Milestone-Proposal talk:The First Breaking of Enigma Code by the Team of Polish Cipher Bureau, 1932-39
The Enigma Milestone proposal by the Poland section is well documented and worthy of consideration. However, the citation states that the work helped to shorten World War II. There is no quantifiable evidence by how much the war was shortened. I recommand changing shorten by a non-quantifiable equivalent word, e.g. "end" the war, rather than shorten it.
Two other Milestones were given for subsequent work on breaking the Emigma code. It is very appropriate to equally recognize the original work.
You cannot post new threads to this discussion page because it has been protected from new threads, or you do not currently have permission to edit.
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Committee Comments||5||11:30, 8 March 2014|
I don't know much about the history of breaking Enigma but this appears to be well documented and should be a worthy milestone. A comment: There is no indication of WHERE this activity took place. The first sentence of the citation seems a bit terse. Could it start with, "Near this site..." or "At such-and-such location..."? I think it would be more meaningful to the reader.
I agree with Lyle and believe that this achievement is worthy of being an IEEE Milestone.
It helped speed the end of WWII. Not sure that it ended WWII with American assistance.
I agree in general that this is worthy recognition as an IEEE milestone. What could be emphasized more is how this event is related to IEEE and it's predecessors.
I agree with Feisel's comments that the wording is a bit terse, or even awkward, and there is no location. The documentation is reasonable and the sources are the basic ones that I am familiar with regarding the history of codes and the enigma. The basic claim is valid. However, the last sentence is a bit vague...was the American support to win the war (true), or was it to work on enigma coding issues (not so true)? I support the concept of this milestone, but it is not ready for a final vote. Additional editing is needed. --Dave Bart