Jewish Invention Myths: Modern Computer Architecture and the ‘Von Neumann Machine’

Jewish invention myths are often based on a situation which has arisen as the result of jews stealing the credit for the work of non-jews and then passing it off as their own. Previous examples of this that I have covered on Semitic Controversies have been the High-Vacuum Electron Tube, (1) the Electron-Positron Collider, (2) the Sewing Machine (3) and even Krav Maga. (4)

Another such is the idea that jews ‘invented’ modern computer architecture – often known as the ‘Von Neumann Machine’ after its alleged jewish creator John von Neumann – with ‘MNews’ claiming that:

‘John von Neumann – Modern Computer Architecture

John von Neumann made major contributions to quantum physics, logic, functional analysis, set theory, computer science, and economics. He is best known for creating the architecture that underpins most modern computers — so much so that to this day, scientists often refer to a computer as a “von Neumann machine.”’ (5)

The problem with this is that it simply isn’t true since all von Neumann actually did was plagiarise the work of two non-jewish scientists named John Mauchly and John Presper Eckert Jr. who had created the architecture at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania as part of a computer named ENIAC that they had begun to construct in April 1943 and was finished by late 1945.

Then von Neumann turned up in 1944-1945 and proceeded to successfully attempt to pass off Mauchly and Presper Eckert Jr.’s work as his own as Mauchly himself explained in 1979:

‘The EDVAC was the outcome of lengthy planning in which Eckert and I deliberately tried to overcome many problems of storage and control which were evident in the hasty “state-of-the-art” ENIAC System. Much of this planning took place in the early months of 1944, when most of the ENIAC design had been frozen. (See, e.g. “Disclosure of a Magnetic Drum Calculator”, Jan. 1944, U. Penna. Archives).

The principle which guided these “POST-ENIAC” efforts was that of trying, in the next computer, to use the same device for all situations requiring the same function (such as storage). What had been out of the question with ring-counter storage suddenly appeared within reach because of the economies estimated as possible with the acoustic delay line storage. It was not until October, 1944, that an Army Ordnance contract authorized work on EDVAC (without any specification as to just what an EDVAC might be). We were still building ENIAC, and had to be sure that it was properly completed. That took over a year more.

But all through 1944, and in 1945 as well, we were leading a “double life”. For much of two shifts, 8 AM to Midnight, both ENIAC construction and testing needed supervision. Then as hourly workers went home and project engineers “thinned out”, Eckert and I were left time to consider that “next machine”. Naturally, “architecture” or “logical organization” was the first thing to attend to. Eckert and I spent a great deal of thought on that, combining a serial delay line storage with the idea of a single storage for data and program. From January, 1944, (the Magnetic Calculator Disclosure), followed by the delay line ideas of a month or so later, on through the Summer, Eckert and I were very busy in these dual roles --- switching from ENIAC jobs to thinking of what that new machine might be like.

During part of this time, Goldstine was hospitalized and did not have direct knowledge of the plans which were being generated so late at night. But Harry Huskey, who came to the ENIAC project about April, 1944 (his estimate) confirmed that soon after he arrived he became aware that the “next computer plans” involved having programs and data in the very same “store”. This was long before Goldstine met von Neumann in August, 1944.

September 7, 1944 was the first day when von Neumann had security clearance to see the ENIAC and talk with Eckert and me about the classified digital computer projects on which we worked. When von Neumann arrived, Eckert and I were asked to tell “Johnny” what our plans were, and we did. We started with our simple basic ideas: There would be only ONE storage device (with addressable locations) for the ENTIRE EDVAC, and this would hold both data and instructions. All needed arithmetic operations would be performed in just ONE arithmetic unit (unlike the ENIAC). All control functions would be centralized (in contrast to the ENIAC). Of course there would be devices to handle input and output, and these would be subject to the control module just as the other modules were.

Johnny learned instantly, of course, as was his nature. But he chose to refer to the modules we had described as “organs” and to substitute hypothetical “neurons” for hypothetical vacuum tubes or other devices which could perform logical functions. It was clear that Johnny was rephrasing our logic, but it was still the SAME logic. Also, he was introducing different but equivalent symbols; nevertheless the devices still did the same things. Johnny did NOT alter the fundamental concepts which we had already formulated for the EDVAC.

Everyone could see how fascinated Johnny was with a subject which had somehow escaped his amazingly wide interests until Goldstine told him of the Moore School project. Like a child with a new toy, he could not put it aside. When his consulting duties required him to visit the Manhattan Project, he took off for New Mexico, hut his mind was on our EDVAC architecture.

He must have spent considerable time at los Alamos writing up a report on our design for an EDVAC. This MSS he sent to Goldstine, with a letter stating that he had done this as an accommodation for the Moore School group who had met with him. But Goldstine mimeographed it with a title page naming only one author --- von Neumann. There was nothing to suggest that ANY of the major ideas had come from the Moore School Project!

Without our knowledge, Goldstine then distributed the “design for the EDVAC” outside the project and even to persons in other countries.

Small wonder, then, that computer history gave von Neumann the credit. Eckert and I, who left the Univ. of Penna. In 1946, no longer had access to the documents which might have helped to show “who did what, when.” But after many years, litigation has unearthed some of those documents, and historians can read what was once classified. But, even after declassification, those reports are not accessible to most people, since they were reproduced in such small quantities. Nevertheless, we hope that more historians will refer to them.

Of those who did check our ENIAC and EDVAC reports, Metropolis and Worlton published “A Trilogy of Errors in the History of Computing” (USA – Japan Computer Conf. 1972 AFIPS). Metropolis of los Alamos was in an excellent position to notice such errors, for he knew von Neumann and Eckert and me and the history recounted above. But on “historians” who merely copy from popular sources, that paper had no influence.’ (6)

We can summarise Mauchly’s narrative as that he and Presper Eckert Jr.’s ENIAC computer – which is the origin of modern computer architecture – was invented and fully planned – with any new changes/modifcations frozen out – by August 1944 when von Neumann successfully inveigled his way into the lab, copied Mauchly and Presper Eckert Jr.’s idea with his fellow jew Herman Goldstine – the US Army’s official liaison with the Moore School’s ENIAC project – having gotten him access and then rebuilt ENIAC at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University as his ‘IAS Machine’ which then became the ‘foundation’ of modern computer architecture.

We note only have Mauchly and Presper Eckert Jr.’s testimony that this is what happened but also one of the original ENIAC programmers Betty Bartik (born Betty Jean Jennings) who explained that Goldstine and von Neumann had stolen Mauchly and Presper Eckert Jr.’s work and patents and presented them as their own (7) and also points out that von Neumann claimed that he and Adele Goldstine (nee Adele Katz) – the wife of Herman Goldstine – programmed the ‘IAS Machine’ but it was in fact Bartik and the (non-jewish) ENIAC programmers. (8)

Further – to quote Bartik – we read how:

‘Hendrie: Wow. And he moved up to Princeton to work on the IAS machine, right?

Bartik: Yeah.

Hendrie: He didn’t stay at Moore School, right?

Bartik: Yeah, well, when I was doing the Taub problem he was already up there, and he used to come down and have dinner with us and he used to tell me that the computer business was no longer with Eckert and Mauchly, that it was the Institute for Advanced Study, that the stuff was there. Well, heck, von Neumann got all this stuff from Pres and John from the EDVAC because he did not invent the stored program computer. And in fact, this business with the EDVAC, I mean to say that everybody knew they had I/O’s and different things to do, the thing he did was to write it down. And the thing that I just found recently which I find very interesting, because Goldstine in all those years has said that he was responsible for publishing the EDVAC report.

Hendrie: Oh, that preliminary report.

Bartik: Yeah. Hendrie: That von Neumann wrote.

Hendrie: Yeah. He would say well, probably if von Neumann knew it was going to be published, he would have given credit to somebody; he didn’t give credit to anybody. I just read an affidavit that was in one of the technology magazines that von Neumann signed that said that Goldstine asked him to write the report for publications. It was when they got permission from Aberdeen and Penn. He knew from the very beginning it was going to be published, so the fact that he didn’t attribute -- I mean it shows to me that he was planning to steal it to start with, I mean that is piracy. And I don’t know why Goldstine never knew that because back in 1984, he was still arguing in the MIT oral history that it was his responsibility and that von Neumann was so gracious that even if somebody were in the room when he was writing he would give them credit. I mean that’s baloney and…

Hendrie: <laughs> Okay.

Bartik: I mean it’s outrageous that computer history takes that man seriously; he’s a liar.’ (9)

So, in other words: John von Neumann stole the work of John Mauchly and John Presper Eckert Jr. and claimed it as his own with the convenience of his US Army contact Herman Goldstine with von Neumann rewarding Goldstine by crediting Goldstine’s wife – Adele Goldstine – with programming his new computer at Princeton when in fact it was programmed by Jean Bartik and the other (non-jewish) programmers from the Moore School’s ENIAC project!

Thus we can see that yet another major non-jewish invention has been stolen and passed off as a jewish one!

References

(1) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-invention-myths-the-high-vacuum

(2) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-invention-myths-the-electron

(3) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-invention-myths-the-sewing

(4) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-invention-myths-krav-maga

(5) https://mnews.world/en/news/the-great-jews-and-their-inventions

(6) John Mauchly, 1979, ‘Amending the ENIAC Story’, Datamation, Vol. 25, No. 11

(7) Jean Jeanings Bartik, 2013, ‘Pioneer Programmer: Jean Jennings Bartik and the Computer That Changed the World’, 1^st Edition, Truman State University Press: Kirksville, p. 518

(8) Gardner Hendrie, 2008, ‘Oral History of Jean Bartik’, Computer History Museum, pp. 32-33

(9) Ibid., p. 33