Please following the desperation below an don’t use AI please
Select ANY unpublished or published primary source relating to military or diplomatic history. Please verify with instructor that the document you have chosen meets these criteria. You goal is to establish the PROVENANCE of the primary source to the best of your ability and evaluate the 6 utility of the primary source as a piece of historical evidence. To accomplish this, write an approximately 4–5-page paper (excluding appended primary source) addressing each of the following elements. Write a succinct 1-3 paragraph synopsis of each of the following elements of the source’s PROVENANCE. YOU MUST APPEND A COPY OF THE PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENT TO YOUR SOURCE ANALYSIS. 1. WHO. Who authored the document? Was it an individual, if so, who? If collectively written, who wrote it together? Identify the author to the best of your ability and provide as much pertinent information about the author that will help shed light on why they might have written the document. If this is a published primary source, additionally answer WHO published it? How does who published it impact what is being said or how it is being presented in publication? 2. WHAT? What is the document? What kind of document is it? What is/are the author(s) trying to say? 3. WHY? Why do you think the author(s) wrote the document and/or why do you think the publisher published it (if a published primary source). 4. WHEN? When was the document written and/or published? These may not be the same dates. Why is knowing when this document was written and/or published important in helping to understand what it is saying? 5. WHERE? Where was the document written? If published primary source, where was it published? How might where it was written and where it was published impact its message? 6. UTILITY? What value does this document have as historical evidence? Can it be taken entirely at face value? Does it have bias? If so, what is this bias and how can you adjust for this bias? What is its utility and its limitations? How could you use it as historical evidence? How, when, and where might you not want to or be able to use it
Full Answer Section
WHAT (Document Type/Content):
The document is a coded telegram. It outlines a proposal from Germany to Mexico. Germany proposed a military alliance with Mexico in the event that the United States entered World War I. The telegram offered Mexico financial support and the promise of recovering territories lost to the U.S. (Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico) if they joined the German side. The telegram is explicit in its intent to incite a war between Mexico and the U.S., diverting American attention and resources away from Europe.
3. WHY (Author's/Publisher's Purpose):
Zimmermann wrote the telegram to secure a strategic advantage for Germany in World War I. Facing a stalemate on the Western Front, Germany hoped to weaken the Allied forces by drawing the U.S. into a conflict closer to home. By promising Mexico territorial gains, Zimmermann aimed to create a powerful ally in the Americas. The British published the telegram to expose Germany's aggressive intentions and to galvanize American public support for entering the war. Their purpose was to portray Germany as a threat not only to Europe but also to the Western Hemisphere.
4. WHEN (Date Written/Published):
The telegram was written on January 16, 1917, and was publicly released by Britain on March 1, 1917. Knowing these dates is crucial for understanding the context. The telegram was written before the U.S. had declared war on Germany. Its publication shortly before the American declaration of war significantly influenced public opinion and was a major factor in the U.S.'s decision to join the Allied forces.
**5.
The telegram was written in Berlin, Germany, and was intended to be delivered to Mexico City, Mexico. It was intercepted and decoded by British intelligence. Its publication occurred in numerous newspapers across the United States and other countries after the British release. The location of writing reveals the source of the message (Germany), its intended target (Mexico), and the role of British intelligence in its dissemination. The widespread publication emphasized the global impact of the telegram and its significance in shaping the narrative of the war.
6. UTILITY (Value/Bias/Limitations):
The Zimmermann Telegram is invaluable as historical evidence of German wartime strategy and the diplomatic machinations leading to American involvement in World War I. It reveals Germany's willingness to engage in clandestine activities and its assessment of the likelihood of American intervention. However, the telegram must be interpreted with an understanding of its potential biases. As a German government document, it represents only one perspective on the war. Furthermore, the British publication adds a layer of interpretation aimed at influencing public opinion. While the authenticity of the telegram is not generally disputed, its coded language and the context of its interception and release necessitate careful analysis. It can be used to understand the motivations behind American entry into WWI, but its use must be balanced with other primary and secondary sources to provide a more complete historical picture. Its limited perspective is a significant limitation.
Sample Answer
Primary Source: The Zimmerman Telegram, 1917. (Appended)
1. WHO (Author/Publisher):
The telegram was authored by Arthur Zimmermann, the German Foreign Secretary, and sent to the German Minister to Mexico, Heinrich von Eckardt. Zimmermann was a key figure in the German government during World War I, responsible for foreign policy. His background as a diplomat and his position within the German government are crucial to understanding the telegram's purpose and significance. It was published by the British government, who intercepted and decoded the message. The British publication of the telegram was a calculated move to sway public opinion in the United States and bring them into the war against Germany. The fact that it was published by an enemy power adds another layer to its interpretation, suggesting a potential bias in its presentation.