6 ms·

These would have been the kind of machines that IBM sold to Nazi Germany and configured for use by the concentration camps, right? I didn't realise the technolo

These would have been the kind of machines that IBM sold to Nazi Germany and configured for use by the concentration camps, right? I didn't realise the technology was so sophisticated.

krapp 9y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted - IBM did, in fact, custom make and sell tabulators to the Nazis[0]. The Holocaust might not have been possible at the scale or efficiency with which it was undertaken without the force multiplier of IBM computational and processing power. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
- userbinator 9y ago
  Interesting, but I think it also shows the neutrality of the company --- they would sell to anyone, regardless of what their technology was being used for. A stark contrast to the actions taken by Cloudflare's CEO[1], incidentally also involving Nazis. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031922
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Pecunia non olet.
  - GuiA 9y ago
    Neutrality is an illusion when it comes to man made constructs. An earthquake is neutral; executives in a company deliberately choosing to make a profit by selling things which will be used to commit crimes against humanity is certainly not. Read the link: ”Willy Heidinger, who remained in control of Dehomag, the 90%-owned German subsidiary of IBM, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Hitler regime.” Would you argue that this is what neutrality looks like?
    - jpttsn 9y ago
      What does profit have to do with it? Would it be better, ethically, if they sold it at a loss?
  - mratzloff 9y ago
    Neutrality at the expense of others isn't neutral.
    - owlmirror 9y ago
      You must be confused about what neutrality actually means.
      - moomin 9y ago
        If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. Desmond Tutu I’ll happily describe myself as as confused as Desmond Tutu.
        mratzloff 9y ago
        Exactly. Thank you.
        mixmastamyk 9y ago
        It wasn’t widely known what was happening behind the scenes until the Soviets started to take back the east.
  - jamiek88 9y ago
    There is no 'neutral' in genocide. No middle ground.
    - traverseda 9y ago
      >1) the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. >2) absence of decided views, expression, or strong feeling. One wonders how you define neutrality.
      - untog 9y ago
        I suspect the OP is saying that there is no room for neutrality in genocide. That an "absence of decided views" over the extermination of a race is not actually a viable position for any human being to take.
        jpttsn 9y ago
        Either that, or it’s just an emotional outburst. Meanwhile, in the course of history, humans regularly engage in mass slaughter of humans. We could say indifference to genocide is not viable, because it ought not be viable. But that has its problems: if we convince each other that we are incapable of evil, perhaps we won’t be vigilant enough to see the signs in time.
        jamiek88 9y ago
        That is precisely what I was saying. Thanks for clarifying.
        traverseda 9y ago
        That's a much more reasonable interpretation than the one I made.
      - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
        > 1) the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. ...But they did support the Nazis.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    > Interesting, but I think it also shows the neutrality of the company --- they would sell to anyone, regardless of what their technology was being used for. You sound like you think that's a good thing.
  - moomin 9y ago
    This is an utterly peculiar statement. It’s phrased in a way that suggests you think enabling concentration camps is a superior moral choice to refusing to do business with Nazis. If that’s not what you meant, I’d strongly consider choosing your words more carefully.
kens 9y ago
I haven't really looked into the punched card machines that IBM (or at least IBM's German subsidiary) rented to Nazi Germany. But yes, these were the same IBM 405 punched card accounting machines as the photo I examined (along with keypunches, sorters, and other punched card machinery). Refs: https://archive.org/details/IbmAndTheHolocaust https://archive.org/details/IbmAndTheHolocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II
raverbashing 9y ago
Though Nazi German had IBM equipment I don't think they were installed in concentration camps More in their strategic command or some other central agency

These would have been the kind of machines that IBM sold to Nazi Germany and configured for use by the concentration camps, right? I didn't realise the technology was so sophisticated.

krapp 9y ago

I don't know why you're being downvoted - IBM did, in fact, custom make and sell tabulators to the Nazis[0]. The Holocaust might not have been possible at the scale or efficiency with which it was undertaken without the force multiplier of IBM computational and processing power. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

userbinator 9y ago
Interesting, but I think it also shows the neutrality of the company --- they would sell to anyone, regardless of what their technology was being used for. A stark contrast to the actions taken by Cloudflare's CEO[1], incidentally also involving Nazis. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031922
- KGIII 9y ago
  Pecunia non olet.
- GuiA 9y ago
  Neutrality is an illusion when it comes to man made constructs. An earthquake is neutral; executives in a company deliberately choosing to make a profit by selling things which will be used to commit crimes against humanity is certainly not. Read the link: ”Willy Heidinger, who remained in control of Dehomag, the 90%-owned German subsidiary of IBM, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Hitler regime.” Would you argue that this is what neutrality looks like?
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    What does profit have to do with it? Would it be better, ethically, if they sold it at a loss?
- mratzloff 9y ago
  Neutrality at the expense of others isn't neutral.
  - owlmirror 9y ago
    You must be confused about what neutrality actually means.
    - moomin 9y ago
      If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. Desmond Tutu I’ll happily describe myself as as confused as Desmond Tutu.
      - mratzloff 9y ago
        Exactly. Thank you.
      - mixmastamyk 9y ago
        It wasn’t widely known what was happening behind the scenes until the Soviets started to take back the east.
- jamiek88 9y ago
  There is no 'neutral' in genocide. No middle ground.
  - traverseda 9y ago
    >1) the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. >2) absence of decided views, expression, or strong feeling. One wonders how you define neutrality.
    - untog 9y ago
      I suspect the OP is saying that there is no room for neutrality in genocide. That an "absence of decided views" over the extermination of a race is not actually a viable position for any human being to take.
      - jpttsn 9y ago
        Either that, or it’s just an emotional outburst. Meanwhile, in the course of history, humans regularly engage in mass slaughter of humans. We could say indifference to genocide is not viable, because it ought not be viable. But that has its problems: if we convince each other that we are incapable of evil, perhaps we won’t be vigilant enough to see the signs in time.
      - jamiek88 9y ago
        That is precisely what I was saying. Thanks for clarifying.
      - traverseda 9y ago
        That's a much more reasonable interpretation than the one I made.
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      > 1) the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. ...But they did support the Nazis.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  > Interesting, but I think it also shows the neutrality of the company --- they would sell to anyone, regardless of what their technology was being used for. You sound like you think that's a good thing.
- moomin 9y ago
  This is an utterly peculiar statement. It’s phrased in a way that suggests you think enabling concentration camps is a superior moral choice to refusing to do business with Nazis. If that’s not what you meant, I’d strongly consider choosing your words more carefully.

kens 9y ago

I haven't really looked into the punched card machines that IBM (or at least IBM's German subsidiary) rented to Nazi Germany. But yes, these were the same IBM 405 punched card accounting machines as the photo I examined (along with keypunches, sorters, and other punched card machinery). Refs: https://archive.org/details/IbmAndTheHolocaust https://archive.org/details/IbmAndTheHolocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II

raverbashing 9y ago

Though Nazi German had IBM equipment I don't think they were installed in concentration camps More in their strategic command or some other central agency