How long would the Great War have taken if the Zimmerman Telegram was never sent?

pretty much OTL. Mexico knew it was a desperate attempt by the Germans and that it would be insanely stupid to invade the US. the only real effect it had was to inflame US public opinion, but at that point the US was heavily leaning toward England and France anyhow. Ultimately, it's a cool footnote, but nothing much changes with or without it
 
Exactly as it says in the title.
Bonus: What if Mexico accepted it and invaded the US?

Entente is forced to seek terms in 10 weeks, as the British run out of oil and food, thereby breaking their blockade of Germany. Both them and the French were also set to run out of money sometime in April, but American entry managed to prevent this.
 
American entry into the conflict was inevitable at some point when Germany resumed targeting all Atlantic shipping to Britain. But if the Zimmerman telegram were either not sent or not intercepted, it would have delayed American intervention by months, or perhaps a whole year. There was a timeline on this forum with that scenario a while back.

This would allow Germany ample time to batter the entente and cause a French military collapse. But Mexico itself is a non-factor.

I don't know what Zimmerman was thinking. Maybe so that the US would be distracted with an occupation? But why would Mexico be that stupid?
 
What the Zimmerman Telegraph showed was that Germany clearly understood nothing about Mexico, its position in relation to the United States, or North American geopolitics. Honestly, the Zimmerman Telegraph is like every bad alternate history story you've ever read. There was no understanding of the real world or how it worked. It is the Robert Conroy of diplomatic messages.
 
What the Zimmerman Telegraph showed was that Germany clearly understood nothing about Mexico, its position in relation to the United States, or North American geopolitics. Honestly, the Zimmerman Telegraph is like every bad alternate history story you've ever read. There was no understanding of the real world or how it worked. It is the Robert Conroy of diplomatic messages.

Indeed. If it had never happened, and were suggested as a WI on this forum, it would be dismissed as ASB.
 
quote-truth-is-stranger-than-fiction-but-it-is-because-fiction-is-obliged-to-stick-to-possibilities-mark-twain-29-86-06.jpg
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Exactly as it says in the title.

It would have made absolutely no difference since USW was much more important than the ZT.

Bonus: What if Mexico accepted it and invaded the US?

It would have gotten its butt kicked by the U.S. very quickly. After all, the U.S. advantage over Mexico in terms of industrialization has presumably significantly increased between the 1840s and the 1910s.
 
Exactly as it says in the title.

The same amount of time as in OTL. Once the Germans had decided on unrestricted submarine warfare (including killing Americans on American ships) it was inevitable that the US would enter the war. (At least under President Wilson or for that matter President Hughes--if there were a President Bryan or a President La Follette, it might be different.) The Zimmerman Telegram may have made the vote for war in Congress even more overwhelming than it otherwise would have been, but that is all.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The same amount of time as in OTL. Once the Germans had decided on unrestricted submarine warfare (including killing Americans on American ships) it was inevitable that the US would enter the war. (At least under President Wilson or for that matter President Hughes--if there were a President Bryan or a President La Follette, it might be different.) The Zimmerman Telegram may have made the vote for war in Congress even more overwhelming than it otherwise would have been, but that is all.
Completely agreed with all of this. Indeed, please see my post above. :)

Also, out of curiosity--what about President Clark? What exactly would he have done in such a situation?
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Depends on just how quick the US is to try and stick its dick in the meat grinder unprovoked.

A year later? The UK is basically out of money and France is on the ragged edge of military collapse. And the Germans' 1918 offensive kicks them over the edge.

BEF gets horrendously out flanked when the French Army throws in the towel, and get booted back to England ala Dunkirk, or are absolutely fucking pulverized.



By 1917 The Entente's situation was about as rickety as could be without actually looking total military defeat in the face.
 
Completely agreed with all of this. Indeed, please see my post above. :)

Also, out of curiosity--what about President Clark? What exactly would he have done in such a situation?

"As Speaker of the House when the United States entered World War I, Clark neither took part in the short debate nor voted on the declaration of war on April 5, 1917. Thus, one can only surmise his position. Reportedly, he reflected his constituency's views by opposing the declaration. His silence was the result of his position within the Democratic Party and the government." https://books.google.com/books?id=0nhEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA149 (He did go on to openly oppose conscription.)

My guess is that he might have favored a continuation of "armed neutrality"--in effect, an undeclared and limited (naval) war on Germany. But he would oppose a declaration of war as long as possible.
 
Germany (H&L) was not deterred by US 'potential' military power as they correctly estimated it would take well over a year to bring significant forces into the field. What H&L wouldn't have understood was the financial aid that the US would bring to bear immediately. So they had nothing to lose by the ZT , in their minds.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That would depend on whether Germany was actually stupid enough to carry out its threats to treat captured American merchantmen as pirates https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/okb7h0NAT2Y/JPrypyAg6MgJ which I doubt (for one thing, the US could make similar threats against captured U-Boat crews...)
So, in other words, with Clark as President, the U.S. sees no entry into WWI at all?

Also, a bit off-topic, but out of curiosity--do you personally think that the proposed Constitutional amendment to limit the U.S. Presidency to one six-year term--something which Clark supported--would have been ratified had Clark been the 1912 Democratic presidential nominee?
 
Top