I doubt that you would do well having Tom Ridge come to your home and putting your family in an internment camp (while all of your property is disposed of).
By shortening the war by literally years, the broken codes saved MILLIONS of innocent lives. You may at least know that the sacrifice your family made was for the reason of protecting the paramount secret of the broken Magic codes. Indirectly, their sacrifice helped to shorten the war by years and saved millions of lives. That's something, isn't it?
Anyway, it sure beats being blown to bits in Coventry, because your leader made the hard decision to protect the broken Ultra code, instead of your town. Again, this sacrifice shortened the war by years, and saved millions of lives. The Nazis were just introducing jets, ballistic missiles and were working on the atomic bomb, so shortening the war by years literally did mean saving millions of lives.
On the other hand, perhaps you feel that your family's sacrifice was too great, and you would have preferred that FDR would have spared them their hardship, and condemned millions more to die as WW2 dragged on into the late 1940s?
In war, leaders from president to lieutenant routinely use feints and diversionary operations which they know are doomed, in order to win the greater battles. Is this immoral? Is it more moral to try 100% to save every soldier at every moment, if it means you will surely lose a war to a cruel enemy, because you will never use feints or diversionary operations? Sacrifice is part of war, unless you want to surrender to your enemies.
Sadly for your family, they were made to sacrifice, for the greater good of protecting the secret of the broken codes. But now you understand something you have never been told: there was a reason, and millions of lives were saved as a result of that sacrifice.
That sacrifice, and the reason for it, is what Michelle Malkin is going to describe in her book.