Unfortunately, the relationship was not as indirect. See Edwin Black's book on the issue: http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ The evidence Black presents that there was knowledge at high levels about what was going on is disturbing but convincing. I am an IBM employee, and I made myself read the book because I felt it was something I should know about.

The internet brings people closer to facts than they have ever been in history; yet no proximity will ever exceed what you already believe to be true. IBM knowingly participated, and apologized only a few years ago, but never returned any of the profits. The distinction made throughout the responses here is that IBM knew nothing so are as non-culpable as someone who invents a weapon or a utility that is later weaponized. This is untrue, as you read, but that disbelief is part of what allowed the holocaust to continue. I read a narrative once of someone who was watching World War I brew, describing it as a non-event that would not transpire because he could not imagine people with top hats engaging in the brutish behaviors of their predecessors.

I saw an interview with old Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the eponymous rifle. The interviewer asked him, are you ashamed to have created a weapon that caused so many deaths? He snorted in contempt and replied, I designed my weapon to defend the Motherland from Fascist invaders. And no-one can argue with that!

As would Oppenheimer (nuclear bomb/nuclear energy). Benefits of nuclear energy are palpable. But even the A-bomb and it's use as a deterrent could be seen (loosely) as a positive force.

And Alfred Nobel (TNT). His prize notwithstanding, but TNT has unlocked significant natural resources that have improved the quality of life worldwide.

"I am become death. The destroyer of worlds."

Less, I'd say. Samuel Colt could reasonably know that his device would be used to kill people. A person making a census machine, especially before the first modern genocide, can't be reasonably expected it would be used to kill people.

Out of curiosity, what makes it the first modern genocide? At what point do the other genocides leading up to the holocaust not count as modern?

WWII is, in many ways, the demarcation point of the modern era. Almost every facet of life was changed. Women entered the workforce, agriculture and industry were more or less entirely rewritten.

In terms of genocide, it was the first one to use computers. It used systematic, organizational principles similar to what a business might use. It created a set of processes both to carry it out and to make the population accept and even participate in the unspeakable.

I would say that a pre-modern genocide would be done that was committed by roving bands of soldiers, rather than a bureaucracy.

A bit of research reveals I was wrong in my assumptions, though, and the Armenian genocide certainly counts by that metric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

That was the exact one I was thinking of. I really think you should look at the source that I linked to though. IBM knew what it was participating in and has since apologized (though never paid for it).

Perhaps it's `first' as in `most on people's mind'?

Samuel Colt probably saved millions upon millions.

How exactly has Samuel Colt saved millions of lives?

As destructive as the concealed gun has been, it has saved man from both beast and himself. The colt revolver was a practical device that allowed individual parts to be replaced, fired multiple shots in succession (as one inaccurate bullet could not down a giant bear), and was used by law enforcement and villains alike. The principles of interchangeable parts had a huge impact as well as the revolver as a means of protecting life and liberty.