Need to know

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Things may have been different had the NY Times become traitors a few decades sooner.

Times Reveals Enigma Codes Font Size:
By William S. Smith : BIO| 29 Jun 2006


WASHINGTON (SatireNewsService) -- Yesterday, September 11, 1943, the New York Times reported that allied cryptanalysts had been, for several years, decoding top-secret Axis war messages. The Times story revealed that thousands of code-breakers working in a suburb of London had broken Germany's Enigma military codes. The vast operation, code-named "ULTRA", had succeeded in regularly reading secret military orders broadcast through the German airwaves. In addition, the Times reported that American code-breakers, in an operation called "MAGIC", had broken Imperial Japan's highly secret military code. MAGIC reportedly had successfully intercepted thousands of secret war messages from the Japanese high command to forces in the field and at sea.

"ULTRA and MAGIC were extremely powerful weapons in our arsenal," said General George Marshall U.S. Army Chief of Staff, following the Times revelations. "Our ability to read enemy orders in real time led directly to our great and critical victory at Midway as well as the defeat of Rommel in North Africa and the shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto's plane last spring. ULTRA was considered an irreplaceable element of our future invasion plans for Europe and MAGIC would have played a powerful role in successfully concluding our war against the brutal Japanese military government."

The decision to publish the story has sparked passionate controversy and was preceded by intense lobbying of Times executives from President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill to withhold publication.

Mr. Churchill in a transatlantic telephone call reportedly pleaded with Times executives to suppress the story, stating that in wartime, "the truth is so valuable to our enemies that it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies and deceptions."

Mr. Roosevelt reportedly argued that the ULTRA and MAGIC operations had prevented "dastardly acts" by the enemy and that the revelation of these secrets would set back the allied invasion of Europe and the defeat of Japan "by years", causing the unnecessary deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Times publisher Arthur Hays "Paunch" Sulzburger defended the decision stating: "it is in the public interest to know how this war is being fought. It is part of the continuing national debate over the aggressive measures employed by this administration and the British government." Sulzberger reported that Times executives weighed both governments' arguments carefully. However, in the end the Times determined that the possibility of government misuse was too great to ignore. "The program . . . is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires information," said Sulzberger.

Peace groups and administration critics lauded the Times' decision to publish the story. "This administration has performed numerous illegal acts during this illegal war," said Norman Chomsky, professor of phrenology and astrology at MIT and a leading critic of the American and British war efforts. "We have attacked Italy, which never attacked us. We have illegally sold arms to the British, we have illegally targeted Admiral Yamamoto for assassination, we have illegally jailed and executed so-called 'German spies' without benefit of trial. This administration is far worse than the regimes of Hitler, Tojo or Mussolini. It is drunk on power."

Privacy advocates also questioned the ability of the users of MAGIC and ULTRA to maintain the rights of people who might have been innocently short-waving private messages to friends and relatives inside Germany and Japan as well as occupied countries. The ACLU issued the following statement: "The revelation of these highly-questionable systems, MAGIC and ULTRA, raises the need to have a public review system in place to determine whether any particular intercepted transmission is important to the war effort. Preferably these reviews would be by a court of law with established procedures and appellate review. Certainly the governments of Germany and Japan would have standing in such a situation."

Following the publication, Prime Minister Churchill called the action by the Times, "a devastating loss equal in consequence to defeat on the battlefield."

President Roosevelt condemned the revelations as "tremendously damaging to the allies, profoundly helpful to Hitler and Tojo, and utterly destructive to free men and women everywhere." The President called on Attorney General Francis Biddle to immediately take action to prosecute the Times for treason, saying: "I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us."

In the face of these unprecedented criticisms, Sulzberger has remained adamant. "It would be better that Hitler and Tojo win this war than that we give up our ability to publish these secrets," he said. "If we fail to publish, the so-called "Axis" wins," he said.

Bill Smith is a lawyer and writer in California.
 
Just got my comp back up & that was forwarded to my email some time back :shrug:
 
Gonz said:
Just got my comp back up & that was forwarded to my email some time back :shrug:
It's not news to me but I would remind you that there have been many, many societies that tell the media what to publish. Communist China leaps immediately to mind. I'm reasonably certain Saddam did it to. Make you proud to align yourself with these folks?
 
chcr said:
It's not news to me but I would remind you that there have been many, many societies that tell the media what to publish. Communist China leaps immediately to mind. I'm reasonably certain Saddam did it to. Make you proud to align yourself with these folks?

Nice leap. I've never suggested allowing the government to tell the press what to publish. There is a time & place when the government should tell them what NOT to publish however. Having the NY Times publish details about a major weapon against terrorism, while it's being used against them in a war is not only stupid, it is criminal.
 
Gonz said:
Nice leap. I've never suggested allowing the government to tell the press what to publish. There is a time & place when the government should tell them what NOT to publish however. Having the NY Times publish details about a major weapon against terrorism, while it's being used against them in a war is not only stupid, it is criminal.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gonz again.

Awww, what the hell? I haven't given him karma since April, for that "We neutered the cat, now he's a liberal" post.

There's a big difference between complete control of the press and protecting classified military information. Enemy acquisition of that information could directly lead to the deaths of our soldiers. Giving out military secrets rightfully is considered treason.
 
Altron said:
Awww, what the hell? I haven't given him karma since April, for that "We neutered the cat, now he's a liberal" post.

There's a big difference between complete control of the press and protecting classified military information. Enemy acquisition of that information could directly lead to the deaths of our soldiers. Giving out military secrets rightfully is considered treason.

There's a difference betwen protecting clasified info and government cover ups of illegal actionss also.
 
spike said:
There's a difference betwen protecting clasified info and government cover ups of illegal actionss also.

You're damn fucking right that there is. Preventing military information leaks is the former. Domestic government information is the latter.
 
Altron said:
You're damn fucking right that there is. Preventing military information leaks is the former. Domestic government information is the latter.

If the military information is about illegal actions then it can also be part of a cover up.
 
spike said:
If the military information is about illegal actions then it can also be part of a cover up.

Certain cover ups are neccessary for security, i.e. Enigma code breaking. As Gonz said, todays' press would have reported that kind of thing, rendering it useless.
 
Altron said:
Certain cover ups are neccessary for security, i.e. Enigma code breaking. As Gonz said, todays' press would have reported that kind of thing, rendering it useless.

Sometimes cover ups are needed because what they are doing is illegal too.
 
spike said:
There's a difference betwen protecting clasified info and government cover ups of illegal actionss also.

Here's an idea. If you're gonna make silly accusations, at least provide some information about what you're talking about.
 
spike said:
Sometimes cover ups are needed because what they are doing is illegal too.

Sometimes, especially durinf war, cover ups are necessary for the safety of the men in harms way.
 
Gonz said:
Sometimes, especially durinf war, cover ups are necessary for the safety of the men in harms way.

Sure, but sometimes their just necessary to cover up illegal activity.
 
Gonz said:
Nice leap. I've never suggested allowing the government to tell the press what to publish. There is a time & place when the government should tell them what NOT to publish however. Having the NY Times publish details about a major weapon against terrorism, while it's being used against them in a war is not only stupid, it is criminal.

That is exactly what you're suggesting. Perhaps it wasn't responsible of the Times to publish it but the simple fact is if you pretend to live in a free society, then they did nothing wrong. If you want to live in the other kind of society, move to China. I like this one. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than anything else going. Using the same freedom that you deplore another for using is pretty darned childish, don't you think?

Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves. They're only free to do stuff you don't disagree with. That, my friend, is the exact opposite of freedom.
 
But... Publishing things like battle plans, weapon designs, technology, etc. can be very bad for our troops.

I think the press needs to look up the word 'discresion' in the dictionary. Just because they managed to find out about something does not mean that it needs to be printed. They need to take a step back and realize that military information being known by enemy spies can put American troops in more danger than they already are. Only a fool would print information that would be harmful to the brave men and women risking their lives to defend the freedom to print that information.

Of course, if this is turning into a discussion of the illegal wire-tapping, or any other DOMESTIC issue, I am on Spike's side. My comments are in reference to the theoretical situation of the New York Times printing an article that the Enigma code has been broken in the midst of World War II.
 
Back
Top