This answer on Quora by Jim Wayne, B.A. Duke University (1967) doesn't answer my question, because it just raises these follow up questions.
So Zimmermann thought that lying would be useless, since the Americans had the proof.
- Why didn't Zimmermann deny the Americans' proof? Couldn't Zimmermann fib and allege that the Americans trumped up that "proof"?
Zimmermann was an old-school German member of the officer class, and really wasn’t ready for the world of secret diplomacy. Even the rawest British diplomat, or any German diplomat trained by Bismarck, would have said, “Telegram? What telegram?” with a surprised look and denied any knowledge of it even if a copy was put in his hands. But Bismarck was dead, and the diplomats he trained had been purged from the service by his enemies. Wilhelm II had been left with Holstein, who was a sneak; Bethmann Hollweg who was a dud: and Zimmermann, who was a fool. (Wilhelm, in the opinion of many, was all three, and a buffoon besides.)
- Is this para. just saying that Zimmermann was merely foolish and guileless? Is there other evidence that Zimmermann was a patsy? He studied law from 1884-87. He worked as a lawyer before receiving his doctorate of law. . According to all those jokes about lawyers, lawyers aren't known for being simple-minded or guileless. I don't know about you, but I've come across sleazy lawyers.