IBM and the Holocaust (86 page)

The Statistics Office also assured Berlin that its
Hollerith Gruppe
would employ equipment more modern than the old IBM machinery found in most pre-war Polish data agencies, thus allowing the Nazi office to launch a plethora of "large-scale censuses." Everything would be counted—and often. Large scale "agricultural" and "industrial" censuses had already been undertaken earlier in 1941. A new "residential census" was also planned. "But the most important and complex census, the population and occupational census, has been in preparation since the beginning of the year," the report specified.
³⁹

In addition to special censuses, the report enumerated a long list of "continuous statistical surveys," including those for population and culture, domestic migration, infectious disease, and cause of death. Moreover, regular food and agriculture surveys were "coupled with summary surveys of the population and ethnic groups."
⁴⁰
Tabulating food supplies against ethnic numbers allowed the Nazis to ration caloric intake as they subjected the Jewish community to progressive starvation.

The Statistics Office's November 30, 1941 report concludes with the statement "Our work is just beginning to bear fruit."
⁴¹

Much more information has come to light on IBM in other countries, and will be incorporated into future editions.

Despite a highly publicized, months-long public search throughout the world, in which many stepped forward to offer new materials, not a single document was uncovered anywhere in any country indicating that IBM, either in New York or Europe, ever moderated its strategic alliance with the Third Reich. Nor did IBM, in the face of continuous media requests after this book's release, offer any documents or evidence to explain its conduct. Instead, the company issued an official statement: "IBM does not have much information about this period," and declined to comment.

REVELATION AND RESPONSIBILITY

The Publication of the Hardcover Edition of
IBM
AND THE HOLOCAUST

ON FEBRUARY 12, 2001,
IBM AND THE HOLOCAUST
WAS
simultaneously released in nine languages and distributed in forty countries. Nine of the world's most prestigious publishers worked arduously, time zone by time zone, to ensure that the embargoed news broke worldwide at approximately the same hour. Doing so meant foregoing the customary months of advance catalogue sales and store placement. But announcing the findings correctly and responsibly was the number-one priority. Our collective hope was to make certain that the explosive story did not leak in sensationalist or exaggerated snippets, but was disclosed in a complete historical context.

Equally important, I personally feared that vital documents yet to be reviewed might be further obstructed, or might even disappear.

When the news finally broke, the result was a profound Holocaust revelation that shook countries and institutions, as well as scholars and other individuals. In many ways they are still shaking. So am I. Here is the story behind that upheaval.

Much has been written about the book's secrecy. Indeed, the book was not made public until February 12, 2001. But more than a thousand people in numerous countries were involved in its creation. There was no other way to achieve the level of precision and review required for such a project, and to ensure the book's message would not be exaggerated or misconstrued.

I began sharing information with others two years before publication. About a hundred researchers, historians, and volunteers searched the files of some fifty archives and research libraries in seven countries. Throughout the actual writing in 2000, some thirty-five world-class Holocaust historians and other experts reviewed my work, chapter by chapter, as the text rolled off the word processor. Actually, I had invited nearly double that number of reviewers. No scholar was off limits, but there was a condition: Each reviewer had to agree to read every page in order, no skipping around. Hence, this would be no quick weekend skim, but a protracted, line-by-line effort. For example, noted historian Gerhard Hirschfeld, president of the International Committee for the History of the Second World War, took six months to finish his methodical review. In this way, each scholar would absorb the complete story in context, regardless of specialty. We refused to rush anyone. Not all I contacted had the ability or inclination to invest so much time. But several dozen did (see the Acknowledgments). Scores of marginal notations were made, and many consultations ensued. Virtually all suggestions and corrections were adopted. Then the revised text was resubmitted over and over again until approved by each reviewer. Thus,
IBM and the Holocaust
became an extraordinary collaborative effort of international Holocaust and technology expertise.

My finished manuscript went to some of the finest editors and translators in the book world, located on three continents, nearly all boasting a thick portfolio of Holocaust publishing credentials. The publishers then commenced their own painstaking reviews, positing numerous questions and requests for written clarifications. Original French, German, or Dutch documents were shipped to each foreign publisher for independent translation and verification. Most publishers requested that their own local Holocaust specialists read the text as well. Because
IBM and the Holocaust
was a global release, it was imperative that my manuscript be bulletproof not only in America, but also in the academic corridors of England, Germany, France, Holland, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Poland, and the several dozen other countries in which it appeared. This imposed a welcome duty to harmonize with local experts on the most subtle points. For example, Auschwitz historian Franciszek Piper, who meticulously read every page, requested numerous minute changes from a strictly Polish perspective; among them was that we not refer to concentration camps in Poland, but rather
occupied Poland.
We adopted all his corrections in as many editions as possible.

Then came the lawyers. My manuscript needed to pass the scrutiny of attorneys throughout the Americas and Europe, each applying the most conservative standards prevalent in his country. In some nations, such as England, known for its tough publishing laws, the test was more than rigorous. Factual backup—often sentence by sentence—was sought on point after point. It was provided, and all were satisfied. In one case, I carted sixteen boxes of documentation into a lawyer's conference room for a two-day hairsplitting challenge. I welcomed all such challenges. My files are arranged so that any sentence in the text can be completely documented at the thirty-second pull of a folder. Defensive documentation has always been my rule.

Finally, the world's major media was invited to launch its own independent pre-publication review. The most respected networks, newspapers, and magazines in the world assigned their most senior historical journalists known for Holocaust coverage and expertise. For weeks before publication, and in some cases months, a caravan of hardened and skeptical print and broadcast journalists trekked to my basement outside Washington, D.C., poring over my files, examining and filming documents, interviewing experts, and questioning me. Concomitantly, many launched their own investigations in Europe, carefully scouring local archives and questioning experts to independently verify my information.

The long roster of distinguished media included
Der Spiegel
and
Stern
in Germany; the
Sunday Times
in England;
L'Express
and
Le Monde
in France;
Newsweek, The Washington Post,
and
Reform Judaism
in the United States;
Algemeen Dagblad
in Holland; and many more. The media group also included major TV networks in Germany, France, Poland, Holland, the United States, and numerous other countries. Each network dispatched its most accomplished historical journalists with acknowledged Holocaust expertise.

Der Spiegel
independently discovered the
Abteilung Hollerith
in Stutt hof.
Algemeen Dagblad,
in Amsterdam, flew in its senior Auschwitz expert, Theo Gerritse. ZDF-TV in Germany dispatched Ralf Piechowiak, noted for work on other respected Holocaust documentaries. NBC in America spent almost a year before publication flying film crews and researchers to concentration camps, archives, and eyewitnesses to meticulously verify the book, deploying knowledgeable producers who had previously investigated Chase Manhattan Bank's connection to the Third Reich.

While the media was reviewing the manuscript and files, numerous Jewish leaders in America and Europe were sent copies as well. Under no circumstances would I launch a book of this nature without briefing the Jewish and Holocaust survivor leadership. Many of these leaders cope with complex Holocaust issues every day; they are among the best informed on the topic, and offer an indispensable perspective. For example, David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, displayed an uncanny eye for detail and contributed a number of precious pre-publication suggestions.

By February 2001, hundreds of copies of the original and revised manuscripts were circulating, and as many as a thousand people on three continents had access to the information. Archivists and scholars throughout the world were anxiously anticipating the release. Scores of journalists and their research staffs in a dozen countries were filming, inquiring, and interviewing. Throughout it all, the publishers, my agent, and I were determined to release the information in as responsible a fashion as possible. Each publisher contractually agreed to avoid any insensitive or sensationalist marketing, and we extracted similar pledges from as many of the other media as possible. I even listed four terms that my publishers were forbidden to use:
exclusive, secret,
unknown,
and
first-time.

Historical context, proper explanations, and a non-sensationalist approach continued to guide our every move. Jewish leaders scheduled several historical presentations to answer community questions immediately after publication. The most important one would be held just days after the book's release at Temple Beth Ami outside Washington, D.C. It was sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League, the Braun Holocaust Center, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and a consortium of other organizations and synagogues. I would speak, and openly show documents for anyone to examine. Academic presentations would also be offered by two of the world's leading scholars on the period and topic: Robert Wolfe, retired chief of captured German documents for the National Archives and arguably the world's leading expert on Nazi documentation, and William Seltzer, the foremost expert on the use of population statistics and Hollerith technology to persecute minorities during the Holocaust. Hundreds of people were invited in advance to a Holocaust presentation days before the book's publication, and none of them knew the specifics. C-SPAN would broadcast the session.

A website was constructed at
www.edwinblack.com
to offer sample excerpts and other historian and leadership commentary. A single sedate and carefully worded press release was readied by the publishers worldwide. More than two dozen scholars and Jewish leaders had unanimously written public letters of endorsement to be released simultaneously.

There is a point here.
IBM and the Holocaust
was not—and could not—be created in isolation. I invited an unprecedented level of pre-publication review and authentication by scores of independent sources—all at my unwavering insistence. It was expensive, cumbersome, tedious, and frequently a nerve-wracking, twenty-four-hours-per-day undertaking for my publishers; my agent, Lynne Rabinoff; my seasoned, original editor at Crown Publishing, Douglas Pepper; and myself. But in the end, we could all declare that we had exercised every ounce of prudence humanly possible—and then some.

Books had been pre-positioned in stores worldwide in unlabeled boxes, with warnings that they could not be opened until February 12, 2001.

Then came the leak—it was exactly the type of vague and misleading message we were hoping to avoid. And it was pervasive. Far from an errant book store, or a reporter jumping the gun—the source of the leak was where I always expected: IBM itself.

Days before February 12, IBM broadcasted a global e-mail to its more than 300,000 employees, warning that the book would soon be released and that it would evoke "painful" topics about IBM's involvement in the Holocaust. Copies of the e-mail were circulated to major news outlets around the world. That warning was followed by a carefully crafted statement: "IBM does not have much information about this period or the operations of Dehomag." Then a steady campaign of misinformation began.

IBM always knew I was working on this book. In 1999, after assembling very preliminary research, I contacted IBM's corporate archivist Paul Lasewicz for permission to examine the company's archives in Somers, New York. I offered to share with the company all my findings so that IBM—and the world—could obtain an accurate portrayal of the corporation's involvement in the Holocaust. Lasewicz approved my access but needed permission from IBM public relations manager Ian Colley to schedule the exact day. After I had spent weeks of waiting, and numerous conversations with him, Colley still refused to schedule my visit, claiming Lasewicz's archive was "understaffed," in massive disarray after years of neglect, and involved in a time-consuming Internet project.

Several prominent Holocaust figures also asked IBM to schedule my access. The importance of the project was stressed, as were the basic themes of identification, confiscation, ghettoization, and even concentration and extermination. The more we inquired, the quieter and more ambiguous IBM became about its intentions to permit a review. Unbeknownst to me, IBM used this time to scour its New York files. Nor did we know that, many months before, IBM had hired a group of litigation historians who search government archives worldwide for incriminating corporate links to Nazi Germany, to tackle the company's own 8,400 cubic feet of files. We knew that IBM had a history, going back to the Hitler era, of moving files from obscure place to obscure place, losing critical documents, purging records, and even destroying files.