and when the French occupied the Ruhr, it was almost the start of a new war right then, but instead the Germans went on strike and acts of sabotage were committed, but somehow it was gotten past without another war. In any event, one of the major ways Hitler curried favor and got power was by railing against the “November Criminals” (Jews) that sold the Fatherland out.
The source is Herbert Bix's critical biography of Hirohito. The timing was August 8 and 9, 1945.
Please note that there were never any negotiations in the real sense of the term.
Negotiations were conducted informally through the Soviet diplomatic service, since the Soviets did not declare war on Japan until August 9.
Truman refused these.
As would any other sane person.
Certainly, after Potsdam he refused to consider any quibbling so when were these “terms” proposed by the Japanese?
These terms were floated by the Japanese through Molotov soon after Hiroshima, most likely on August 8.
As soon as Molotov realized that the Americans would not agree to these terms, the Soviets decided to declare war against Japan on August 9 and immediately mobilized both Manchurian Fronts.
Observing the mobilization, Japanese forces in Manchuria alerted the War Ministry. The War Council officially imposed martial law on Japan on August 10 - indicating that any negotiations, official or unofficial, were now over.
The next day, we dropped Fat Man on Nagasaki.
Yeah, unless this century turns out to be worse. Such better tools for genocide, don’tcha know. Although the Rwandans have amply demonstrated that the good old machete still works quite well, and the rivers as a disposal system.
Pearl Harbor was considered a naval outpost & coaling station in 1918.
I may be wrong but I do not think we stationed ships there at that time.
Is your hate America revisionist history punch card in need of a few MORE chits punched?
You can pound your fist all you want and belt me with your purple prose but the hard cold fact you have not denied was that it was contingent on the U.S. ending its neutrality. Governments offer contingent deals like this (NATO is an example) all the time. Germany was not exceptional. An invasion was out of the question on even practical terms. Germany had no intention of attacking the U.S. because it had its hands full.
Gonna cry more tears over the poor Japanese civilians ‘murdered in their crib’ at Nagasaki? Does it register to you for even a second that it was either them, or many millions more (including US troops)?
Civilians? Why not use the more obvious word which is "BABIES"? I wonder why you don't. Why not say it loud and proud?
. Your dichotomy (the bombs versus millions of Americans dead) is a false one. BOTH of these alternatives, including violation of the ancient rules of war subscribed to the U.S., could have been avoided with an agreement that the Japanese could keep the emperor. Ironically, Truman ultimately agreed to this condition.
I heard they ATE women and children and liked to drink a cold glass of blood for breakfast.
Wrong again, Japan had a number of conditions.
BABIES “murdered” in their crib! I will say it loud and proud! And they were murdered by the intransigence of the Japanese War leaders, and their unrealistic conditions in the face of our demand for unconditional surrender.
If we hadn’t dropped Fat Man and Little Boy on Japan, Japan would have been divided just like Korea, and we would have fought in a Japanese Civil War against the Communists, a war that would have made the Korean Conflict look like a walk in the park.
That is contrary to everything I have read about that meeting. Here is what happened (correct me if you have a contradictory source). The Japanese ambassador to Russia approached Molotov on August 8 asking him to mediate a peace with the U.S.(contra your earlier point the Soviets had NEVER done this). Before the ambassador could utter a single word, Molotov announed that the Soviets were going to war with Japan on August 9. In other words, he never even gave the Japanese ambassador a chance to lay out these terms. Again, please correct me if you have another source which presents a different version of this meeting.
Thank you for your honesty!
Sounds nice, except for the following:
we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted
In other words, Germany intended to engage in activity that would make warfare with the US inevitable.
The telegram was sent in January 1917.
Three months earlier, in October 1916, U-Boat 53 had stopped in Newport RI to refuel.
Within 48 hours after refueling it sunk several ships it suspected of supplying the British war effort, and fired a shot across the bow of, stopped and searched the American steamer Kansan just a few miles from the US coast and in view of residents of Nantucket.
After this abuse of hospitality, it was made clear to the Germans that continuing this activity would lead to a declaration of war.
Zimmermann knew very well at the time he drafted that telegram that his government was planning to resume U-Boat attacks on shipping as soon as warm weather returned and that America would inevitably declare war as soon as that happened.
The only thing such meetings do is formalize matters that have already been decided.
I'm sure that meeting went exactly as you have characterized it.
Remember that the US had the Purple Code and knew pretty much everything the Japanese diplomats were going to say before they said them.
He needed to end it right away so the Russkies wouldn’t tear themselves off a piece.
“In other words, Germany intended to engage in activity that would make warfare with the US inevitable.”
Im curious, what did the royal navy do if a NEUTRAL American ship intended to sail with a load of war cargo, food, etc, to Germany? Why was it almost never attempted? I guess it’s ok for the English to sink ships sailing in an “exclusion zone” but not for Germans. Please explain that. The British did the same exact thing, and simply didn’t have to do it because they had superiority in surface forces sufficient to stop it cold.
For bonus points, tell us when the English imposed a quarantine on German ports, and when the Germans in retaliation imposed one around the British Isles?
It’s amazing to see such blind loyalty to England. German ancestry and values are just as common in the USA as English,, it really makes no sense.
Even the vaunted British goal of stopping german imperial ambitions. What was that for, if not to protect British colonial abuse of the world? Why are they not held to the same standard?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.