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!ernie.berkeley.edu!tedrick From: tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) Newsgroups: net.crypt Subject: Re: Enigma and the Eastern Front Message-ID: <12219@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 22:52:45 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12219 Posted: Thu Mar 6 22:52:45 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 05:15:37 EST References: <12202@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <12213@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 185 Keywords: references In article <12213@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes: >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. Look, I've said over and over that I don't claim its a perfect reference. >>[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. And I am arguing that some information was lost by the Germans through insecure cryptosystems, and that the Soviets got some of it which was extremely useful to them. I'm not arguing about how it got there. There are too many loose ends for me to know that. There was a book by Allen Dulles which did claim that info was passed from the western powers to the Soviets, for example. At first, my understanding was that you claimed that cryptography played a minor role in the east. That was what I was trying to argue against. Also you are getting a little subtle and tricky with your arguments, which I don't like coming from a sophisticated mathematician. You know damn well you can twist things around when you are sophisticated enough logically. I don't mind you pulling that stuff on other people, but I don't like it when you do it to me. I've had some experience with logic too. For one thing, there seems to be some fuzziness about where the dividing line is between "detailed information" and "top level information". Also I never said anything about "local radio messages ... in the Ukraine". I don't know anything about that and I never claimed I did. Its beyond my competence to judge technical questions like that. I get the feeling you are playing games with me rather than having a direct, honest fight :-) >>[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? Noone. But fighting a war on 2 fronts is a damn sight more difficult than fighting a single enemy. The contribution of the west *WAS* important. I agree that the campaign in the east was much more severe. I don't agree that the Soviets would have won without help from the West. Hmmm, why are you so pro-soviet these days anyway? :-) (sorry, just kidding. I couldn't resist that one.) >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. I could look it up for you if you want. I think I have it in one of Montgomery's books. By the way, from the start of the war up until D-Day, one of his books had a note that more British were killed in car accidents than in combat. Please don't try to make it look like I am arguing about which sector saw the most severe fighting. I never said it was as bad in the west. I *KNOW* it was more severe in the east. I've read a *LOT* of books about the eastern front, probably 100 by now. I *SAID* it was more severe when this subject came up earlier. >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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. I said basically the same thing when I first started posting this stuff. I know it is difficult to piece together what happened. I estimate that I read 500 books on the subject before I came to my conclusions about cryptographic information playing a role in the campaign on the eastern front. Usually there was a page worth of relevant information per book, at most. You haven't heard even 1 percent of the stuff I have seen that is relevant, yet you expect me to agree with your denial of my position and stop posting references? You were the one who got me started with this by challenging me to post even one reference in support of my argument. Now you want me to stop? OK, if thats what the readers want, I will stop. How am I supposed to "piece together what happened" without quoting references, by the way? >Reading it uncritically is possibly worse than not reading it. Are you accusing me of reading it uncritically? >Rejecting a work >because it disagrees with your worldview/theory is not enough: Hmmm, are you accusing me of that also? >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. As I said, I *DON'T KNOW* how effective Rote Kapelle was. All I am claiming is that information which could only have been leaked through insecure cryptosystems wound up in Soviet hands, and was used to great effect in their military operations. I could hardly be expected to unravel all the secret activities of WW2. But there are certain overt things that can't be hidden so easily that support the claim that the Soviets did somehow get ahold of the information. >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. I agree you are a subtle and clever and difficult opponent. But I responded honestly to your positions as I understood them. I hope I didn't overindulge in sophistry at the expense of truth. I did rely on memory, ie I read your postings when they first came out and my responses are based on my perhaps faulty memory. I suspect you sometimes also misrepresent my position, perhaps unintentionally. It may be the email communication problem, as certain info seems to not be communicated well over this type of medium, which leads to sometimes severe misunderstandings. >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, Yes they have, although some of it was via email and not posted here. I didn't have you in mind at all when I posted the article. *IT WAS NOT YOU I WAS TALKING ABOUT MATTHEW!* >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. Man, what do I have to do? I said in that article that Goebbels was not known for his truthfullness. Still, when the article I was responding to claimed that Franco was an ally of the Nazis, I thought Goebbels diaries were a reasonable source for counterargument. Are you claiming that Franco had no Jewish ancestry, by the way? Also, I hope you are not trying to portray me as pro-Nazi or anti-Jewish. For the record, I am anti-Nazi and pro-Jewish. >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! Now you want more references again? >OK? OK, I take it you are giving me a loophole for more references. For the record, I am dead broke right now, and don't have access to the University library this semester. So I can't afford to buy new books at present, and can't get my hands on some of my old references. So I am only quoting books I have around the house. I promise you though, that this summer when I will have access to the library again, and a reasonable job, you will regret ever trying to argue that cryptography was not a decisive factor in the campaign on the eastern front :-) There are some really great books on the eastern front, by the way. Manstein's "Lost Victories" was my favorite. Guderian's books were good too.