What book are you reading now

[revelarts]

There's a difference between, "hey, this is the book I'm reading" vs intimating that Watson was essentially gassing Jews.

The book doesn't really intimate it. It pretty much says it outright.
He wasn't the executioner but he sold LEASED the ax and kept the ax sharp, at some point knowing what it was being used for. Maybe a better analogy would be that he wasn't a slave catcher, he was the guy that raised, trained, fed & sold leased the dogs that slave catchers used regularly.

And it is a book I've read.
So both can be true.


the book makes a good case, But items may be wrong. However at this point there's nothing solid available to counter the evidence on the table... except thin denials and people's umbrage & incredulity.

[Kathianne]

Big tech corp, always wrong.

Hey, I've no doubt that most any company at one time or another has done things wrong, intentionally or not. Sort of like the humans that make such decisions. Not always wrong. Not always right.

Big tech always right?
Most any companies helped NAZIs round up Jews, Gypsies etc to be sent to the camps?
And since they all do it, it's ..not that bad? not always wrong? or should be given a pass? Not sure of the point you're trying to make.

What other companies have I called out as helping NAZIs kill people? All of them?
Or are you just being hyperbolic?

I try not to broad brush, but people seem to take what I say that way for some reason.




from wiki as well
"In early 2021, Black published the 20th anniversary edition with special public events and a syndicated article stating that in twenty years, "not a comma has been changed", adding that "IBM has never requested a correction or denied any facts in the book."^{[15][16][17]"}


If folks haven't read the book how would anyone know if said anything new historically or not.
The fact that the book became the basis for several lawsuits against IBM show that some folks found the info new.
Concerning the take over by NAZIs of the German division the book documents how the plant was run from afar by IBM, and how the profits still went out.
Nationalising it did not mean the people actually running the company changed it just meant there was a new partner.
Part of what Watson did to conceal his management was to run all details through their Swiss offices into Germany. according the evidence presented in the book.

See bolded.

Now, after doing a bit of reading on topic, it seems to me that IBM counters were used in all likelihood. At the same time, as seems likely from the article I'll link to below, they may or may not have known for what or even how they got to Germany-may have been confiscated.

I'll throw in my personal opinion on this type of thing too. There are individuals within companies that may be able to profit during war, acting as agents, but actually diverting for personal enrichment. Whether or not the tech that has become commonplace since 1940s make this more difficult or not, I'm unsure. Perhaps we'll find out with WWIII. There were many folks in positions of authority that thought Hitler a charismatic and brilliant leader, right up until he started losing. Were some at IBM? Likely. There were certainly many at many different companies, though as war dragged on, they became fewer.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ighereducation

[fj1200]

The book doesn't really intimate it. It pretty much says it outright.
He wasn't the executioner but he sold LEASED the ax and kept the ax sharp, at some point knowing what it was being used for. Maybe a better analogy would be that he wasn't a slave catcher, he was the guy that raised, trained, fed & sold leased the dogs that slave catchers used regularly.

And it is a book I've read.
So both can be true.


the book makes a good case, But items may be wrong. However at this point there's nothing solid available to counter the evidence on the table... except thin denials and people's umbrage & incredulity.

My point being there's a time and place. But then I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to threads and purposes. Similar to my position on debating with pictures.

[revelarts]

See bolded.

Now, after doing a bit of reading on topic, it seems to me that IBM counters were used in all likelihood. At the same time, as seems likely from the article I'll link to below, they may or may not have known for what or even how they got to Germany-may have been confiscated.

I'll throw in my personal opinion on this type of thing too. There are individuals within companies that may be able to profit during war, acting as agents, but actually diverting for personal enrichment. Whether or not the tech that has become commonplace since 1940s make this more difficult or not, I'm unsure. Perhaps we'll find out with WWIII. There were many folks in positions of authority that thought Hitler a charismatic and brilliant leader, right up until he started losing. Were some at IBM? Likely. There were certainly many at many different companies, though as war dragged on, they became fewer.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ighereducation

good article.
But i am curious why do feel the need to suggest a list other options to defend IBM here?
Do you think those options are MORE likely than what the evidence points toward?
Why give IBM the extreme benefit of the doubt?

[Kathianne]

good article.
But i am curious why do feel the need to suggest a list other options to defend IBM here?
Do you think those options are MORE likely than what the evidence points toward?
Why give IBM the extreme benefit of the doubt?

I give most individuals and corporations the benefit of the doubt, not EXTREME benefit of the doubt. I do think one needs to look at ALL possible options when accusations are made, especially accusations like this that thus far are light on facts, don't address particular persons making these 'trips' and 'collections' and return of materials-which are not documented.

Sort of related to due process and libel/slander-where does one go to get their reputation back? Has been asked by many individuals and companies.

[revelarts]

I give most individuals and corporations the benefit of the doubt, not EXTREME benefit of the doubt. I do think one needs to look at ALL possible options when accusations are made, especially accusations like this that thus far are light on facts, don't address particular persons making these 'trips' and 'collections' and return of materials-which are not documented.

Sort of related to due process and libel/slander-where does one go to get their reputation back? Has been asked by many individuals and companies.

You should read or listen to the book.
on this line (from memory) the documentation of the lengths Watson took to maintain control of all aspect of the company world wide was amazing. It was a monopoly biz. And Watson kept track of every machine. And often tried to nearly micro manage the German branch from afar, frustrating the German manager who was trying to gain more control. Watson found ways to frustrate that effort on several occasions. He wasn't someone sitting back clueless about where his machines were. IBM was the sole supplier of the cards for the machines, and the maintenance of the machines & of the machines which were LEASED not sold.
So it's extremely unlikely any IBM machines slipped through Watson's fingers.
concerning Watson's support of Hitler or not, the book doesn't really paint a picture of him as a real supporter. But more of a businessman fiercely determined to control his monopoly product, and lease it to anyone willing to pay, despite laws or boarders.
I suspect the IBM employees in Germany, Poland etc where probably like many of the soldiers in the German army, just following orders.

[fj1200]

Why give IBM the extreme benefit of the doubt?

There's a huge hurdle to get over between the Nazis utilized IBM products and the ultimate knowledge of what they used said equipment for.

[Kathianne]

You should read or listen to the book.
on this line (from memory) the documentation of the lengths Watson took to maintain control of all aspect of the company world wide was amazing. It was a monopoly biz. And Watson kept track of every machine. And often tried to nearly micro manage the German branch from afar, frustrating the German manager who was trying to gain more control. Watson found ways to frustrate that effort on several occasions. He wasn't someone sitting back clueless about where his machines were. IBM was the sole supplier of the cards for the machines, and the maintenance of the machines & of the machines which were LEASED not sold.
So it's extremely unlikely any IBM machines slipped through Watson's fingers.
concerning Watson's support of Hitler or not, the book doesn't really paint a picture of him as a real supporter. But more of a businessman fiercely determined to control his monopoly product, and lease it to anyone willing to pay, despite laws or boarders.
I suspect the IBM employees in German, Poland etc where probably like the many of the soldiers in the German army, just following orders.

I suspect that most employees in Germany or Poland or NYC were doing their jobs. Among any of them there were likely Nazis and good people that not only supported the allies and Jews, but may have aided them. Truth is, only one group, one man are being looked at. So, if Watson was actually a Nazi or just sympathizer, that is on him and his god. Actually with how the world culture is today, this push on book may make him a early hero on aiding the genocide, now a good thing for so many.

[revelarts]

There's a huge hurdle to get over between the Nazis utilized IBM products and the ultimate knowledge of what they used said equipment for.

maybe, if you never read the book it may seem so.
But still, im Not sure why it's such a "huge" hurdle even then.
Hitler wasn't very shy about telling people what he wanted to do.
But the book goes into some detail about what was publicly known via the NYtimes, published in NY where Watson was headquartered.
I believe it also points out that Watson knew where the leased machines were, in or near camps. And also that IBM was the sole trainer on the use of the machines, so the purpose was communicated to IBM employees simply to be able to make use of them.
In general, they were leased world wide for census type purposes, but clearly the Germans were doing more.
Watson wasn't the type to sit back and NOT understand why one customer had far more use for his product than others.

[fj1200]

maybe, if you never read the book it may seem so.
But still, im Not sure why it's such a "huge" hurdle even then.
Hitler wasn't very shy about telling people what he wanted to do.
But the book goes into some detail about what was publicly known via the NYtimes, published in NY where Watson was headquartered.
I believe it also points out that Watson knew where the leased machines were, in or near camps. And also that IBM was the sole trainer on the use of the machines, so the purpose was communicated to IBM employees simply to be able to make use of them.
In general, they were leased world wide for census type purposes, but clearly the Germans were doing more.
Watson wasn't the type to sit back and NOT understand why one customer had far more use for his product than others.

The hurdle is benefit of the doubt. There's a difference between selling Germany IBM whatevers in the 30s and the Nazis asking IBM to provide their product because they've got some Jews to exterminate.

And I'm not going to read the book because I don't feel the need to demonize today for what happened yesterday. But everybody has some suing to do these days.

[revelarts]

The hurdle is benefit of the doubt. There's a difference between selling Germany IBM whatevers in the 30s and the Nazis asking IBM to provide their product because they've got some Jews to exterminate.

And I'm not going to read the book because I don't feel the need to demonize today for what happened yesterday. But everybody has some suing to do these days.

If you don't want to read the book fine.
But maybe you shouldn't be so adamant that it's painting a false picture in your comments.
Maybe a more objective stance rather than the mildly outraged blind defense of IBM (Big Biz?)... based on NOT reading it.

[fj1200]

If you don't want to read the book fine.
But maybe you shouldn't be so adamant that it's painting a false picture in your comments.
Maybe a more objective stance rather than the mildly outraged blind defense of IBM (Big Biz?)... based on NOT reading it.

This was my point.

My point being there's a time and place. But then I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to threads and purposes. Similar to my position on debating with pictures.

A thread discussing the culpability, or not, of corporations in WWII might be interesting. Rather than, "hey, read the book if you really want to know..." That's the only thing I've been adamant about.

[Kathianne]

If you don't want to read the book fine.
But maybe you shouldn't be so adamant that it's painting a false picture in your comments.
Maybe a more objective stance rather than the mildly outraged blind defense of IBM (Big Biz?)... based on NOT reading it.

I read. A lot. There's so many more I wish I had time for. I will not allow anyone; not you, not professors, not even close friends; demand I read a book or even try to guilt me into such.

I have recommended many books; here, to friends, to students, to professors. A few times someone has said, 'Thanks, I read and enjoyed/learned something worthwhile.' That's great. OTOH, I'm not offended or think less of someone who doesn't take the suggestion. They might haven't the time or interest and that is ok.

[revelarts]

I read. A lot. There's so many more I wish I had time for. I will not allow anyone; not you, not professors, not even close friends; demand I read a book or even try to guilt me into such.

I have recommended many books; here, to friends, to students, to professors. A few times someone has said, 'Thanks, I read and enjoyed/learned something worthwhile.' That's great. OTOH, I'm not offended or think less of someone who doesn't take the suggestion. They might haven't the time or interest and that is ok.

Show me where i've demanded anyone read a book
or even try to guilt anyone into such.
and I'll apologize.

As a said to FJ
"If you don't want to read the book fine."
It's perfectly OK.
not sure what others assume when i say that, other than it's fine NOT to read anything. (i'm a man, when i say fine, it's just that. no unspoken agenda)

But
as I said to FJ
"maybe you shouldn't be so adamant that it's painting a false picture in your comments.
Maybe a more objective stance rather than the mildly outraged blind defense of IBM (Big Biz?)... based on NOT reading it."

MAYBE ....a more objective stance on the what the book does or doesn't tend to prove or say.
Is that too much to suggest?
But that can be ignored just as well... it's not a demand, or a guilt trip. Just pointing out my observation and making a suggestion about more objectivity.

This was my point.
A thread discussing the culpability, or not, of corporations in WWII might be interesting. Rather than, "hey, read the book if you really want to know..." That's the only thing I've been adamant about.

"hey, read the book if you really want to know..." MORE.
"hey, read the book if you really want to know MORE about this issue."
Is what I'd say if I was going to say something like that.
Which i don't think i ever said , did I? c'mon.

please folks no need to read the worse into my post.
What i say is too often harsh enough at face value.
give me some benefit of the doubt.

[Kathianne]

Show me where i've demanded anyone read a book
or even try to guilt anyone into such.
and I'll apologize.

As a said to FJ
"If you don't want to read the book fine."
It's perfectly OK.
not sure what others assume when i say that, other than it's fine NOT to read anything. (i'm a man, when i say fine, it's just that. no unspoken agenda)

But
as I said to FJ
"maybe you shouldn't be so adamant that it's painting a false picture in your comments.
Maybe a more objective stance rather than the mildly outraged blind defense of IBM (Big Biz?)... based on NOT reading it."

MAYBE ....a more objective stance on the what the book does or doesn't tend to prove or say.
Is that too much to suggest?
But that can be ignored just as well... it's not a demand, or a guilt trip. Just pointing out my observation and making a suggestion about more objectivity.



"hey, read the book if you really want to know..." MORE.
"hey, read the book if you really want to know MORE about this issue."
Is what I'd say if I was going to say something like that.
Which i don't think i ever said , did I? c'mon.

please folks no need to read the worse into my post.
What i say is too often harsh enough at face value.
give me some benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough, but you seem to imply that without reading, shouldn't comment. Fine, just realize with that stipulation, discussion Impossible from those who choose not.

Haven't read x or y or z? Go to another thread.