4 ms·

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.
Aloha 9y ago
Having read IBM and the Holocaust, I'm not convinced that IBM actually had a clear idea of how the machines would be used until quite late in the war effort, at least until well after 1941.
mirimir 9y ago
Is there any evidence that IBM knew that it was enabling genocide? It was selling to Germany, certainly. But the US didn't officially enter the war until Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Also, the Nazis weren't just collecting data on Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. They collected data on everyone. It was arguably essential for resource management for the war effort.
- moomin 9y ago
  Bear in mind that the resources the Nazis were managing included shells made by slaves from Auschwitz and soap made from people killed in Birkenau. There’s no dividing line between the Nazi war machine and their atrocities.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - zxcmx 9y ago
    There was not much difference between optimising bombing runs over tokyo (in terms of "target damage" per "input dollar" say) and other war crimes for the people affected, what's your point? Sure I guess operations research is a war crime?
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Yes, of course :( But if IBM sold the gear long enough before it was clear that the Nazis were doing that, IBM arguably isn't at fault. And if they did, they are. Notwithstanding Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation, it's my understanding that all suits against IBM over this have been dismissed or withdrawn.
- rasz 9y ago
  IBM advertised directly to the GAP(Nazi party) product designed to architect genocide http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=1893 http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=1... CEO even got a medal for "service to the Reich", from Hitler himself, while visiting Berlin ... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ibm-and-quot-death-s-calculator-quot-2 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ibm-and-quot-death-s-cal...
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
Yeah but as far as corporate image risk goes, what are the odds that one of your clients will be invaded by two countries 10 years later, and that the ONE (of typically several) political party that approved your contract will be relevant at all? PRETTY SLIM You never know what a political party is going to actually do. You could attend all the furthest spectrum events and hear some twisted things and not expect any of it to actually happen. Its not a factor. "Oh I'm not going to take this lucrative government contract because one political party is disenfranchising 0.75% of the population and my time machine says they are going to make concentration camps, and two countries are going to invade them and leak all the state secrets and onlookers on the ... internet (was ist dis?)... are going to vilify us"

>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.

Aloha 9y ago

Having read IBM and the Holocaust, I'm not convinced that IBM actually had a clear idea of how the machines would be used until quite late in the war effort, at least until well after 1941.

mirimir 9y ago

Is there any evidence that IBM knew that it was enabling genocide? It was selling to Germany, certainly. But the US didn't officially enter the war until Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Also, the Nazis weren't just collecting data on Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. They collected data on everyone. It was arguably essential for resource management for the war effort.

moomin 9y ago
Bear in mind that the resources the Nazis were managing included shells made by slaves from Auschwitz and soap made from people killed in Birkenau. There’s no dividing line between the Nazi war machine and their atrocities.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- zxcmx 9y ago
  There was not much difference between optimising bombing runs over tokyo (in terms of "target damage" per "input dollar" say) and other war crimes for the people affected, what's your point? Sure I guess operations research is a war crime?
- mirimir 9y ago
  Yes, of course :( But if IBM sold the gear long enough before it was clear that the Nazis were doing that, IBM arguably isn't at fault. And if they did, they are. Notwithstanding Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation, it's my understanding that all suits against IBM over this have been dismissed or withdrawn.
rasz 9y ago
IBM advertised directly to the GAP(Nazi party) product designed to architect genocide http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=1893 http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=1... CEO even got a medal for "service to the Reich", from Hitler himself, while visiting Berlin ... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ibm-and-quot-death-s-calculator-quot-2 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ibm-and-quot-death-s-cal...

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

Yeah but as far as corporate image risk goes, what are the odds that one of your clients will be invaded by two countries 10 years later, and that the ONE (of typically several) political party that approved your contract will be relevant at all? PRETTY SLIM You never know what a political party is going to actually do. You could attend all the furthest spectrum events and hear some twisted things and not expect any of it to actually happen. Its not a factor. "Oh I'm not going to take this lucrative government contract because one political party is disenfranchising 0.75% of the population and my time machine says they are going to make concentration camps, and two countries are going to invade them and leak all the state secrets and onlookers on the ... internet (was ist dis?)... are going to vilify us"