Nonsense, you have to prove no such thing. Instead, you can create a "fictive", which proves whatever you want it to. At least that is what I have been reading. Anyway, some facts rather than fictives. In 1938, the value of imports to Britain was 919.5 million pounds. Of those, 262.2 million were from northern Europe and France (23.6 million) and 46 million from the rest of Europe. In terms of foodstuffs, we can take processed beef as an example. In 1939, 602,000 tons were processed domestically and 610,400 tons were imported (plus 72,900 tons of all types of tinned meat). Imagining that none of the quarter of all imports were not foodstuffs from Northern Europe is silly. On your unrelated topic, tankers - requisitioned of greater than 1,600 GRT totaled 143, 98 in 1940, 26 in 1941, and 12 in 1944. Prizes, transfers of flag, and so on were 279: 75 in 1939, 36 in 1940, 91 in 1941, 11 in 1942, 2 in 1943, and 2 in 1944. However, from 3 September 1939 there were just 117 under British flag and 42 built, but 81 lost (67 to war). 117+42+75-81=153 for a total of +36 in 1939. Great right? Except for 1940 the math was -217, in 1941 it was -86, and in 1942 it was -416. The corner wasn't turned until 1943 at +56 and 1944 at +175. For non-tankers the pattern was worse, 1939 was a negative as well. ...but lets cover that subject here. Seems you are exaggerating your fictives. At the start of the war the British had 14.352 million GRT of shipping. Net loss in 1939 was 13,000 tons, 1940 was 276,000 tons, 1941 was 983,000 tons, and 1942 was 1,923,000 tons. In 1943 1,231,000 tons was gained and another 1,541,000 tons in 1944 for a net loss in the entire period of 13,000 tons. So, do you see why there was concern in 1941 and 1942? Total Allied ship tonnage lost to German and Italian submarines was: 1939 - 509,321 1940 - 2,462,867 1941 - 2,298,714 1942 - 6,149,473 1943 - 2,510,304 1944 - 663,308 1945 - 284,476 Total - 14,878,463 So you over-fictived what the British started with by 20 to 28 percent and under-fictived the Allied losses to U-Boats by 33%...never mind you miss the totals you are quoting are actually for all Allied losses including the US... Er, no, sorry, but that conclusion is hardly startling or "proof" of anything other than total merchant ship acquisitions by the Allies exceeded their losses to submarines. Aside from everything else, it ignores all merchant ship losses to causes other than German and Italian submarines...you know, those lost in other theaters of war, to other wartime causes, and to maritime causes? Er, again no. If you look at the facts, rather than the fictives, the British were able to do no such thing. Britain was able to barely recover to the point she was on 3 September 1939 by 8 May 1945...less 13,000 GRT. Sorry, but near incomprehensibility is not the same thing as a complex answer. Allied decoding provided much valuable information on U-Boat activities, which were valuable in countering them. It provided sailing dates, courses for individual boats, rendezvous points, time-stamped positions, movement orders, and so forth. No Enigma decrypt sank a sub...a bombe wasn't a bomb after all, but there were numerous cases where it was instrumental in naval or air assets sinking them. U-505 is a classic for example. Her course was decrypted and provided to the Guadalcanal HK group, which searched unsuccessfully along that line using HF-DF, surface and airborne radar, and visual search, until Chatelaine picked her up on sonar. Was her capture due to Enigma or to sonar? 1) What does "spying" have to do with SIGINT? And where has anything regarding "our" versus "their" intelligence or lack thereof been brought up in this thread? You seem to be the only chauvinist posting here my friend, but your chauvinism is with regards to historical determinism. That indeed is very ingrained in you. 2) "Juvenile" is using "fictives" rather than facts and then declaring they "proof" things they aren't even related to. "Juvenile" is also creating strawmen like supposed tropes about "spy stories", mysterious scientists in white coats", and "uncivilised Mongolian barbarians" in a discussion hwere they don't actually appear and then declaring they are yet further "proof" of your "fictive" assertions. 3) Again, yet another strawman. Who did that in this thread? Oh, perhaps you did when you made fictive assertions about Enigma technology, Allied cryptography, and anti-submarine war TTPs of the Allied powers in World War II?