3 ms·

You have your facts wrong. Firstly, there were German and Japanese spies, but there was basically nobody on the Allied side who thought it was whistleblowing t

by ucee054 14y ago

You have your facts wrong. Firstly, there were German and Japanese spies, but there was basically nobody on the Allied side who thought it was whistleblowing to leak secrets to Hitler. Unlike the case of the Soviet Union, which the Manhattan scientists did think it was whistleblowing, and did leak the nuclear bomb secrets, Wikileaks or no. Also unlike the case of the German military, which was riddled with anti-Hitler resistance who leaked what they could to the Allies, again Wikileaks or no. So if Wikileaks existed in 1940, it would have made easier the life of Schulze-Boysen acting against Hitler, not Bomber Harris acting against Churchill. Example references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris The French Resistance was useless. Besides, traitors amongst them could easily have dropped off an anonymous tip to the Gestapo or even turned double agent. Wikileaks would have been a lot less decisive in this case. Finally, the Germans already had lots of evidence about their enigma code being broken, and about the British radar system. Hitler himself told the generals the attack would come at Normandy. However, the German generals could not bring themselves to believe it. They had too much hubris to believe that their codes had been cracked. And they could not believe that the British would use such shitty old fashioned radar. The German counter measures were designed to work against good radars such as their own, and no one had thought of building counter measures against the British crap. This gave British airpower the advantage. Sadly I don't have references on me for these, but I do have a reference for the Normandy landings. The German generals refused to believe Hitler because landing at Normandy would be insanely expensive in Allied blood. Only a complete idiot would decide to land at Normandy. The fact that Hitler told the generals is made a point of in Shirer's book: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/1451651686 http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/14516... So World War 2 is a really lousy example for you to use. Besides, to protect against this sort of thing, Wikileaks have a disclosure policy. For example, when they released the diplomatic cables, they tried to go through the newspapers first: anything the newspapers redacted, they redacted too. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that "the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure" and later stated "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest." References: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8067907/Pentagon-says-Wikileaks-did-not-compromise-sources.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks So frankly, Wikileaks are mitigating your fictitious Hitler-in-1940 scenario anyway. And I trust them way more than I trust the politicians telling me what I don't need to know.

philwelch 14y ago
Admittedly, the "Wikileaks in 1940" is such an anachronistic idea that it doesn't hold up to analysis. The WWII era not only lacked the technology necessary for Wikileaks, but also the ridiculous notion that governments should be completely disabled from keeping secrets at all. Since you've moved the goalposts and aren't even defended that notion, you've tacitly conceded that governments should be able to keep some secrets from the public, so I don't see the purpose of your quibbling. > there was basically nobody on the Allied side who thought it was whistleblowing to leak secrets to Hitler To Hitler directly? Perhaps not, but I'm discussing releasing information to the public as a whole, which would have the secondary consequence of revealing the secret to the Axis. This is also why the selective release of information to the Soviets is an irrelevancy on your part, since we're discussing the impact of revealing secrets to the public as a whole. The basic threat of Wikileaks is that "basically nobody" is still somebody, and somebody is all you need to release secret information to everybody. Your refutation is that, based the incomplete information they had, the Germans could have potentially chosen to bet correctly on everything they were uncertain of. Are you really incapable of distinguishing that scenario from one where they were able to make a more informed decision because the secrets were revealed decisively? Regardless of Hitler's initial opinions, the fact remains that a large proportion of the German defensive force on D-Day were garrisoned in the Pas de Calais region and remained there even after the landing was underway, convinced that Normandy was a diversionary attack. It would seem that Hitler himself changed his mind, since the failure of the German forces to abandon Pas de Calais was decisive to the operation. Empowering individuals to release information to the public makes it harder, not easier, to keep secrets. How can you argue otherwise? Keeping secrets was vital to the Second World War. How can you argue otherwise?
- ucee054 14y ago
  "Since we're discussing the impact of revealing secrets to the public as a whole." No, you were discussing that. Military plans are irrelevant to the public as a whole. They are only actionable by the opposing military. The case discussed that originated this three posts up was about use of Wikileaks as a vector to reveal US/Israeli military secrets to the Iranian government. The idea was never to get US military secrets to Old Farmer Sassan from Onion Village in Iran. What on earth would he do with them? "Somebody is all you need to release secret information to everybody." No, a whistleblower is what you need to release secret information. The difference being that the whistlebower is someone who doesn't want the secrets kept, because he/she has decided that the secret keepers (the whistleblower's own side) are the criminals. Someone like Bradley Manning. Or Wilhelm Canaris. Who on the Allied side wanted to reveal Allied war secrets? This is your flimsy argument against empowering whistleblowers? "the failure of the German forces to abandon Pas de Calais was decisive to the operation." You seem to get all your history from Action Man books http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=brogan%20mike&search-alias=books-uk&sort=relevancerank http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF... Do you have any idea of what a fiasco World War Two was? If there had been a Wikileaks leaking government secrets to EVERYBODY (gasp!) in 1940, I'm certain World War Two would have been smaller, because Japan and the USA would not have gotten involved. The American public would not have tolerated it. And maybe Britain might not have starved those 7 million Indian people by diverting their food to the British Army.

by ucee054 14y ago

philwelch 14y ago

Admittedly, the "Wikileaks in 1940" is such an anachronistic idea that it doesn't hold up to analysis. The WWII era not only lacked the technology necessary for Wikileaks, but also the ridiculous notion that governments should be completely disabled from keeping secrets at all. Since you've moved the goalposts and aren't even defended that notion, you've tacitly conceded that governments should be able to keep some secrets from the public, so I don't see the purpose of your quibbling. > there was basically nobody on the Allied side who thought it was whistleblowing to leak secrets to Hitler To Hitler directly? Perhaps not, but I'm discussing releasing information to the public as a whole, which would have the secondary consequence of revealing the secret to the Axis. This is also why the selective release of information to the Soviets is an irrelevancy on your part, since we're discussing the impact of revealing secrets to the public as a whole. The basic threat of Wikileaks is that "basically nobody" is still somebody, and somebody is all you need to release secret information to everybody. Your refutation is that, based the incomplete information they had, the Germans could have potentially chosen to bet correctly on everything they were uncertain of. Are you really incapable of distinguishing that scenario from one where they were able to make a more informed decision because the secrets were revealed decisively? Regardless of Hitler's initial opinions, the fact remains that a large proportion of the German defensive force on D-Day were garrisoned in the Pas de Calais region and remained there even after the landing was underway, convinced that Normandy was a diversionary attack. It would seem that Hitler himself changed his mind, since the failure of the German forces to abandon Pas de Calais was decisive to the operation. Empowering individuals to release information to the public makes it harder, not easier, to keep secrets. How can you argue otherwise? Keeping secrets was vital to the Second World War. How can you argue otherwise?

ucee054 14y ago
"Since we're discussing the impact of revealing secrets to the public as a whole." No, you were discussing that. Military plans are irrelevant to the public as a whole. They are only actionable by the opposing military. The case discussed that originated this three posts up was about use of Wikileaks as a vector to reveal US/Israeli military secrets to the Iranian government. The idea was never to get US military secrets to Old Farmer Sassan from Onion Village in Iran. What on earth would he do with them? "Somebody is all you need to release secret information to everybody." No, a whistleblower is what you need to release secret information. The difference being that the whistlebower is someone who doesn't want the secrets kept, because he/she has decided that the secret keepers (the whistleblower's own side) are the criminals. Someone like Bradley Manning. Or Wilhelm Canaris. Who on the Allied side wanted to reveal Allied war secrets? This is your flimsy argument against empowering whistleblowers? "the failure of the German forces to abandon Pas de Calais was decisive to the operation." You seem to get all your history from Action Man books http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=brogan%20mike&search-alias=books-uk&sort=relevancerank http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF... Do you have any idea of what a fiasco World War Two was? If there had been a Wikileaks leaking government secrets to EVERYBODY (gasp!) in 1940, I'm certain World War Two would have been smaller, because Japan and the USA would not have gotten involved. The American public would not have tolerated it. And maybe Britain might not have starved those 7 million Indian people by diverting their food to the British Army.