Windtalkers

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

I just watched the movie and yes I had been aware of these code talkers
previously, but the movie kind of confused me (yes it was a movie and not
necessarily meant to be accurate).

The problem I had was that while I can understand communication security, in the
movie most, if not all, of the code talking was about fixed emplacements, so how
would talking in a breakable code have helped the Japanese? It's not like they
could move the large artillery they had dug in

[Chris Manteuffel]

Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
The problem I had was that while I can understand communication security, in the
movie most, if not all, of the code talking was about fixed emplacements, so how
would talking in a breakable code have helped the Japanese? It's not like they
could move the large artillery they had dug in

I haven't seen the movie, but most of the value in the code-talkers [1]
came from speed and authentication. Speed because the M-94 code machine
takes a minute or two to rig up and use- but a code-talker is much
faster, and authentication because it would be hard for the enemy to
insert extra messages into the radio net if they are all coded up.

One thing to remember about cryptography is that almost any code can be
broken[2]. Had the Japanese been smarter about using Joe Kieyoomia's
(captured at Bataan) knowledge of Navajo it is possible they could have
broken the Navajo code. The key is how long it takes to break to the
value of the information in the code. Knowing that in five minutes a
battleship was going to shell a bunker was of little value if it takes
you 15 minutes to break. And even if you could instantaneously break it
there is only so much one can do to react in these situations.

Now, if the Marine Corps were passing around the next island they were
going to attack in other-wise unencrypted Navajo several months ahead of
time, that would have been worth much more effort to crack.

[1]: Not just the Marines and the Navajo. The Army used, in the words of
one historian, 'every tribe that started with a C' as code-talkers,
Choctaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Comanche.

[2]: A one-time-pad that is both truly random and truly only used once
is the only exception. Truly random sources are generally hard to get,
and making sure that everything is used exactly once is a major logistic
challenge. See the Venona project for what happens when a mistake is
made (in that case it seems to have been a mistake made by the factory,
not the end-users).

Chris Manteuffel

[Henry]

Post by Chris Manteuffel

Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
The problem I had was that while I can understand communication security, in the
movie most, if not all, of the code talking was about fixed
emplacements, so how
would talking in a breakable code have helped the Japanese? It's not like they
could move the large artillery they had dug in

I haven't seen the movie, but most of the value in the code-talkers [1]
came from speed and authentication. Speed because the M-94 code machine
takes a minute or two to rig up and use- but a code-talker is much
faster, and authentication because it would be hard for the enemy to
insert extra messages into the radio net if they are all coded up.
One thing to remember about cryptography is that almost any code can be
broken[2]. Had the Japanese been smarter about using Joe Kieyoomia's
(captured at Bataan) knowledge of Navajo it is possible they could have
broken the Navajo code. The key is how long it takes to break to the
value of the information in the code. Knowing that in five minutes a
battleship was going to shell a bunker was of little value if it takes
you 15 minutes to break. And even if you could instantaneously break it
there is only so much one can do to react in these situations.
Now, if the Marine Corps were passing around the next island they were
going to attack in other-wise unencrypted Navajo several months ahead of
time, that would have been worth much more effort to crack.
[1]: Not just the Marines and the Navajo. The Army used, in the words of
one historian, 'every tribe that started with a C' as code-talkers,
Choctaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Comanche.

Why all the emphasis on American Indian languages? Surely there were
other languages that would have been obscure to the Japanese yet still
had fluent native speakers in America. Albanian or Armenian, for example.

And why would American Indian languages starting with 'C' be better
than, say, Ute or Sioux or Mohawk?

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Henry

Post by Chris Manteuffel
[1]: Not just the Marines and the Navajo. The Army used, in the words of
one historian, 'every tribe that started with a C' as code-talkers,
Choctaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Comanche.

Why all the emphasis on American Indian languages? Surely there were
other languages that would have been obscure to the Japanese yet still
had fluent native speakers in America. Albanian or Armenian, for example.

Among other reasons, the Japanese actually had ambassadors to areas where those
languages were spoken, and could likely find speakers of such on their home
turf. If not, I'm sure the Germans would have found a willing interpretor for
them.

Post by Henry
And why would American Indian languages starting with 'C' be better
than, say, Ute or Sioux or Mohawk?

Numbers. By that time, not too many Mohawk speakers, and the Utes were never
a huge group.

Mike

[Henry]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Henry

Post by Chris Manteuffel
[1]: Not just the Marines and the Navajo. The Army used, in the words of
one historian, 'every tribe that started with a C' as code-talkers,
Choctaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Comanche.

Why all the emphasis on American Indian languages? Surely there were
other languages that would have been obscure to the Japanese yet still
had fluent native speakers in America. Albanian or Armenian, for example.

Among other reasons, the Japanese actually had ambassadors to areas where those
languages were spoken, and could likely find speakers of such on their home
turf. If not, I'm sure the Germans would have found a willing interpretor for
them.

I hadn't thought about the ambassadors; good point. Of course, I expect
the Japanese would have had a major challenge just figuring out what
language they were hearing if someone started speaking in an obscure
language from an obscure part of the world. But once they'd figured out
what the language was, I suppose they could have tracked down an
interpreter without too much difficulty.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Henry
And why would American Indian languages starting with 'C' be better
than, say, Ute or Sioux or Mohawk?

Numbers. By that time, not too many Mohawk speakers, and the Utes were never
a huge group.

I didn't actually mean to propose Mohawk, Ute or Sioux as _better_ choices;
I just couldn't figure out why there was a preference for languages
starting with 'C'. ;-)

It makes sense that native languages were on the decline in those years;
I think the prevailing mentality in those days was that Indians should
be speaking English and leave their native languages behind. I suppose
'C' languages just had larger populations of speakers at that time and
that's why they were used.

~
Henry

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Henry

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Henry
And why would American Indian languages starting with 'C' be better
than, say, Ute or Sioux or Mohawk?

Numbers. By that time, not too many Mohawk speakers, and the Utes were never
a huge group.

I didn't actually mean to propose Mohawk, Ute or Sioux as _better_ choices;
I just couldn't figure out why there was a preference for languages
starting with 'C'. ;-)
It makes sense that native languages were on the decline in those years;
I think the prevailing mentality in those days was that Indians should
be speaking English and leave their native languages behind. I suppose
'C' languages just had larger populations of speakers at that time and
that's why they were used.

Partly. They also had communities, where it's actually possible to speak a
language of that type. Most Indian tribes have essentially disappeared into the
US populace (where I grew up, it was nearly impossible to swing a dead cat
without hitting someone who had an Indian ancestor; mine were Iroquois),
so tribes like Navajo, Cherokee (largest tribal membership in the US, I
believe) would have been the best choices. There are some established
speakers of some Algonkin and Iroquois languages in northern Wisconsin;
not sure why they weren't used.

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Partly. They also had communities, where it's actually possible to speak a
language of that type. Most Indian tribes have essentially disappeared into the
US populace (where I grew up, it was nearly impossible to swing a dead cat
without hitting someone who had an Indian ancestor; mine were Iroquois),
so tribes like Navajo, Cherokee (largest tribal membership in the US, I
believe) would have been the best choices. There are some established
speakers of some Algonkin and Iroquois languages in northern Wisconsin;
not sure why they weren't used.

Given there are larger Algonquian and Iroquois tribal groups in Canada
today than in the US, did Canada have any such wartime program?

[james]

Post by The Horny Goat
did Canada have any such wartime program?

Quick Google Search found this:

http://www.davidstonehouse.com/articles/windtalkers.htm

The US military recruited some Canadian Native soldiers for the 8th AF in England, but Canada never had a formal program.

[Henry]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Partly. They also had communities, where it's actually possible to speak a
language of that type. Most Indian tribes have essentially disappeared into the
US populace (where I grew up, it was nearly impossible to swing a dead cat
without hitting someone who had an Indian ancestor; mine were Iroquois),
so tribes like Navajo, Cherokee (largest tribal membership in the US, I
believe) would have been the best choices. There are some established
speakers of some Algonkin and Iroquois languages in northern Wisconsin;
not sure why they weren't used.

Given there are larger Algonquian and Iroquois tribal groups in Canada
today than in the US, did Canada have any such wartime program?

It might be argued that the Quebecois dialect of French was as
unfamiliar to Europeans as Indian languages ;-)

I'm being facetious here of course. I remember a neat anecdote about
Quebecois French and just dug it up for the amusement of those on the
group. It's from The Canadians At War 1939-1945, p. 328:

====================================================================
Hé! mon gars

As the first French-speaking war correspondent to land, I was looking
for the first meeting between a Frenchman and one of our boys. A
white-haired Frenchman named Martin noticed a soldier with Régiment de
la Chaudière shoulder patches. "Hé, mon gars", he said, "qu'est-ce que
c'est 'la Chaudière'? (Chaudière to him meant boiler or furnace.) "C'est
une rivière de par cheu-nous," said the soldier, a river back home. And
where was home? "Moé, M'sieur, j'viens de Trois Pistoles." And where was
that? On the banks of the St. Lawrence. "Au Canada?" "Oui." Then
Monsieur Martin asked "Allez-vous à Paris?" The Chaudière had been
warned to be careful about that kind of question. He shrugged. "P'tet
ben que oui, p'tet ben que non." It sounded like tet ban kwee tet ban
knon, a contraction of peut-etre bien que oui, peut-etre bien que non,
which means "maybe yes, maybe no". But in Normandy too it's tet ban kwee
tet ban knon, a pronunciation carried to Canada by our Norman ancestors
centuries ago. At that, Monsieur Martin grabbed the soldier by the neck,
kissed him on both cheeks, and said, "Look, my friend, you're not a
Canadian, you're a Frenchman like me!"

Marcel Ouimet of the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)
====================================================================

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Henry

Post by The Horny Goat
Given there are larger Algonquian and Iroquois tribal groups in Canada
today than in the US, did Canada have any such wartime program?

It might be argued that the Quebecois dialect of French was as
unfamiliar to Europeans as Indian languages ;-)
I'm being facetious here of course. I remember a neat anecdote about
Quebecois French and just dug it up for the amusement of those on the

Don't know about that - we have a former employee who was a member of
the Sherbrooke regiment (and is definitely of the French-Canadian
persuasion) who has been sent to France as part of the D-Day vets
commemorations 3 times and says there's no question that of all the
men in his group he got the warmest reception by the French lcoals as
the only French-Canadian in his group.

Now old Albert IS a charming old gentleman but one presumes his
linguistic skills has something to do with it...

(I've repeated things in this group and in s.h.what-if he's told me
previously most notably that his unit learned to jumpinto ditches
whenever an aircraft flew directly overhead BEFORE checking national
markings on the aircraft and that he had been bombed or strafed by
USAAF and RAF planes but never by the Luftwaffe...)

[MCGARRY]

Post by Henry
It might be argued that the Quebecois dialect of French was as
unfamiliar to Europeans as Indian languages ;-)

French speaking Canadians have a strong accent but the French understand
them if they speak clearly. The rare French Canadian programmes
broadcast in France often have subtitles.
But then if I watch CSI Miami in "english" I have a problem
understanding them.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by MCGARRY

Post by Henry
It might be argued that the Quebecois dialect of French was as
unfamiliar to Europeans as Indian languages ;-)

French speaking Canadians have a strong accent but the French understand
them if they speak clearly. The rare French Canadian programmes
broadcast in France often have subtitles.
But then if I watch CSI Miami in "english" I have a problem
understanding them.

So rather like we Canadians and the Aussies eh?

I believe it was Churchill who described the United States and Great
Britain as two great peoples divided by a common language...

[Michael Emrys]

Post by The Horny Goat
I believe it was Churchill who described the United States and Great
Britain as two great peoples divided by a common language...

I was reading something several weeks ago that suggested that Churchill
did not originate that line, but was quoting it. I'm not precisely sure
who the original father was, Shaw? Wilde?

Michael

[Diogenes]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by MCGARRY

Post by Henry
It might be argued that the Quebecois dialect of French was as
unfamiliar to Europeans as Indian languages ;-)

French speaking Canadians have a strong accent but the French understand
them if they speak clearly. The rare French Canadian programmes
broadcast in France often have subtitles.
But then if I watch CSI Miami in "english" I have a problem
understanding them.

So rather like we Canadians and the Aussies eh?
I believe it was Churchill who described the United States and Great
Britain as two great peoples divided by a common language...

Originally it was George Bernard Shaw.
----
Diogenes

The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .

[MCGARRY]

Post by Diogenes

Post by The Horny Goat
I believe it was Churchill who described the United States and Great
Britain as two great peoples divided by a common language...

Originally it was George Bernard Shaw.

Yes I believe that's one thing that Churchill didn't say.
One thing he did say, in view of the difficulty of dealing with the
Americans- " the only thing that's worse than fighting with allies...
is fighting without them"

[Diogenes]

Post by MCGARRY

Post by Diogenes

Post by The Horny Goat
I believe it was Churchill who described the United States and Great
Britain as two great peoples divided by a common language...

Originally it was George Bernard Shaw.

Yes I believe that's one thing that Churchill didn't say.
One thing he did say, in view of the difficulty of dealing with the
Americans- " the only thing that's worse than fighting with allies...
is fighting without them"

Yes, Winny did have a way with words.

At a prewar diplomatic conference, Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop
warned Eden and Churchill that if there was another war, the Italians
would be on Germany's side.

To which Churchill supposedly replied: "That seems only fair, we had
them last time!"
----
Diogenes

The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .

[w***@aol.com]

.... One thing (Churchill) ...did say, in view of
the difficulty of dealing with the Americans-
" the only thing that's worse than fighting with
allies...is fighting without them"

Which reminds me of a similar remark he
made with regard to dealing with allies,
this time with the exiled DeGaulle and the
Free French. "The greatest Cross I have to
bear is the Cross of Lorraine."

WJH

[Andrew Chaplin]

Post by w***@aol.com
Which reminds me of a similar remark he
made with regard to dealing with allies,
this time with the exiled DeGaulle and the
Free French. "The greatest Cross I have to
bear is the Cross of Lorraine."

That is an incorrect attribution; it was said by Churchill's LO to the Free
French, Sir Edward Spears.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-
centre/publications/finest-hour/issues-109-to-144/no-138/894-lion-of-
britain-cross-of-lorraine-churchill-and-de-gaulle

[MCGARRY]

Post by w***@aol.com
Which reminds me of a similar remark he
made with regard to dealing with allies,
this time with the exiled DeGaulle and the
Free French. "The greatest Cross I have to
bear is the Cross of Lorraine."

DeGaulle was difficult for every body to get on with. One day Churchill
was ranting on about how insufferable he was, when his aide de camp said
" But sir, he is a great statesman"
Churchill replied "What! He thinks he's the center of the universe and
is allways right"
Then, after a second or two he added " Yes you're right, he is a great
statesman"

[w***@aol.com]

(Churchill said).... "The greatest Cross I have to
bear is the Cross of Lorraine."

... it was said by Churchill's LO to the Free
French....

I guess the attribution depends on which
reference one consults as both the source
and exact wording seem to change. This one,
for instance attributes the quote to Churchill,
but the wording is slightly different:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/europe/jan-june09/ddayrep_06-04.html

[MCGARRY]

Post by w***@aol.com
I guess the attribution depends on which
reference one consults as both the source

I'm citing from memory of an interview mumble years ago, of his aid de
camp on the BBC.

[Mario]

news:18729f0b-6687-410d-

Post by w***@aol.com
Which reminds me of a similar remark he
made with regard to dealing with allies,
this time with the exiled DeGaulle and the
Free French. "The greatest Cross I have to
bear is the Cross of Lorraine."

That is an incorrect attribution; it was said by Churchill's
LO to the Free French, Sir Edward Spears.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-

centre/publications/finest-hour/issues-109-to-144/no-138/894-lion-of-

britain-cross-of-lorraine-churchill-and-de-gaulle

Maybe someone could ask
http://quoteinvestigator.com
about that quotation

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Post by Henry

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Partly. They also had communities, where it's actually possible to
speak a language of that type. Most Indian tribes have essentially
disappeared into the US populace (where I grew up, it was nearly
impossible to swing a dead cat without hitting someone who had an
Indian ancestor; mine were Iroquois), so tribes like Navajo, Cherokee
(largest tribal membership in the
US, I believe) would have been the best choices. There are some
established speakers of some Algonkin and Iroquois languages in northern
Wisconsin; not sure why they weren't used.

Given there are larger Algonquian and Iroquois tribal groups in
Canada today than in the US, did Canada have any such wartime
program?

It might be argued that the Quebecois dialect of French was as
unfamiliar to Europeans as Indian languages ;-)
I'm being facetious here of course. I remember a neat anecdote about
Quebecois French and just dug it up for the amusement of those on the
====================================================================
Hé! mon gars
As the first French-speaking war correspondent to land, I was looking
for the first meeting between a Frenchman and one of our boys. A
white-haired Frenchman named Martin noticed a soldier with Régiment de
la Chaudière shoulder patches. "Hé, mon gars", he said, "qu'est-ce que
c'est 'la Chaudière'? (Chaudière to him meant boiler or furnace.)
"C'est une rivière de par cheu-nous," said the soldier, a river back
home. And where was home? "Moé, M'sieur, j'viens de Trois Pistoles."
And where was that? On the banks of the St. Lawrence. "Au Canada?"
"Oui." Then Monsieur Martin asked "Allez-vous à Paris?" The Chaudière
had been warned to be careful about that kind of question. He
shrugged. "P'tet ben que oui, p'tet ben que non." It sounded like tet
ban kwee tet ban knon, a contraction of peut-etre bien que oui,
peut-etre bien que non, which means "maybe yes, maybe no". But in
Normandy too it's tet ban kwee tet ban knon, a pronunciation carried
to Canada by our Norman ancestors centuries ago. At that, Monsieur
Martin grabbed the soldier by the neck, kissed him on both cheeks,
and said, "Look, my friend, you're not a Canadian, you're a Frenchman
like me!"
Marcel Ouimet of the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)
====================================================================

LoL, I totally understood your humour and this is one of those times that I
wish we had a <LIKE> option on USENET.

cheers....Jeff

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Henry
Why all the emphasis on American Indian languages? Surely there were
other languages that would have been obscure to the Japanese yet still
had fluent native speakers in America. Albanian or Armenian, for example.

Because there were much greater possibilities
of speakers of those languages being found in
Japan or its empire.

For example, there is a world-wide diaspora of
Armenians. It was probable that there were
Armenians in Shanghai, or in Manchuria, which
had many refugees from the Russian Empire.

Or some Japanese scholar might have learned
Armenian, which was a fairly prominent Middle
Eastern tongue.

As for Albanians - Albania was under Italian
control, and had been for two years. Also,
many ethnic Albanians in the Kosovo region
of Yugoslavia were collaborating with the
Axis. There were IIRC two SS regiments of
Kosovars, though I don't know when they
were formed.

One proposal had been to use Basque speakers.
But then it was discovered that there was a
group of Jesuits in Japan, several of whom
were Spanish and at least some of whom were
probable Basque speakers. Being Spanish
Catholics, they were presumably pro-Franco,
and thus probably pro-Axis, and thus willing
to assist Japan.

It would only take one or two speakers of a
language to give the Japanese access. Those
few speakers could teach any number of others.

[Chris Manteuffel]

Post by Henry
Why all the emphasis on American Indian languages? Surely there were
other languages that would have been obscure to the Japanese yet still
had fluent native speakers in America. Albanian or Armenian, for example.

A couple of reasons: first of all, the idea was first used in the First
World War in France, so any European language, no matter how obscure,
wouldn't be as good- the Germans would at least have prisoners who spoke
basically any European language you might chose; during the Second Big
Mistake the Army again used them in Europe, so again Native Americans
would be very much preferred over Europeans.[1]

Also, the US seems to have consistently overestimated how strong the
relationship was between Germany and Japan, and seems to have expected
the Axis to coordinate in dealing with this fairly minor tactical
matter, when they had a great deal of difficulty coordinating on much
more important issues. I think here the fairly close relationship
between the US and UK (by far the closest of any two of the top ten
powers) fooled the US: since their relationship with Britain was the
best example they had of major powers working together they seem to have
felt that everyone worked together like that, when they didn't.

Post by Henry
And why would American Indian languages starting with 'C' be better
than, say, Ute or Sioux or Mohawk?

No reason, it was just a joke by the historian I was talking to, and it
helped him to remember the large number of tribes employed by the US
Army for code-talking. In fact the US Army did use some tribes that
didn't start with C, among them the Lakota (Sioux) and the Meskwaki
(Fox). The historian also mentioned that Canadians used First Nations
languages in a similar way.

[1]: According to Wiki the USMC thought about using Basque code talkers
in the Pacific, but even with this fairly obscure European language (far
more so than Albanian or Armenian), there was concern that some Jesuit
missionaries in Japan spoke the language. When you are trying to choose
a language that is unknown to millions of people, you have to be REALLY
obscure. Wiki also claims that the British would occasionally use Welsh,
but never as part of a systematic program, because of language knowledge
issues.

Chris Manteuffel--
"...the war situation has developed not necessarily
to Japan's advantage..." -Emperor Hirohito, August 14, 1945

[MCGARRY]

Post by Henry
And why would American Indian languages starting with 'C' be better

Doesn't Navaho start with an "N"

[Michael Kuettner]

Post by Chris Manteuffel

Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
The problem I had was that while I can understand communication security, in the
movie most, if not all, of the code talking was about fixed
emplacements, so how
would talking in a breakable code have helped the Japanese? It's not like they
could move the large artillery they had dug in

So the Japanese knew what the Windtaölers were talking about ?
I doubt that.
An army (or navy) talks about more things than only the enemy's
position; like weather conditions or geographical details like
landing zones, e.g.

Post by Chris Manteuffel
I haven't seen the movie, but most of the value in the code-talkers [1]
came from speed and authentication. Speed because the M-94 code machine
takes a minute or two to rig up and use- but a code-talker is much
faster, and authentication because it would be hard for the enemy to
insert extra messages into the radio net if they are all coded up.
One thing to remember about cryptography is that almost any code can be
broken[2].

_IF_ you have a certain minimal length of the code and know roughly
what it is about and what language is used.
Examples for "codes" not broken :
- Minoan language
- Etruscan language
- The messages of the Zodiac killer
I could add more examples...

Post by Chris Manteuffel
Had the Japanese been smarter about using Joe Kieyoomia's
(captured at Bataan) knowledge of Navajo it is possible they could have
broken the Navajo code.

That would imply that they knew it was Navajo.
Which I doubt.

Post by Chris Manteuffel
The key is how long it takes to break to the
value of the information in the code. Knowing that in five minutes a
battleship was going to shell a bunker was of little value if it takes
you 15 minutes to break. And even if you could instantaneously break it
there is only so much one can do to react in these situations.

The key is whether they were able to break the code in WWII.
Don't forget that Mathematics has made rather large developments
since WWII.

Post by Chris Manteuffel
Now, if the Marine Corps were passing around the next island they were
going to attack in other-wise unencrypted Navajo several months ahead of
time, that would have been worth much more effort to crack.

But the code-breaker doesn't know the value of the message before
he has broken the code ... ;-)

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Mario]

Post by Chris Manteuffel
One thing to remember about cryptography is that almost any
code can be broken[2].

IF you have a certain minimal length of the code and know
roughly what it is about and what language is used.
- Minoan language
- Etruscan language

It is very readable and many words are known.

The problem is that the corpus is mainly tombstone scripts.

Imagine English known only from a few cemetery stones...