By the way, sorry about that guy with the robotic, broken English. For some reason he really hated me saying China would be better off as multiple countries, so he's been stalking my conversations.
When you decided to ignore every other aspect.
What Wilson winning election on an anti-war campaign proves is that there was still more support for staying out of the war during the election. Did anything happen between the election and our entry?
Explain why the two years is significant. Was somebody claiming the Lusitania sinking immediately resulted in massive support for war? That's the only thing I can think of that the two years would be relevant to.
You said the Lusitania was the only aspect when you decided to start ignoring everything other than the Lusitania.
Can you explain why you believe us not immediately declaring war on Germany and Wilson winning reelection are more indicative of how "effective" the propaganda campaign was than the fact that we DID declare war and the public WAS massively supportive of it?
Why are you still strawmanning that the Lusitania was the only aspect of the propaganda? Why did you suddenly stop talking about the Zimmerman telegram and everything else?
The 1916 National Defense Act to double the size of the army was passed literally a month after Lusitania was sunk, and the Big Navy Act to enormously expand the navy passed a couple months later in July.
So is your argument based on just completely making things up?
Did I bring it up as the immediate cause of joining the war? Or did I say it "was the start of the propaganda campaign to get the public behind the war"? And that "we weren't going to switch overnight from isolationism to dying in trenches for Europeans"?
How did Wilson win the election? What was the agreement he secured with Germany that you mentioned before? And I already told you why the telegram wouldn't have mattered: The public wouldn't have known it existed. It was intel delivered directly to the government by the British. There were ZERO reasons for it to be given to the media, or for the media to then publish it, other than to outrage the public. If you disagree, please name one.
The original "story" (lie) wasn't that it was a forgery either, it was that we were the ones who decoded it, so it wouldn't look like the British were using it to drag us into the war which is precisely the exact thing they were doing. Either way, if we already wanted to stay neutral, then Germany making preparations in case we don't stay neutral is irrelevant. But that's not how the press reported the telegram, was it?
I'm just curious, do you hold the same faithful views of the media today? Or do you recognize all their scheming anti-American bullshit and propaganda, but just don't wanna believe it was like that as far back as WW1 as well?
You've been arguing as if somebody said the Lusitania was the immediate/main reason we entered the war. Who said that?
Nothing in the telegram remotely indicated Germany had intent to bring us into the war. That's insane, it indicated the exact opposite. But how would that even make the public support war?
"Hey, remember how you've kept staunchly anti-war this entire time despite the British trying to persuade you to help them? Well now the krauts want you to get involved too, for some reason."
"Oh, well in that case, off to the trenches!" ...Huh?
They wanted us to stay neutral but were preparing in case we wouldn't. And on its own that STILL wouldn't make the public support war, because how does that work? They're preparing in case we join, so...... let's join? Obviously there was something else. What was it?
Just assuming as well that by the telegram being discovered you meant "discovered then leaked to the press and published", since it obviously wouldn't mean anything to public opinion otherwise.
Who was saying the Lusitania was the sole reason we joined, or that we joined immediately after?
You're asking why I can't answer a simple question but you still won't explain why the American public would start supporting war without the media's propaganda. You said it yourself, Woodrow Wilson was reelected to keep us out. The public did not support war.
So what changed?
It would be nice to hurt the businesses in the courts too and put a stop to it quicker, I guess it's a balance between short and long term. If it sets precedents, it'll backfire on us later, same way we ended up with "bake the cake and wax my balls, bigot".
My kids will never think any of this is normal though, even if all the rest of society does. But thankfully a lot of people seem to be losing patience.
Why does the length of time matter? If anything, wouldn't that just make it an even better example? They had plenty of opportunity to move on from the sensationalist cries and start reporting honestly, instead they just built up the narrative the entire time.
You haven't explained why you think our and Britain's government using civilians as human shields and sailing them into an active war zone to smuggle munitions with full, public knowledge of Germany's sub policy would mean Americans start supporting war. It would've been the usual, common sense response of just not sailing through the blockade, plus demanding our government maintain actual neutrality. That's why the warmongering press's narrative was needed. It made that response seem disloyal, not caring about Germans killing Americans, etc. allowing the interventionists to win out.
Loads of rulers/governments have used the same tactic, it's not like it was new.
Let em deny service, businesses run by people trying to fan the hysteria deserve to suffer. The anti-discrimination shit always ends up just hurting us more.
I gave the Lusitania as an example of the press fostering war. And? You seem to be siding with the warmongering press. You never answered why Americans would suddenly decide to support the war, either.
Why are you still arguing like it's individual ships that matter more? Britain explicitly used civilian shipping for military purposes and disguised military vessels as civilian to ambush submarines. The German response was unrestricted sub warfare, meaning individual ships are guilty of being ships trying to sail in a war zone/blockade. There are no presumptions or lack of evidence anywhere.
I wonder if you also apply your logic to Britain?
We need a nice little "Manufacturing Facts" label on products, like the nutrition facts for food.
Not presumption of guilt, because it was an already established practice. You keep trying to hang it up on the specific ship; why? The policy wasn't against a specific ship, the policy was against shipping.
If the public didn't know about the Zimmerman telegram, how would it have been influential? Why would the American public suddenly start backing war just because Germany wanted to prepare for our involvement, when it was plain as day that Britain wanted us involved?
What fault? The policy of unrestricted ship sinking was proven justified.
And what Zimmerman telegram? Did the public know about it before it was leaked to the press for propaganda?
They didn't need to know what it was carrying. Their policy was unrestricted. The fact that it WAS carrying munitions reinforces the policy. If the press were honest, the controversy would have been about civilians being used as human shields to supply Britain when we're supposed to be neutral. Instead it was about Germans killing Americans.
And I'm asking why the telegram was influential. It's because it being published was part of the exact same propaganda campaign that started with Lusitania. All of it's an example of the press stoking war.
The practice of transporting military supplies on ships exactly like the Lusitania (and the Lusitania itself previously) on those same shipping lanes is relevant.
Why was the Zimmerman telegram influential? Nothing should be surprising about a country proposing alliances and making plans in case another country (already aiding its enemies) enters a war against it. It's almost like there was a two-year long narrative built about Germany being a threat to America, and the Zimmerman telegram being published was just the grand finale.
It's always IRL first. Debating some boomer on facebook doesn't change shit if we're not doing the same in person. The whole thing with "respecting others views", not discussing politics with friends/colleagues, etc is how Marxism crept in.
That's why the MAGA hats have been so fucking fantastic.
It was an established practice already, disguising Navy ships as civilian or just outright using civilians as human shields for military transport. That's why the whole policy of unrestricted submarine warfare became a thing in the first place. Wasn't like Germany thought killing tourists and travelers would help win the war.
The Lusitania was the start of the propaganda campaign to get the American public behind war. We weren't gonna switch overnight from isolationism to dying in the trenches for Europeans. The threat of the "barbaric Huns" needed to extend to Americans directly.
And what happened right before the declaration? Zimmerman telegram gets leaked to the press, then plastered on the front page of every newspaper in the country. Enormously sensitive intel, not just the actual contents but the fact that we even knew about it. Why was the media so eager to give away the fact that we (Britain, in reality) cracked Germany's code?
What was the civilian ship RMS Lusitania carrying when it got torpedoed in 1915? And why wasn't it given an escort when sailing through an active warzone with known U-boats?
It's a shame the media didn't have time to ask silly questions like that because they were too busy screaming that Americans died, and comparing it to the USS Maine.
Is that a swarm of locusts on the horizon?
But not half as useful as studying mass civil disobedience, the logistics of old partisan movements, the Romanian Revolution, N. Ireland conflict, etc.
The shills' new narratives are that we don't know enough about the virus, it might mutate, muhhh second wave, keep wearing a mask, etc.
Had to switch it up now the data proved all the hysterical bullshit was a massive fraud.
It's always fun to remind them what Britain was doing in India and Africa after they abolished slavery, too. Why ship a bunch of slaves all the way back to your rainy little island when you can just take over their entire country and make them work for you there?
"scientologist place of worship" is that like a psychiatrist's office or something? Yeah, they can go too.
100+ years of "I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll fight for your right to say it"