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.
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.