Gregory Nedved, Historian, Center for Cryptologic History

Proposal Type

Structured Conversation

Seeking
  • General Feedback and Interest
Related Topics
  • Government historians
  • Museums/Exhibits
  • Teaching
Abstract

As a historian at the Center for Cryptologic History, I give presentations to the general public (my definition of the “middle”) all of the time. My proposed presentation, via power point, will address 10-20 common myths about cryptology and codebreaking/codemaking. This presentation fits into your “middle” theme well since these myths (or misconceptions) represent mainstream (or “middle”) thinking.

Seeking

The intent of my presentation is to correct misconceptions about cryptology in general and in specific instances (did Churchill really sacrifice Coventry to protect British exploitation of the Enigma machine?). My plan is to give the presentation myself by Power Point but I am certainly willing to consider other suggestions.


If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to share contact information for other people the proposer should reach out to, please get in contact directly: Gregory Nedved

If you have general ideas or feedback to share please feel free to use the comments feature below.

All feedback, and offers of assistance, should be submitted by July 3, 2016.

COMMENTS HAVE CLOSED. PLEASE EMAIL THE PROPOSER DIRECTLY WITH ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR OFFERS TO COLLABORATE.

Discussion

5 comments
  1. Christine L. Ridarsky says:

    While this topic is certainly interesting, I wonder if the format of single presentation framed around the somewhat narrow topic of cryptologic history will limit the audience. I’m also a little confused because you’ve identified the proposal type as a structured conversation, but the narrative description makes it sound more like a straight-forward PowerPoint presentation. This might work better and attract a larger audience as part of a panel presentation or panel discussion framed in a broader way… perhaps within the larger context of breaking down historic myths. Frankly, I’m not sure that the term cryptologic history is terribly meaningful to people working outside the field.

    1. Gregory J. Nedve says:

      Christine:

      Thanks for your comments. I intended my presentation to be a standalone one but I have no problem whatsoever with making it part of a panel although I am not sure how it would fall into any existing panel. Do you have a certain panel in mind? Thanks and please advise.

      Greg Nedved

  2. Cameron Binkley says:

    Hi, Greg. I’m on the NCPH Gov. Historians Committee. I also went to the NSA panel at last year’s NCPH conf. and btw I work for DLI. I think your proposed topic is fine and would be interesting although perhaps Christine has a point about the strange term “cryptologic history.” Really, you are talking about spycraft and people are endlessly fascinated by that sort of stuff or they wouldn’t produce so many thrillers and movies, so that’s pretty easy to recast. I also agree this looks more like a standard panel session, which is fine, but we need more panelists. I don’t see any other panels so far that this fits under. I was wondering if any of your colleagues, however, might be induced to give a related talk based upon their work that is not classified? Is that at all possible? Last year, the NSA folks spoke to how hard it is to be a historian working with all the security constraints, which is understandable. I think folks would be more interested, as with your proposal, to hear NSA historians talk about the history of the agency or its work. Anyway, as I write this, it occurs to me that I could possibly offer up another speaker on the myths theme–me. It would have to be about foreign language training, like maybe myths about that stuff that DLI and its history disprove or something (language training seems pretty much the middle, I’d say). Anybody else out there have any further suggestions about how to build a panel here around the notion of myths in the worlds of intelligence, military, government and the “overlooked middle”?

    1. Greg Nedved says:

      Cameron:

      As far as I know, none of my colleagues, because of financial and time constraints, will be attending the conference in Indianapolis.

      I would be interested in being part of your panel (can we have a two-person panel?). There are a couple of issues though. First, I cannot say for certain that I will be authorized by my employer to attend the event. This is one of the reasons that I want to go solo–I don’t want to let down the panel by having to drop out in the last minute. If I am authorized by my employer to go, then I would say yes. But I am reluctant to make that commitment. Second, I must submit my proposal by 15 July and I am about to leave the area for a few days. For this reason, it is just administratively easier for me to submit my proposal separately rather than as part of a panel. If my individual presentation is approved by the conference organizers, and if it is still possible, then I am willing to participate in this panel.

      By the way, I was one of those who talked last year about how hard it was to be a historian with the various constraints you face. In my case, it had to do with giving presentations at the National Cryptologic Museum.

      Thanks.

  3. Greg Martin says:

    Greg points out a real problem that is confronting federal government historians. We have to obtain approval to attend conferences. I work for the Navy and it is a laborious process and can take months. Approval so far in advance as required by NCPH is also a roadblock, unless an individual is willing to pay registration out of pocket and bear the risk of getting later approval, or not.

    Greg, I was a little unsure as to how the structured conversation would happen based on your proposal. The guidelines for this kind of presentation revolve around a provocative question that is posed to the audience. A power point that addresses “10-20 myths” doesn’t seem to quite fit the structured conversation model. Might want to reconsider.

    Also, have you reached out to DIA, CIA, Navy, Air Force, and Army history programs to test their interest in shaping/participating in a joint cytological, signals intelligence, or communications intelligence discussion?

Comments are closed.