In The Code Book, Simon Singh details the codebreaking successes of the British military during World War I–successes that often needed to be kept secret and prevented the spread of some important, yet sensitive information during the war. One such piece of critical information was the Zimmerman telegram. While some may think it completely unethical of Admiral Hall to withhold the information gathered after cracking the Zimmerman telegram from American intelligence, it was simply a fact of wartime priorities. The British were the ones embroiled in war, which is a time when a nation looks out for their own interest over the those of other nations (especially the United States, which was not active in the war at this time). Additionally, while America would surely suffer from the impending unrestricted u-boat warfare and lives would be lost from torpedo attacks, there are many reasons why Admiral Hall’s actions to allow these attacks to happen would also save lives in the long run. First, the information gathered by Britain’s Room 40 was crucial in British victories and undoubtedly saved the lives of many British soldiers and civilians. Also, Admiral Hall hoped these attacks would implicate America in the conflict in such a way that necessitated their entrance into the war, a policy chance that would hopefully help the Allies to win the war sooner and thus save more lives in the long run. Therefore, the lines drawn in this instance of ethical dilemma are not black and white, as is usually the case in times of war.
Kurt Urban
The personal wartime priorities of Admiral Hall is a very intriguing point, and one that makes sense. After all, his first duty was to serve his country, and sharing wartime secrets with a non-belligerent nation does not aid in that pursuit. However, I do wonder if it could be considered unethical that Admiral Hall would intentionally try to use this loss of life to pull the United States into war. It feels almost a bit wrong to play with innocent lives in such a manner, although I agree that it is a case of the means justify the ends.
Derek Bruff
It does seem a little manipulative of Admiral Hall to use the loss of American lives to German U-boats to coax the Americans into the war. I understand that his actions might have saved more lives in the long run, but one could argue that he was being as manipulative as Germany in this instance.
Aliyah Weaver
I think that this post is interesting because my response to the same ethical question was exactly “all is fair in love and war,” so I completely understand your standpoint. I think your statement calling the withholding of this information a ‘fact of wartime priorities’ is very interesting, because I do think that that is exactly how Hall viewed the situation. Regardless of the immediate effects of this decision, Hall found it necessary without question (obviously) to keep that information secret. This makes me curious, though. Were there really no other options? Was there not a way to communicate the information to Wilson and expedite America’s involvement in the war without directly letting Germany know that their code had been broken? Was there no solution that would save lives both short term and long term? When asking these questions, it leads me away from the belief that this action was of necessity–perhaps Hall just wasn’t able to come up with a better compromise.
Derek Bruff
I like this point, Aliyah. Hall was fairly creative in his efforts to disguise the true source of the decrypted Zimmerman telegram, but perhaps there was some other approach that would have worked in both the short run and the long run.
One complicating factor is that even when the Germans started unrestricted warfare, the Americans didn’t immediately jump into the war. It took that and the fact that the Zimmerman telegram wasn’t a forgery to get America into the war. Hall would have had to come up with something very creative to get America over that hurdle.
Priyanshi Chudasama
I found your point regarding Admiral Hall’s personal wartime priorities very interesting. I agree that this was likely Hall’s thought process while deciding to not inform American President Woodrow Wilson about its contents as doing so may let the Germans know that Britain was capable of breaking their codes. This ultimately did serve his purpose of leading his country and saving many lives. However, I think it is important to consider whether this move was unethical or not on his part. I feel that even though his actions can be justified, they can be deemed as unethical as well. His withholding of sensitive information regarding unrestricted U-boat warfare and the issue of Mexican aggression ultimately created a dangerous situation for many civilians located both in America and those at sea. This may cause some people to argue that Admiral Hall was not actually prioritizing the lives of citizens who currently were there but rather he was saving the lives of future citizens.
Derek Bruff
I’ll add a bit of nuance here… By not telling the Americans, people definitely died. Had the British told the Americans and the Germans realized their codes were broken, more lives *might* have been lost in the long run—but, in the short run, people *definitely* died.