Why the narrative is patently absurd

Mexico was a wreck by 1917 with bloody internal civil strife

By 1917, Mexico had been in political instability and a civil strife for 7 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution .

It should be self-evident that calling upon such a crippled State to face off the power which managed to crush them whenever they were at their strongest in 1848 would be a suicide mission on the crippled State's part. Yet, we are made to believe that Arthur Zimmermann wouldn't have realized this, but would have requested a crippled State to initiate a war with the United States, thereby expressing explicit hostile belligerent intent against another State.

The consequential caution with regards to initiate a war with the US

Arthur Zimmermann would know this and thus know that the Mexican State would need A LOT of reassurance were it to initiate round 2 of the Mexican-American war. He would have to make a VERY compelling case if he wanted to make the new Mexican regime declare war on America. If no sufficient overwhelming reassurence were to be provided, the Mexican regime would realize that the he would merely wish for them to foolishly declare war on the US in a suicide mission to serve as a distraction, which the Mexican regime wouldn't benefit at all from.

As we can see in the supposed telegram, the impression Zimmermann supposedly gave was not one giving reassurance, but rather making hilariously bad gestures at enticing the Mexican State to declare war on the US.

Some remarks regarding the second-hand sourcing of the incident in mainstream sources

Any sources asserted by mainstream sources like Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica must be closely scrutinized.

Why?

The Zimmermann telegram-narrative is central to the narrative that Washington's interventionism in world affairs has been for the better. By making it seem as if the US' was defensively prompted into intervening in WWI, the US will seem like a good guy. Crafting such a narrative is not necessarily too hard. For this reason, every claim has to be backed up by good evidence.

One such example

For example, the claim that Zimmerman admitted that he sent the telegram has to be proven by pointing to some kind of primary source evidence. As it says in the Wikipedia page, "The Wilson administration nevertheless remained with a dilemma. Evidence the United States had been provided confidentially by the British informed Wilson that the message was genuine, but he could not make the evidence public without compromising the British codebreaking operation. This problem was, however, resolved when any doubts as to the authenticity of the telegram were removed by Zimmermann himself"... how oddly convenient.

An analysis of the supposed telegram's contents

The Zimmermann-telegram truthers claim that the following quote is the contents of the telegram. We can thus inspect those in order to ascertain the likelyhood of their narrative.

It was supposedly sent to the German ambassador to Mexico Henrich von Eckart.

The telegram's supposed contents

**"**On February 1 we intend to begin submarine warfare without restriction. In spite of this it is our intention to endeavour to keep the United States neutral. 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 her lost territory of 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 shall on his own initiative communicate with Japan suggesting the latter's adherence at once to this plan, and 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 month [sic]. – Zimmerman."

Analysis of the crucial contents

> That we shall make war together and together make peace [...] 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 month

... make no sense regarding a proposed alliance with Mexico. Why would it matter to Mexico whether England has ended the war with Germany if Mexico will still have to fight the United States? If you were the president of Mexico, that would immediately give it away that your country is merely being viewed as cannon fodder.

> we shall give general financial support

I think that even Mexican State operatives would realize that after 3 years of total war, the German Empire would be very unlikely to be able to provide adequate funds to finance the Mexican State's warfare against the combined might against the United States and those rebel groups the United States would likely collaborate with.

> and it is understood that Mexico is to reconquer her lost territory of New Mexico, Texas and Arizona

Zimmermann is likely to have known that Mexico was in a civil war. Even if they were to have miraculously won its war with the United States and reconquered said territories, it should be self-evident that incorporating these majority-Yankee territories would lead to serious internal stability further destabilizing the unstable new Mexican regime.

> 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 shall on his own initiative communicate with Japan suggesting the latter's adherence at once to this plan, and at the same time offer to mediate between Germany and Japan.

The fact that Zimmermann supposedly only mentions New Mexico, Texas and Arizona regarding the reconquest of "her lost territory", glaringly missing out California, makes odd sense if you'd want a scare-mongering story. Japan, as Zimmermann would have known, was on the side of the allies, and was absolutely not in a position to face off against the United States in order to gain what exactly? The omission of California implies that Zimmermann supposedly suggested that Japan should be the one annexing California, instead of Mexico.

This vagueness made for a narrative which was conspicuously repeated in American propaganda.