## Chapter 2: ***Lethal Identities***

(revision 2023-08-15c)

Long before the shadows of World War II spread, the foundations of identity tracking systems were established. The glimpse of the stories about Lentz and Carmille in the preceding chapter highlite their potential and dangers.

The origins of identity tracking are deep-rooted. As nations saw the immense potential of systematic data collection, tools like the punch card system emerged, revolutionizing data processing. These innovations set the stage for the powerful and sometimes dangerous realm of identity tracking, influencing world wars and our modern era.

Building on this, we enter an era where identity tracking's consequences took a sinister turn. The Holocaust, showcasing the catastrophic effects of identity tracking, serves as a stark warning against unchecked data misuse. To grasp this tragedy's depth, we must explore the biases that ignited it.

While Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime are notoriously synonymous with antisemitism, this sentiment wasn't a novel invention of the 1930s and 1940s. It has cast a long, dark shadow over Europe for centuries. The earliest documented instances of antisemitism predate Christanity and can be traced back to third-century BCE Alexandria, and the chronicle of such incidents has only expanded ever since.[^2]

However, Jews are but one many groups that have endured persecution due to their identity. Elements like race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, gender identification, sexual orientation, religion, social class, disability, disease, age, political beliefs, cultural values, language, complexion, profession, and countless other facets of identity have, at different times and in different locales, been the catalyst for discrimination, mistreatment, ostracization, and even death.

The roots of antisemitism, though extensively researched, remain complex and elusive.[^3] During the bleak days of World War II, some six million Jews were identified, tracked, incarcerated, and exterminated across Europe. This genocide was vast in its reach, yet eerily selective. Orchestrating such an operation demanded comprehensive, selective, yet expansive systems capable of identifying and categorizing individuals within the vast European populace. The objective was to target individuals for social and professional isolation, control, confinement, forced labor, and ultimately, state-sanctioned murder.

Edwin Black, in his seminal work _IBM and the Holocaust_, poignantly notes that while Hitler's ambition to annihilate Jews wasn't unique, “…but for the first time in history, an anti-Semite had automation on his side.”[^4]

Black posits that for the Holocaust to manifest, societal norms underwent a seismic transformation. "Dignified professionals" turned into "Hitler’s advance troops". Police officials "protected villains and persecuted victims", lawyers “perverted concepts of justice to create anti-Jewish laws,” doctors “defiled” medicine to perpetrate “ghastly experiments and even choose who was healthy enough to be worked to death—and who could be cost-effectively sent to the gas chamber.” Scientists and engineers devoted themselves exclusively to devising the means of destruction. All this was enabled and facilitated by a highly specialized class of professionals, the “statisticians,” who used their “powerful discipline to identify the victims, project and rationalize the benefits of their destruction, organize their persecution, and even audit the efficiency of genocide.”[^5].

Upon Hitler's ascension to power in 1933, a cornerstone of his Nazi Party's agenda was the elimination of Germany's 600,000-strong Jewish community. Historically, religious persecution targeted individuals based on their religious beliefs or affiliations. However, the Nazis identified Jews not by their religious practices, but by their ancestry—their genetic lineage. Various criteria were employed to ascertain the exact proportion of “Jewish blood” that classified someone as a Jew. Ultimately, it was decreed that even “a single drop” of Jewish blood was enough for this classification—and to do so irrevocably, regardless of what religion one actually practiced, regardless of conversion, regardless of the utter rejection of one’s former faith, even when accompanied by willingness to denounce Judaism and abandon all ties with it.

This so-called "genetic" criterion, assigned ethnic identity to individuals without their knowledge, much less their consent. It at once clarified the definition of a Jew (in Nazi eyes, of course) yet also made identifying Jewish people more complicated. In the case of openly practicing Jews, especially those who lived in Jewish communities and adopted Jewish orthodox dress, as well as those who freely self-identified as Jews, classification and enumeration were easy. But among those who did not practice Judaism, or who had converted to another religion and were even accepted by a church and fully assimilated into a non-Jewish community, or among those who kept their beliefs secret, identification might require searching through generations of church, communal, and government records. A further complication was the inherent mobility of people, with some intentionally going off the grid, further complicated matters.

The Nazis aimed for efficient, assembly-line-style extermination, ideally transporting victims directly from ghettos to gas chambers, bypassing prolonged incarceration. Their model invariably began with identity, leading victims through a grim sequence of social isolation, concentration camp exile, forced labor, and ultimately, death. Like any other process, this one unfolded over time, but that hardly mattered. Once labeled as a Jew, the individual's fate was sealed, regardless of the time elapsed between identification and execution.

As the Nazi regime saw it, to identify a Jew was to kill a Jew, sealing their fate. Thus, for those determined to resist this genocide, the pressing challenge was to obstruct this identification process. Successfully forging identity cards or erasing archived datasets equated to saving lives. A macabre game of cat and mouse ensued between the Nazi regime and the resistance. This was reminiscent of the age-old battle between codemakers and codebreakers. At the onset of World War II, Germany boasted a robust encryption system named Enigma. This electromechanical system scrambled alphabets in a frequently changing pattern. Only those privy to the daily key could decrypt an Enigma-encoded message. Initially, this gave Germany a communication advantage, until British codebreakers, building on the work of Polish mathematician Marian Rejewski, devised methods to decrypt intercepted messages.

In the realm of World War II codebreaking, much like in identity forgery, it was a contest of human wit against machine-assisted data collection and sorting. In occupied territories, resisters endeavored to forge identity cards, aiming to undermine the evolving identity card technology. As their methods grew more sophisticated, so did the skills of the record keepers. This was a constantly evolving battlefront. The existential struggle between the brutal oppressors and the resisters always revolved around identity—either its exposure or its protection.

One shudders to think of the potential consequences had the Nazis had access to contemporary computing technology. The task of resisting their identification methods through forgery would have been exponentially more challenging. However, they did have access to a cadre of professionals, including technocrats from occupied countries, adept at detecting and countering the resistance's attempts at obfuscating identification. Additionally, there were rudimentary computer systems at their disposal, especially in Germany, which had been an early adopter of various “business machines”. Foremost among these were punch card and card-sorting systems, which greatly expedited the collection, recording, and sorting of vast amounts of data, including the data of personal identities. This technology was aggressively marketed to businesses, industries, and governmental agencies, particularly those dealing with census data and demographics. The leader in this field was IBM, the American-based multi-national company whose three initials were destined to become synonymous with electronic computing.

In the prewar years, Dehomag (Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft) stood out as one of IBM’s top-performing global subsidiaries. Operating semi-autonomously from its US counterpart IBM, Dehomag innovated custom-made card recording and sorting systems for European-based corporations. As Edwin Black documents in _IBM and the Holocaust_, the top brass of Dehomag, much like their counterparts in iconic German industrial giants like AEG, BASF, Bayer, IG Farben, Krupp, Porsche, Volkswagen, and Siemens, to name a few—were card-carrying members of the Nazi party, often fervently so.. The New York-based leadership of IBM had been acutely aware of Dehomag’s Nazi affiliation and, in fact, used Dehomag to strategically leverage IBM’s access to German government and industrial sectors.

From the German vantage point, this collaboration was mutually beneficial. By the late 1990s, both Ford and General Motors came under scrutiny for their alleged "Nazi collaboration".[^6] Henry Ford's blatant antisemitism was of course well known because he broadcasted it very publicly. Starting as early as 1920, Ford’s personal newspaper, _The Dearborn Independent,_ began disseminating articles on the so-called Jewish question. These articles were later compiled and published between 1920 and 1921 in a four-volume series titled _The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem_. These volumes were translated into multiple languages and were available in Germany in several editions between 1920 and 1922. Adolf Hitler openly admired Ford in _Mein Kampf_ and prominently displayed a portrait of him in the Nazi Party's Munich headquarters.[^7]

In the lead-up to World War II, Ford Motor Company supported Hitler's militarization by supplying military vehicles to Germany.[^8] In a 1938 ceremony, the German government honored Henry Ford with the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest accolade for a foreigner. This wasn't just for his role in aiding Germany's militarization, but also for his publication of _The International Jew_ and for pioneering the concept of the moving assembly line. “Hitler “revered” Ford, proclaiming that “I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany.”[^9] One such theory was the moving assembly line, which Ford had modeled on the practices of Chicago slaughterhouses and introduced in Ford's automobile factories in late 1913. This concept was later repurposed for mass extermination in major Nazi death camps during the Holocaust. Owing to this industrial technology, in 1942, during Operation Reinhard, some “1.5 million Jews were murdered in only 100 days … On average, 450,000 victims … each month during August, September and October … approximately 15,000 murders every day.”[^10]

The Holocaust, characterized by its swift and efficient mass genocide, was deeply anchored in advanced statistical, demographic, and tracking methodologies. These processes were crafted by government technocrats, often leveraging IBM Hollerith punch cards and sorting machines. While the assembly line model was well established by the Nazi era and enabled the mass production of murder on an unprecedented scale, electronic computing was still in its infancy, indeed had not evolved from its electromechanical origins. One is tempted to say what one is always tempted to say when contemplating horror that beggars the imagination, namely “It could have been worse.”

If the Nazis had the computing prowess we possess today, the scale of the tragedy could have been unimaginably worse. Even without modern electronic computers, the Nazi machinery executed their sinister plans with harrowing efficiency. For them, early computer technology was a tool, not a necessity. In the Netherlands, which is a primary focus of our narrative, the identification, tracking, and capture of Jews was achieved with minimal automation, and perhaps even minimal reliance on Hollerith cards.

While not central to the Holocaust's execution in places like the Netherlands, early computers undeniably played a pivotal role. At the heart of this dark enterprise lay two intertwined concepts: identity and identification. Undoubtedly, technology amplifies the efficiency of identity collection and analysis more efficient and does so whether for benign and even laudable purposes—getting an accurate census, ensuring that the right people receive the government benefits to which they are entitled—or for malicious, evil, even lethal purposes.

For professionals immersed in data, especially data stemming from individual identities and actions, the Holocaust serves as a grim lesson. Possessing the capability to access an individual's core identifying details bestows profound control over their identity, and consequently, their very flesh-and-blood being. When our personal data is readily available to a government, an authority of that government, a business, or an institution of any kind, we relinquish sovereignty over our own identity. This isn't inherently detrimental. There are business, institutions, and functions of government to which we want to give access to at least some portions of who we are. But our collected, analyzed, and sorted data also exposes us to vulnerabilities, especially when we—knowingly or unknowingly, voluntarily or under duress, strategically or recklessly—hand over that data to others.

Our narrative now turns to the events in the Netherlands under the shadow of the Holocaust. Unlike Germany's deep-rooted autocratic past, the Netherlands has been lauded for its liberal values, championing religious, ethnic, racial, and social inclusivity. Yet, under German occupation, this nation, renowned for its commitment to human rights, not only permitted but actively aided the persecution, arrest, confinement, deportation, and eventual extermination of a higher proportion of Jews than any other European country. A staggering 75% of Dutch Jews perished in the Holocaust, in stark contrast to the 23% in France, a nation with a deep-seated antisemitic history, in some quarters, exhibited a highly enthusiastic embrace of Nazism.

What accounts for this?

The answer can be traced in the meticulously organized, sorted, and easily accessible citizen files the Dutch government maintained in centralized government archives. The German occupiers simply accessed these records to identify and locate all Jews. Many civil servants, including J. L. Lentz, head of the Dutch census, were disturbingly willing to assist the occupiers. Lentz, who grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and had Jewish friends, wasn't antisemitic. He operated under the belief that if something can be done, it should be. Consequently, he provided the Germans with the information they sought.

In his _Destruction of the Dutch Jews_, Dr. Jacob Presser quotes a letter Lentz wrote “to the relevant German authorities” on October 7, 1942. Expressing delight that the Germans admired his work in the archives, he said that their approval “encourages us to strive with utter devotion to do justice to our slogan ‘To record is to serve.’”[^12]

He did not ask, however, _Whom do we serve?_ This oversight proved tragic and fatal. In today's era, equipped with digital technology that Lentz and his peers could never have fathomed, the potency of identity data is undeniable. _Whom does possession of my identifying data—**my very identity**—serve?_ Failing to question and understand this renders us more vulnerable and less free.

In the next chapter we will delve deeper into the heart of the Netherlands during the Holocaust, shedding light on the paradoxes and intricacies that led to this tragic chapter in Dutch history.

---

[^2]: Edward H. Flannery, _The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-three Centuries of Antisemitism_, Third Edition (Paulist Press, 2004), 11-12.
[^3]: This book is a good starting place for anyone seriously interested in the subject of antisemitism: Sol Goldberg, Scott Ury, and Kalman Weiser, eds., _Key Concepts in the Study of Antisemitism_ (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021),
[^4]: Edwin Black, _IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation_ (New York: Crown, 2001), 7.
[^5]: Op. cit., 7-8.
[^6]: Michael Dobbs, “Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration,” _Washington Post_ (November 30, 1998), .
[^7]: See Neil Baldwin, _Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate_ (New York: Public Affairs, 2001).
[^8]: Ken Silverstein, “Ford and the Führer,” _The Nation_ (January 6, 2000), .
[^9]: “Henry For receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi officials, 1938,” .
[^10]: Gary Stix, “A Biologist Reconstructs the Grotesque Efficiency of the Nazis’ Killing Machine,” _Scientific American_ (January 10, 2019), [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-biologist-reconstructs-the-grotesque-efficiency-of-the-nazis-killing-machine/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-biologist-reconstructs-the-grotesque-efficiency-of-the-nazis-killing-machine/). See also Steve Hochstadt, “Assembly Lines of Death: Extermination Camps,” in: Hochstadt, S. (eds) _Sources of the Holocaust. Documents in History_ (London: Palgrave, 2004). [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-21440-8_8](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-21440-8_8). For Operation Reinhard, see “Operation Reinhard (Einsatz Reinhard) in United States Holocaust Memorial Museum _Holocaust Encyclopedia,_ .
[^11]: Alex Wellerstein, “Counting the Dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” _Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists_ (August 4, 2020), .
[^12]: Dr. Jacob Presser, _The Destruction of the Dutch Jews_ (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1969), 38.

### Abstract:

This chapter delves deep into the origins and evolution of identity tracking systems. It particularly emphasizes their role in World War II and the consequent dangers of unchecked data misuse. The chapter further elaborates on the Holocaust as a monumental example of the catastrophic effects of these tracking systems. It showcases the biases, technological advancements, and the unique socio-political dynamics in countries like the Netherlands, all while emphasizing the crucial role identity played in these events.

### Main Argument:
The rise of identity tracking systems, especially in the context of World War II and the Holocaust, serves as a stark warning about the potential dangers of unchecked data misuse. Technology, when coupled with malignant intentions, can lead to cataclysmic consequences, as seen in the Nazi regime's exploitation of data for genocidal purposes.

### Topics and Key Points:

#### Origins of Identity Tracking Systems
- Emergence of tools like the punch card system.
- Revolution in data processing and the consequent potential.
#### Holocaust and Identity Tracking
- Role of data misuse in the extermination of Jews.
- Antisemitism's historical trajectory.
- Broad range of identity facets leading to persecution.
#### Technical Aspects and Collaborations
- Edwin Black's "_IBM and the Holocaust_".
- Role of companies like IBM in Nazi data tracking.
- Ford and General Motors' alleged "Nazi collaboration".
#### Identity and the Netherlands during the Holocaust
- Contrast in Jewish extermination rates in different countries.
- Dutch government's meticulous records and collaboration.
- J. L. Lentz's cooperation with the German occupiers.

#### Facts & Quotes for Fact-Checking:
- "[^2]" Earliest documented instances of antisemitism predate Christianity.
- "[^3]" Complexity and elusive nature of antisemitism roots.
- "[^4]" Edwin Black's quote on Hitler's advantage of automation.
- "[^5]" Black's portrayal of professionals' roles during the Holocaust.
- "[^6]" Ford and General Motors' alleged collaboration with the Nazis.
- "[^7]" Hitler's admiration for Henry Ford and the availability of Ford's writings in Germany.
- "[^8]" Ford Motor Company's assistance in Hitler's militarization.
- "[^9]" Hitler’s reverence for Ford and the assembly line's role in the Holocaust.
- "[^10]" Speed and efficiency of the Nazi extermination process.

(need to integrate the following into the footnotes as appropriate)

Footnote [^2] references Edward H. Flannery's book about the long history of antisemitism.
Footnote [^3] recommends a book for those seriously interested in studying antisemitism.
Footnote [^4] cites a book that discusses the alliance between IBM and Nazi Germany.
Footnote [^5] seems to be a follow-up citation from the same source as footnote [^4].
Footnote [^6] cites a Washington Post article discussing the alleged Nazi collaboration of Ford and GM.
Footnote [^7] cites a book that discusses Henry Ford's antisemitic beliefs.
Footnote [^8] cites an article from The Nation focusing on Ford's relationship with Hitler.
Footnote [^9] presumably refers to an image or visual representation of Henry Ford receiving an award from Nazi officials in 1938.
Footnote [^10] cites an article from Scientific American about the efficiency of the Nazi killing machine, with an additional citation about extermination camps and Operation Reinhard.
Footnote [^11] cites an article about estimating the number of casualties in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Footnote [^12] cites a work detailing the persecution of Dutch Jews during the Holocaust.