It is a widely accepted fact that one of the key ingredients to the Allies’ victory over Nazi Germany and Japan in the Second World War was the ability to crack the Enigma codes used by these powers, and keep that code-breaking achievement a secret.
A question I’d like to put to Jon Snow, the chief news reader of Channel 4 news and usually a fairly cool-headed fellow, is whether he would have complied with any wartime requests to keep the Enigma achievement a secret, had he been a working journalist in the 1940s. Judging by his antics over the Prince Harry and Afghanistan episode, the answer to that question would be a no. It also makes me wonder whether anything on the scale of the Enigma code-breaking and its remaining a secret could be repeated now. Of course, the argument cuts both ways: in our more open world, it might also be harder for a country like Hitler’s Germany to make its moves in the first place. (I admit that is a guess of mine, not a prediction). Even so, the implications for military secrecy, when it is something of vital importance in defeating an enemy, are troubling if the media outlets refuse to protect a secret for an agreed period of time. And libertarians, even the most ferocious opponents of censorship, need to realise that keeping military secrets is perfectly consistent with supporting armed forces necessary for the protection of even a minimal, nightwatchman state.
There may have been an element of PR in the whole Prince Harry kerfuffle, but he’s already shown more balls than most of the folk who have sneered at him in some internet comments I have read. Come St George’s Day this year, I will be very glad to hoist something alcoholic to the fellow. Well done him.
It was the military that kept Enigma secret … not the Beeb (and at some cost to civilian lives, too). If it came out during the war that Churchill was permitting the bombardment of certain English towns (and many civilian deaths) without changing defensive tactics, shouldn’t there have been more reasoned debate?
The BBC cooperated in sending out coded messages to agents in Europe in their programmes, and routinely kept secrets that could damage morale or operations for the sake of the war effort. So far as I know, they didn’t know about ULTRA, but I’m pretty certain that if they had, they wouldn’t have said anything.
I’m also pretty certain that if they had said anything, they’d have got lynched by the British public the next time they stepped outside the front door. Not that that was the reason for their silence.
As state maintained media, the BBC are a bit odd in this case.
But, the two situations are very far from comparable. The most obvious difference is that vast numbers of British people were fighting in WW2 (voluntarily or otherwise) and those left at home thought there was a real danger of invasion – everyone had a direct interest in winning the war by all means possible, including not putting stuff into the local paper that might aid the enemy.
The situation now is entirely different. Some agree with the war, some don’t. Some agree that it vaguely in a long term sense makes us more secure – some don’t. Lots don’t even care much, because they don’t have any friends or even friends of friends who will be directly affected one way or the other.
And finally, the information that we can break a code is very different from the information that Fred Bloggs has been posted abroad.
I notice that no media outlets are reporting on what operations the SAS are engaged in. I assume this is because:
1. Unlike HRH, it is practically much easier to keep their movements secret.
2. Unlike HRH, most media outlets see a real operational benefit to keeping it secret.
There are many obstacles we place in the way of an efficient military – bans on various weapons, rules of engagement, and so on. The military also has to contend with a populace that don’t toe the line operational security. So be it.
The world is changing. Information flows faster and it flows between individuals directly. Citizens no longer feel a strong sense of national duty in these kinds of matters. Personally I think the change is enormously for the better. If it makes winning wars a little harder, that’s a price worth paying.
I don’t think we can expect the media to keep the governments secrets, except in some extraordinary circumstances. The breaking of the German codes in WWII is clearly such an exception. It was absolutely essential to the war effort, and revealing that secret would have cost many allied lives.
Prince Harry is nowhere near such a clear case. If the enemy was to be able to kill him, or take him captive, that would be a huge problem, but having him in harm’s way is not essential. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the press to keep that secret. A more reasonable expectation is that Harry should be kept out of the enemy’s reach. Even if the press were to keep the secret, he is still in jeopardy, and any of the worst scenarios could still take place. It’s his presence in a war zone that is creating the problem.
Jonathan:
I do agree with the concept of a military secrecy – it’s essential, when applied to something of value. This is an important modifier. If I were a journalist in the 40’s, I would have kept the code secrets. I am not quite so sure about (as Pa Annoyed mentions above) information that could damage morale, but has otherwise no tactical value to the enemy. There is a line to be drawn, for sure – all I am saying is, I do not think it should necessarily be drawn where a fellow in uniform says it should be drawn.
I also think the Prince is a fine lad, especially after his expressed desire to return to the front line, in thinly-veiled defiance of (my opinion) some high-ranked military bureaucrats’ covering their rears with “increased risk to his comrades” fig leafs. If anything, this is sending the Taliban and their ilk the wrong message – post a few threats on a web-site, and the Brits will run for the air strip.
Best regards, and let me join you in the toast with Black Label Johnnie Walker!
Telling the world that Harry is fighting the Taliban is exactly what John Snow is paid to do and what his family wanted
The prevailing view on this blog is
Radical Islamists are bad
The Taliban are radical Islamists
The Taliban are fighting in Afghanistan
Prince Harry is fighting in Afghanistan
Prince Harry is therefore good
Press censorship and hereditary monarchy is also good
Good premise, bad logic and conclusion
I want press freedom
An elected head of state
An end to murderous attacks on peasant farmers as PR for the monarchy.
This is why you ain’t worth convincing and because your take on war and how military planning works is so loopy that its no different to the shit I hear 18 year old squaddies talking about down the pub. You mate are proof that you can be educated up to the eyeballs and still know bugger all. 50% of war is about what you v. what they know, not what you got.
Bollocks to that. I’m not going to get shot at for some party political cunt.
Personally, I think the British monarchy is pretty much an irrelevancy, and Prince Charles is such a leftist moron that it really is pushing me towards republicanism. The monarchy I really admire is the heroic royal family of Liechtenstein. Of course, British folk are far too socialistic and stupid to ever want such a monarch over here.
Chris, the issue of whether what government did was wrong is separate from the issue of whether what Drudge did was wrong. I can grant you the former, and ask: what if the government lost a personal info of a witness for the prosecution of a dangerous murderer (make him a celebrity, even a royal, if you like), and asked the press to refrain from publishing the info (assuming the press somehow got it) until after the trial?
Cynic, speaking of irrelevancy: how is this relevant?
?
But you are missing (deliberately?), the point. The military may have kept the Enigma issue secret, but supposing that the then media knew about it but were told to keep quiet?: would you have agreed that the media should have kept quiet? Put up or shut up.
If it came out during the war that Churchill was
Indeed. The Dardenelles disaster, etc, were widely reported. Keeping such things quiet was impossible, and counter-productive.
Well, Cynic, given your support for the Japanese invasion of China, I have no respect for your views on this or any other subject. Spare us and fuck off.
I take it that you are a sympathiser of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Ho Chi Minh then?
Cynic, no. But your support for Japan’s invasion of China is on this blog, I remember it well. So please, please, spare us any more of your anti-interventionist posing as if you were some sort of Murray Rothbard clone. you have been exposed, found out. Your moment is gone.
The BBC in 1940 wasn’t the same as the BBC now. Things change over time.
Two Scenarios
Scenario 1
“Prime Minister, we’ve learned from a whistleblower that you claim to have intelligence pointing to the site where the Iranians are assembling a missile and nuclear warhead. We have also learned that you think they are going to fire the missile at Israel and that you are planning to bomb the Iranian site…”
“Can we stop the recording please… Done? OK
“John, we are convinced we have the intelligence correct but can you please keep this a secret until after we have co-ordinated and carried out the raid. If this leaks out now the Iranians will simply move the material and then carry out their attack on our ally.
“We’ll give you the exclusive on the story and lots of video from the raid, but we must keep this a secret for now”
Scenario 2
“Prime Minister, we’ve learned from a whistleblower that you claim to have intelligence pointing to the site where terrorists are preparing a weoponised virus to release on the London Underground and that you are planning to raid the site.”
“Can we stop the recording please… Done? OK
“John, we are convinced we have the intelligence correct but can you please keep this a secret until after we have co-ordinated and carried out the raid. If this leaks out now the Iranians will simply move the material and then carry out their attack.
“We’ll give you the exclusive on the story and lots of video from the raid, but we must keep this a secret for now”
So whose judgement do we trust to make the decision to publish. The broadcaster? The Government? Some ‘independent body’ made up of the great and the good? A law which allows the government to prosecute any media outfit which publishes state secrets? A law which allows the government to prevent publication by whatever means are necessary?
And what should happen to the ‘whistleblower’?
Remember the good old days? Richard Coeur de Lion charged into battle at the head of this troops, daring his English lads to follow him. Richard himself was following in the footsteps of Alexander the Great, who conquered most of the known world personally leading his army into battle after battle. And what about the Black Prince?
In those days, having the ruler or heir to the throne leading the charge was seen as an advantage. Now our bureaucrats see the presence of a royal as something to hide. Have we managed to unlearn an important lesson?
I am not terribly informed about this story, but if I may throw my uninformed 2 cents…
Drudge lives and works in Los Angeles, he doesn’t have an ear to the ground in London, nor is he a fly on the wall in the palace. If he, a half world away, learns that the prince is in Afghanistan including details, then people are blabbing. If Drudge can find this info, then so can radical muslim sympathizers actually living in Britain.
The German magazine that published details about it before Drudge quoted an anonymous ‘Palace insider’ about it. So someone close to the monarchy has obviously been blabbing.
Does the military have the right to privacy? I hope so.
Drudge reported the news about Harry only after an Australian tabloid had reported it.
I found it quite interesting that in this modern risk averse and press dominated world he actually got on the front lines where he took and gave fire.
One can argue the value of having royalty, but if there is going to be one then they should at least set an example as warriror princes, something the British royalty has done throughout its history.
So good on the lad. He’ll have some idea of the reality of war when he eventually takes the throne.
Well as far as Palace servants go
Paul Burrell is far from a one off.
Harry is probably in more danger in the UK than in Helmand…..and whose fault might that be, I wonder?
Drudge lives in Miami (now) and is not an investigative reporter. He receives information (gossip), checks it out as best he can but not always accurately and then points his readers to the sources from which they can read the detail. Those who do not make a daily visit to the Drudge Report risk being uninformed.
How much unfiltered news comes out of Venezuela. Cuba, or North Korea? More than might in a less technical age but it still isn’t a lot.
But he wasn’t. A quick google on “Churchill Coventry myths” could have told you this – or a look at a book like R.V. Jones’s Most Secret War (an excellent book by the way). Intelligence knew there was a raid planned, but didn’t know where it would be – there were four possibilities and Coventry was third on the list – Churchill apparently thought from early reports it was aimed at London and immediately returned there because of this. It would be nice if this minor conspiracy theory could be laid to rest.
I imagine Mr Snow’s attitude may have been influenced by the fact that the prince took a BBC crew along for at least some of his ‘secret’ deployment.
Guy, I would not be at all surprised that your argument is correct. Snow may be just an example of journalistic sour grapes. I have worked in the media/financial sectors enough to know how these things work.
A couple of points: I was talking about the principle of military secrecy, not really about the specifics of the Prince Harry story. Prince Harry’s service, while perfectly admirable, it is not, of course, in the same bracket as the sort of deceptions that the Allies used to win the war. Besides Enigma, a great example was the efforts the Allies went to in trying to convince Hitler’s commanders that the D-Day invasion would be launched in the Calais region, not in Normandy. And so on.
A number of people have repeated the line that the hassles of having Prince Harry in frontline operations outweigh the benefits. But is that really the case? The British army has already come in for heavy attacks from Taliban and other jihadist forces; it is hard to see how Taliban attacks would radically turn for the worse, since they are probably operating at full stretch now. Of course it would be a great coup for these fanatics to kill a royal, but then, the propoganda benefits of having a royal serving his country in battle should not be sneezed at. I’d be willing to bet that outside the salons of north London, most ordinary Brits – apart from radical Muslims – have cheered the prince for his actions.
I suspect the latter point explains why leftists like Jon Snow are so angry. Remember, this is a culture war as much as a physical war we are in with radical islam. Consider the potency of the image of an heir to the throne machine-gunning radical islamist thugs in Afghanistan. They don’t like it up ’em.
Guy, Johnathan,
You may be right, but Jon Snow is known to have views, and while as ready as any journalist to claim impartiality and the importance of neutral language when describing Palestinian terrorists by the various euphemisms, it isn’t hard to spot the signs if you’re looking.
If you want something more equivalent to Enigma, you could consider that business of the Americans tapping the telephone calls of overseas Al Qaida members calling into the United States, and dealing secretly with the European inter-bank transfer organisation to monitor funds transfers through the terrorist support network. Certainly it’s a risky thing to do from a freedom perspective, and at the least requires heavy oversight by independent monitors, if you allow it at all, but if you as a journalist found out about it, would you take the decision upon yourselves to publish it on page 1, as the NY Times did? Who elected them to make that decision, or is it a decision anybody can and should be able to make?
Harry was an easy example where they shouldn’t publish. Enigma during the war was easy too, although it became less so after the war when we sold old German Enigma machines to all our allies while keeping quiet about having broken it. However, that was then, and this is now. But in the modern world, we do have intelligence gathering exercises like ULTRA, and in far more morally grey areas. ECHELON is probably old hat by now, it still has a bit of a truther air about it. And there are commercial operations – the AdWare and tracking cookies and website IP/referrer logs and Google history traces and so forth – that might also give one pause for thought, if one isn’t totally hung up on the government being the sole root of all evil.
It’s a good question. I think most responsible news organisations would first go through proper channels, and they do exist, to get what they believe to be abuses seen to. Publication ought to be only as a last resort. It is vitally important that the option be there though, and that if you think it is important enough to go to jail for, that you have that option. You can publish, and they won’t stop you, although they might prosecute you afterwards. But it is tricky where the line is drawn on taking individual responsibility to override democracy. If someone in the British media thought that “maybe Hitler had a point”, would it still be a matter of individual conscience to decide to keep Enigma secret or not?
I’m not going to get shot at for some party political cunt.
The money quote on this thread. I mean an elected head of state sounds kinda dandy until you begin looking at the washed-up politicos who could take the role. I have a great deal of respect for the Queen and her children and grandchildren (with the notable exception of the Prince of Wails).
And good on Prince Harry for doing what he was trained to do. He’s not playing at being a soldier. He joined the army to be a soldier and now he’s done a bit…
He also seems the kinda chap I could have a pint with. I can say the same about his brother and Zara and Peter Phillips from what I know. Unfortunately Charles is away with the fairys…
Churchill, on Ultra… “The geese that laid the golden eggs and never cackled”. ’nuff said. We kept Ultra secret long after WWII. I read somewhere that a woman who worked on it and had a stroke in the 80s was terrified that on admission to hospital she’d spill the beans… Why did we keep it secret so long? When the Empire split up we gave captured Enigma machines to newly independent countries as a parting gift…
When Alan Bennett was called up for national service he was spotted as a bright lad with languages A-levels. So they didn’t have him square bashing. He was posted to MI3 where he translated Sov Army stuff. The Red Army wasn’t too good at supplying toilet paper to it’s troops in East Germany so… Guess what secret orders were used as? And we had a deal with the German night soil men… It wasn’t quite the sinecure that Mr Bennett initially imagined it to be… So fitting and obvious in a way. I mean you’re a German in the occupied DDR and you’re on latrine duty at a Red Army base so exactly how corruptible are you?
Enigma, Ultra, Station X, The Lorenz Cipher, Colossus, Universal Turing Machines… Do math, win wars, Supercool. And the geek shall inherit the earth.