TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Bletchley Park’s contribution to WW2 'over-rated'

50 pointsby ptypeover 4 years ago

14 comments

simonhover 4 years ago
I&#x27;m sure it is possible to over-rate the contribution of any one factor to winning the war. Where would Britain have been without it&#x27;s sea power, the RAF, huge numbers of recruits from Imperial colonies, the USA. However that doesn&#x27;t really reduce it&#x27;s significance, it just puts it in context. When thinking about the invasion of Normandy we naturally think of thousands of troops rushing up the beaches from landing craft, but without air power those landings would have been impossible. Similarly many of our efforts were enabled or materially supported by high quality intelligence.<p>I think it&#x27;s best thinking about it in the same terms as air and sea power. It&#x27;s another domain of conflict that supports the action on the ground, and in fact in all the other domains of conflict. It can make a huge, even essential contribution, but none of them is decisive on it&#x27;s own.<p>The point about GCHQ is interesting and I&#x27;d not thought about their importance to the UK in quite those terms but it does make sense. Our armed forces punch well above their weight, but our primary asset is actually our relationship with the USA, and our value to the USA may well be primarily in the Intelligence arena.
GekkePrutserover 4 years ago
I think what also didn&#x27;t help that they weren&#x27;t 100% able to act on all the information, as that would have immediately given away their ability to read the enemy&#x27;s traffic and they would change their cypher.<p>So they always had to do things like fake a &#x27;random spotting plane&#x27; etc and sometimes even letting attacks happen. So there&#x27;s always a limit to what you can do with this kind of information to protect its existence in the future.<p>In WW2 there actually were times where German analysts were getting suspicious as to why the allies were so lucky. But their concerns were trumped by the leadership&#x27;s enormous confidence in the Enigma.<p>By the way, the Germans were reading lots of the allies&#x27; cyphers too.
评论 #24835466 未加载
rich_sashaover 4 years ago
Before someone else says it: Polish people are usually very bemused by the Bletchley Park story, because the Brits barely ever mention that they built on early work by the Polish cryptographers [1]. Enigma evolved over the years, needing further work, but as of mid-1939, Enigma was broken by the Poles.<p>The British took over, and achieved huge things on their own too (while also excluding the Polish cryptographers, now UK-based, from the project), very possibly doing a lot more than the Poles ever did. But I see that even when saying Bletchley Park was &#x27;over-rated&#x27;, even then they can&#x27;t give credit where it&#x27;s due.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma#Polish_breakthroughs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma#Po...</a>
评论 #24835386 未加载
评论 #24835629 未加载
LatteLazyover 4 years ago
No one in the West acknowledges it, but 80% of winning ww2 was Russia. People go on an on about D-Day, but the tide turned at stalingrad. People assume Nagasaki and Hiroshima convinced Japan to surrender, but it was actually the (surprise) Russian declaration of war...
评论 #24839396 未加载
评论 #24835529 未加载
评论 #24835399 未加载
评论 #24835395 未加载
评论 #24835470 未加载
评论 #24835480 未加载
评论 #24835626 未加载
评论 #24835375 未加载
评论 #24839843 未加载
评论 #24836884 未加载
评论 #24835636 未加载
评论 #24844489 未加载
评论 #24835492 未加载
评论 #24839093 未加载
bArrayover 4 years ago
He says:<p>&gt; &quot;Intelligence never wins a war on its own,&quot; says Prof<p>&gt; Ferris.<p>Then says:<p>&gt; &quot;I don&#x27;t think Britain could have won the Falklands<p>&gt; conflict without GCHQ,&quot; Prof Ferris told the BBC.<p>So intelligence gathering is not winning a war single-handed, but it&#x27;s pretty important? I thought that must British people knew this... Of course the War effort was much larger than a few buildings down in Bletchley.<p>I think this is just to sell his new book - say something controversial and barely featured in the book, then ride the press:<p>&gt; The new book - Behind the Enigma - is released on Tuesday<p>&gt; and is based on access to top secret GCHQ files.
评论 #24835428 未加载
WalterBrightover 4 years ago
I often wonder why the Germans (and Japanese) simply didn&#x27;t just assume their encryption was broken and regularly create new systems.<p>For the U-Boots, there were few enough that one-time pads would be practical, and unbreakable.<p>There are also ways to set traps to see if your code was broken.
评论 #24835460 未加载
gamplemanover 4 years ago
&gt; The current director of the intelligence agency, Jeremy Fleming writes: &quot;GCHQ is a citizen-facing intelligence and security enterprise with a globally recognised brand and reputation.&quot;<p>This sounds like some A+ BS. Since when do national intelligence agencies have globally recognised brands?
评论 #24835165 未加载
评论 #24835149 未加载
评论 #24835122 未加载
评论 #24835222 未加载
评论 #24835836 未加载
评论 #24835306 未加载
secondcomingover 4 years ago
&gt; He said because GCHQ was able to intercept and break Argentine messages, British commanders were able to know within hours what orders were being given to their opponents<p>GCHQ were only able to break the Argentine encryption because the Dutch gave them very strong hints on how to break it.
评论 #24835157 未加载
MichaelMoser123over 4 years ago
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;John_Cairncross#Operation_Citadel" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;John_Cairncross#Operation_Cita...</a><p>Johny Carincross was a spy who passed over raw intercepts decrypted with Tunny to the Soviet Union; so they got the German order of battle and other information in advance of the battle of Kursk; that sounds like a major contribution to winning the war (the spy was confirming information that the British passed on via official channels, however they seem to have put more trust in the reports of their spy). The outcome of the battle of Kursk did make a big difference.<p>&gt; &quot;Intelligence never wins a war on its own,&quot; says Prof Ferris.<p>Another event where spies&#x2F;code breakers made a major difference is the battle of Moscow;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Richard_Sorge#Wartime_intelligence" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Richard_Sorge#Wartime_intellig...</a><p>&quot;Various writers have speculated that the information allowed the release of Siberian divisions for the Battle of Moscow, where the German Army suffered its first strategic defeat in the war. To that end, Sorge&#x27;s information might have been the most important military intelligence work in World War II. However, Sorge was not the only source of Soviet intelligence about Japan, as Soviet codebreakers had broken the Japanese diplomatic codes and so Moscow knew from signals intelligence that there would be no Japanese attack on the Soviet Union in 1941.[46] &quot;
评论 #24842425 未加载
xLaszloover 4 years ago
Overmentioned not overrated. Estimations usually say that breaking the Engima shortened the war by a year. That&#x27;s hardly &quot;winning the war&quot;.
LargoLasskhyfvover 4 years ago
...meanwhile in Neutralistan:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.eu&#x2F;article&#x2F;sweden-ann-linde-and-switzerland-ignazio-cassis-get-frosty-over-espionage-claims&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.eu&#x2F;article&#x2F;sweden-ann-linde-and-switzer...</a><p>edit: much earlier but connected <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dailymail.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;article-7992651&#x2F;US-spies-gave-Thatcher-secret-Argentine-Falklands-War-messages.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dailymail.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;article-7992651&#x2F;US-spies-ga...</a>
lqetover 4 years ago
TLDR:<p>&gt; &quot;Bletchley is not the war winner that a lot of Brits think it is&quot;.<p>&gt; But he said Bletchley still played an important role.<p>&gt; &quot;Intelligence never wins a war on its own,&quot; says Prof Ferris.<p>The latter seems to be a trivial statement. Of course: if you <i>know</i> the enemy will launch a 100-megaton bomb at your capital in 2 hours, and all you have at your disposal is light cavalry, you will most likely still not win the war.
评论 #24835125 未加载
ncmncmover 4 years ago
Since <i>exactly zero</i> of the top ten battles of the war were fought on the western front, it is hard to see GCHQ as so useful as is often claimed.<p>Yes, Stalin was also given access to some decrypts. Yes, Stalin murdered or imprisoned ~15 million Soviet &quot;citizens&quot; (a majority citizens of invaded neighbors, but plenty of Russians, too, including his own senior officer corps) before the war. Yes, Russia provided a huge share of the resources to build up Germany&#x27;s armory before the war. Yes, Russia invited Germany to split Poland with it. Yes, in the final two years the Soviets depended on the US for food, fuel, steel, and trucks. Yes, Stalin had been poised to invade Germany when he was surprised and lost the bulk of his own armory at the outset. Yes, a majority of the Soviet troops killed were not Russian. Yes, the naval war was mostly conducted by the US and British Fleets. Yes, the US was busy in the Pacific theater.<p>Still, the war was mainly a battle to the death between two totalitarian regimes, with the US and Britain harrying at the edges. The Allied bombing, while it killed many, many civilians, utterly failed to stop massive growth of production of tanks and aircraft, right up to the end; that declined only in the final half-year as original German territory was overrun. (Production of pilots failed to keep pace, limiting the aircrafts&#x27; value.) It took only a small fraction of German forces to keep the US and Britain fully occupied in Africa, then Italy, and even after D-day. At the end, Stalin had to park and wait months for the Allies to catch up, and spent the time chasing Nazis out of the south.<p>&quot;No Simple Victory&quot;, by Norman Davies using material exposed after the Soviet collapse, is an eye-opening resource.
goatinaboatover 4 years ago
Tl;dr: someone you’ve never heard of trying to get famous by saying something “edgy”.
评论 #24835330 未加载