3

Since the release of the film The Imitation Game, it has been widely asserted that

The cracking of Germany’s Enigma code shortening the war by two to four years and saving an estimated 14 million to 21 million lives.

What is the source of this claim and how widely is this view held among historians?

orome
  • 1,026
  • 7
  • 19
  • 2
    See also: http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/17464/wwii-did-the-entire-war-depend-on-breaking-the-enigma-cipher – Jason Aller Mar 29 '15 at 19:09
  • 1
    @JasonAller: A very different question. – orome Mar 29 '15 at 19:11
  • 2
  • @MarkC.Wallace: Not really (if you read either the question or your link): this is not a "prove me wrong" question but a question about how a widely repeated assertion was arrived at and what evidence supports it. – orome Mar 29 '15 at 20:16
  • Granted - I will attempt to reverse my downvote. If you're really looking for the attribution, you may wish to edit your title to distance yourself from the lunatic fringe. – MCW Mar 29 '15 at 20:20
  • @MarkC.Wallace: Edited. My intent is more in this vein. – orome Mar 29 '15 at 20:22
  • OP: although the question is different, @JasonAller 's link contains a nice answer that competently addresses why this claim is quite invalid. – Semaphore Mar 29 '15 at 20:48
  • @Semaphore: I don't see a relevant answer there. – orome Mar 29 '15 at 20:51
  • 2
    @raxacoricofallapatorius Cochise explained why Enigma was not important enough to have a huge effect on the war, which it must have had if the claims here were true. If you can't see the relevance in that, I don't know what to tell you. – Semaphore Mar 29 '15 at 22:37
  • @Semaphore: It's just an opinion with some irrelevant numbers from Wikipedia — no "source of this claim" ("historians" are cited so it would be relevant to hear who the are and how they arrived at their view) and no direct refutation or arguments in support by other historians (which would be the most direct form of answer to "how widely held"). The state of historical scholarship on this subject is surely more advanced than that! – orome Mar 29 '15 at 22:42
  • 1
    This is a question of the type "what if...". Such questions do not belong to history but to the "alternative history". There cannot be any well-justified answer on such a question in principle. – Alex Mar 30 '15 at 02:03
  • @Alex: How do you arrive at that conclusion? This is a question about wat evidence is behind a specific assertion, and whether that evidence is widely regarded by historians as valid. – orome Mar 30 '15 at 02:58
  • 1
    Widely asserted? I'm not seeing that. – CGCampbell Mar 30 '15 at 02:58
  • @GCCampbell: Do try. – orome Mar 30 '15 at 03:01
  • @raxacoricofallapatorius: What does the question mean? IF the code were not broken, how long would the war last and how many more people killed. So this is the question of the type "What if...?". – Alex Mar 30 '15 at 13:34
  • @Alex: Hardly. The question is about a statement, one that is featured as fact at the end of the film and that has been widely repeated in various forms, and simply asks: where does the statement come from (e.g., is it from some research into the subject, an official analysis, an assertion by the intelligence services, etc.) and is it widely accepted as plausible (e.g., is it outdated by recent discoveries, highly contentions, or perhaps regarded as generally accurate). – orome Mar 30 '15 at 15:03
  • @Semaphore: It's no more relevant than any other statistic about the war. Whether some other factor was a major part of the war effort (be it logistics, strategic bombing, etc.) does not bear on the question of whether this factor shortened it. – orome Mar 30 '15 at 15:10
  • 1
    It has a massive bearing on whether your factor shortened the war by an unreasonable 25-40%, which was the claim in question up until you moved the goal post just now. I'll just stop posting with an analogy: "Skype accounts for 40% of Microsoft's revenues. No, your numbers on Windows and Office making up 70% of the sales are irrelevant." – Semaphore Mar 30 '15 at 17:23

3 Answers3

4

The very breaking of Enigma - by Turing et al using Bombe and also by pinching of the German Naval codebooks - gave the British a blind spot that did nearly cost them the war. That blind spot was that German Naval Intelligence had broken the British Merchant Marine codes in 1938-9 and was reading transmissions using that code into 1944. The British never suspected, and never changed the code.

When times became particularly tough for the UK in Winter-Spring-Summer of 1942, their focus on fighting the U-boat through Enigma, either using Bombe or pinched codebooks, most likely distracted them from thoroughly investigating why the U-boats were so successful in locating convoys. Yes, the UK was in dire straits through mid-1942, but breaking the German codes was not the only way to fight that battle - changing their own codes would have been sufficient, and was an avenue still available even without Bletchley Park's achievements.

So in the final analysis, the achievements of Bletchley Park were only one of two clear paths to success in the U-Boat war; that war could still have been won without it - whether it would have cannot be said.

If the British Isles had been forced into surrender by starvation, it is hard to imagine that a D-Day landing, or defense of the Suez, could have been maintained. The Soviets could have possibly been forced into a peace by exhaustion if the Germans had another million or so men to defend the Eastern Front, as it is well known that they were running short of manpower by 1945.

Pieter Geerkens
  • 72,560
  • 9
  • 210
  • 330
  • 2
    Could you cite evidence for the causal link between the success in breaking the Enigma and the "blind spot"? – orome Mar 30 '15 at 15:07
  • @Pieter Geerkens The point you're missing there is that ships were not transmitting their position all the time: what would the point? The Germans conducted air reconnaissance and wolfpack tactics to detect ennemy convoys and concentrate subs on them. The Allies used gonio to detect concentrations of U Boote and react, and the question was more about having the means to fight the U Boot (asdic, asm grenade launchers....) rather than approximately locating them with Enigma cracking or gonio – totalMongot Jul 02 '21 at 12:58
  • @totalMongot: 1) What is your point? 2) How is it relevant to my answer or the question? The Germans knew the details - including composition and departure date - for British convoys as a consequence of breaking the British marine codes. – Pieter Geerkens Jul 02 '21 at 13:05
  • @PieterGeerkens 1/ The point is that you give two reasons for the defeat/shortening of the war: breaking enigma versus the possibility to change marine codes. 2/ It is to relevant to highlight that all these causes are few in front of the "hunter-killer" tactic 3/ So there is no shortening nor lengthening – totalMongot Jul 02 '21 at 13:21
0

As Andrew Hodges, the author of the authoritative Turing biography The Enigma reports, "the main serious source for this type of claim comes from a talk given at Cambridge in 1993 by Sir Harry Hinsley, the official historian of British Intelligence in WW2":

Now the question remains how much did it shorten the war, leaving aside the contribution made to the campaigns in the Far East on which the necessary work hasn't been done yet. My own conclusion is that it shortened the war by not less that two years and probably by four years - that is the war in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and Europe.

His argument is worth reading in full, but is based on several lines of reasoning but begin with turning, in North African an "almost certain defeat into a stalemate", keeping Rommel "out of Egypt between his victory at the Battle of Gazala in 1942 and the British getting ready for their own victory at El Alamein" chiefly by "killing off his seaborne supplies" without which success, the Allies would have abandoned the operation against North West Africa, resulting wither in delays of at least a year of other crucial strategic efforts — notably the Normandy landings. Further these landings themselves could not have been conducted at the scale and with the success they were, without the successes at Bletchley Park, and to the extent that the Allies "wouldn't in fact have been able to do the Normandy Landings, even if [they] had left the Mediterranean aside, until at the earliest 1946, probably a bit later."

orome
  • 1,026
  • 7
  • 19
  • 1
    However the claim that the African campaign had its seaborne supplies cut off thanks to breaking the Enigma code should be taken with caution: first, the italian were also broken and they were not based on Enigma, and second in the little Mediterranean Sea, the question was not to be able to locate the convoys, but to be able to attack them: Malta was the base for Allied (mainly British) sea and air forces attacking the convoys, and keeping Malta out of water was a matter of convoys breaking with bruteforce their path to the island against air and naval forces rather than an intelligence war – totalMongot Jun 06 '19 at 21:08
  • @totalMongot The question is: what is the source. – orome Jun 06 '19 at 22:32
  • Oh sorry, as I am not a native speaker, I did not understand that. I understood it as "on what basis/facts does the claim stand" – totalMongot Jun 07 '19 at 16:42
-5

The premise of the question is incorrect, in that the Enigma was never "cracked". If you read "The Hut Six Story" by Gordon Welchman, you will find that Enigma messages could only be translated when operators made errors such as using the same key repeatedly or repeated use of the same base codes ("discriminants"). When the Enigma was used correctly it was unbreakable.

Nevertheless, many transmissions were intercepted and decrypted due to improper operational use of the machine.

The estimate of lives saved is based on the idea that the project shortened the war by "two to four" years, thus extrapolating that 2 years times 7 million deaths per year is 14 million. The origin of the "two to four" years idea I think is the 1974 book "The Ultra Secret" by Winterbotham.

While cryptography operations were certainly helpful, claiming that it shortened the war by two years is an overstatement. For example, in the Battle of Atlantic, the theater in which the decryptions were supposedly most important, I doubt anyone would characterize code breaking as the decisive technology. Radar, direction finding, convoy tactics, sonar, and anti-submarine aerial patrols, especially from Iceland, were all probably more important to the outcome than code breaking.

Tyler Durden
  • 37,880
  • 3
  • 98
  • 161
  • 1
    Read One Day in August for the most up-to-date interpretation of the significance of the Enigma. – Pieter Geerkens Mar 30 '15 at 01:06
  • 1
    @PieterGeerkens Why are you posting this as a comment on my answer? – Tyler Durden Mar 30 '15 at 01:07
  • 1
    Because it describes the importance of pinched codebooks in reading the Enigma code, even when properly used. This was how the Brits read German coded transmission in real-time, through most of 1941 and again from late 1942 onwards. Even when Turing's Bombe worked, it was very slow. – Pieter Geerkens Mar 30 '15 at 01:20
  • 1
    @PieterGeerkens What does this have to do with answer? Put it in your own answer or maybe a comment to the question. This has nothing to do with my answer. – Tyler Durden Mar 30 '15 at 01:40
  • @TylerDurden: How do you arrive at the conclusion that "the Enigma was never 'cracked'"; specifically that "when the Enigma was used correctly it was unbreakable"? This is certainly wrong.. – orome Mar 30 '15 at 16:09
  • @raxacoricofallapatorius Well, for one thing I read the book I listed by Gordon Welchman who along with Alan Turing was one of the leaders of the project. – Tyler Durden Mar 30 '15 at 16:21
  • @raxacoricofallapatorius Also, I know a little bit about cryptography and I understand the basic design of the Enigma. Even today if the Enigma was used correctly modern computers would have difficulty breaking an Enigma cipher. In the 1940s, the computing power they had was completely incapable of determining an Enigma key, assuming the messages are properly formed. – Tyler Durden Mar 30 '15 at 16:30
  • @TylerDurden: Can you give examples of the kind of "improper operational use" and "improperly formed messages" you are referring to? – orome Mar 30 '15 at 16:41
  • @raxacoricofallapatorius First of all, the whole integrity of the system relied on the daily key sheet. It was absolutely essential that keys and settings published in the dailies be random. In some cases these sequences were not fully random and were repeated or reused. Another requirement is that you cannot use any predictable plaintext in your message, especially at the beginning. Also, if the message was multi-part, it was essential that a different identification group code (Buchstabenkenngruppe) be used for each section. In practice, all of these requirements were sometimes violated. – Tyler Durden Mar 30 '15 at 17:19
  • @TylerDurden: Were these all part of prescribed protocol or shortcomings of the practice? – orome Mar 30 '15 at 17:25
  • @raxacoricofallapatorius The organizations that used the Enigma machine published detailed instructions for their use. In some cases operators ignored parts of those instructions in order to work faster or save themselves time and effort. By taking such shortcuts they created messages which could be deciphered by the enemy. – Tyler Durden Mar 30 '15 at 18:05
  • @TylerDurden: So it seems like the objections people are having here to your answer hinge on your (aggressive) starting line: "The premise of the question is incorrect, in that the Enigma was never 'cracked'." My understanding that "cracking" encompasses the behavior you describe (as distinct from truly breaking, as for example, could be achieved with a perfectly implemented RSA public-key cryptosystem if we were better at factoring primes). – orome Mar 30 '15 at 18:12