The article makes a point that the books length is largely due to establishing extensive proof that IMB's direct involvement and management over Dehomag throughout the war means they would have known exactly what the various uses of their systems were...
If an American company was making and selling trains to Germany during the war specifically tailored for transporting people in large quantities knowing what they were using it for, then I imagine most people would see multiple issues with that.
I admit I've only read the article, not the book but it seems hard to match your statements and "I think i've read the book" with the articles description of it.
Having read the original book, it made a reasonable (perhaps even convincing) case that IBM knew, or should have known what their tabulators would be used for - it also made a reasonably convincing case that IBM America had little control over its German subsidiary after 1936-7. The only thing IBM could have done was to declined to sell to the German government, which would have resulted in a prompt nationalization.
I'm not sure how much of this was detailed in the original book (I haven't read it) but the 2012 update claims to have revealed new material:
>Among the newly-released documents and archival materials are secret 1941 correspondence setting up the Dutch subsidiary of IBM to work in tandem with the Nazis, company President Thomas Watson’s personal approval for the 1939 release of special IBM alphabetizing machines to help organize the rape of Poland and the deportation of Polish Jews, as well as the IBM Concentration Camp Codes including IBM’s code for death by Gas Chamber.
Separately:
>... a newly released copy of a subsequent letter dated June 10, 1941, drafted by IBM’s New York office, confirms that IBM headquarters personally directed the activities of its Dutch subsidiary set up in 1940 to identify and liquidate the Jews of Holland.
It seems to me that there is evidence of direct involvement at least up until the US declared war in December 1941.
A quick read of the linked article suggests that maybe the author is somewhat confused about the difference between writing "computer code(s)" (software), which often requires extensive skill, and the assignment of simple numerical codes to various things for tracking purposes within the computer system, which is as straightforward as it sounds. The former is more of an engineering function while the latter is more clerical. Also, it is not at all surprising that the equipment and cards and whatever that the Nazis were using might bear the names/logos of IBM and Dehomag and such, even if those folks were completely out of the loop by then.
That said, the author also makes mention of new documents in order to back up his claims. I would have to review such documents for myself (and I may do this when I get the chance), because it's been my experience that when the press or whoever claims to have "smoking gun" documents, those documents often don't necessarily say what they're being claimed to say.
>A quick read of the linked article suggests that maybe the author is somewhat confused
Not likely. From Wikipedia:
In the early 1990s Black served as the editor-in-chief for OS/2 Professional magazine and OS/2 Week and reported on OS/2 users and technology.
>the author also makes mention of new documents in order to back up his claims. I would have to review such documents for myself (and I may do this when I get the chance), because it's been my experience that when the press or whoever claims to have "smoking gun" documents, those documents often don't necessarily say what they're being claimed to say.
> In the early 1990s Black served as the editor-in-chief for OS/2 Professional magazine and OS/2 Week and reported on OS/2 users and technology.
He's a journalist, not a techie. Just because he did some tech reporting and such back in the day doesn't necessarily mean that he has a clue, especially given the vintage of the tech that we're discussing here.
> Ah yes, the old "fake news" defence.
Yeah, you should maybe get a clue about that yourself! :)
And you should know that if and when various "smoking gun" documents turn up in court, as has been happening quite a bit lately, judges tend to react rather harshly if they don't actually say what they're claimed to say. This has also been happening quite a bit lately.
> If an American company was making and selling trains to Germany during the war specifically tailored for transporting people in large quantities knowing what they were using it for, then I imagine most people would see multiple issues with that.
The trains were just pretty much standard cattle and freight cars, AFAIK, just like the IBM equipment was standard tabulating fair. And I doubt pretty seriously that any real direct corporate communication was going on between Dehomag and the folks back at IBM HQ during the war; maybe indirectly though.
>the codes show IBM’s numerical designation for various camps. Auschwitz was 001, Buchenwald was 002; Dachau was 003, and so on. Various prisoner types were reduced to IBM numbers, with 3 signifying homosexual, 9 for anti-social, and 12 for Gypsy. The IBM number 8 designated a Jew. Inmate death was also reduced to an IBM digit: 3 represented death by natural causes, 4 by execution, 5 by suicide, and code 6 designated “special treatment” in gas chambers. IBM engineers had to create Hollerith codes to differentiate between a Jew who had been worked to death and one who had been gassed, then print the cards, configure the machines, train the staff, and continuously maintain the fragile systems every two weeks on site in the concentration camps.
Dude, as I explain in another comment, assigning such codes is mostly a clerical function, meaning that IBM or Dehomag or whoever didn't necessarily have a hand in it. I'm not saying that they didn't, but this doesn't prove that they did. (There may be IBM documents out there which suggest otherwise, though.)
And I found the following statement quite telling; emphasis mine:
"They [the punch cards] illustrate the nature of the end users [the Nazis; not IBM/Dehomag] who relied upon IBM’s information technology. "
If an American company was making and selling trains to Germany during the war specifically tailored for transporting people in large quantities knowing what they were using it for, then I imagine most people would see multiple issues with that.
I admit I've only read the article, not the book but it seems hard to match your statements and "I think i've read the book" with the articles description of it.