A while ago I looked this up because I thought it was very common knowledge and accepted history that IBM was key to the Holocaust. But I was talking to someone who didn't think it was true. The wikipedia successfully confused me.

Richard Bernstein, writing for The New York Times Book Review in 2001, pointed out that "many American companies did what I.B.M. did. ... What then makes I.B.M. different?" He states that Black's case in his book IBM and the Holocaust "is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that I.B.M. bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done."[8] IBM quoted this claim in a March 2002 "Addendum to IBM Statement on Nazi-era Book and Lawsuit," after the publication of Black's revised paperback edition:

Mr. Black is asserting that IBM is withholding materials regarding this era in its archives. There is no basis for such assertions and we deplore the use of such claims to sell books.[9]

I don't find the argument "what makes IBM different?" very compelling. As it would seem they are saying that many capitalist organizations acted in furtherance of fascism when presented the opportunity. While true, it is hardly a defense.

Is the denial about "withholding materials" a deflection? Surely an accusation like that would not be among the most serious....?

I was overall surprised the extent to which this whole idea is attributed to a single author only since the 21st century. I haven't actually read the book to learn what the claims are. But does anyone know if they are substantiated by the work of others, or well accepted among historians?

(see also a fairly rare self reference IBM and the Holocaust > Wikipedia editing controversy)

Just like today's tech companies are complicit in Pissreal's genocide