Cryptography

The History and Mathematics of Codes and Code Breaking

Tag: WWI

The Morals of the Zimmerman Telegram Decipherment

By

On October 1, 2018

In Student Posts

  1. When the Zimmerman telegram was deciphered by the cryptanalysts of Britain’s Room 40, Admiral William Hall decided not to tell American President Woodrow Wilson about its contents because doing so might let the Germans know that Britain was capable of breaking their codes.  Given the danger posed to America by the unrestricted U-boat warfare indicated in the telegram, was this ethical of Admiral Hall?

I think that in a time of war, it is very hard to judge the hard decisions of people in power. In all wars, there will be casualties, and the hard fact of life is that in war the generals and people in charge need to minimize overall losses, not save every life. I think that overall the decision was ethical because strategically it had to be done. They chose not to tell President Wilson because they knew that the Germans were starting unrestricted submarine warfare and that the US would most likely join the war because of this. This was a calculated decision that paid off for the British in the end. Having the codes to someone else’s messages is extremely valuable, much more valuable to the British than having the US in the war a few weeks sooner. This was most definitely the strategic decision for the British. With these codes, they could be able to save countless more lives in the future by intercepting key attacks. Even with the case in World War II, the Allies had to let certain attacks happen that they knew were planned so that the Germans were not tipped off about the cracking of the Enigma. Although it is a very tough decision, I think that the British made the right decision in not telling the US about the Zimmerman Telegram.

Ethics and the Zimmermann Telegram

By

On October 1, 2018

In Student Posts

When Reverend Montgomery and Nigel de Gray broke part of the Zimmermann telegram and realized that German U-boats were about to unleash unrestricted warfare on civilian ships, they handed the telegram to Admiral Hall expecting him to pass it on the the Americans. Instead, Hall decided to keep the telegram secret and chose not to warn the Americans. As a result, when the Germans launched their attack, two ships were sunk, which could have been prevented had Hall sent the telegram. In addition, since the message had been completely deciphered at this time, Hall’s excuse of not wanting to send an incomplete message was no longer valid, and he did it for the sole reason of not wanting the Germans to know that their code was broken.

To consider whether this action was ethical or not, we can only consider the hypothetical outcome of the Germans finding out about the broken code and making their codes more secure. The benefit of this is that the two ships wouldn’t have been sunk. However, if the Germans had found a revolutionary encryption as a result of the broken code, it could potentially have cost many more lives while the Allies tried to decrypt messages. If the Germans had invented the Enigma machine in the first world war instead of the second, the Allies might not have broken the code in time to prevent Germany from winning, though the Enigma machine would most likely not have been as effective during WWII. In the case of all hypotheticals, however, it’s impossible to tell what could have happened and compare the costs and benefits to what did happen based on severity of consequences and probability of occurrence. We can only think about what might have happened with either relief or hope.

Übermensch and Unterseeboots

By

On September 29, 2015

In Student Posts

Who has the right to say how much lives are worth? Could allowing for the death of the few to save many be moral? Do the ends just have to justify the means in order to commit crime?*

Admiral Hall definitely thought so. He thought the protection of his knowledge of the decipherment of the German’s message was more important than the lives of Americans due to the fact there was a possibility of prolonging the war should the knowledge of the decipherment reach the Germans.

However, I believe that it was not ethical. There had to be someway the British could have shared the information with the Americans so that the Germans would not expect their cipher had been broken. Gambling with the lives of people when not all the facts are known. At least as it seemed in the The Code Book, Admiral Hall based his decision off of a lot of “probably”s and not hard facts.

It could be said that Hall was just doing what was best for the future of his country, but that does not by any means translate to morality. Just because an action benefits the people around someone does not justify gambling the lives of foreigners.

Although I agree that it was safe for Hall to hold back on the alerting America when only a part of the cipher had been cracked, I think it would have been the best option to still open up about that level of communication. In other words, tell America what has transpired and that they (Britain) will let America know if the decipherment of the rest of the message changes anything. I think by being completely honest about everything will prevent America from distrusting Britain as it said America might do if Britain simply just told them about the decrypted message.

 

*This idea of taking morality into one’s own hands is discussed by the German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in his Übermensch theory (way before Nietzsche).

Sacrifice Few to Save Many

By

On September 29, 2015

In Student Posts

It is extremely hard to discern whether or not Admiral Hall’s decision to withhold the information contained in the Zimmerman Telegram from America is ethical or not. At first, it seems selfish to let Americans die because they are blind to the Germany and its allies’ aggression towards them, especially from an American’s perspective just so Britain can maintain the secret that they can decode German messages. But, sometimes I believe it is ethical to sacrifice the lives of a few to save the many. If it were not for Britain’s strategic move to steal the unencrypted message that the President of Mexico received in order to conceal their cryptanalysis breakthrough, Germany may have created a different, more secure code that could have prolonged the war. This prolonging of the war would have ultimately led to more death than if Britain hid the fact that they were able to break Germany’s code and use it to their advantage in thwarting Germany’s advances. As an American, it is hard to accept the fact that Britain had the technology at its disposal to save some American lives during the war, but you have to look at the long term effects. Saving those American lives could have easily prolonged the war and costed the Allies many more fatalities, so I believe Britain made its decision based on the greater good of the Allies and made the ethical choice.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén