Talk:Ultra (cryptography): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:10, 11 June 2007

Latest revision as of 09:59, 28 February 2024

(206 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{CryptographyProject}}

{{WikiProject Cryptography|importance=High}}

{{CryptographyReader}}

{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|B1=n|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|British-task-force=yes|WWII-task-force=yes|Intel=yes}}

{{WPMILHIST|class = Start

}}

<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|B-Class-1=no

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|counter = 2

<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->

|minthreadsleft = 5

|B-Class-3=yes

|algo = old(90d)

<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->

|archive = Talk:Ultra (cryptography)/Archive %(counter)d

|B-Class-4=yes/no

}}

<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->

{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 }}

|B-Class-5=yes

{{old moves|date1=15 May 2011|from1=Ultra|destination1=Ultra (cryptography)|result1=No consensus, move reverted|link1=Special:Permalink/1186927248#Requested_move

|British-task-force=yes|WWII-task-force=yes}}

|date2=18 November 2023|from2=Ultra|destination2=Ultra (cryptography)|result2=Moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1186860891#Requested_move_18_November_2023}}

{{todo}}

==Harris==

==major revision needed==

The reference to Sir Arthur Harris of RAF Bomber Command, though it correctly relates what Frederick Taylor says in his book about Dresden, is misleading. The only result of Harris's objections to the bombing campaign against German oil plants (as a non-Ultra, he could not know how effective these attacks really were) was his tetchy correspondence on the subject with the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Charles Portal, which was a kind of bureaucratic insurance in case the oil plan didn't work. It does not mean that Harris failed to bomb the oil plants or dragged his feet in any way. He was a military officer and he obeyed orders. His orders were to continue with 'area bombing' of cities and also to attack, among other things, oil plants, so he did. The 3,000 heavy bombers of US Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces dropped about 48,000 tons on oil plants. The 1,000 heavies of Harris's command dropped some 64,000 tons, about 30 per cent more -- the oil plan was an American idea in the first place, but Harris carried out most of it. [[User:Khamba Tendal|Khamba Tendal]] ([[User talk:Khamba Tendal|talk]]) 13:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Much of this article, at this time, is seriously in need of revision. There are misconceptions, mistakes

of fact, and general inadequacy. I haven't time to do the revision as I type this, but have added it to

my plans. Watch this space, I suppose...

:In some well-publicised cases of the USAAF bombing an oil target Harris' crews then bombed that same target the following night.

In the meantime, beware. This article will get you into serious confusion.

ww (4 Aug 03)

:It took me a while (I forgot it was 'on my list', actually), but those watching this space can finally relax. Quite a lot of moving around, headings, corrections, rephrasing, ...

:Comments?

:[[User:Ww|ww]] 18:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:That same Ultra information that Harris was not privy to was informing the UKG what was, and what wasn't hurting the Nazi war effort, and if area bombing had been as ineffective as has since been claimed, Ultra would have revealed this, and the area bombing offensive would have been halted. It wasn't.<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.144.50.176|95.144.50.176]] ([[User talk:95.144.50.176#top|talk]]) 09:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==out with dict def==

== Another Turing ==

I am deleting the dictionary definition of the word Ultra from this article. It is nothing more than a dictionary entry and I see little hope of it becoming anything more.

The text of what I deleted is shown below. I also removed a large section discussing sigint in the Pacific, that better belongs in an article on Purple or Magic. -SimonP (18 Dec 02)

https://dailygalaxy.com/2018/09/x-y-z-polish-codebreakers-paved-way-for-alan-turing-to-decrypt-enigma-todays-planet-earth-report/ [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 14:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

==MkUltra==

Definition:

The name MKUltra comes from Ultra, in reference, specifically, to it's extreme secretiveness. I therefore object to Trekphiler's revision, /especially their off-hand dismissive comment in so performing.[[User:Slarty1|Slarty1]] ([[User talk:Slarty1|talk]]) 20:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

'''Ultra-''' is a prefix used to denote something above or higher.

:You've missed the point of the page, which you evidently didn't read. MKUltra is a psywar project having nothing to do with crypto. As such, it has no relevance here. Coincidence doesn't get it (& I shouldn't even waste time answering this, actually, it's so clear). [[User:Trekphiler|<span style="font-family: cursive; color: #1DACD6;">TREKphiler</span>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura</sup>]] 09:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It is derived from the [[Latin language|Latin]] word ''ultra'' ("beyond", "farther", "over and above").

:: Wow dude! I don't see it. The argument might not b as strong as I'd like, but I think the argument could b made that the fact that MKUltra litterally got the ultra part of it's name from Ultra, is a notable link. We might have to take this arg to the next level.[[User:Slarty1|Slarty1]] ([[User talk:Slarty1|talk]]) 21:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It is also used for indicating superiority or higher quality.

:::If it were in a section on 'influence' that gave the context of 'this is how the project's name has been used since,' it might belong on this page. But I think listing it among articles that have much more substantial ties is not warranted. The interest is more the other direction, Ultra appears to be more important to MkUltra than the other way around. --John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 15:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Examples include "[[ultrasound]]" and "[[ultraviolet]]".

::::If there were more than coincidence in naming, I might agree. What's the history of the selection of the naming of the MKUltra program? Was it chosen as an "ultra secret" project? (Which is peripherally related, but no more.) Or was it a product of the name-selection process, like [[Igloo White]]? (That makes it obviously unrelated.) If you can't tell the difference between sigint & psywar, you really have no business adding the link in the first place. [[User:Trekphiler|<span style="font-family: cursive; color: #1DACD6;">TREKphiler</span>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura</sup>]] 04:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"Ultra" defined as it was used in the Battle of the Atlantic meant "information obtained through monitoring, intercepting, and decoding enemy radio communications." (MacArthur's ULTRA - Codebreaking and the War against Japan, 1942-1945, by Edward J. Drea.)

==misc stuff1962 notpublic actuallyreference Ultra==

Pacific Stuff (already to be found in the article on Purple):

well before [[Battle of Pearl Harbor|Pearl Harbor]]. [Actually, the Japanese Purple machine ('alphabetic typewriter B') was an outgrowth of an earlier Japanese design the SIS called Red and was not an outgrowth of the Enigma or similar rotor machines; it treated vowels differently than consonants and used no rotors -- it used stepping switches instead. One of the reasons it was cryptanalytically vulnerable was that the key scheduling was poorly done]. Resultant revelations of Japanese plans led to [[United States|U.S.]] naval victories in the battles of the [[Battle of Coral Sea|Coral Sea]] and [[Battle of Midway|Midway]], crushing the offensive power of the Japanese fleet, and enabled American flyers to find and shoot down the plane carrying Admiral [[Yamamoto Isoroku]], the Japanese commander in the Pacific in April 1943. [Actually all of these things resulted from American (and possibly British, though this is less clear) breaks into the Imperial Navy's chief high level system, called by the Americans JN-25. It was regularly changed throughout the War, but after Pearl Harbor, the Americans were able to more or less keep up. Purple carried only diplomatic information -- very valuable, of course -- but carried no military tactical information at all.]

In "Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision" (Stanford University

: Actually, although a group of six letters was handled differently from the other twenty, IIRC they weren't the vowels: which letters where in which group was selected with a plugboard. (I have no idea why the did it this way - because the group of 6 was only scrambled through a single level of stepping switches, whereas the group of 20 was done through 3, it represented a vulnerability.) [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 21:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Press, 1962, page 173) Roberta Wohlstetter wrote:

"In 1941 there were only four of them [US Army reproductions

==on terms (M4, Triton, Shark...)==

of the Japanese PURPLE machine] in existence. The Army and

The Germans used several names for their (various non-commercial) Enigma machines. The one that sticks in my memory is the Navy's which was 'M' in some variants. 'M4' was, as I recall, the name of the 3.5 (or 4, depending on viewpoint) rotor machine adopted by the Navy well into the War.

Navy each had one machine in Washington; one had been sent to

Bletchley Park used different names for assorted Enigma networks. Thus, the Navy in the Atlantic may have been talking back and forth (using the M4 machine), and BP might call that network 'Shark'. While the Navy in the Med (using the SAME machine, mind, though with different traffic patterns and different key schedules) might be called Porpoise by BP. Thus, it is necessary to keep clearly in mind the difference between a network (determined by who talks to whom and is therefore using the same keys) and the machine used to implement that network.

Cavite in the Philippines and was manned by Fleet Intelligence

Some recent edits have been going round and round on this somewhat slippery ground. [[User:Ww|ww]] 19:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

officers from the 16th Naval District, and a fourth had been

: Yep, we need to be careful. Before [[1 February]] [[1942]], the Shark network used M3, the 3 rotor machine. The M4 was also used by other networks, e.g., Seahorse. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt]] 22:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

sent to Great Britain in return for the keys and machines

necessary to decode German codes and ciphers."

This is clearly an early reference to Ultra, but I'm not sure

== Page move?? ==

whether it counts as a public disclosure of any secrets; it

does not mention Enigma or Ultra by name, and by 1962 it could

not have been a secret that all of the WWII combatants were

trying to read the others' communications.

[[Special:Contributions/24.170.225.153|24.170.225.153]] ([[User talk:24.170.225.153|talk]]) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

== Requested move 18 November 2023 ==

On [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ultra-]], someone wants this article renamed. Any opinions?? [[User:66.245.111.194|66.245.111.194]] 20:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->

:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''Moved''' per consensus that there is no primary topic. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> ''[[User:BegbertBiggs|BegbertBiggs]]&nbsp;([[User talk:BegbertBiggs|talk]])'' 23:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

== Overlap ==

----

There's considerable overlap between the ''Breaking the code'' section and the article [[Cryptanalysis of the Enigma]]. This would be okay, if the section were briefened to a summary. Can anyone take this on? [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 05:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

* [[:Ultra]] → {{no redirect|Ultra (cryptography)}}

:Now that I look, there's a considerable amount of overlap in other sections as well. According to the header at the top of [[Cryptanalysis of the Enigma]], this article should focus primarily on how the information was used, which seems like a pretty good idea. If someone feels having a large overlap is important, either merge these articles or create a template which is placed in both; this allows updates to be made in one place (otherwise, the updater may not even be aware redundancy exists.) [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 05:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

* [[:Ultra (disambiguation)]] → {{no redirect|Ultra}}

– Long overdue non-[[WP:primary topic|primary topic]]. Past discussions include {{slink|Talk:Ultra/Archive_1#Rename}} (2006), {{slink|Talk:Ultra_(disambiguation)#Requested_move}} (2011 RM), and {{slink|Talk:Ultra/Archive 1#Why in the world is this the default "ultra" page?}} (2011). Pageviews (PT1) won out in the 2011 RM, with some handwaving about significance (PT2). But pageviews are not so conclusive these days: when compared to just the single topic of [[Ultra (Depeche Mode album)]], [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2023-10&pages=Ultra{{!}}Ultra_(Depeche_Mode_album) the results] are increasingly mixed, and when including other topics often referred to as simply "Ultra", there's [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2023-10&pages=Ultra{{!}}Ultra_Music_Festival{{!}}Ultras{{!}}Ultra_(Depeche_Mode_album){{!}}Ultra_Series definitely no winner]. There was no previous attempt to ''demonstrate'' long-term significance; in fact the intelligence project may have it as a proper noun (searches like "Ultra began", "Ultra became" mostly show this subject in Scholar), though [[Apple Watch Ultra|tech]] [[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra|uses]] are popular in more recent news results, and the prefix just has so many other uses. (But again, pageviews are the thrust of the request—and they show this is not {{tq|more likely [sought] than all the other topics combined}}.) [[User:Hameltion|Hameltion]] ([[User talk:Hameltion|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hameltion|contribs]]) 21:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

:<small>Pinging active users from past discussions: {{ping|E-Kartoffel|Jwy|CWenger|JHunterJ|LtPowers|Glrx|P199|Andrewa|Fresheneesz|p=.}} [[User:Hameltion|Hameltion]] ([[User talk:Hameltion|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hameltion|contribs]]) 21:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)</small>

:: Thanks for the comments, and yeah, I think most of the overlap can be cut out; entire books have been written on ULTRA that spend about a paragraph explaining what the Enigma was and even less space explaining how the information was produced! For background, until a few months ago, we had just two articles: [[Enigma machine]] and [[ULTRA]]. Both articles attempted to give the entire story of (1) the machine, (2) the cryptanalysis and (3) the intelligence produced. I spent some time relocating the intelligence and cryptanalysis parts of [[Enigma machine]] into [[Ultra]] and [[Cryptanalysis of the Enigma]] respectively, but I haven't got round to working on the latter two articles yet. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt]] 09:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. Page views, incoming links and search results all suggest that there is no primary topic for this term. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 23:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

*'''Support''', page views and the only "Ultra (... band)" under the disambiguation. '''<span style="color:Purple">dxneo</span>''' ([[User talk:dxneo|talk]]) 23:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

:::Now, that I've noticed this, I'm going to speak up for the Average Reader. Both these articles (Enigma and Ultra) were, it seems to me, mostly introductions or articles of first resort at the time Matt mentions. As such, the AR will be most helped in my view with something that doesn't require much chasing of pointers to specialized articles in order to get a first level overview. Such an article will, it seems to me, necessarily be less than maximally sparing of duplication of content. I was satisfied with the degree of overlap that Matt mentions, at least after a series of extensive edits I did. This is, I think, a policy which differs from that of some others, in this instance Matt. We have had similar differences at other articles in crypto corner. I have mostly been unwilling to do more than disagree, but the same disagreement seems to return from time to time. I don't think that the article style we now frequently have in the crypto corner, thus

*'''Support'''. Cryptography topic may narrowly have long-term significance, but page views are too mixed. Not conclusive enough for a primary topic. <span class="nowrap">–[[User:CWenger|CWenger]]</span> ([[User talk:CWenger|<span style="font-family:Webdings;"><big>^</big></span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/CWenger|<span style="font-family:Webdings;"><big>@</big></span>]]) 23:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. --[[User:TedColes|TedColes]] ([[User talk:TedColes|talk]]) 08:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:::topic

*'''Support'''. Excellent and compelling analysis by nom. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 09:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

* [https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Ultra WikiNav for Ultra] indicates that about ~10k of incoming views here last month, and a scattering to 71 outgoing destinations, which is quite a lot of apparent organic interest in this topic. The hatnote is still pretty high at #4, with 207 identified clickstreams (~2%). [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=wikilinks&range=all-time&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra%20(disambiguation) Mass views for disambiguation] indicates a vague picture like the links above. Since the plural is already split off, and we disambiguate other common words like [[mega]] or [[extreme]], we could give disambiguation a try here. Later we should check if the navigation outcomes have improved, after a few months time when the traffic patterns settle. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:::subtopic

*'''Support'''. I don't think pageviews tell the whole story here, since "ultra" is a common prefix for which we (rightly) don't have an article. I suspect there's a decent chance that people looking it up are actually looking for a definition rather than any one encyclopedic topic. I think the principle of least surprise points toward the dab page in this case. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] ^{<small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small>} 14:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:::main article somewhere else

*:Although [[WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]], giving the title to [[Ultra (disambiguation)|the dab]] has the advantage of presenting a handy Wiktionary box at the top of the page. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 16:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:::comments

*'''Support''', clearly not the primary topic. [[User:JIP|<span style="color: #CC0000;">J</span><span style="color: #00CC00;">I</span><span style="color: #0000CC;">P</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 16:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

{{abot}}

:::subtopic

:::main article somewhere else

:::comments

:::etc etc

:::is felicitous. The AR, who is not a cryptiac, nor a devotee of maximal economy of words across many related articles, is not best served this way. The standard to which we should be rallying is instead, maximum intelligibility for AR. Admittedly, this is not so clearly a standard in favor of duplication of content that some excess words cannot be trimmed. It is, though, a significantly different criterion of judgement about potentially trimmable alleged excess.

:::Comments? [[User:Ww|ww]] 19:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::: I think the suggestion here is not a topic-subtopic structure, but a division between intelligence and codebreaking. The general rule is simply to stay "on topic", and one can write and read quite successfully about ULTRA intelligence without needing to know anything at all about the techniques used to break Enigma (or the mechanics of the Enigma machine). This division is a very natural one -- it started during the War in the division of duties between Hut 3 and Hut 6, or between Hut 4 and Hut 8. This separation is not going to cause any confusion for your Average Reader (although it may make for a less entertaining story, but Wikipedia ''is'' a reference work). The only "crossover" that I would think necessary is when various problems in the codebreaking caused an intelligence blackout (such as the introduction of the four-wheel Naval Enigma on Shark). Having multiple articles which all tell the whole story of "How Enigma came to be broken" is quite undesirable. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 20:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==ULTRA and FISH, etc==

The term "Ultra" also covered material gathered from the decryption of FISH ciphered material, not just Enigma, right? (Not to mention various other Italian and German codes and ciphers?) I ask because the current article talks almost exclusively about Enigma.

I do know that later in the war the US and UK standardized on "Ultra" as a term for all SIGINT material (West, ''SIGINT Secrets'', pp. 238). Budiansky gives (''Battle of Wits'', pp. 254-255) a memo from Travis which says ULTRA is to be used as a term for all "special intelligence"; Budiansky says the latter term referred to all "high-grade and machine ciphers".

However, West also contains a quotation from Peter Calvocoressi that "Ultra was the name given by us to intelligence we derived from breaking Enigma" (pp. 22). So I gather that the enlargement of the coverage of the term was a later wartime development.

:It may even have been a UK edict, as nearly as I can make out. Certainly the term MAGIC for another source of SIGINT material continued in use in the US. [[User:Ww|ww]] 20:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In particular, Ultra covered the TUNNY and STURGEON systems ([[Lorenz SZ 40/42]] and [[Geheimfernschreiber]] respectively), I gather. (Although it was mostly TUNNY that the attention of GCHQ was focussed on, with the Colossus, etc.)

So presumably either i) this article needs to cover those other systems as well, or ii) we should rename the current contents of article to something which refers specifically to the intelligence gained from break of the Enigma, and do a new "Ultra" article which covers all the systems?

Another issue is that later in the war, attacks on Enigma (particularly the Naval Enigma) were very much a joint US-UK effort, and of course technically, later in the war the term Ultra covered the Magic material as well! So technically an article on Ultra ''should'' cover all Allied cryptanalytically-derived intelligence.

However, I think it makes sense to keep separate the campaigns against the German (+Italian?) communication systems, and Japanese systems into two separate articles; the two are logically fairly separate, and putting them in one would create an unwieldy beast.

Still, it would be nice to have an article titled [[Allied SIGINT in World War II]] (with alternative titles [[Allied cryptanalytic intelligence in World War II]], etc) which gives a ''brief'' overview of the whole field, and references all the appropriate lesser articles.

And no, I ''don't'' have time to do it! Sorry, too much else to do here...

What I will do for now is rework the intro section to add brief references to at least TUNNY and STURGEON, and mention the importance of TUNNY: West says (pp. 228) that "it was to be GCHQ's most valued source", and Budiansky described (pp. 315) its output as "priceless". [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 22:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

: I removed this sentence from the intro:

:: The corresponding name used by the Americans for analogous intelligence from Japanese decrypts in WWII was [[Magic (cryptography)|Magic]]

: because, as far as I can make out, MAGIC was only applied to PURPLE decrypts, and is not really analagous to Ultra (which covered a multitude of sources). E.g. Lewin, ''American Magic'' (pp. 14) "the machine that came to be called Purple. All information gathered from this source was known then, and throughout the war, as Magic." I've looked through a large number of references, and can't find any use of Magic for anything except Purple decrypts. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 02:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I've just noticed that Edward J. Drea, ''MacArthur's ULTRA'' (pp. xi, pp. 240 footnote #2) gives a lot more detail on the usage spread. He gives 13 May 1940 as the first British use of Ultra (by the RN, per Beesly, ''Very Special Intelligence''); US usage started in Europe and the Med, but there was no uniform naming system in the Pacific, and it did not gain currency there until March 1944.

He also notes (pp. xi) that MAGIC applied to the diplomatic decrypts. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 02:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::I would caution that West's evaluation of 'most valuable' is one made from a considerable distance in time, though of course by a well informed observer. I suspect in any case that what he had in mind was the very high level strategic insight the Fish cypher decrypts were supposed to have made available. I would suggest that Enigma decrypts, as applied to N Africa and the Atlantic (when things were very much in doubt) were valued indeed. Later on, when the Germans were on the run in N Europe and things in less ultimate doubt perhaps less critical? As for May 1940 first use, that seems to me about right, and would apply to most likely Luftwaffe or Wehrmacht as Naval Enigma was rather more resistant and took longer to begin to produce usable results.

As for the scope of reference/inclusion for MAGIC, I would note that JIN cyphers and JIA cyphers began to produce useful material before Midway (June 1942) and continued to do so throughout the war in increasing quantity. Thus Pacific SIGINT material covered rather more than merely the diplomatic PURPLE, and the British / Dutch / Australians contributed to more than a little of that, perhaps especially JIN intercepts. [[User:Ww|ww]] 20:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Illustrations==

How about an illustration or two for this article &mdash; e.g. an Allied aircraft approaching a German ship on the Mediterranean, or a submarine torpedoing an Allied merchant ship? [[User:Logologist|Logologist]] 10:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: Good idea. I just had a quick look to see if Wikipedia had anything we could use on other pages (like [[Second Battle of the Atlantic]], or [[U-boat]]), but I didn't turn up anything. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 10:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

=='Strategic implications' section problems==

The recent addition of this section seems to me to present some difficulties. As it stands now, it is largely rhetorical questions intended to show the importance of Ultra. While I more or less agree about the intended importance, I have some difficulty with the format / structure. We're supposed to be reporting facts here (as much as we can manage anyway) and our joint opinion is not such. We should change this section to report contemporary opinion (eg Churchill to the King) or later scholarly judgement. Even if the same result is achieved, a highlight of Ultra's importance.

Comment? [[User:Ww|ww]] 20:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: I agree. While the occasional rhetorical question spices up the text, I think it should be used sparingly. I don't think that fixing it would be terribly hard, though; replace "''Might Japan have opened a second front against the Soviets?''" with "''Historian Bob suggested that Japan might have opened a second front against the Soviets (Bob, 1997)"''. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 20:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Was ULTRA a military 'operation'==

Sorry to be pedantic, but .....

Is there a definition, in this main topic's context, of 'operation'? I had supposed that the term would be more limited and thus exclude ULTRA (though not questioning ULTRA's importance). If not what else can be added? PLUTO?

== some recent edits ==

A recent ambitious pruning and tweaking of this article has generally improved it I think. However, they have also resulted in wholesale replacement of such terms as cryptanalysts and code-breakers with cryptologists, and so on. While the term is used (mostly in military crypto circles in the US), its use should not displace so zealously for equally servicable words which, incidentally, have existing extensive WP articles. Non crypto informed readers chasing cross references are likely to be confused. Since we can expect few such readers we are necessarily writing for the mostly crypto innocent. It would be better I think to retain some use of the now replaced terms if only to suggest that there are aeveral possible choices for those who business it is to break codes/cyphers used by the enemy.

Comments? [[User:Ww|ww]] 03:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:Precisely my point. How can such proliferation and sloppy use of terminology fail but to confuse novices? To speak of "code-breaking" when one means "cipher-breaking," as is often the case, is unconscionable oversimplification that borders on contempt for the intelligent layman. A comparison may be drawn to the blanket use of "cancer," whether one is speaking in fact of a cancer or of a different kind of ''neoplasm''. (All cancers are neoplasms, but not all neoplasms are cancers.)

:"Cryptanalyst" is, with all respect, a piece of pompous crypto-bureaucratic jargon that was coined by that shameless self-promoter, [[William Friedman]]. [[User:Logologist|logologist]] 08:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:: Logologist -- it's clear you're on some sort of vendetta against words like "cryptanalyst" and "codebreaking". You are very welcome to campaign to change the usage of these words within the field, but please don't try to impose it on Wikipedia articles until you after you succeed. It is not appropriate to drop the jargon and idiom of the field simply because we don't like it. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 23:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:::L, Mostly what Matt said. However, I would observe that, however barbaric Friedman's neologism might be to some ears (it offends me obscurely because it does not roll trippingly off the tongue), it has become universally accepted in the stead of such as code-breaking. As such, the word (regardless of its spelling or exact pronunciation) has entered the language. Recall that English for some reason welcomes new words whther from other languages or deliberately invented. I don't know why, nor am I aware of anyone who credibly claims to, so I think we all, including WP, will have to cope. [[User:Ww|ww]] 05:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

==Wartime consequences==

I have just added some other arguments to this section but I did this not because I expect the changes to last but because (although it is fun) I don't think this type of speculation is appropriate for Wikipedia.

As Winston Churchill, "The terrible Ifs accumulate." So I would like to replace the speculation with:

An exhibit in 2003 on "Secret War" at the [[Imperial War Museum]], in London, quoted British Prime Minister [[Winston Churchill]] telling King George VI: "It was thanks to Ultra that we won the war." Churchill's greatest fear, even after Hitler had suspended [[Operation Sealion]] and invaded the [[Soviet Union]], was that the [[Germany|German]] [[submarine]] [[wolf pack]]s would succeed in strangling sea-locked Britain. He would later write, in ''Their Finest Hour'' (1949): "The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril." A major factor that averted Britain's defeat in the [[Second Battle of the Atlantic|Battle of the Atlantic]] was her regained mastery of [[Navy|Naval]]-[[Enigma machine|Enigma]] [[decryption]].

:''Cut this paragrah and section at this point. (Note the change from "The major factor" to "A major factor")''

:''Then I would like to see paragraphs on other areas of the war:

* Air war (Stratigic bombing). How did enigma help?

* Land war. Why did Allied commanders not win thier battles hands down given that they could see the other players hands? Why was the Battle of the Bulge such a suprise? Why did Allied commanders time and again ignore Ultra, like Monty (who should have known better) and the lack of interest in intellegence before [[Operation Market Garden]]. Or was there no Ultra for Market Garden, if so why not?

I do not know enough about the subject so I would appreciate it if someone else would answer the questions. But what should not be done is to pile up two or more ifs, so that the section is turned into unsourced speculation. (No matter how much fun it is!) [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 21:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

::PBS, I like your initials (US joke, others may disregard). I'll take a brief whack at some of your queries.

::Air war: UK and US bomber commands must have had, I presume, some information on presence and state of readiness of various German attack units. Since 8th Air Force especially had appalling loss rates, it might suggest that the knowledge made no difference. On the other hand, losses might have been even higher without it. I'm aware of no credible studies on the point. (Graduate students, rev up your word processors!) On other aspects of the Air War (in particular V1 buzz bombs) Engima supplied considerable hints and suggestions as to where and how organized were the launch sites. Not definitive but helpful.

:::When reading up to contribute to the article on the "Bombing of Dresden", I came across a snippet that said that [[Bomber Harris]], C-in-C of "RAF Bomber Command" was not privileged to direct use of ULTRA he was given some information gleaned from ENIGMA but not where it had come from. This directly effected his attitude to the effectiveness of the post D-Day 1944 directive (order) to go after Oil because he did not know that it was high level German sources which was being used to say just how much it was hurting them, so he tended to see it as a highlevel command "panacca" (his word) to bomb specific oil and munitions targets, and as a distraction from the real task of making the rubble bounce in every large German city. Source: Page 202, "''Dresden:Tuesday 13 February 1945''" by Fredrick Taylor. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 09:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

::Land war: Kasserine Pass. Eisenhower's staff ignored such warning as it got via Ultra, and Torch got plastered. Invasion of Crete -- almost entire German battle plan was in local UK hands well before it started. Part of the reason less use was made than otherwise is probably that Ultra distribution was in its early days, and the mumbo-jumbo about it all left the UK commander in considerable doubt about its reliability. And he was not permitted to mention the information to anyone, including his planning staff. Battle of the Bulge. Allied commanders seem to have ignored Ultra this time as the Germans were clearly beaten and it was only a matter of time. Monty. A special case, with an ego as wide as all outdoors. He is said to have bragged publicly just before El Alamein that he had been informed as to what the Jerries had for breakfast. His behavior later on the N edge of the Normandy breakout was, it seems, largely devoted to bragging and pressuring (Eisenhower, UK politicians, anyone else) to give him full command, or independent command, or anyway more. The Arnhem disaster may be Eisenhower's biggest blunder, for it let Monty waste troops and time to very little effect. John Keegan's ''Intelligence in Warfare'' has an interesting study on the Crete business and some comments on the Battle of the Atlantic. He is less willing to see as much value in intelligence as most, but he has had a career-long stance that force at the point of application is key overall, so it would be a surprise to see any other. His grasp of cryptography is a little hazy, so beware on that point. [[User:Ww|ww]] 06:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

:::On Crete it was a much a tactical victory as anything, neither men not Allied command had trained on how to deal with airborne assult. Although [[Nathan Bedford Forrest]] maxim of the "first with the mostest" would have been a good start! BTW it is a myth that Hitler never allowed another airbourn assult. One was planned for the "Battle of the Bulge" but was aborted due to lack of fuel. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]]

It is information like this, with sources, that I think needs adding to this section of the article not the "if if" which were there before. But as it is not my area of expertise I think someone else should add it. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 09:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

:PBS, The Bomber Harris tidbit is about the only thing I'm aware of about knowledge of Ultra by commanders in the air war. I'd love to hear what Curtis Lemay thought of it all, if he was informed. A man with his own Strangelovian vision; consider his advice at high levels during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I agree it and similar stuff ought to added somehow to the article, but have no time to do it myself. May I suggest that you do so? You know, be bold! If you get something off kilter, someone will eventually correct that claim, section, paragraph. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User: Ww | Ww ]] ([[User talk: Ww |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ Ww |contribs]]) 01:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned2] -->

Another thought on this theme. The strategic bombing of cities by the Allies, particularly towards the end of the war was as an attack on German communications. Until the 1970s this was always taken to be on the physical networks of road, rail, and water ways. However it is now clear that in part it was to destroy the telephone network forcing the Germans to use wireless more, which could of course be intercepted and decoded. This tends not to be emphasised in books on the bombing campaign because, at Bomber Command planning level, it was not known how critical the destruction of the telephone system was, but it ought to be mentioned in this article [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 12:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Also note that there there is a ''contradiction'' between what is stated in this article:

<blockquote>

"Likewise, Ultra traffic suggested an attack in the Ardennes in 1944, but the Battle of the Bulge was a surprise to the Allies because the information was disregarded."

</blockquote>

and what is found in the article on the [[Battle of the Bulge]]:

<blockquote>

"Even Ultra (the allies reading of secret German radio messages) revealed nothing about the up-coming buildup and offensive."

</blockquote>

It would be nice if sources were cited on this subject!

([[User:Eric Le Bigot|Eric Le Bigot]] 08:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

== Ultra and M4 ==

The article implies that the adoption of the M4 by the U-Boat arm in Feb 1942 caused no problems for Allied codebreakers, as they had luckily detected a transmission error in Dec 1941. I understood that the adoption of the M4 did cause major problems, and that regular reading of traffic encrypted on M4 was not achieved for nearly a year, one of the key events being the capture of Enigma documentation from U559 in the eastern Med at the end of Oct 1942.

Maybe I'm wrong? <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:81.174.208.64|81.174.208.64]] ([[User talk:81.174.208.64|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/81.174.208.64|contribs]]) 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned2-->

: No, you're right, and the article does give the wrong impression. Shark wasn't being read from February 1942 to mid December 1942 as a result of the introduction of M4. I'll try and read up on this, but I believe it's the case that, while codebooks captured from U-559 were very helpful, it was another factor which finally helped BP get back into Shark, which was that the Germans were using three-rotor settings for short signals (the fourth rotor being set in the "emulate M3" mode). [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 21:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

==staff at PC Bruno==

It's my memory that Bertrand put together PC Bruno including the Polish folk who had gottne out of Poland before the Nazis caught them, and that they and the French cooperated on such things as Enigma intercepts. None of the Poles went to Bletchley (British caution apparently) and PC Bruno and BP ooperated on the at least the Enigma work. There is the oft-repeated tale of using Enigma to encrypt work schedules and such between the two sites. Since Rejewski is said to have been surprised about British Enigma work at BP, I deduce that he was not one of the people talking directly with BP from PC Bruno, implying both that there were other personnel working on Enigma (French most likely), and that when Turing came over to talk about things, he must have been careful not to be quite forthcoming with the Poles he met about quite where he was from and what he (BP) were proposing to do. That's why I changed it to 'major assistance' since others would appear to have been involved. Is there any reason to believe the French et al didn't also work on Enigma at PC Bruno etc? [[User:Ww|ww]] 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

:Depends what you mean by "work on Enigma." If you mean collecting Enigma intercepts, communicating by teletype with [[Bletchley Park]] (''in Enigma'', according to [[Henri Braquenié]]) and the like, then the French did "work on Enigma." But if you mean the essentials — the actual cryptologic work — Kozaczuk, relying on Rejewski, Bertrand, Braquenié and others, makes it quite clear that this was a strictly Polish ___domain.

:By the way, what are the sources for Rejewski "being surprised about British Enigma work"? [[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

::Memory tells me it was an obituary style account of R. but memory doesn't tell me that it was an actual obituary. It's been getting more and more spotty of late... But the assignment of the man who broke Enigma to the Polish army in UK and 'wasting him' on low level stuff implies that the Brits weren't at all willing to tell him anything about their Enigma work. Things thus fit... [[User:Ww|ww]] 16:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

:::The Poles at [[PC Bruno]] collaborated with the British at [[Bletchley Park]], and [[Alan Turing]] visited the Polish mathematician-cryptologists at Bruno. It seems impossible that the latter would not have known that the British were breaking Enigma. The British not inviting the cryptologists to Bletchley in 1943 or later would likely have been due to: 1. British observation of the need-to-know principle; 2. reduced need of the Poles at that stage; and 3. the departure, from the scene, of [[Alfred Dillwyn Knox]] and [[Alastair Denniston]], who had known the mathematicians from the [[Warsaw]] conference in July 1939. What ''would'' have been surprising, in the circumstances, would have been if Rejewski ''had'' been surprised that the British had continued working on Enigma, whether successfully or otherwise. Possibly the report of his surprise comes from one of the numerous pseudo-experts on Enigma history who have flourished like weeds since 1973-74. [[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 03:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

== rommel and montgomery ==

is there any information about what gen. montgomery found out through ULTRA about rommel that led ot the defeat?

thanks

==Rename==

We currently use primary disambiguation for this page, with other meanings of "Ultra" relegated to a disambiguation page ([[Ultra (disambiguation)]]). Personally, I still feel, looking at the range of "other" meanings (minor bands, albums, video games, comic books etc), that primary disambiguation is a reasonable choice here. However, if we get consensus to move it, I ask that 1) we use the "move" function, and not copy and paste (which loses the history), and 2) before we move, we update all the incoming links. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 11:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:Agree entirely. [[User:Ww|ww]] 21:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry, this is my fault entirely. I didn't know there was a move function. Of course, for the record I agree with the move. Sorry to cause a small mess. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

=="Making the rubble bounce"==

This phrase, if it is a quote, it needs to have a reference source relevant to the article context (an initial browse through google turns up the phrase in a nuclear war context), otherwise I think it should go - if its not a relevant quote that can be ''specifically'' attributed to Bomber Harris or Frederick Taylor or another relevant commentator, the phrase is non-encyclopedic (its colloquial and emotionally loaded), and may even be offensive. "Devastated", or if one prefers, "repeatedly devastated" should be sufficient to describe the destruction of the cities (unless one subscribes to the hyperinflation of descriptive language). Can someone turn up a relevant reference for this phrase?

[[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

:: The phrase appears to come from Winston Churchill - but from 1954, and about nuclear war[http://rpayne.blogspot.com/2005/08/making-rubble-bounce.html see this link]. If noone can turn up another reference from a commentator from the period of the bombing campaigns, I will be changing that phrase again. [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than have this conversation in two places please see: [[Talk:Arthur Travers Harris#"Making the rubble bounce"]] --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 15:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

==Kasserine==

Its my understanding that the ULTRA problem at Kasserine was that Rommel didn't attack exactly where he was directed via ULTRA and II Corps did not send reinforcements to Faid pass because they were expecting attacks elsewhere. Does anyone have a reference for the information listed here? [[User:Jwy|John (Jwy)]] 05:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

:I have dug in further - appararently Ultra indicated an attack was immanent but not where. II Corps "guessed" wrong as to where it would be. [[User:Jwy|John (Jwy)]] 21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

==Other references==

ULTRA is also the name of an alliance in the video game Planetside. [[User:Zanduar|Zanduar]] 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

== allied intelligence relay ==

Wasn't ULTRA also part of the intelligence that sent allied intelligence and allied info back and forth, because a couple of my sources mention it as being used to send allied intelligence to commanders. could someone double check this?

:ULTRA was the name given to information (most of it from Enigma breaks of one sort or another). It was distributed via a special organization of liason officers to various commanders during the War. Not all commanders were eleigible to be told of its reliability, much less its origin, even in shrouded form. For instanc,e the commander on Crete was not so informed and seems to have treated the information as useful but not exact.

:There was a struggle between the US and UK about how much Ultra info (and knowledge of where it came from) should be permitted. Bureaucratic fief protection was a non trivial contirbuter to this in most accounts. Though the official reasons tended to be doubts about others' abilities to keep information from leaking. [[User:Ww|ww]] 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

==recent edit re Battle of Britain==

Winterbotham's book is unreliable on much about BP crytpanalysis. He was not involved in the crypto side, but rather in the dissemination side. Calvocoressi's book is rather better, as he was closer to the crypto work and is, any case, a more careful writer.

As for the Battle of Britain, a look at BP's break status during that period will show that BP was not breaking messages in real time, which was required if it were to be of significant help to the RAF. Lots of other asistance from the listening posts, from traffic analysis, and from intelligence analysis of what was actually broken by the crypto folk. The lot is often conflated in the books, especially those written earlier than,s ay, the 90s. This point is important in understanding the effect of Ultra at verious stages of the War, and the sentence removed at least had the virtue of flagging this issue. And the vice of being too brief to convey the a more nuanced view. On balance, I think its removal was unfortuante.

Comments? [[User:Ww|ww]] 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)