I think I did (or maybe just parts of it), but I don't really remember because it came out back in 2001. I do recall reading a lot of discussion about the whole situation back then, and that IBM's response to it seemed rather weak. I haven't really kept up with the matter since then, though.
I hope you can take this as an honest question and not a personal attack, but if you’ve not really researched or paid attention to this issue since 2001 why are you all over the comments here defending IBM? I’m an ex-IBMer, not necessarily against them but you really seem to be going out of your way to defend them, what gives?
I don't believe I've actually "defended" IBM anywhere here. In fact, I stated that their response (their own defense) to the whole thing was quite weak, as I recall. But we're talking here about an article which came out in 2017 (written by someone who was apparently quite clueless about the whole situation), about a book which first came out in 2001, about events which happened back in the 1930s and 1940s. So plenty of time for us to have gotten a good historical view of what actually went on here - good, bad, or indifferent.
As I recall the book itself was quite one-sided and basically what we would today refer to as "clickbait", but I could be wrong about that. (My memory here is weak.) But too many folks these days want to buy into clickbaity stuff without doing any due diligence first. This is something that I've tried to instill in my college-age daughter. That is, don't get all worked up about something that you've read on the internet or seen on the news or whatever, until you've done enough due diligence on the matter to be able to say that you are quite familiar with both sides of the story. If you still want to be all worked up about it at that point, fine, but as often as not whenever my daughter actually does this she ends up calming down quite a bit.
Along those lines, the book's author claims to have uncovered new evidence here of the "smoking gun" variety. But I can tell that whenever I've looked at various "smoking gun" documents myself (in other contexts), very often these turn out to be nothing of the sort. Instead such claims are often just the product of lazy/incompetent/dishonest journalism, which is why I usually try to review documents for myself before coming to any conclusions. I wish more people would do that kind of thing.
>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.
> Interesting admission considering elsewhere in this thread you've twice admonished me for not having read it.
Then you'd better freakin' get on it, huh? And remember I said to read not only the book but discussions and potential responses to it, too. Whatever I've read (or not) of this stuff myself in the past, apparently it's been far more than you have so far. I readily admit to not being up on the latest, though.
> 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.
>Whatever I've read (or not) of this stuff myself in the past, apparently it's been far more than you have so far
If I've said or quoted something untrue please point it out rather than relying on argument from authority and condescension. It's rude and immature.
Everything I've claimed has been sourced. All you've been able to muster is generalizations and vague recollections about a book and commentary that you may (or may not... you're really not sure) have read.
Edit: Actually never mind. I see that your comment history shows the same pattern over and over. Along with the same ideological slant as you've exposed in this thread.
