Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.

Source

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ibm-holocaust_b_1301691



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.

Ah yes, the old "fake news" defence.


> 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.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: