Update

I added the title of SRH-368 in WWII Myths - U-boat tankers and ULTRA intelligence, which is ‘Evaluation of the Role of Decryption Intelligence in the Operational Phase of the Battle of the Atlantic, U.S. Navy OEG Report #68, 1952’.

Update

I added the following part in The British War Office Cypher:

The official history ‘British intelligence in the Second World War’ vol2, p298 says:

‘If under-estimation of the quality of Rommel's equipment was one reason why British confidence was high when the Crusader offensive began, another was the failure to allow for the efficiency of his field intelligence. By August 1941 the Germans were regularly reading the War Office high-grade hand cypher which carried a good deal of Eighth Army's W/T traffic down to division level, and they continued to do so until January 1942. Until then, when their success was progressively reduced by British improvements to the recyphering system, whereas GC and CS's success against the German Army Enigma continued to expand, this cypher provided them with at least as much intelligence about Eighth Army's strengths and order of battle as Eighth Army was obtaining about those of Rommel's forces.’

Update

I added a new video in Recurring problems of Soviet tank design.

More information on the German war economy

I’ve already had a look at the German war economy and whether it was ‘mismanaged’ here. For those of you that want to read more check out these articles:

1). From Economic History Review: ’Fixed-price contracts, learning, and outsourcing: explaining the continuous growth of output and labour productivity in the German aircraft industry during the Second World War’ By Lutz Budrass, Jonas Scherner, and Jochen Streb. This is basically the same article as ‘Demystifying the German “armament miracle’’ but with additional information on outsourcing.

Summary: ‘In this article it is claimed that, at least in the aircraft industry, the development of German armament production and productivity was much more continuous than Wagenführ's armament index and both the Blitzkrieg thesis and the inefficiency thesis suggest. In order to prove this new thesis of continuity, we show on the basis of firm-level data, firstly, that investment in production capacities had already started before the war and was especially high in the early phase of the war, and secondly, that the regulatory setting of aircraft production management was rather constant and was not dramatically changed after 1941. In addition, we demonstrate that the driving forces of productivity growth were primarily learning-by-doing and outsourcing, the latter being generally neglected by economic historians.’

2). ‘Industrial Investment in Nazi Germany: The Forgotten Wartime Boom’ by Jonas Scherner.

Summary: ‘To date we lack reliable data on the level of industrial investment in the Third Reich. In addition our overall knowledge of the quantitative significance of the war-related branches – autarky and armaments industries – is extremely patchy. And yet, a precise knowledge of these figures is clearly crucial if we are to arrive at a proper characterization of the political economy of the Third Reich. Investment strategies with their long-run implications for industrial output are particularly revealing as to the debate about a Blitzkrieg strategy supposedly pursued by Hitler’s Germany early in the war. Furthermore, investment data may play a crucial part in demystifying Albert Speer’s so-called armaments miracle, about which it is commonly claimed that it depended on intensive rather than extensive growth. This paper, based on largely unknown sources, attempts to fill this gap, providing figure for industrial investment for the entire period between 1936 and 1944. It will be shown that actual investment was substantially larger after 1938 than has hitherto been recognized. The paper will also present detailed estimates for investment in armaments and autarky industries for the period 1934- 1943. These show that during the period 1940-1942 Germany experienced a spectacular investment boom, primarily directed towards widening the industrial base for war. This clearly should have substantial implications for the historiography, since it calls into question both the Blitzkrieg narrative and the conventional view of the armaments miracle.’

3). From Economic History Review: ‘‘Armament in depth’ or ‘armament in breadth’? German investment pattern and rearmament during the Nazi period’ By Jonas Scherner.

Summary: ‘Today, most scholars agree that Nazi Germany did not follow a premeditated Blitzkrieg strategy in the late 1930s and at the beginning of the Second World War. However, the question of the extent to which Germany’s economy had been prepared for a longer war is still debated because statistical information on Germany’s investment pattern is fragmentary and data on the structure of prewar German military expenditure are not available. Relying on newly discovered sources, this article closes these gaps.The Nazi regime clearly shifted its investment towards preparation for war from the mid-1930s on, and though armaments purchases stagnated during the period from 1937 to 1939, investment in munitions industries grew considerably. Consequently, during the late 1930s the Nazis pursued a ‘sustainable’ rearmament strategy necessary for fighting a longer war. Yet, despite massive capacity enlargements in the munitions industries, total German investment was not unusually high by today’s definition because contemporary figures included a significant amount of armaments purchases.’

George Washington goes Spartan

Some things are too funny to pass up:

Another look at the reliability of the TICOM reports

I’ve already had a look at the reliability of the TICOM reports regarding the successes of the German codebreakers.

Going through some of my files I’ve noticed another clear cut case. Regarding Polish diplomatic codes we have the following statements from report I-63 ‘Interrogation Report on ORR Herrmann Scherschmidt of, Pers Z S, Auswaertiges Amt’, p3

‘5.Polish Systems:

Scherschmidt worked entirely on diplomatic traffic and was not familiar with military or agent systems or with any successes achieved on them. He had dabbled in Polish throughout his Pers Z S career and early in 1939 he was assigned to the main diplomatic code of the Polish Foreign Office. This had been in force since 1934, and some unsuccessful research had been done in an effort to ascertain the encipherment used. The problem was given a very high priority in 1939 and Scherschmidt had first class assistance. With the aid of a captured specimen of encipherment and a captured description of the indicator system, the first message was read early in 1940. The code was recovered gradually, and in 1941 and 1942 all messages was read, most of them currently. The code went out of use in October 1942 and was replaced by a letter code. Scherschmidt did a little work on this at first but did not come back to the problem later. He said the code was never solved, and he did not know details of the attacks made on it by KUNZE and others.’

 
(Note that I’ve used the I-63 file from NARA that has been uploaded by the TICOM Archive site. My copy from the British Archives has parts redacted.)

Can this information be verified from some other source? The answer is yes.

The Cryptologia article ‘From the Archives: Polish Interwar MFA's Cipher Compromised?’ by Jan Bury presents two report written by Polish intelligence official Major Tadeusz Szumowski in 1940 and 1946-7 that verify the compromise of the Polish diplomatic code.

According to Szumowski the Poles had introduced the diplomatic ‘Code 45’ in 1933 and were aware that it might have been compromised. These suspicions became certainties when the British and French ambassadors in Berlin (Coulondre and Henderson) told them that they shouldn’t use this code when sending messages to them.

In April 1939 the Poles received another warning this time from Major Bartik, former chief of the Czech Counter Intelligence, regarding the compromise of their code.

This prompted the Polish leadership to authorize the use of a new code. Using trusted personnel a new letter code was prepared and printed and it ready for distribution in May 1940 but this operation was halted by Jan Ciechanowski the secretary general of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government-in-Exile. 

This act, according to Szumowski, amounted to treason:

‘These circumstances can hardly be explained by indolence and thoughtlessness at the MFA. This is rather negligence, which during the war is close to high treason and requires exemplary punishment. Personally I would be close to assuming that Mr Ciechanowski, considering the fact than an army officer [i.e. Szumowski] took care of the [development of the] cipher, was afraid the military could read the MFA’s messages, although he did not realize this was impossible knowing the cipher used unique tables.’

Eventually the new code ‘Alpha’ was distributed to posts abroad (first in the embassies in Paris, Rome and Bern) but the old ‘Code 45’ continued to be used by many other posts worldwide till end of ’42 when ‘Code 50’ was introduced. (Note that ‘Alpha’ and Code 50’ are also mentioned in the British report "Polish Cyphers 1942-1945", write-up by Jones-Williams (Berkeley St.))

If we compare the statements in I-63 with the Cryptologia article we see that the information is a perfect match. TICOM I-63 says that the Polish main diplomatic code was used since 1934, while the article says it was introduced in mid 1933. The Germans read it till end ’42 when the new letter code was introduced. Again this is verified from the article which refers to ‘Alpha’ and ‘Code 50’.

The reports by Szumowski allow us to answer an important question. In I-63 it is stated ‘The problem was given a very high priority in 1939 and Scherschmidt had first class assistance. With the aid of a captured specimen of encipherment and a captured description of the indicator system, the first message was read early in 1940’

I’ve wondered of how the Germans got hold of those documents. According to Szumowski the Czechs had this information and they were able to decode Polish communications in the late 30’s. When the Germans occupied the country in March 1939 they obviously found some of the secret Czech archives. That is why he was warned in 1939 by the Czech officials…

British report on Hitler assassination attempts

File FO 1093/288 is available from the British National archives. It can be downloaded for free if you create an account.

It has a report written by SS Obersturmbannführer Kappler on Elser who attempted to blow up Hitler in 1939. Kappler was his interrogator and he was convinced that he acted alone.

There is also another report by Hans Bernd Gisevius, giving an overview of the Resistance against Hitler in the military and political circles from the 1930’s till 1944.

Reference found through WW2 Talk forum.