Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!weemba From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) Newsgroups: net.crypt Subject: Re: Enigma and the Eastern Front Message-ID: <12213@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 20:46:57 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12213 Posted: Thu Mar 6 20:46:57 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 05:12:07 EST References: <12202@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 63 Keywords: references In article <12202@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >From "The ULTRA Secret", by F.K. Winterbotham This is the book that repeats the 'Coventry was bombed to protect Ultra' story. >[someone had argued that ULTRA was not used to obtain intercepts > related to the eastern front] I argued that Ultra was not used to obtain detailed information about the Eastern Front and that it was not passed to the Soviets. There's a difference. I agree that the top level information was readable. But local radio messages between units in the Ukraine? It sounds difficult. >[also, it must be admitted that some German forces were diverted >from the Eastern Front by the attacks of England & the USA. Some >had argued that the Soviets defeated the Germans almost single >handedly.] "almost" "almost" How many divisions were not diverted? Who ever denied that German forces were diverted in the first place? By the way, more than 20 million Russians were killed in WWII. Far less than a million Americans were killed in Europe. I do not recall the British casualty count. --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Read the old postings >before you flame at me for using poor references, OK? We're not asking you to cite all your references, Tom. We want to remind you that piecing together what happened in the secret side of WWII is very difficult. The published stuff can be contradictory, incomplete, erroneous, and of dubious credibility. Reading it uncritically is possibly worse than not reading it. Rejecting a work because it disagrees with your worldview/theory is not enough: there are lots of worldviews/theories. An example is the question of how effective Rote Kapelle == the Red Orchestra was. I cited a source and his sources for the story. I believe a high level Soviet defector Suvorov(?) pooh poohs Rote Kapelle in one of his books, but I can't tell how he would know one way or the other. How to choose? I don't know. I'd appreciate it if you read my old postings before claiming I said X when in fact I said X.Y, or claiming I denied Z because I said nothing about it. Perhaps this comes from the rather complete theory/worldview you've worked out: you take my denial of W as a denial of every part of your theory/worldview, and respond by supporting those other parts. This very request of yours is an example of my previous postings being misrepresented by simplification: I first asked what your references were, you finally answered, and I acknowledged. Nobody has flamed you for using poor references, except (deservedly) over in net.philosophy for citing Goebbels' diaries as a source of information about Franco's "Jewish blood". Goebbels was an insane professional liar. Concerning references in general: I pretty much remember most of my WWII history--I studied it intensively in high school--and do not need references for well-known historical facts. But when you come up with a claim not in the standard histories--give us references! OK? ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720