Why did America intervene in WW1?

[favedave]

Does it seem likely that the United States would not declare war on Germany upon discovery that the Germans were trying to get Mexico to renew its attacks on the United States, regardless of how the information was obtained? How long did it take to realize they could have just lied about it? You know, "Highly placed sources in the Mexican government have told us..." The reason they flapped about so was to protect their cracking of all of Germany's codes. Codes the Germans would have changed in a heartbeat had they any suspicion they had been compromised.

This is not 'wear tinfoil hats' conspiracy theory. It was and it is still standard intelligence operating procedure.

Here's a challenge for you. Come up with evidence to support the rather outrageous contention that the British would knowingly jeopardize trade relations with the United States over something of such limited value (which had the added benefit of offering Wilson inside information without political cost to himself). By the way, it was not America's diplomatic cable which was offered and used by the Germans. It was AT&T's business cable, which again was under the control of J.P. Morgan's financial trust. Since Morgan was whole heartedly committed to the British cause, certainly he would have been the first to applaude, and perhaps even the first to suggest such an offer be made.

[michael mills]

YM wrote:

......but there was a considerable reservoir of pro-German or at least anti-British sentiment in the US before 1917. First of all, there were a lot of people who had family ties to Germany, being either born there or the children or grandchildren of German immigrants to the US. World War I occurred after a period of considerable Jewish immigration to the US from eastern Europe and these Jews were very pro-German due to the fact that Germany AT THE TIME had an enlightened policy towards Jews, as opposed to notorious Czarist antisemitism and pogroms.

To which Terry Duncan responded:

Quite possibly, but there were far more with the same ties to Britain, France, Italy and Russia. You are identifying a minority of people in the US and imagining they would have a great influence on US policy.

Terry Duncan is showing his lack of historical knowledge here.

In the 30 years leading up to the First World War there was indeed a very large migratory movement, several million strong, from the Russian Empire to the United States, but it consisted overwhelmingly of Jews or other religious minorities (Orthodox Old Believers, Mennonites), all utterly hostile to the Imperial Russian Government.

For example, in the above period over two million Jews migrated from the Russian Empire to the United States.

Hence, the great majority of the millions of Russian immigrants in the United States at the beginning of the First World War were hostile to Russia and favourable toward Germany, which they saw as a force that could overthrow the Tsarist system and liberate their relatives still living in Russia.

That was particularly true of Jewish immigrants from Russia. To assess their views, one need only cast a cursory glance at the Yiddish-language press in the United States in the first decade of the 20th Century, for example the satirical magazine "Der Groyse Kundes", in which Tsar Nicholas II is depicted as a blood-stained monster, the new Haman. Indeed, Tsar Nicholas played much the same role in the Jewish popular imagination then as Hitler does today.

Furthermore, it is entirely contrary to historical reality to describe as imaginary the influence of immigrants on the policy of the United States Government. The Jewish Establishment in particular, consisting of wealthy and powerful bankers and other captains of industry, men like Jacob Schiff and Samuel Untermeyer, largely of German origin, was extremely influential.

For example, in 1904, after the notorious Kishinev pogrom, Jacob Schiff was able to persuade the United States Government to impose economic sanctions on the Russian Empire, a move that was not beneficial to the economic interests of the United States.

At the beginning of the First World War, the Jewish Establishment was in its majority pro-German, for two reasons:

1. Most of its members were of German origin; and
2. Germany was the opponent of the Russian Empire, seen as the sworn enemy of the Jewish peeople.

As to those pro-German views of the Jewish Establishment in the United States, and its role in keeping that country from joining the Allied side before 1917, I read an interesting book some years ago on that topic, "A People Apart : The Jews in Europe, 1789-1939", by David Vital ( Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press, 1999). The book contains a chapter on the events during the First World War that led to the well-known Balfour Declaration of November 1917, and shows how those events were driven by the initial pro-German stance of the Jewish Establishment in the United States.

At the beginning of 1915, it appears that both the British and French Governments were extremely concerned that the Jewish Establishment in the United States was using its influence to prevent that country from adopting a pro-Allied position, and eventually joining the war against Germany. In fact, they feared that they might well lose the war because of that.

In 1915, the British Ambassador in the United States warned the British Government of the effect of Jewish opinion in the United States, and recommended that the British and French Governments should persuade the Jewish leaders in their respective countries to use their influence with their counterparts in the United States to induce the latter to give up their opposition to American engagement on the Allied side.

In fact, the message from the British Ambassador went so far as to recommend threatening the Jewish leaders in Britain and France, along the lines that if the Allies lost the war due to the American Jewish Establishment's preventing the provision of assistance to them by the United States, there would be a huge outbreak of anti-Jewish feeling in the defeated Allied countries. The message hinted at anti-Jewish pogroms in Britain and France, similar to those that had occurred in Russia.

As a result of the intervention of the Ambassador, the British Government called in the leader of Anglo-Jewry, Lucien Wolf, and asked him for his advice as to what measures it could undertake to induce the Jewish Establishment in the United States to adopt a more pro-Allied position. Wolf advised that the most effective would be to announce that the Allies would give Palestine to the Jewish people once it had been conquered from the Ottoman Empire.

According to Vital, the Asquith Government did not take up Wolf's suggestion, but once Asquith was replaced by Lloyd George at the end of 1916, the British Government showed renewed interest, and negotiations were begun that led to the issuing of the Balfour Declaration some months after the entry of the United States into the war on the Allied side.

Vital's thesis is that once the Jewish Establishment in the United States had been informed privately of Britain's new policy in regard to Palestine, it ceased its opposition to the entry of the United States into the war against Germany, which tipped the balance in favour of the pro-Allied pressure groups.

That volte-face on the part of the American Jewish Establishment was assisted by the fact that only two months after the adoption by the British Government of a pro-Zionist policy the Imperial Russian Government fell and was replaced by a republican provisional government that abolished all the previous anti-Jewish legislation. The British Ambassador at St Petersburg played an important role in persuading leading figures in the Russian Imperial Government to withdraw their support for Tsar Nicholas and give it to the provisional government, which initially consisted of conservative pro-Allied elements.

It appears that the new British Government under Lloyd George had adopted a policy of appeasing the American Jewish Establishment by the two main measures of promising Palestine to the Jewish people and allowing the overthrow of the anti-Jewish Imperial Russian Government.

That change in the Jewish policy of the British Government was assisted by changes in the leadership of the Zionist Movement. Before the First World War, the leaders of the Zionist Movement had been pro-German, and had their headquarters in Berlin. Germany seen as the power that could best assist the Zionist cause, through its influence on the Ottoman Empire, and also through its opposition to Russia.

After the outbreak of the First World War, the existing Zionist leadership moved to Copenhagen in order to maintain its neutrality, and as a result lost its influence over the Zionist movement. Leadership now passed to a new generation, headed by Chaim Weizmann, who was of Russian origin but had moved to Britain, where he had gained a large measure of influence due to his role as a chemist of developing new explosives for the British military.

So in the period at the end of 1916 and the beginning of 1917, there was a number of developments that caused the Jewish Establishment in the United states to become more pro-Allied:

- The Zionist movement had already become pro-Allied due to a change in leadership, thereby facilitating negotiations with the Allied governments;
- The British Government had adopted a pro-Zionist policy, opening the way for the transfer of Palestine to Jewish ownership, a major ideological goal for the great majority of Jews, whether avowedly Zionist or not;
- The Imperial Russian Government had been overthrown, after an informal withdrawal of British support for it.

Those developments induced the American Jewish Establishment to cease its opposition to United States entry into the war, thereby removing one of the major political obstacles to that entry.

The issuing of the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, coming as it did some seven months after the entry of the United States into the war against Germany, had a cataclysmic effect on German attitudes towards the Jews. Up until then, Germany had maintained a generally pro-Jewish stance in Eastern Europe, positioning itself as the liberator of the Jewish people from the tyrannical Russian Empire.

Now, the Balfour Declaration was seen by Germans as a payoff to the Jewish Establishment in the United States for abandoning its previous pro-German stance and allowing the United States to join the Allies against Germany. The Jews as a group now came to be seen as having sold Germany out, and even the loyalty of German citizens of Jewish origin came under suspicion. The rise and spread of extremist anti-Semitism in Germany can be seen as having its origin in the developments at the end of 1916 and the beginning of 1917 which contributed to the entry of the United States into the war on the Allied side.

[Terry Duncan]

Terry Duncan is showing his lack of historical knowledge here.

Actually it is you that is displaying your lack of historical knowledge - or maybe historical demographic knowledge would be more correct - as the various studies into the ethnic backgrounds of people in the US today place the number of people of German origin at anything up to about 20%, and at no time exceeding 30% in any figures I have been able to find, whislt those who's ancestors originated in the British Isles range from 85% in the 18thC to c60% today. The closest study I have found is the one conducted at the time of WWII that gave the following figures;

To add further weight, a World War II ethnic background of the U.S. put the top four backgrounds as 36 million British (English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish), 32 million German, 29 million Irish, 12 million Italian and 10 million Polish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maps_of_Am ... ancestries

My comment that you seem to disagree with was s follows;

Quite possibly, but there were far more with the same ties to Britain, France, Italy and Russia. You are identifying a minority of people in the US and imagining they would have a great influence on US policy.

This would support my statement that people of German descent were indeed a minority of the US population, though other than your pointless personal comment you seem to have made no effort to provide any information to support the claim I am in error here.

As to the rest of your post, it seems to be little more than an indication of an unhealthy obsession with people of Jewish origin that reflects far more on the person posting it than it offers any relevent insight into the reasons the US intervened in WWI.

[michael mills]

The statement by Terry Duncan was:

.....there were far more with the same ties to Britain, France, Italy and Russia

I have emphasised the word "Russia" here to make it clear exactly which part of his statement showed a lack of historical knowledge.

Terry Duncan was implying that immigrants from Russia would have ties to their country of origin that would make them pro-Allied, and that those immigrants from Russia greatly outnumbered immigrants from Germany.

There were indeed several million immigrants from Russia living in the United States, but the essential point, misunderstood by Terry Duncan, is that they were overwhelmingly hostile to the Imperial Russian Government, and supported Germany, or at least were not against Germany, since they saw Germany as the enemy of the hated Tsar.

Accordingly, those millions of immigrants from Russia do not counterbalance the immigrants from Germany. To the contrary, they need to be added to the German immigrants as a pro-German, anti-Russian part of the American population.

As to the rest of your post, it seems to be little more than an indication of an unhealthy obsession with people of Jewish origin that reflects far more on the person posting it than it offers any relevent insight into the reasons the US intervened in WWI.

This sort of ad hominem argument is simply a tactic to justify ignoring the fact that in 1915 the Allied governments were very concerned about the pro-German stance of the Jewish Establishment in the United States, and were desperately seeking ways to change it. The fact that Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, a move entirely unwarranted by the existing ethnic facts on the ground in the Middle East, and guaranteed to alienate the sympathies of the people already living there, clearly demonstrates the crucial importance it attached to winning over the Jewish Establishment in the United States.

The fact is that the United States Government, however pro-Allied it may have been, could not intervene on the Allied side until domestic opposition to such intervention could be overcome. The pro-German, anti-Russian views of the Jewish Establishment were a major part of that opposition, and their neutralisation constituted a major weakening of it, enabling the pro-Allied elements to prevail.

[Terry Duncan]

I have emphasised the word "Russia" here to make it clear exactly which part of his statement showed a lack of historical knowledge.

Terry Duncan was implying that immigrants from Russia would have ties to their country of origin that would make them pro-Allied, and that those immigrants from Russia greatly outnumbered immigrants from Germany.

You are clearly unable to read the English language as the words I posted say no such thing.

To the contrary, they need to be added to the German immigrants as a pro-German, anti-Russian part of the American population.

Not all Germans were pro-German, so your arguement is somewhat flawed when trying to count ethnic origins as some form of primative block vote.

This sort of ad hominem argument is....

An accurate obsevation given that in almost every thread you take part in, you turn the subject to that of the Jewish people. Maybe if you do not wish people to draw such conclusions you should change your behaviour?

The fact is that the United States Government, however pro-Allied it may have been, could not intervene on the Allied side until domestic opposition to such intervention could be overcome. The pro-German, anti-Russian views of the Jewish Establishment were a major part of that opposition, and their neutralisation constituted a major weakening of it, enabling the pro-Allied elements to prevail.

This still does nothing to show that my original statment that people of German origin were in the minority in the US during WWI, and notably you had still offered nothing to show otherwise.

[favedave]

[quoteThe fact is that the United States Government, however pro-Allied it may have been, could not intervene on the Allied side until domestic opposition to such intervention could be overcome.][/quote]

Now this really is over-reaching. The moment the American people, regardless of their race or ethnic origin were presented with Germany's perfidy against their adopted homeland in the form of The Zimmermann Telegram, on top of the return to unrestricted submarine warfare, there was no further opposition to America's immediate entry into the war. Regardless of whether one believes it was calculated political timing or the ironic comeuppance of an idealist fool, Wilson's striding into Congress and asking for a declaration of war against Germany had not been delayed for fear of offending the pro-German elements of the German, Irish, and Russian immigrant populations. Oh yes, the Irish in America were somewhat more anti-British than the Russians and Germans were pro-German. Now the Russian Jews were decidedly anti Tsar, but a lot of the Germans in America were anti-Kaiser as well. In any case they were by no means united in their views of the power elite in their old world homelands regardless of where they or their families had come from.

[South]

Good morning Michael,

Re: "the influence of immigrants on the policy of the United States Government";

As far as = substantial influence = , I do not believe you can support the above quote.

Jacob Schiff, the financier who helped fund Japan in their war against Russia 1904-05, was influential - but not "extremely influential" in re the policy of the United States Government. Besides Schiff, other forces were present. Do not neglect the sotto voce agreements between the US and Japan re the Phillippines and Korean peninsula respective spheres of interest.

I do not believe you can amplify with significant examples to say that Jacob Schiff "was able to persuade the United States Government.......not beneficial to the economic interests of the United States".

It will take more than a book covering 1789 to 1939 to develop the theme that "the Jewish establishment in the United States and its role in keeping [US] from joining the Allied side before 1917,..". The US was barely prepared to handle their "Mexican Crisis" of April 1914, let alone field an expeditionary force for European deployment. This lack of preparedness cannot be traced to General Leonard Wood's failures as a commander or the Yiddish press in New York City.


Warm regards,

Bob

[Terry Duncan]

The moment the American people, regardless of their race or ethnic origin were presented with Germany's perfidy against their adopted homeland in the form of The Zimmermann Telegram, on top of the return to unrestricted submarine warfare, there was no further opposition to America's immediate entry into the war.

I would agree Dave, no matter what the political influence of various factions in the US, and lets not forget there was apowerful German faction too, once the USW campaign restarted Germany was living very dangerously and the Zimmermann Telegram was the final straw - even the pro-German lobby's influence and support waned badly from that point.

It will take more than a book covering 1789 to 1939 to develop the theme that "the Jewish establishment in the United States and its role in keeping [US] from joining the Allied side before 1917

It also needs people to refuse to see the rather obvious fact that the US had no direct reason to go to war prior to 1917, and that it was even against her interests to do so. The only real exception to this would have been if the US had taken a stand over Belgium in 1914 and threatened war over the German attack on a neutral, but from that point on theere was really no direct cause for the US to go to war. Certainly the USW campaigns were taken badly by the US, but most of the ships being sunk were not from the US whilst the US was merrily supplying munitions to Germany's enemies, so it would have been difficult to unify public opinon for war on such matters.

The Jewish influence may well have been disproportionate to their numbers, but to suggest they alone kept the US out of the war or even played the major role in the US not joining the war is to ignore the US had no real justification for war until 1917, let alone one that would not divide the population.

[michael mills]

The Jewish influence may well have been disproportionate to their numbers, but to suggest they alone kept the US out of the war .......

Mr Duncan,

Please do not falsify what I wrote.

I never wrote that the Jewish Establishment in the United States ALONE prevented that country from entering the war on the Allied side.

I wrote that the Jewish Establishment, which was very influential, opposed entering a war against Germany because ithat country was fighting Russia, to which the Jewish Establishment was bitterly hostile because of the anti-Jewish policies of the Imperial Russian Government.

The American Jewish Establishment also preferred Germany to France, since at that time the latter country was considered far more anti-Jewish than the former.

By contrast, the Jewish Establishment in the United States was not at all hostile toward Britain. However, it did not want to support Britain in a war against Germany, a country to which many of its members had familial ties, which it saw as friendly to Jews and as a power which might defeat Russia and liberate the oppressed Jews under its rule.

The Jewish Establishment in the United States was only one of a number of pressure groups that opposed entry into the war, but it was an influential one, and the British and French Governments certainly viewed its apparent pro-German stance as something exremely detrimental to Allied interests.

It is also a fact that once the Imperial Russian Government was replaced in March 1917 by a provisional republican government that abolished all the anti-Jewish legislation, the essential reason for the Jewish Establishment's lack of support for the Allied side disappeared, and it no longer had any reason to oppose the entry of the United states into the war on the Allied side.

Britain's issuing of the Balfour Declaration after the United States joined the Allies is indicative of a deal done with the Jewish Establishment to end its opposition to American entry to the war. The withdrawal of the Jewish Establishment from the camp of opponents to American entry to the war substantially weakened that camp, and allowed the camp of Allied supporters to prevail.

Certainly the USW campaigns were taken badly by the US, but most of the ships being sunk were not from the US whilst the US was merrily supplying munitions to Germany's enemies, so it would have been difficult to unify public opinon for war on such matters.

I am not sure exactly what you mean here.

Are you saying that unrestricted submarine warfare did not decisively influence public opinion in the United states in favour of war with Germany?

If the United States Government had not wanted to go to war with Germany, then Germany's submarine warfare would not have forced it do so. After all, it had not opposed the British blockade, which cut off American trade with Germany, obviously to the economic detriment of the United States. In the same way, if its aim had been to stay out of the war, it could have accepted Germany's submarine campaign, which was a form of blockade, for example by forbidding US-flagged ships from entering the war zone.

Instead, the United States Government used German unrestricted submarine warfare as a casus belli, indicating that it had already given in to those elements in the United States that wanted it to join the war on the Allied side.

[Terry Duncan]

Mr Duncan,

Please do not falsify what I wrote.

I didnt. It appears you have done exactly what you accuse me of with your latest edit of what I said;

You note;

I never wrote that the Jewish Establishment in the United States ALONE prevented that country from entering the war on the Allied side.

A strawman as I never said that you did. My comment was;

The Jewish influence may well have been disproportionate to their numbers, but to suggest they alone kept the US out of the war or even played the major role in the US not joining the war is to ignore the US had no real justification for war until 1917, let alone one that would not divide the population.

Which would appear perfectly clear provided you read it properly. However, you have decided to edit this statement so it reads;

The Jewish influence may well have been disproportionate to their numbers, but to suggest they alone kept the US out of the war .......

By using this 'edit' you accuse me of misrepresenting you? Please refrain from such tactics here or I will simply remove posts where you practice such tactics.

I wrote that the Jewish Establishment, which was very influential, opposed entering a war against Germany because ithat country was fighting Russia, to which the Jewish Establishment was bitterly hostile because of the anti-Jewish policies of the Imperial Russian Government.

Such blanket statements are almost always wrong, and this is so far unsupported by you. I am sure you are aware that the Kaiser was a known anti-semite, and that not all Germans living in the US supported the German cause in WWI. Nor were all Russian emigrants in the US of Jewish origin, so this entire quibble of yours - because I pointed out the fact that the people of British, French, Italian, and Russian origins far outnumbered those of Germanic origin - is not only against the obvious numerical facts, it relies upon blanket statements that are unsupported so far.

The American Jewish Establishment also preferred Germany to France, since at that time the latter country was considered far more anti-Jewish than the former.

I am sure you will have no problem supporting this and all the other statements statement with actual facts and details that others can check, just so people do not think you are posting little more than unsupported opinion?

Britain's issuing of the Balfour Declaration after the United States joined the Allies is indicative of a deal done with the Jewish Establishment to end its opposition to American entry to the war.

It is also indicative of the situation in the Levant at this time of the war and the usefulness of Jewish support for the allied cause there. You are welcome to show details of such a deal as you claim though.

The withdrawal of the Jewish Establishment from the camp of opponents to American entry to the war substantially weakened that camp, and allowed the camp of Allied supporters to prevail.

The German resumption of USW by Germany followed by the Zimmermann telegram removed opposition from the political lobbiests, making the 'Jewish Establishment' opinion on the matter irrelevent.

Are you saying that unrestricted submarine warfare did not decisively influence public opinion in the United states in favour of war with Germany?

It obviously did not decisively influence US opinion to wanting war, as the US did not declare war when any of the USW campaigns started, but only after the Zimmermann telegram became known. The USW campaigns did effect US opinion, but it was not in itself decisive.

After all, it had not opposed the British blockade, which cut off American trade with Germany, obviously to the economic detriment of the United States.

Given the US made far more from trade with the Entente than Germany could hope to match, there was no 'economic detriment' to the US.

Instead, the United States Government used German unrestricted submarine warfare as a casus belli, indicating that it had already given in to those elements in the United States that wanted it to join the war on the Allied side.

The US did not name the USW campaign as casus belli. Here is the declaration of war;

Whereas the Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/uso ... ration.htm

As you can see, the US cited 'repeated acts of war' by Germany as having led to the US declaring war. This would range from Germany launching the USW campaigns, sinking neutral shipping (and even doing that contrary to international law if they had been enemy shipping!), acts of terrorism against the US, and inciting another nation to declare war on the US. There is sufficient provocation here from Germany for even the most tolerant or reticent nation to declare war, it did not need a minority pressure group to give permission or abandon opposition to it.

[michael mills]

I am not so sure that the Zimmermann Telegram of 16 January 1917 was all that decisive in inducing the United States Government to declare war on Germany. At most, it served as a means of whipping up public support for a decision that had already been made for other reasons.

This is what the telegram said:

FROM 2nd from London # 5747.
"We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace." Signed, ZIMMERMANN

Thus, the offer to Mexico of an alliance against the United States would only become operative if the United States abandoned neutrality and made war on the Germany, which the German Government in January 1917 still hoped to avoid. If the United States remained neutral, the German Ambassador in Mexico would not relay the offer to the Mexican President.

I strongly doubt that the United states Government was in the least afraid of hostilities with the anarchic mess that was Mexico at the time. The idea of Mexico reconquering Texas, New Mexico and Arizona by military force was simply absurd.

Furthermore, it was perfectly obvious that, given British command of the Atlantic, there was no way that Germany could provide any support to Mexico in a war with the United States.

If the United States Government had been determined to keep out of the war, it could have ignored the Zimmermann Telegram as a piece of silliness by a crazy German politician. There was absolutely no danger from Mexico, since the Mexican Government, such as it was, knew that it was far too weak to cross swords with the United States and would never have dared to invade (apart from border crossings by bandits).

But the United States Government was not determined to stay out of the war. Obviously the forces within the country that were pushing it toward war had become much stronger than those forces that wanted it to stay neutral.

[Terry Duncan]

I am not so sure that the Zimmermann Telegram of 16 January 1917 was all that decisive in inducing the United States Government to declare war on Germany.

It was the final act in a long line of provocations. The Black Tom Island incident would have been sufficient to see a state of war exist. The Zimmermann Telegram was a major display of bad faith after Wilson had allowed the Germans to use US cable facilities, and it was this coupled with the nature of the communication that led to the declaration of war, not the fear that war torn Mexico would suddenly unify and attack the US in order to seize the promised lands.

[michael mills]

In any case, why not try reading the book I referred to, and see what Vital says. Then you can make up your own mind.

It is a historical fact that the British and French Governments saw the role of the Jewish Establishment in opposing entry of the United States into the war on the side of Russia and against Germany as so important that they sought ways to neutralise it, a process that led to the Balfour Declaration.

it is a fact that the British and French Governments feared that they might lose the war if the influence of the Jewish Establishment in the United States tipped the balance against the pro-Allied elements and kept the United States neutral.

It may be that the British and French Governments had an exaggerated view of the influence of the American Jewish Establishment, but if so, the exaggeration was based on a reality. Whatever the case may be, Jewish sentiment in the United states against war with Germany largely evaporated after the fall of the Russian Imperial Government, and became more pro-Allied after the Balfour Declaration in November 1917.

[michael mills]

It was the final act in a long line of provocations. The Black Tom Island incident would have been sufficient to see a state of war exist. The Zimmermann Telegram was a major display of bad faith after Wilson had allowed the Germans to use US cable facilities, and it was this coupled with the nature of the communication that led to the declaration of war, not the fear that war torn Mexico would suddenly unify and attack the US in order to seize the promised lands.

The United states has suffered worse provocations without using them as a casus belli.

In June 1967, a ship of the United States Navy was subjected to repeated attack by Israeli aircraft, causing the deaths of many US servicemen.

Did the United States go to war with Israel?

No, of course not! It pretended to accept the explanation that it was all an accident. And it did that because it had no desire to go to war with Israel.

If the United States had not wanted to go to war with Germany, it could have pretended that the Zimmermann telegram was an aberrant act by a deranged German politician.

It could have pretended that Lothar Witzke was a rogue agent, not operating under the orders of the German Government. But since the United states Government had decided that it was in its interests to enter the war against Germany, it used all the various incidents as casus belli.

[YM]

Although it does seem delusionary to think that Mexico could reconquer Texas and other lost territories from the US, even with German help, I am currently watching Strachan's "The First World War" series and he said that in 1903, the German Navy was asked to come up with a plan for a naval assault on the Eastern Seaboard of the US, including landing German troops in Boston and New York! How's that for delusionary? Seeing what the Germans thought they could grab in former Russian territory after the Treaty Of Brest-Litovsk with German troops reaching the Caucasus, maybe they really believed they were a master-race that could conquer everything in their path.

Regarding the Balfour Declaration-it was also directed at newly democratic Russia which in November 1917, when it was promulgated, was wavering regarding its committment to remain in the war (this is when the Bolshevik Coup took place). Although there was a substantial population of Jews in the Russian Empire, they had far less political clout than the Jewish community of the time had in the US, so British belief that the Declaration would help keep Russia in the war was misplaced.