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: <12305@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 15:35:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12305
Posted: Mon Mar 10 15:35:58 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 05:45:05 EST
References: <12202@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <12213@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 31
Keywords: References

In article <12284@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>From "Alan Turing the enigma" by Andrew Hodges,
>      Simon and Schuster, 1983 (hardcover)

Considering that I read the book and reread the WWII chapters, I'm
surprised I didn't remember the reference.  I was definitely surprised
then at the assertion.  Hodges gives NO references.  But it does seem
true, so I would like to know how much a role Ultra actually played in
the Eastern Front.  For example, did Ultra detect troop movements that
partisans did not?  In the West, Ultra gave the generals very detailed
information during the battles: exact troop counts and whereabouts.
How about the East?  And did the Soviets break Enigma on their own?
 
>(By the way I hate the word "cryptology". I have never been
>able to get used to it. I grew up with the word "cryptography"
>and am too used to it to change. I think the new terminology
>has some point to it, but I also think it introduces a new
>level of jargon into the subject that doesn't really serve
>to aid a deep understanding. In fact I am inclined to think
>it was introduced by mediocrities who had nothing better to
>contribute to the field.)

Too bad, Tom.  That's been the correct terminology for quite a long
time and has all the force of correct etymology behind it.  I'll look
up the reference in Kahn, but I believe it was introduced by an expert
cryptologist.  People serious about their subject tend to be serious
about their neologisms.  Deep understanding?  It makes it clear what
one is talking about.  Nothing mediocre about that.  Perhaps you are
misled by the fact that the NSA only admits to doing cryptography.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720