About Professionalisation in the Intelligence Community: The French Cryptologists (ca 1870-ca 1945)

Social Sciences and especially Sociology and History are very useful to understand how the Cryptographic Field has been shaped in France in 19th and 20th centuries. This paper tackles this issue explaining how and why this Field has been influenced in-depth by a strong process of ‘Professionalism’ under the Ecole Polytechnique rule. Being neither a Mathematician nor a Cryptologist, but a Social Scientist I belong to a minority in this book: nevertheless I will try to demonstrate how precious were and are Dave’s books for Historians and Political Scientists interested in the study of the Hidden side of the State. I would like to plead for the use of more Sociology in the Intelligence Studies Field. Social Scientists interested in Intelligence or Cryptology often conduct their research studying either the structures or the heroes (that is to say for instance Masterspies or Defectors). Some use the two approaches, but rather rarely. I am personally convinced that the combined use of the study of the structures and that one of some Individuals actors that played a major role – there are many in Cryptography from Herbert O. Yardley1 to Alan Turing via Marian Rejewski2 – can find advantages to be completed by the study of a third level, the professional groups (or the Bodies). However that may be, I would consider as an assumption the fact that, broadly speaking, in the Cryptologic field the role of some Individuals is more important that in Intelli‐ gence. Dave demonstrated the role of successive Genius that improved Secrets Writings, Ciphers and the use of Mathematics. Until now despite the growing role of Softwares and computing, the importance of Inventors remains. Be that as it may, I would plead not for taking into account the “masses” in the study of cryptology but to promote the study of the collective actors. Indeed, the case of France at the crossroads of 19 and 20 Centuries shows a main transformation, the blossoming of Bodies among those of the Officials who where in charge of Intelligence within the State. 1 See David Kahn, The reader of gentlemen’s mail: Herbert O. Yardley and the birth of American codebreaking, New Haven-London, Yale University Press, 2004, 318 p. 2 See Marian Rejewski 1905–1980. Living with the Enigma secret, Bydgoscz, Bydgoscz City Council, 2005, 287 p. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016 P.Y.A. Ryan et al. (Eds.): Kahn Festschrift, LNCS 9100, pp. 25–33, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-49301-4_2 1 The Lack of Tools to Study the Collective Actors No Historian can face the study of collective Actors without being confronted immedi‐ ately to the notion of “Intelligence Community” (IC). Unfortunately these two words written together create the illusion of an Intelligence Body that would be homogeneous. In fact, all the academic literature using this expression does not define the notion, nor try to explain it3: in this way the IC is only the addition of several Agencies or of several Bodies. Actually it’s a fuzzy expression. The second consequence is that if most of the structures, the organs or the bureaucracies have been studied, this is not the case of the collective Actors like the Officers, Analysts or the Cryptologists that were employed in these structures. From my point of view it is the consequence of a lack of a sociological approach. In appearance the use of Sociology can introduce some complexity but at the end it provides more light because the past is not only the combination of Individual Actors and of Structures. As the “IC” the term of “Professionnalisation” has been used by Historians of Intel‐ ligence without being firstly carefully defined4. Implicitly again, most Histories of Intel‐ ligence conclude that at the end of 19 Century many European IC were on the way of Professionnalisation. This is not my stance and I would begin considering this as an assumption that must be confirmed. Professionnalisation has been in fact used by Historians and political Scientists as a synonym for skills. But one thing are the skills of Individuals, another one is the capacity of a Body to train its members. Incontestably, the latter is a sign of a modernisation Process in a State. I would also use the recent definition of Martin Rudner who insists on some features: the management of human capital and the teaching of knowledge to new entrants in the Body5. In dealing with the study of French Cryptologists under the Third Republic (1870– 1940), I would have also to consider if these peculiar men, most of them coming from the Army or from the Navy, behaved only as Individuals or if they were strictly linked to the Bodies that appeared at the end of the 19 Century. It could help us to understand if the French Intelligence Apparatus based partly on the quality of Cryptography at the beginning of the 20 Century was the result of some Individuals or of the renewal of the French Army after the 1870 Defeat. 2 The French “Intelligence Community” as a Battlefield During the first half of 19 Century there was two unique Official Bodies in charge of Intelligence, the Diplomats and the Police Body. From the beginning of the 19 Century until today, the history of Intelligence in France and abroad is a story of permanent 3 See for instance: Jeffrey T. Richelson, The US Intelligence Community, New York, Vetwiew press, 2008, 592 p. 4 Christopher Andrew and David Dilks (ed.), The missing dimension. Governments and Intelli‐ gence Communities in the Twentieh Century, London, Macmillan, 1985, p. 6 et 7. 5 See Martin Rudner, “Training and educating US Intelligence Analysts”, International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, 2009, 22: 1, p. 139 et 142. 26 S.-Y. Laurent