Zimmermann Telegram in World War I

The Zimmermann Telegram was a diplomatic note sent by the German Foreign Office to Mexico in January 1917 which proposed a military alliance between the two nations should the United States enter World War I (1914-1918) on the side of the Allies. In return for the alliance, Mexico would receive financial assistance from Germany as well as could reclaim territory lost during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) (1846-1848). The Zimmermann Telegram was intercepted and decoded by the British who in turn shared it with the United States. The release of the telegram in March further inflamed the American public and contributed to the American declaration of war the following month. Background In 1917, As World War I ground on, Germany began assessing options for striking a decisive blow. Unable to break the British blockade of the North Sea with its surface fleet, the German leadership elected to return to a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. This approach, whereby German U-boats would attack merchant shipping without warning, had been briefly used in 1916 but was abandoned after strong protests by the United States. Believing that Britain could be quickly crippled if its supply lines to North America were severed, Germany prepared to re-implement this approach effective February 1, 1917. Concerned that the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare could bring the United States into the war on the side of the Allies, Germany began making contingency plans for this possibility. To this end, German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann was instructed to seek a military alliance with Mexico in the event of war with the United States. In return for attacking the United States, Mexico was promised the return of territory lost during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), including Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, as well as substantial financial assistance. German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann. Public Domain Transmission As Germany lacked a direct telegraph line to North America, the Zimmermann Telegram was transmitted over American and British lines. This was permitted as President Woodrow Wilson allowed the Germans to transmit under the cover of U.S. diplomatic traffic in hopes that he could remain in touch with Berlin and broker a lasting peace. Zimmermann sent the original coded message to Ambassador Johann von Bernstorff on January 16, 1917. Receiving the telegram, he forwarded it on to Ambassador Heinrich von Eckardt in Mexico City via commercial telegraph three days later. Mexican Response After reading the message, von Eckardt approached the government of President Venustiano Carranza with the terms. He also asked Carranza to aid in forming an alliance between Germany and Japan. Listening to the German proposal, Carranza instructed his military to determine the feasibility of the offer. In assessing a possible war with the United States, the military determined that it largely lacked the capability to re-take the lost territories and that German financial assistance would be useless as the United States was the only significant arms producer in the Western Hemisphere. President Venustiano Carranza of Mexico. Public Domain Furthermore, additional arms could not be imported as the British controlled the sea lanes from Europe. As Mexico was emerging from a recent civil war, Carranza sought to improve relations with the United States as well as other nations in the region such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. As a result, it was determined to decline the German offer. An official response was issued to Berlin on April 14, 1917, stating that Mexico had no interest in allying with the German cause. British Interception As the ciphertext of the telegram was transmitted through Britain, it was immediately intercepted by British code breakers who were monitoring traffic originating in Germany. Sent to the Admiraltys Room 40, code breakers found that it was encrypted in cipher 0075, which they had partially broken. Decoding parts of the message, they were able to develop an outline of its content. Realizing that they possessed a document that could compel the United State to join the Allies, the British set about developing a plan that would allow them to unveil the telegram without giving away that they were reading neutral diplomatic traffic or that they had broken German codes. To deal with the first issue, they were able to correctly guess that the telegram was sent over commercial wires from Washington to Mexico City. In Mexico, British agents were able to obtain a copy of the ciphertext from the telegraph office. This was encrypted in cipher 13040, which the British had captured a copy of in the Middle East. As a result, by mid-February, British authorities had the complete text of the telegram. To deal with the code breaking issue, the British publicly lied and claimed they had been able to steal a decoded copy of the telegram in Mexico. They ultimately alerted the Americans to their code breaking efforts and Washington elected to back the British cover story. On February 19, 1917, Admiral Sir William Hall, the head of Room 40, presented a copy of the telegram to the secretary of the U.S. Embassy, Edward Bell.​​ Stunned, Hall initially believed the telegram to be a forgery but passed it on to Ambassador Walter Hines Page the next day. On February 23, Page met with Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour and was shown the original ciphertext as well as the message in both German and English. The next day, the telegram and verifying details were presented to Wilson. Ambassador Walter Hines Page. Library of Congress American Response News of the Zimmermann Telegram was quickly released and stories about its contents appeared in the American press on March 1. While pro-German and anti-war groups claimed that it was a forgery, Zimmermann confirmed the telegrams contents on March 3 and March 29. Further inflaming the American public, which was angered over the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare (Wilson broke diplomatic relations with Germany on February 3 over this issue) and the sinking SS Houstonic (February 3) and SS California (February 7), the telegram further pushed the nation towards war. On April 2, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany. This was granted four days later and the United States entered the conflict. Zimmermann Telegram in World War I The Zimmermann Telegram was a note sent in 1917 from the German Foreign Minister Zimmermann to his ambassador in Mexico, containing details of a proposed alliance against America; it was intercepted and published, strengthening US public support for war against Germany as part of World War One. The Background By 1917 the conflict we call The First World War had been raging for over two years, drawing in troops from Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, and Australasia, although the main battles were in Europe. The main belligerents were, on one side, the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires (the Central Powers) and, on the other, the British, French and Russian Empires (the Entente or Allies). The war had been expected to last just a few months in 1914, but the conflict had dragged on in a stalemate of trenches and massive death tolls, and all sides in the war were looking for any advantage they could gain. The Zimmermann Telegram Sent through a supposedly secure channel devoted to peace negotiations (a transatlantic cable belonging to Scandinavia) on January 19th, 1917, the Zimmermann Telegram – often called the Zimmermann Note — was a memo sent from the German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Ambassador to Mexico. It informed the ambassador that Germany would be resuming its policy of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (USW) and, crucially, ordered him to propose an alliance. If Mexico would join in a war against the US, they would be rewarded with financial support and re-conquered land in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The ambassador was also to ask the Mexican President to propose his own alliance to Japan, a member of the Allies. Why Did Germany Send the Zimmermann Telegram? Germany had already stopped and started USW — a program of sinking any shipping coming near their enemies in an attempt to starve them of food and materials — because of fierce US opposition. Americas official neutrality involved trading with all belligerents, but in practice, this meant the Allies and their Atlantic coastlines rather than Germany, who suffered from a British blockade. Consequently, US shipping was frequently a victim. In practice, the US was giving the UK aid which had prolonged the war. The German high command knew renewed USW would probably cause the US to declare war on them, but they gambled on shutting Britain down before an American army could arrive in force. The alliance with Mexico and Japan, as proposed in the Zimmermann Telegram, was intended to create a new Pacific and Central American Front, greatly distracting the US and aiding the German war effort. Indeed, after USW resumed the US severed diplomatic relations with Germany and began debating an entry into the war. The Leak However, the secure channel wasnt secure at all: British intelligence intercepted the telegram and, recognizing the effect it would have on US public opinion, released it to America on February 24th, 1917. Some accounts claim the US State Department was also illegally monitoring the channel; either way, US President Wilson saw the note on the 24th. It was released to the world press on March 1st. Reactions to the Zimmermann Telegram Mexico and Japan immediately denied having anything to do with the proposals (indeed, the Mexican President was content at a recent American withdrawal from his country and Germany could offer little beyond moral support), while Zimmermann admitted the Telegrams authenticity on March 3rd. It had often been asked why Zimmermann came right out and fully admitted things instead of pretending otherwise. Despite Germanys complaint that the Allies had been wiretapping secure peace networks, the US public — still concerned at Mexicos intentions following trouble between the two — was aghast. A vast majority reacted to both the Note, and weeks of growing anger at USW, by backing war against Germany. However, the note itself did not provoke the US into joining the war. Things might have stayed as they were, but then Germany made the mistake which cost them the war and restarted Unrestricted Submarine Warfare again. When the American Congress approved Wilsons decision to declare war on April 6th in reaction to this, there was just 1 vote against. Full Text of The Zimmermann Telegram On the first of February, we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor 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. The details are left to you for settlement. You are instructed to inform the President of Mexico of the above in the greatest confidence as soon as it is certain that there will be an outbreak of war with the United States and suggest that the President of Mexico, on his own initiative, should communicate with Japan suggesting adherence at once to this plan; at the same time, offer to mediate between Germany and Japan. Please call to the attention of the President of Mexico that the employment of ruthless submarine warfare now promises to compel England to make peace in a few months. Zimmerman (Sent January 19, 1917)

The Shift of Culture in Compton and the Transcendent...

In less than forty years, the city of Compton went from a shielded suburb near the confines of Los Angeles, to a terrorizing image of American culture. The results of this transformation and creation of â€Å"gangsta rap† is still well renowned today. Through de jure segregation, Reagan economics, undermining of black prosperity, N.W.A., and â€Å"Boyz n the Hood†, the city of Compton told its story and became a global image. This paper will analyze the shift of culture in Compton and the transcendent cultural effect it formed in America. Thousands of migrants in the 1920’s - 1950’s envisioned Compton, California as the perfect place to settle down and ideal center for industrial workers. That vision did come true for white Americans, although it†¦show more content†¦This was a unique case in African American history and one of the most compelling stories of Compton in my opinion. Blacks were predominant in a suburban setting for one of the few t imes in history. There was a very short window of overlapping segregation and black prosperity in the United States, but Compton fulfilled that window. Black students did well in Compton and Compton Community College became an excellent choice of education. During this time the first black mayor and councilmen were elected. African Americans were beginning to break social barriers in Compton. Compton took its most critical hit when deindustrialization struck. Manufactures followed other industries in seeking to lower their tax burden, open new markets, and increase their plant size. With more than one-third of Compton’s population employed in manufacturing, the city broke its social and economic threshold. The backlash stemmed from an increase in gang and drug related activities. The aging middle-class was increasingly outnumbered by a troubled youth. Children, who were once encouraged by their parents’ success, were now hanging their heads. By 1970 the Bloods and the Crips were created right outside of Compton. The â€Å"crack explosion† of the 1980’s only intensified crime, violence, and murder rates. From middle-class to neighborhood terror, the prosperity relinquished by African Americans in Compton had promptly crumbled right in front of everyone’s eyes. The issues created during this

Was Alfred Hitchcock a Misogynist Free Essays

Of course Alfred Hitchcock was a misogynist, or at least had a neurotic compulsion to mistreat women in his films: everyone knows that. Or do they? If so, one must assume also that most of his heroines were masochistic, in that nearly all his leading actresses seem to have adored him. And if there was mistreatment, it mostly seems to have been meted out, and perceived by its apparent victims, as all in the spirit of innocent merriment. We will write a custom essay sample on Was Alfred Hitchcock a Misogynist or any similar topic only for you Order Now Ivor Montagu, longtime friend and script collaborator of Hitch, told me that one of the first famous examples, the ordeals undergone by Madeleine Carroll while handcuffed to Robert Donat in The 39 Steps, arose because he and Hitch had known her before she went off to Hollywood as very much one of the lads, and suspected she might need to be jollied out of any Hollywood big-star nonsense. And, moreover, that she gave as good as she got, involving Hitch in succession of practical jokes. Well, what about that snippet of sound test for Anny Ondra in Blackmail, in which he reduces her to helpless giggles with a couple of off-colour jokes?Subject to passionate feminist condemnation, it yet seems to be perceived by both participants as whimsically flirtatious, and Ondra and her husband, the boxer Max Schmelling, remained close friends of Hitch’s for the rest of their lives. True, there appears to be little fun in Tippi Hedren’s ordeal in the attic with the birds, but then that arises inevitably from the dramatic situation in the film. And even Hedren, despite her quarrels with Hitchcock over his more-than-professional possessiveness, had no complaints about the support he normally gave her. In his private and professional lives Hitchcock was always surrounded by women. He and his wife had just one child, a daughter, and she produced three grandchildren, all daughters. But where choice was available, in his professional dealings, his office was entirely staffed by women. There was a succession of female personal assistants, as well as the usual complement of secretaries, and his wife Alma was always his most professional, as well as personal, assistant of all. An experienced film editor when he was mainly making the tea, she was always appealed to as the ltimate authority in the cutting room. When the composer Bernard Herrmann first met Alma at Hitchcock’s unit office he later observed: â€Å"There will be trouble. That woman is consumed with jealousy. † So how had she felt about, say, Joan Harrison being Hitch’s personal assistant? For Harrison, whom Hitchcock brought over from England with him in 1939, was a cool blonde with a sizzle underneath. She launched immediately into a blazing affair with Clark Gable, while John Houseman assured me that she was never Hitchcock’s mistress – â€Å"and I can say that, because for some time she was mine†.Peggy Robertson, Hitch’s last and longest personal assistant, was the opposite: a jolly-hockey-stick kind of English lady. When she came to Hollywood she asked Hitch whether she would be expected to follow Joan as his mistress. He replied: â€Å"I can say with complete conviction that I was never between the sheets with Joan. † â€Å"Well, that’s not saying much,† said Peggy; â€Å"What about on the hearth-rug, in the haystack, over the kitchen table? † Hitch gave a convincing look of horror: â€Å"Do people really do thin gs like that? †The playwright Rodney Ackland, who worked with Hitchcock on the script of Number Seventeen in 1932, was exceptional in that he was openly gay. Hitch was fascinated, and once said to him: â€Å"I think I would have been a poof if I hadn’t met Alma at the right time. † An exaggerated view of his coming to terms with his feminine side? Who can say? But undeniably he was more at home with women. Happy as he might be with his leading men, they were not the ones he identified with, and for his bosom buddies you have to look entirely on the other side of the gender gap. How to cite Was Alfred Hitchcock a Misogynist, Papers

Human Cloning Isnt as Scary as It Sounds Essay Example For Students

Human Cloning Isnt as Scary as It Sounds Essay Human Cloning Isnt as Scary as It SoundsThe recent news of the successful cloning of an adult sheepin which the sheeps DNA was inserted into an unfertilized sheep egg to producea lamb with identical DNAhas generated an outpouring of ethical concerns. Theseconcerns are not about Dolly, the now famous sheep, nor even about theconsiderable impact cloning may have on the animal breeding industry, but ratherabout the possibility of cloning humans. For the most part, however, the ethicalconcerns being raised are exaggerated and misplaced, because they are based onerroneous views about what genes are and what they can do. The danger, therefore,lies not in the power of the technology, but in the misunderstanding of itssignificance. Producing a clone of a human being would not amount to creating a carbon copyan automaton of the sort familiar from science fiction. It would be more likeproducing a delayed identical twin. And just as identical twins are two separatepeoplebiologically, psychologically, morally and legally, though notgeneticallyso a clone is a separate person from his or her non-contemporaneoustwin. To think otherwise is to embrace a belief in genetic determinismthe viewthat genes determine everything about us, and that environmental factors or therandom events in human development are utterly insignificant. The overwhelmingconsensus among geneticists is that genetic determinism is false. As geneticists have come to understand the ways in which genes operate, theyhave also become aware of the myriad ways in which the environment affects theirexpression. The genetic contribution to the simplest physical traits, such asheight and hair color, is significantly mediated by environmental factors. Andthe genetic contribution to the traits we value most deeply, from intelligenceto compassion, is conceded by even the most enthusiastic genetic researchers tobe limited and indirect. Indeed, we need only appeal to our ordinary experiencewith identical twinsthat they are different people despite their similaritiesto appreciate that genetic determinism is false. Furthermore, because of the extra steps involved, cloning will probably alwaysbe riskierthat is, less likely to result in a live birththan in vitrofertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer. (It took more than 275 attempts beforethe researchers were able to obtain a successful sheep clone. While cloningmethods may improve, we should note that even standard IVF techniques typicallyhave a success rate of less than 20 percent.) So why would anyone go to thetrouble of cloning?There are, of course, a few reasons people might go to the trouble, and so itsworth pondering what they think they might accomplish, and what sort of ethicalquandaries they might engender. Consider the hypothetical example of the couplewho wants to replace a child who has died. The couple doesnt seek to haveanother child the ordinary way because they feel that cloning would enable themto reproduce, as it were, the lost child. But the unavoidable truth is that theywould be producing an entirely different person, a delay ed identical twin ofthat child. Once they understood that, it is unlikely they would persist. But suppose they were to persist? Of course we cant deny that possibility. Buta couple so persistent in refusing to acknowledge the genetic facts is notlikely to be daunted by ethical considerations or legal restrictions either. Ifour fear is that there could be many couples with that sort of psychology, thenwe have a great deal more than cloning to worry about. Another disturbing possibility is the person who wants a clone in order to haveacceptable spare parts in case he or she needs an organ transplant later inlife. But regardless of the reason that someone has a clone produced, the resultwould nevertheless be a human being with all the rights and protections thataccompany that status. It truly would be a disaster if the results of humancloning were seen as less than fully human. But there is certainly no moraljustification for and little social danger of that happening; after all, we donot accord lesser status to children who have been created through IVF or embryotransfer. .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 , .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 .postImageUrl , .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 , .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31:hover , .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31:visited , .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31:active { border:0!important; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31:active , .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31 .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ucc5ee7257c788ca0de87207563c45d31:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Who Do We Think We Are? EssayThere are other possibilities we could spin out. Suppose a couple wants adesigner childa clone of Cindy Crawford or Elizabeth Taylorbecause they wanta daughter who will grow up to be as attractive as those women. Indeed, supposesomeone wants a clone, never mind of whom, simply to enjoy the notoriety ofhaving one. We cannot rule out such cases as