Is Alan Turing's effort code-breaking effort to the war exaggerated?

The Soviets received several warnings about the expected date that the operation would start which Hitler then delayed. This was high level intel and not just operational. It would make sense that the British would try to share intel, but due to Stalins paranoia he would not likely trust it on its own. LJAD, you once again demonstrate your vast ignorance. Some of the intel received from Ultra would include, troop movement and similar which are just as valuable as plans. As I stated we don't have the Soviet records available so it is hard to know exactly what kind of intel and where it came from but to think that the Soviets got nothing of value from Ultra is laughable

 

Off-topic?

I go were you led...considering your ill-informed statement

Now, if you wanted to stay on topic...Why bring it up in the first place?

Yes...I know you just could not resist the temptation to get in your petty digs.

 

What the Germans knew and when...From the NSA's perspective.
https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/tech-journals/assets/files/der-fall-wicher.pdf

 

Because that beautifully shows that the world war was a barbaric war among barbarians wrapped in seemingly good manners.

 

Only one of probably millions...

 

WTF are you talking about? Decypher that.

 

This is what is saying Hinsley (the spin-doctor of Bletchley Park ), but he has been unable to produce proofs for what he is saying;thus we can discard his claims .

Besides, you admit that these warnings were wrong :the expected dates were wrong, because Citadel was delayed several times .

 

Every day tens of thousands of Enigma messages were sent : army, airforce, navy,railways, police,etc;only a small part were intercepted, and nt all were decoded and translated,and of those who were decoded /translated, a big part was useless.

In mid 1942 3000/4000 messages were daily read,but this was only a small part of those that were sent : thousands of Enigma machines were used every day .

 

War is barbaric by nature. As such, there are probably a million of examples of WW2 being "a barbaric war among barbarians wrapped in seemingly good manners."

 

Thanks Takao for a simple and truthful answer.

We know who have won the war but it is far from clear who were the good guys and who where the bad guys. All was a clash of one barbarism against the other.

 

This brings out an important contribution of Ultra that I hadn't known or even thought about before. If Stalin was getting the same information from official channels as well as from his spies that is a pretty strong clue as to how deeply committed the British were to coalition warfare with regards to the USSR.

 

Well if he was useful enough he might have avoided that. The Nazis weren't adverse to making exceptions if it suited their whims.

 

In the case of WWII it's pretty clear who the "good guys" were and who the "bad guys" were. The "good guys" may not all have been as good as we would like nor were all (or even most of) the "bad guys" all that bad. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a significant difference though in most cases. Arguments can be made for some being in either or both camps though.

 

No, indeed, but only as "Enigma" only sent low level intelligence. They sent more important messages through "Fish", which was also broken. The most important messages for most of the war, went through landlines; but once the landline communications repeatedly failed with the intensifying bombing, resorted more and more over the last 6-12 months to radio traffic.

Dönitz "knew"; ROTFLMAO. They suspected on occasion, investigated, and concluded that it was impossible to break the cryptography of their machines. If you have definitive evidence otherwise, please produce.

"On 28 September he noted, 'The most likely explanation is that our cipher has been compromised, or that there has been some other breech of security.' With his own cipher experts insisting that the naval Enigma was 'one of the most secure systems for enciphering messages in the world', he asked the head of Kriegsmarine's communications, Vice-Admiral Erhard Maertens, to investigate further. In October, Maertens reported back with his findings. In a letter to Dönitz on the 24th, he wrote reassuringly: 'The acute disquiet about the compromise of our Secret Operation cannot be justified. Our cipher does not appear to be broken.' Dönitz accepted Maerten's concluson but with deepening puzzlement."
The Battle of the Atlantic by Jonathan Dimbleby

Acting by adding another wheel was a mere "belt and suspenders" action to assuage fears, not because of any certainty.

 

This is utter bullshit, and is despicable to claim, obviously without any knowledge whatsoever. As such it cannot remain unanswered;

"The police had powers to hold in protective custody or preventive arrest those deemed dangerous to Germany's moral fiber, jailing indefinitely—without trial—anyone they chose. In addition, homosexual prisoners just released from jail were immediately re-arrested and sent to concentration camps if the police thought it likely that they would continue to engage in homosexual acts."

Prisoners marked by pink triangles to signify homosexuality were treated harshly in the camps. According to many survivor accounts, homosexuals were among the most abused groups in the camps.

One avenue of survival available to some homosexuals was castration, which some criminal justice officials advocated as a way of "curing" sexual deviance. Homosexual defendants in criminal cases or concentration camps could agree to castration in exchange for lower sentences. Later, judges and SS camp officials could order castration without the consent of a homosexual prisoner.

Nazis interested in finding a 'cure' for homosexuality expanded this program to include medical experimentation on homosexual inmates of concentration camps. These experiments caused illness, mutilation, and even death, and yielded no scientific knowledge. There are no known statistics for the number of homosexuals who died in the camps."

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261



You shouldn't be so eager to try and "revise" history. Luckily for the rest of us, the real information is readily handy.

 

Tamino can argue with 6 million dead Jews himself. His repeated attempts to paint Nazi Germany as a "decent" regime fall flat on the face of evidence to the contrary.

If the Allies had been even half as barbaric as the Nazis, there wouldn't be a Germany today.

 

LJAD, the fact that Hitler kept changing his mind about the attack does not mean the intel was bad. At the time it was received it was valid and thus the Soviets had to prepare for it. There was no way of knowing that Hitler would cancel the attack and according to your bizzaro logic, the Soviets should have ignored intel as to the date of the actual attack because it had been wrong before.

 

Takao and GreenSlime use always the same tactics: if conversation doesn't suit their preferences they go insanely of-topic to suffocate undesirable truth in a plethora of pointless details.

 

Who was bad, who was good, post war judicial practices are not germane to this discussion. Let us remain on topic please.

 

Of course : yes .

If there was some one in the US telling in 2001 that there would be a terrorist attack on 8/1,and when it did not happen, on 8/15, and when it did not happen on 9/11 ,who would believe him ? NOONE .

If you are crying wolf, the result is that when the wolf is coming, no one will believe you .