Frida Hahn - Code Talkers

[Rory M Larson]

Hi Ivan,

I would love a copy of your paper and bibliography, if you don't mind.

> I also remember an article that is an in-depth analysis of the Navajo 
code and points out that from a cryptographic perspective the code had 
actually several weaknesses. Thus it is not so clear why it was never 
broken, even though the Japanese had no documentation of the language. 
Couldn’t they have linguists working on the language and combine their 
research with the cryptographs’? To which extent does the absence of 
documentation on a language penalize cryptographs in breaking a code 
(knowing that it doesn’t take very long for a linguist to analyze and 
inventory a completely “new” and “unknown” language)?

Analyzing a previously unknown language should certainly be doable if you 
have speakers to work with within a human context.  But going entirely off 
brief text or sound sequences, I wonder how you would even start? Wouldn't 
the problem be much like deciphering a dead language from ancient texts 
without a Rosetta Stone?  Maya has been deciphered only recently after a 
hundred years or so of trying, even though Maya is still spoken.  I think 
Etruscan, Minoan Linear A, and the Indus Valley script are still pending.

Thanks for your post.

Rory





"Ozbolt, Ivan C." <ivan.ozbolt at ou.edu> 
Sent by: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
04/30/2008 06:06 AM
Please respond to
siouan at lists.colorado.edu


To
"siouan at lists.colorado.edu" <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
cc

Subject
RE: Frida Hahn - Code Talkers






Hello all,

I wrote a paper on the code talkers for a linguistic anthropology class at 
the University of Oklahoma a year ago, and my impression was that there is 
still a lot to be researched on the subject. For instance, most studies 
are only historical and don’t analyze the codes from a linguistic or 
cryptographic perspective.

« The Comanche Code Talkers of World War II” by William C. Meadows is a 
fascinating book that lists all the Native languages used by the military 
during WWI and WWII. Most were used occasionally, and only a few ones had 
actual codes (Navajo and Comanche for instance).

I also remember an article that is an in-depth analysis of the Navajo code 
and points out that from a cryptographic perspective the code had actually 
several weaknesses. Thus it is not so clear why it was never broken, even 
though the Japanese had no documentation of the language. Couldn’t they 
have linguists working on the language and combine their research with the 
cryptographs’? To which extent does the absence of documentation on a 
language penalize cryptographs in breaking a code (knowing that it doesn’t 
take very long for a linguist to analyze and inventory a completely “new” 
and “unknown” language)?

According to the sources I consulted, none of these codes was ever broken, 
not even the Navajo’s (even though it was used by several hundred people 
over an extended period of time). Most books on the subject simply state 
that this was so because Navajo is an incredibly difficult language. Is 
that a sufficient reason? In comparison, it only took the American 
cryptographs a few weeks to break the new Japanese codes (after they had 
changed them), but they spoke Japanese!

I am not at all an expert on the code talkers, but I remember having 
finished writing my paper with many unanswered questions (maybe some of 
you could answer them!)! I can also email my bibliography and paper to 
anyone interested.

Sincerely,
Ivan Ozbolt

________________________________________
From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On 
Behalf Of Anthony Grant [Granta at edgehill.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:24 AM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: RE: Frida Hahn

Dear all:

The Osprey military history series has a book about the Navajo Code 
Talkers, though it's rather light on linguistics. It does refer to the 
Comanche Code Talkers too, though not to the cases of Choctaw and Mikasuki 
code talk that I've come across, nor yet to the use of Omaha-Ponca in the 
Korean War.

Anthony

>>> "Rankin, Robert L" <rankin at ku.edu> 04/30/08 3:02 am >>>
Neat.  Is there a definitive book on all this?  There certainly should be.

Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Tom Leonard
Sent: Tue 4/29/2008 12:14 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Frida Hahn



 >> I heard it as an explanation why the Code Talkers were only used in
the Pacific Theater during the war -- the military was afraid the
Germans already knew too much. <<

Comanche Code Talkers were in the European Theater.  Most were on Omaha
Beach on D-day. For the most part, Comanche Code Talkers were given very
little recognition compared with the Navajo Talkers in the Pacific 
Theater.

BTW, there were some Ponca and Omaha Code Talkers used during the Korean
War (along with some incredibly funny stories).




Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I've heard this story also, and it's interesting that Oklahoma tribes 
have analogous stories.  I heard it as an explanation why the Code Talkers 
were only used in the Pacific Theater during the war -- the military was 
afraid the Germans already knew too much.
>
> It would be surprising if Jewish scholars participated in this 
intelligence gathering, but you just never know. . . .  Frida Hahn could 
have been her legend name.  These stories ought to be collected and the 
truth run down.
>
> If this is true, there should also be declassified Abwehr records of it 
somewhere in the Bundesrepublik today.  They would name names and might 
even be an interesting source of linguistic data from that period!
>
> I guess the definitive history of the Code Talkers is still yet to be 
written.
>
> Bob


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20080430/0f1b9c1f/attachment.html>