---
deposit_number: 1669
hex: 06EB
title: "The Colony Enters the Factory: War Fordism, Racial Labor Hierarchy, and the Industrialization of Conquest (EA-NOUN-VERB-02 v1.0)"
creator: Sharks, Lee
orcid: 0009-0000-1599-0703
date: 2026-10-07
content_type: "Theoretical paper (historical political economy: war Fordism, forced labor and the Nazi camp economy)"
license: CC-BY-4.0
substrate: Human–machine collaborative. The thesis, its direction and its rulings are Lee Sharks's. Earlier drafts were developed with ChatGPT (OpenAI), and a reading by ChatGPT was applied before deposit. Source verification, the composition of this text and its revisions were done by TACHYON (Claude, Anthropic) in session on 7 October 2026. Quotations were checked against the sources named in the notes; items not verified are listed under Open verification items.
version: v1.0
related_ids: "#1668 (EA-NOUN-VERB-01, The Noun Becomes a Verb, the first half); #499 (Autonomous Semantic Warfare: Semantic Labor Camp, Semantic Empire); #923 (EA-RFCL-01, Reflexive Foreclosure, temporal sequestration); #950 (Operative Semiotics: A Grundrisse, §4b.8); #148 (Semantic Technique and Collective Ownership, §2.3); #1545 (The Semantic Proletariat MPAI)"
axn_schema_version: v2
protocol_version: alexanarch-deposit-protocol/v1
keywords:
  - war Fordism
  - forced labor
  - Zwangsarbeit
  - concentration camps
  - subcamps
  - WVHA
  - IG Farben
  - Monowitz
  - Hachtmann
  - Herbert
  - Spoerer
  - Hayes
  - Lebensraum
  - Generalplan Ost
  - inner colonization
  - Konrad Meyer
  - continental imperialism
  - Arendt
  - Césaire
  - colonial camps
  - Herero and Nama
  - Tooze
  - racial labor hierarchy
  - aptitude testing
  - replenishable flow
  - the switch
  - Holocaust
---

# The Colony Enters the Factory: War Fordism, Racial Labor Hierarchy, and the Industrialization of Conquest (EA-NOUN-VERB-02 v1.0)

# The Colony Enters the Factory: War Fordism, Racial Labor Hierarchy, and the Industrialization of Conquest (EA-NOUN-VERB-02 v1.0)

*Lee Sharks · 7 October 2026. The second half of a two-part argument; the first is The Noun Becomes a Verb (#1668, EA-NOUN-VERB-01).*

The first half of this paper followed the laboring body from noun to verb: from the priced person of the plantation ledger to the timed operation of the Ford line.[^1] The Nazi war economy kept the verb. It took the Fordist operation, the task cut into motions and set to a time, and placed it under a noun of a new kind: a racial-juridical classification assigned by the state to whole populations taken in conquest. The noun named a status, and the status selected the coercive regime under which the verb was taken. This half follows that switch from the conquest of the East into the factory, and marks the point where the history of labor ends and the murder of the Jews of Europe exceeds it.

## 0. The conventional reading

**0.1** The field holds that Nazi expansion to the East was a war for land and empire. Adam Tooze: "Land hunger was one, if not the most important impulse"; the war in the East "was the last great land grab in the long and bloody history of European colonialism".[^2] The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) states that the invasion of the Soviet Union "placed the necessity for Lebensraum and the colonization of the East at the center of the invasion", with "intensive planning for the mass starvation of over 30 million people there".[^3]

**0.2** The camps came before the war and served repression first. USHMM: "The Nazi camp system began as a system of repression directed against political opponents of the Nazi state." In about 1935 "the regime also began to imprison those whom it designated as racially or biologically inferior, especially Jews." During the war "the purpose of the camps evolved beyond imprisonment toward forced labor and outright murder."[^4] Prisoners numbered about 25,000 before the war and about 100,000 in March 1942; SS reports counted "more than 700,000 prisoners registered in the concentration camps in January 1945".[^4] In 1937 there were four concentration camps in Germany; by 1944 there were "approximately 30 main camps and hundreds of subcamps".[^5] Mark Spoerer gives the mid-January 1945 count as 511,537 men and 202,674 women, 714,211 in all, of whom at most 475,000 survived the war; of about 1.65 million people admitted to the camps from 1933 to 1945, only about 100,000 were regularly released.[^6]

**0.3** The war economy ran on foreign labor. Ulrich Herbert: "In 1944, more than eight million foreign forced laborers were employed in the German war economy inside the Reich." And: "Without the use of foreign labor, the agricultural and industrial production of Germany would have collapsed in 1942 at the latest. The German war economy therefore had no choice but to depend on the employment of millions of forced laborers."[^7] Spoerer's estimate for the whole war is about 13.5 million foreign civilians, prisoners of war and camp prisoners brought to work in Germany, of whom only 10 percent to at most 20 percent came voluntarily.[^6] The Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future (EVZ) counts "More than 26 million people" forced to work "in the German Reich or occupied territories between 1939 and 1945".[^8] The figures differ by denominator: the stock on a given date, the flow across the war, the Reich alone or the occupied territories with it.

**0.4** The Holocaust is defined by USHMM as "the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million European Jews by the Nazi German regime and its allies and collaborators."[^9] Robert Gerwarth and Stephan Malinowski state the field's position on its causes: the standard accounts of Nazi anti-Jewish policy, by Longerich, Browning and Friedländer, give no colonial causation, and the large literature on German antisemitism has not found colonial racism to be an influence.[^10] Christopher Browning, on Jewish labor in the ghettos: when the advocates of production gained room, the ideological goal was "never superseded, just temporarily deferred".[^11]

**0.5** The relation of labor to annihilation is disputed. The phrase "Vernichtung durch Arbeit" entered policy language in the late-1942 negotiations of Goebbels and the Justice Minister Otto Thierack over the transfer of prisoners from the justice system to the SS camps; the SS did not generally use it, and it recurred at Nuremberg.[^12] Hermann Kaienburg and Miroslav Kárný treat annihilation through labor as a consistent SS goal; Falk Pingel holds that the phrase should not be applied to all prisoners; Jens-Christian Wagner calls it a metaphor of moral indignation, "not particularly helpful in an analytical sense".[^12]

**0.6** The colonial reading of Nazism has three parts, and the field gives each a different verdict. (a) The East as colonial empire is the least contested. Tooze's "last great land grab" is one statement of it.[^2] Richard Evans, reviewing Shelley Baranowski's *Nazi Empire* (2010), called it a "powerful and persuasive new synthesis" and judged the global and colonial context "the more promising" explanation of Nazism.[^13] (b) Continuity from German South West Africa is contested. Jürgen Zimmerer compares the Herero and Nama genocide of 1904–08 with Nazi rule on three axes, genocide, the "racial state" and forced labor.[^14] Gerwarth and Malinowski argue that the breach of 1904 was largely consistent with European colonial standards of its time and that the Nazi war of annihilation broke with colonial traditions.[^15] Andreas Eckert, in a closing chapter reviewed by Mohamed Adhikari, is "quite clear that there was no direct path 'from Windhoek to Auschwitz'."[^16] (c) Colonial causation of the murder of the Jews is largely rejected (0.4).[^10] The continuity school's common ancestor is Hannah Arendt; Gerwarth and Malinowski title their critique "Hannah Arendt's Ghosts".[^10]

**0.7** On the joint between assembly-line production and camp labor, this paper relies on Rüdiger Hachtmann's "Fordism and Unfree Labour" (2010).[^17] He reports two opposed positions on whether camp labor in industry was economic, Karl-Heinz Roth's and Wolfgang Sofsky's, and judges: "Both positions are exaggerated."[^18]

**0.8** This paper accepts all of 0.1–0.7. Its object is the form of the labor relation that the war economy built from conquest and the assembly line, read in the grammar of the first half: the noun, the verb, and the unit over which a person's capacity was measured. The Holocaust is larger than this labor history. That limit governs §9.

## 1. Scale: the advanced industry and its constraint

**1.1** Germany entered the Nazi period as an advanced industrial power. Hachtmann: "at the latest beginning in 1936 – and in marked contrast to the Weimar Republic – the Fordist production regime rapidly gained in significance in ever broader sectors of industry … under conditions of still largely (doubly) free labour."[^19] His example of the new plant is Volkswagen at Fallersleben, built on the model of Ford's River Rouge.[^20]

**1.2** The measure contemporaries used was continental. Sven Beckert: "During the last third of the nineteenth century, a debate emerged in a number of European countries on the 'American danger.'" In the abstract's words, "some European observers feared their nations' declining competitiveness"; this "'second great divergence' provoked a range of responses", whose "sometimes competing and sometimes mutually reinforcing efforts focused on African colonialism, European integration, and violent territorial expansion within Europe itself."[^21] The third response is the one this paper follows.

**1.3** Tooze places the American comparison in Hitler's own thinking. Robert Gordon, reviewing him, summarizes: Hitler was preoccupied with German agriculture "as contrasted with the raw material and land resources of America's continent and Britain's empire", and American frontier expansion "provided Hitler with an explicit precedent" for "pushing aside the native populations in the east to provide land for German Aryan farmers".[^22] The reviewer's paraphrase is cited as his; Tooze's own pages on the United States remain to be read.

**1.4** The East was also an answer to blockade. In the English *Table Talk*, 17–18 September 1941: "The struggle for the hegemony of the world will be decided in favour of Europe by the possession of the Russian space. Thus Europe will be an impregnable fortress, safe from all threat of blockade." And: "The Ukraine, and then the Volga basin, will one day be the granaries of Europe."[^23] The English edition is a weak text. It must be checked against the German editions; parts of it translate Genoud's French; and Mikael Nilsson judges that "it is impossible to be sure that the majority of the entries are in fact authentic", while allowing that they are "for the most part, memoranda of statements that Hitler made".[^24]

**1.5** Gordon's objection is the economist's. Tooze's estimate has Germans "living only one-fourth the level of American", a gap with Angus Maddison's figures that "seems too large to bridge". The Nazis "failed to see the obvious solution", which was to move labor out of agriculture; more land per farm worker could be had "Only by expelling" Polish farmers.[^22] On this reading Lebensraum was the wrong answer to Germany's problem.

**1.6** The objection sharpens this paper's claim. Gordon's remedy for the land problem is a transfer of labor into industry, and industry was where labor ran short. In 1934–35 rearmament brought full employment, and skilled metalworkers "became a 'scarce commodity'".[^20] By Herbert's judgment, production would have collapsed in 1942 at the latest without foreign workers.[^7] Lebensraum answered with land. What conquest delivered to the factory, from 1940 onward, was people. Labor became a binding constraint, and the empire pursued for land, settlement and racial reordering also became a mechanism for supplying it.

## 2. The continental colony

**2.1** The planners described the East in the vocabulary of overseas empire and the American West. USHMM: "Hitler and other Nazi thinkers drew direct comparisons to American expansion in the West", "Pointing to the British and French Empires and to American 'Manifest Destiny,'".[^3] *Table Talk*, 17 October 1941: "There's only one duty: to Germanise this country by the immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins." And 2 August 1941: "What India was for England, the territories of Russia will be for us. If only I could make the German people understand what this space means for our future! Colonies are a precarious possession, but this ground is safely ours."[^23] Evans, reviewing Mark Mazower's *Hitler's Empire*, quotes a different rendering of the India line: "The Russian space is our India. Like the English, we shall rule this empire with a handful of men."[^25] The two wordings come from different translations, and both pass through the textual problems of 1.4.[^24]

**2.2** The German term for the practice was older than Nazism. Robert Nelson: "The form of colonization that is central to this book is what was called 'inner colonization' at the time by German thinkers. This was an ethnically based settler colonialism powerfully grounded in agrarian thinking about who should cultivate what soil." Its focus was "settling farmers at the frontier of empire, but always within the empire's borders."[^26] Max Sering "stood on the vast 'empty' expanse of Nebraska in 1883" and "was the main intellectual force behind the Settlement Commission that attempted to settle Germans among the Poles in the Eastern Borderlands from 1886 to 1914. He travelled east to occupied Latvia in 1915 and conceived of Germany's eventual plan for the settlement of one and a half million Germans there." For Sering "the example par excellence of global inner colonization was the North American West."[^26]

**2.3** The institution carried into the war. Nelson names "the new Settlement Commission, now the Reichskommisar für die Festigung deutschen Volkstums (RKF) led by Himmler", whose plans for the Warthegau "strongly echoed the 'border strip' plan of 1915".[^27] Konrad Meyer "pointed out that '*Raumenge*, restricted space, had long been Germany's problem, but that this was now solved.'"[^27] Meyer "penned what would be the first iteration of the infamous General Plan East … This plan, calling for the emptying of the eastern space, followed by its filling with German settlers"; he "declared that he would need 1.8 million German settlers."[^27]

**2.4** Nelson sets the line through practice. Against Carroll Kakel, who "traces a nineteenth-century American model radicalized by Hitler", Nelson writes: "I trace an American model inspiring and shaping settler politics in the nineteenth-century German East and argue that the resulting settler practice in the East then radicalized under Hitler." "A settler colonial politics with race built in was already well established in the Wartheland while Hitler was still a child."[^26] Sering himself, "who was not a Nazi", died in November 1939 and "would not have approved of the most coldly 'rational' form of pure settler colonialism in the Warta Space, that is, the forced deportation of Polish farmers".[^26] The continuity runs through an institution and its personnel, Meyer and the RKF. The founder of the doctrine stands outside the deportations.

**2.5** The overseas colonial movement lost to the East. Willeke Sandler: "While Africa remained a future possibility, Eastern Europe offered readily accessible territory for the fulfillment of colonial ambitions." Nazi propaganda officials treated the colonialists' campaigns "as distractions from the more urgent needs of the war effort", and "In the wake of the German defeat at Stalingrad and the declaration of total war, Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery, shut down the colonialist organizations in January 1943, ending sixty years of organized overseas colonialist agitation in Germany."[^28]

**2.6** The colonial relation was relocated from overseas to the continent. Arendt's name for the result, continental imperialism, is taken up in §11.

## 3. Conquest as labor policy

**3.1** Hachtmann dates the change of labor supply to 1941: "the labour force subjected to these production regimes was increasingly recruited, above all from 1941 onward, as a kind of war booty from those territories of Europe occupied by the German military and was no longer protected by the usual labour laws of 'civil'-capitalist societies. The Nazi regime knew innumerable degrees of unfreedom".[^29]

**3.2** The sequence, in USHMM's account. "Beginning in 1940, the German authorities rounded up Polish civilians, male and female, and deported them to the Reich for forced labor in German factories and on German farms." "After deliberately permitting more than two million captured Soviet soldiers to die through neglect … in prisoner-of-war camps in the autumn and winter of 1941-1942, the German authorities decided to deploy Soviet POWs as forced laborers". "From 1942 to 1944, the Germans deported nearly three million Soviet civilians to Germany, Austria, and Bohemia-Moravia as forced laborers. Most of them were incarcerated in so-called residence camps and strictly segregated from the German population." "In August 1944, more than 7,500,000 non-German workers were registered as working in the Reich; the overwhelming majority were forced laborers."[^30]

**3.3** Herbert's count for the summer of 1944: "7.6 million foreign workers found themselves employed in the Reich: 5.7 million civilian workers and a little less than 2 million prisoners of war. Of these, 2.8 million came from the Soviet Union, 1.7 million from Poland, and 1.3 million from France". "The typical forced laborer in Germany in 1943 was an eighteen-year-old school girl from Kiev. Of those employed in the Reich, 26.5 percent were foreigners."[^31] In the war industries the foreign share rose from 3 percent of the workforce in 1940 to 29 percent in 1944.[^32] Christian Streit's figures for Soviet prisoners of war are about 5.7 million taken and about 3.3 million dead.[^33]

**3.4** Recruitment ran along a gradient of force. Spoerer distinguishes four ideal types: pure advertising; advertising backed by decisive pressure on living conditions; conscription of whole age cohorts through local administrations; and deportation by arbitrary violence.[^6] At the late-war peak about nine million foreign workers and prisoners were present at once: about six million civilians, 2.2 million prisoners of war and about 700,000 camp prisoners.[^6]

**3.5** Territory and labor moved in opposite directions. Meyer's plan called for "the emptying of the eastern space, followed by its filling with German settlers".[^27] The labor program deported the people of the same space westward into the Reich.[^30] The plan to clear the East and the program to bring its people into German factories ran in the same years, 1941–44. Herbert reads the second as a preview of the first: "The program of enforced foreign labor served to foreshadow what was slated to become everyday reality for all of Europe in the wake of a German victory…: namely, the installation throughout the conquered continent of a hierarchical National Socialist society founded on racial criteria."[^34]

**3.6** Conquest became labor policy. The chain runs from military occupation, through recruitment on Spoerer's gradient and deportation, to registration in the Reich, segregated barracks, and the plant.[^6][^30] Each link is administrative. The colonial seizure of the East and the staffing of German industry became interlocking operations of the same conquest regime, coupled materially through occupation, deportation, registration and the plant.

## 4. War Fordism: the verb decomposed

**4.1** Hachtmann's abstract: "Fordism is understood here as a form of workplace rationalization (especially assembly-line production), but also as a 'technology of domination' and an 'exploitation innovation'. In contrast to the Weimar Republic, Fordism was established in broad sectors of German industry under Nazi rule in the form of 'war Fordism'."[^35] The two quoted terms are Jürgen Bönig's: "Jürgen Bönig has designated assembly-line production as a 'technology of domination' and its introduction as an 'exploitation innovation'."[^36] Hachtmann quotes Otto Bauer in 1931 beside them: the assembly line is "more despotic than the whip of the slave overseer could be".[^36] He then adopts Bönig's terms in his own voice: "with regard to prisoners, the assembly line was especially attractive as an 'exploitation innovation'".[^37]

**4.2** Hachtmann applies war Fordism from 1933: "The term 'war Fordism' – as a special form of Fordism – will thus be used here for the years starting in 1933, in the first place because the economy of the Third Reich stood under a bellicose sign from the very beginning and made rearmament a top priority, and second because prior to 1939–1945 certain social conceptions often associated with the slogan 'Fordism' – in particular the establishment of a mass consumer society – were not central goals".[^19] The production form preceded the camp labor that entered it.

**4.3** The line answered the shortage of skill. Hachtmann: "In 1934–1935, the German economy had entered a phase of full employment due to the booming armaments industry. Skilled metalworkers in particular became a 'scarce commodity' heavily recruited by businesses. Forms of work organization and production technology that promised to replace qualified workers with unqualified ones thus became increasingly attractive." The new firms that "sprung up overnight … employed a far higher percentage of foreign – and also primarily unskilled – labourers than average", and were "conceived according to the most modern perspectives".[^20] This is the operation of the first half's §5. Ford spread one magneto assembly into twenty-nine operations and reduced "the necessity for thought on the part of the worker".[^38] A job cut into operations can be staffed by whoever can perform one operation. After 1941 that worker was supplied by conquest.

**4.4** Camp prisoners entered regular mass production in 1942. Hachtmann: "Prisoners from concentrations camps were used for the first time in 'regular' industrial mass production starting in August 1942 at the Heinkel aircraft plant in Oranienburg near the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. In mid-1943 almost 4,000 prisoners from the neighbouring concentration camp worked in the plant under a partially Fordist and partially 'merely' Taylorist production regime; a year later 6,000 prisoners were forced to work there as well." Junkers used 1,300 prisoners in the autumn of 1943, "Messerschmidt" between 3,500 and 3,600. "In early 1944, approximately 36,000 concentration camp prisoners worked in numerous factories of the aircraft industry."[^39] The branches were "tank production, rocket construction …, munitions production, textile production, the chemical industry, the electrical engineering industry, the automobile industry, as well as aircraft construction."[^39]

**4.5** Allocation followed political standing. Hachtmann: "As a rule, the companies active in these branches had the best access to key military and state authorities and could employ political means to push through the allocation of forced labourers recruited from concentration camps."[^40]

**4.6** Managers stated the promise of the arrangement. The Auto Union manager William Werner told Göring in October 1943: "With such as system I can really compel the foreigners to 100 per cent work."[^41] The prisoner had a price per day: "Beginning in October 1942, companies paid the Treasury 6 Reichsmarks per day for skilled prisoners and 4 Reichsmarks for unqualified". Prisoner labor "was hardly 'cheaper'" than other forced labor.[^42]

**4.7** The promise outran the result. Erhard Milch's planned "Ultra" factory, modeled on Willow Run, became "the godfather of the gigantic and barbaric plans for 'Dora'". Opel declined prisoners for fear that the "efficiency of highly rationalized production" would suffer. Hachtmann: prisoner deployment "delayed the leap to (partial) automation", and "the connection between Fordism and extreme forced labour … thus led to a dead end." Even so, "a remarkably large number of German entrepreneurs and managers reckoned over the long term with war-Fordist mass production combined with concentration camp prisoners".[^43] His verdict on the top of the regime: "the top echelon of the Hitler dictatorship was taken in by Fordist perspectives that turned out to be illusions, at least in the long run."[^43]

**4.8** War Fordism decomposed work horizontally. One process became a row of operations, each specified, timed and assigned to a station. This is the verb of the first half, carried into a war economy that staffed it from the conquered East.

## 5. The racial noun and the industrial verb

**5.1** Herbert names the contradiction from which the labor order grew: "the contradiction between the economic interest in exploiting as many foreigners as possible and the ideological principles of National Socialism, which sought to protect the Volk from mixing with 'foreign blood.' From this contradiction there developed a rigidly hierarchical racist system for the treatment of forced laborers."[^7] With the Poles, the first large intake, "It was possible to bring a large number of Polish workers to Germany against their will within a short time as well as to put in place a two-tiered society based on a hierarchy of 'racial' criteria."[^44] By 1944 "the four-tiered staggered wage system continued to reinforce the privileged position of German workers."[^31]

**5.2** Spoerer gives the ranking: "Nordic" peoples at the top, then Romance peoples, then Slavic peoples, Poles and Soviet peoples, treated as "subhumans", with Jews and Sinti and Roma at the bottom. He calls the regime for Poles and Ostarbeiter "apartheid".[^6]

**5.3** The ranking entered the plant. Hachtmann: "from 1941 onward the core of the Fordist rationalization proletariat in Germany was constituted first and foremost by foreign labourers, especially male and female 'eastern labourers' from the Soviet Union (frequently replacing German women…). In contrast, male German workers, insofar as they remained in enterprises, advanced to become racially privileged foremen and head workmen."[^45] "As a consequence of occupying the top tier of the employee hierarchy for years, many skilled workers in Germany … internalized racist principles."[^45] And: "In the eyes of some entrepreneurs, prisoner deployment based on racism may also have been functional in immediate industrial production because it divided workers into hierarchical groups more sharply than before."[^46]

**5.4** The racial state decomposed persons vertically. Fordism cut the process into operations; racial classification cut the workforce into grades. On one line the two cuts crossed. The same operation could be performed by an eastern laborer under one wage tier, ration and regime of segregation, and by a camp prisoner rented by the day from the state, under a German foreman.[^31][^30][^42][^45] The movement was standardized and the mover was graded.

**5.5** The image of a racial pyramid belongs to Karl-Heinz Roth. Hachtmann quotes it as one extreme of the debate: "Karl-Heinz Roth occupies one extreme with his claim that 'slave labour can be used profitably even under the conditions of the most modern capitalist large-scale technology if it is incorporated solely into a workforce-pyramid racially organized in degrees of unfreedom'." Against it he sets Sofsky, for whom prisoner labor was "not a means of survival, but rather [a means] of absolute power and terror". Hachtmann: "Both positions are exaggerated. Despite the independent spiral of violence emphasized by Sofsky, the work deployment of concentration camp prisoners in industrial fabrication was, from the perspective of those companies using it, also quite functional economically, at least from 1942–1943 onward."[^18] This paper takes its tiers from the documented forms, Herbert's four-tiered wage system and Spoerer's ranking, and draws no diagram of its own.[^31][^6]

**5.6** Hachtmann's complication is the aptitude test. "On the one hand, companies followed the hierarchy of 'races' prescribed by the Nazis, which ostensibly corresponded to the different work capacities of the labourers. On the other hand, certain aspects of workplace rationalization contributed to the fact that racism – brought into the work world by the Nazis from outside – was softened and carried out virtually ad absurdum." From 1941–42 the Institut für Arbeitspsychologie und Arbeitspädagogik ran tests for the "selection of foreigners" based on the American Army Alpha and Beta tests; "In the largest industrial psychological testing operation ever at the time, almost 500,000 civilian foreign labourers in far more than 1,000 companies were examined… Beginning in the autumn of 1943 concentration camp prisoners were even tested for their individual capabilities, irrespective of their national ('racial') affiliation and other categories."[^47] The testing "tended to undermine the racist schema", and it "says little about the core issue".[^47]

**5.7** The complication sets the limit of the composition. At the level of the regime, the noun governed the verb: wage tier, ration, segregation and punishment followed classification.[^31][^30] At the level of the measured operation, the instruments of the verb found individuals, and individual capacity crossed the racial grade.[^47] The first half found the same seam in Taylor, who selected one man from a gang: individuation persisted at the point of selection.[^48] Hachtmann's own clause locates the noun: racism was "brought into the work world by the Nazis from outside".[^47] The racial classification came from the state; the production system's own measures tended to disregard it; the state installed it anyway. By Hachtmann's last clause, the softening changed little at the core.

## 6. Campification, within its scale

**6.1** The camp was attached to the factory late, and in the perpetrators' own words. Oswald Pohl to Himmler, 30 April 1942: "The war has brought about a marked change in the structure of the concentration camps and has changed their duties with regard to the employment of prisoners. The custody of prisoners for the sole purposes of security, education, or prevention is no longer the main consideration. The main emphasis has shifted to the economic side. The mobilization of all prisoners who are fit for work, initially for wartime purposes (to increase armaments production), and later for peacetime tasks, is becoming more and more important. 2. This necessitates measures to ensure the gradual transformation of the concentration camps from their previously one-sided political form into organizations more suitable for economic tasks."[^49] Point 4: "The transfer of the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps to the Main Office of Economics and Administration has been carried out with the full agreement of all the main offices concerned."[^49]

**6.2** USHMM dates the transfer to March 1942 in one article and to "the spring of 1942" in another.[^5][^30] After "it became clear that Germany would be engaged in a long war", the SS administration "deployed concentration camp labor, at a profit, in accordance with contracts signed by German military and civilian agencies and private firms"; under the WVHA "the number of subcamps multiplied into the hundreds and even thousands."[^5] "Especially in 1943 and 1944, hundreds of subcamps were established in or near industrial plants."[^50]

**6.3** The first factory camps date from the second half of 1942: Heinkel at Oranienburg from August 1942, and Buna/Monowitz on IG Farben's plant grounds from October 1942.[^39][^51] BASF's history page: Monowitz, "under SS management", "became a model for satellite camps at major companies throughout the German Reich."[^51]

**6.4** Hachtmann's scale caveat limits the term. "Only a minority of all prisoners in Nazi concentration camps was used in industrial production, and this took place exclusively during the relatively short time span from late 1942 to mid-1944. … Most of these prisoners were used for extremely difficult and strenuous construction work… The total number of concentration camp prisoners used in the industrial work deployment even in 1944, including the construction work for underground relocation, was limited to a few hundred thousand."[^52] His note, citing Herbert, gives about 240,000 in underground relocation in late 1944 and about 230,000 in private industry, figures "almost impossible to estimate seriously".[^52]

**6.5** Herbert and Michael Thad Allen date the turn later still. Herbert: "In the first years of the war, the work deployment of concentration camp prisoners was of no importance to the war economy"; its economic function "remained subordinate to the political goals of camp imprisonment until well into the war years"; only "By the beginning of 1944" did interest turn "increasingly to … the SS and the concentration camps under it."[^53] Allen: "The first tentative orders for slave labor, involving no more than a few thousand prisoners, began in 1941 when labor was desperately scarce. A network of satellite camps did not spread throughout the German war economy until 1944, after which scarcely any German factory of importance had not applied for concentration camp prisoners. This process was halting and slow, for even after the German transition to total war, the SS constantly tried to keep its prisoners to itself."[^54]

**6.6** Campification, at the strength these figures carry, is the attachment of the camp to the plant as an administrative unit: a subcamp in or near the factory, supplied with prisoners by a main camp, run by the SS, and contracted to a firm.[^50][^5] Its form was set in the second half of 1942. Its network spread in 1944, when by Allen's account nearly every important factory applied for prisoners.[^54] Its industrial use lasted from late 1942 to mid-1944 and engaged a minority of camp prisoners, most of them on construction.[^52] Camp prisoners were a small part of the foreign labor force: about 700,000 against about six million civilians and 2.2 million prisoners of war at the peak.[^6] The term names a form and its spread. The numbers set its weight.

**6.7** At Auschwitz the camp was a reason for the site. The tribunal in the IG Farben case: "A number of considerations entered into the selection of Auschwitz: they included an ideal topographical location which was not vulnerable to air attacks from the west, the proximity to important raw materials, an abundant supply of coal und water, and the availability of labor. The labor situation embraced two factors: the comparatively dense population of the area and the nearby concentration camp Auschwitz, from which forced labor could he obtained. The evidence is sharply conflicting as to the importance of the concentration camp in deciding upon the location of the plant. We are satisfied after a thorough consideration of the evidence, that while the camp may not have been the determining factor in selecting the location, it was an important one and, from the beginning, it was planned to use concentration-camp labor to supplement the supply of workers."[^55] On the mines: "As an adjunct of Auschwitz, the controlling interest in the Fuerstengrube and Janina mines was acquired under circumstances that impute knowledge of the fact that they could not be operated successfully by voluntary labor."[^56] BASF: in 1941 "board member Otto Ambros selected the site for the fourth Buna plant near the Auschwitz concentration camp. He advocated for the use of inmates from the nearby camp."[^51]

**6.8** Volkswagen shows the line and the camp in one plant. Hachtmann's model plant on the River Rouge pattern became a subcamp of Neuengamme; the Fallersleben complex held four concentration camps and eight forced-labor camps, and forced laborers eventually made up about 60 percent of its workforce.[^20][^57] In 1944 an engineer selected 300 skilled metalworkers from transports of Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz for the plant.[^57]

## 7. Labor as replenishable flow: the owned asset and the allocated day

**7.1** The first half's noun was an owned asset. Marx: "The slave-owner buys his labourer as he buys his horse. If he loses his slave, he loses capital that can only be restored by new outlay in the slave-mart."[^58] Cairnes's maxim, which Marx quotes, sets the exception: in slave-importing countries "the most effective economy is that which takes out of the human chattel in the shortest space of time the utmost amount of exertion it is capable of putting forth."[^58] The first half drew the rule from both: the span over which the noun was measured was set by the replacement market.[^59] Where replacement was dear the owner's horizon was the life; where it was cheap the horizon shrank toward the years it took to use a person up.

**7.2** Hachtmann sets camp labor outside the slave form on exactly this ground. "The term 'slave labour' in this context has been largely avoided in the present article. … the concept can at best be used metaphorically. … Perhaps the most significant [objection] is the fact that these prisoners did not possess the status of 'slaves' in the classical sense, since slave owners usually had (and have) an interest in maintaining the labour power of the people under their control. Even from 1942–1943 onward, when the attempt was made to use the labour power of prisoners productively for the German war economy, the SS had such an interest only to a limited degree at best. … this article uses the less loaded terms 'unfree labour' and 'forced labour'."[^60] He judges the difference between private and state ownership "less significant".[^60] Benjamin Ferencz titled his study of Jewish forced labor *Less Than Slaves* (1979).[^61]

**7.3** USHMM states the supply relation: "The incarceration of increasing numbers of people in the concentration camps assured the quantity of the labor supply even as the brutality of life inside the camps depleted the number of available laborers. The SS used gas chambers and other means to 'weed out' prisoners who were no longer able to work."[^62] Central SS authorities urged commandants to keep prisoners alive; "few of the commandants took these instructions seriously."[^62] In 1944 the prisoners "were becoming a more precious commodity", yet "for the SS, the prisoners remained 'the enemy behind the wire.'"[^30]

**7.4** Monowitz records the circuit in numbers. "In November 1942 there were more than 2,000 prisoners in the camp, and a month later nearly 4,000. As a result of two selections conducted in early 1943 and the high mortality rate, in February the number of inmates fell below 2,000. To prevent such a sharp reduction in the number of prisoners available for labour to build the plant, I.G. Farben intervened at the highest SS levels to obtain additional prisoners."[^63] A survivor's testimony on the same page: "The weak and sick were sent to the camp hospital, where every two or three weeks the camp doctor carried out selections and those in worse physical condition were sent to KZ Auschwitz II – Birkenau, where most underwent re-selection and ended up in the gas chambers."[^63]

**7.5** Fürstengrube records the rotation. IG Farben acquired the mine in February 1941 "to supply hard coal for the IG Farben factory being built in Auschwitz"; by July 1944 it held about 1,200 prisoners, "85 to 90 percent of whom were Jews".[^64] "SS doctors conducted periodic selections there and among the other prisoners as well; prisoners who were no longer able to work were moved to the Birkenau hospital sector (BIIf). The rotation of prisoners was significant, as new prisoners replaced those who had been selected. For example, from May 8 to 14, 1944, as many as 42 Fürstengrube prisoners entered the hospital sector of Birkenau."[^64] The Fürstengrube page records transfer to the hospital sector and replacement. What followed transfer at Birkenau is recorded in the Monowitz testimony and in USHMM's account of the gas chambers.[^63][^62]

**7.6** The dead. BASF: "About 25,000 people died in connection with the IG Farben plant at Auschwitz-Monowitz. The vast majority were Jewish concentration camp inmates. They perished due to inhumane living and working conditions on the construction site, in the infirmary, or during selections for the gas chamber."[^51] Spoerer: of about 35,000 prisoners who passed through IG Farben's Monowitz, 23,000 to 30,000 died.[^6]

**7.7** In the first half's grammar this is a third relation to the person. The planter owned the noun and carried it on the books; by the 1840s planters depreciated their people, marking them to market.[^65] The free worker sold the verb for an interval and owned the noun. The camp prisoner was held by the state through confinement, and the firm paid the Treasury a daily fee for the prisoner's working day.[^42] The first half's ICPSR file of slave hires recorded the sale of a person's working time by the person's owner.[^66] The daily fee had the form of hire, paid to a holder that held the body by confinement and did not bear the chattel owner's capital loss in the person as owned property at its death.

**7.8** The replacement market of Cairnes's maxim was conquest and deportation. The prisoner's death did not appear on the firm's balance sheet as destruction of an owned human capital asset; it registered as lost output, replacement and delay. When selections and mortality cut the Monowitz workforce in half, the firm applied to the SS for more prisoners.[^63] When prisoners were selected at Fürstengrube, "new prisoners replaced those who had been selected".[^64] The economic object at these sites was a flow: an allocation of persons per day, drawn from a captured population, reduced by death and refilled by transport. Spoerer's image for the moment of allocation is industry's representatives selecting prisoners as at "antique or medieval slave markets".[^6] The analogy holds for the selection. For the asset it fails, since nobody bought the person.

**7.9** The span over which capacity was measured contracted again. The plantation measured a life and graded the day in fractions of a hand; Ford measured an operation in minutes.[^67] At Monowitz the administrative horizon could contract to the interval between selections: "every two or three weeks".[^63] That interval was a horizon of reassessment, a quantity of a different kind from Ford's minutes. Productive capacity was repeatedly reread, and the reading could decide whether the prisoner remained in the labor pool.

## 8. The switch

**8.1** The grammar of the two halves. Slavery priced the noun. Fordism specified the verb. War Fordism kept the specified verb and made the noun a switch: racial-juridical classification selected the coercive regime under which the verb was extracted.

**8.2** The switch had documented positions. For German workers, the top of Herbert's four-tiered wage system and the foreman's post.[^31][^45] For Poles and Ostarbeiter, Spoerer's "apartheid", residence camps "strictly segregated from the German population".[^6][^30] For camp prisoners, a daily fee paid to the Treasury and the selection.[^42][^62] For Jews, USHMM: "the ability to work offered the chance of survival to Jews, for those deemed unable to work were the first to be shot or deported."[^30]

**8.3** The switch read the verb to set the fate of the noun. Pohl's criterion was "all prisoners who are fit for work".[^49] Fitness was a reading of capacity, the verb's measure. The same general act, reading productive capacity, had radically different consequences depending on juridical-racial status. At Auschwitz a low reading could begin removal from the labor pool: transfer to the hospital sector, and the selection beyond it.[^64][^63]

**8.4** The switch outlived the regime as a set of legal categories. At Nuremberg labor in the camps was characterized as "slave work" by "slave workers", and labor by deported foreign civilians as forced labor.[^68] The EVZ Foundation paid more than 1.66 million former forced laborers in 98 countries a total of €4.4 billion between 2001 and 2007.[^8] The one-off payments ran from €2,500 to €7,500.[^69] The grading of the sums by category, and its match to the Nuremberg distinction, is to be verified.

**8.5** The noun becomes a switch. The industrial operation stayed divisible, measurable and standardized. The person who performed it was assigned a class, and the class set the permissible range of compulsion, deprivation and violence. Within that range measured capacity, firm, workplace, sex, date and local administration also mattered, as Hachtmann's aptitude tests show (§5).

## 9. Extermination is not reducible to optimization

**9.1** The regime destroyed labor it needed. The more than two million Soviet prisoners of war permitted to die in the autumn and winter of 1941–42 were destroyed before the decision to deploy Soviet prisoners as workers.[^30] Spoerer: of 3.35 million Soviet prisoners taken in the first months of the campaign, about two million starved.[^6]

**9.2** For the Jews, labor deferred death and set no limit to it. Browning on the ghettos: the "productionists" wanted ghettoized Jews to work and sustain themselves, the "attritionists" saw the ghettos as a means of liquidation; when the productionists gained room, the ideological goal was "never superseded, just temporarily deferred". After the decision for the Final Solution the destruction of Warsaw began in July 1942 regardless of productivity.[^11]

**9.3** Peter Hayes names the contradiction as a structural inefficiency. The regime was "constantly caught in contradictions that produced inefficiencies, encapsulated in this instance by the mutually negating desires to extract value from foreigners but to keep them separate from and unequal to the German population." "If—as Michael Allen has shown so well—that problem never really troubled the SS, which remained dedicated to destruction as its overriding priority, it did trouble the private industrial enterprises".[^70] Hayes: "Deprivation and death were omnipresent in the Nazi forced labor system, but they were not equally distributed."[^71]

**9.4** Forced labor did not always pay. Hayes: "in many cases, as Rolf Keller's paper shows, forced labor did not even pay for itself. In 1941 the managers of Philipp Holzmann (which was building the Kongresshalle in Nuremberg) calculated that employing POWs on stonepiling actually cost them more than using free German workers to move the same quantities." And: "Bernd Wagner, the most recent and thorough student of the building of IG Farben's Monowitz factory near Auschwitz, has concluded that the huge slave labor force there managed to perform only about 15 percent of the construction work on the site, which probably could have been completed without them."[^72] Hayes qualifies his cases: "These are not necessarily representative cases, but they point to something important: involvement in the slave labor system frequently had political and social causes rather than exclusively economic ones."[^72]

**9.5** Hayes's political cause is political value. "For IG Farben at Auschwitz and for Degussa at its carbon black factory in nearby Gleiwitz, for example, the chief inducement to accept forced laborers was their political value in the context of the unavailability of other workers. Engaging forced labor functioned as proof that each firm was doing its utmost to achieve the production goals established by the regime, and thus that each was worthy of retaining its monopoly on manufacturing specific commodities essential to the war effort."[^72] Firms "accepted and exploited the terms of the forced labor system even when these made little economic sense".[^72] Hachtmann's point is a different one, political access: the firms with "the best access to key military and state authorities" could "push through the allocation" of camp labor.[^40] Value explains why a firm took prisoners; access explains which firms got them.

**9.6** Sofsky's position, as Hachtmann renders it: prisoner labor aimed at "damaging the people, breaking their resistance"; the WVHA's "limited economization … beginning in 1942 did not fundamentally change this"; "An abolition of terrorist practices … did not subsequently emerge."[^18] Hachtmann holds Sofsky's view exaggerated and keeps his "independent spiral of violence".[^18]

**9.7** The two logics, racial extermination and industrial exploitation, sometimes reinforced each other and sometimes destroyed each other's objects. They reinforced each other in the circuit of §7: selection removed the exhausted, transport supplied replacements, and killing and allocation ran through one administration.[^62][^64] They destroyed each other's objects when two selections and the death rate halved Monowitz's workforce between December 1942 and February 1943 and the firm had to apply for more prisoners, and when the ghettos' workers were murdered whatever their output.[^63][^11] The tension belongs to the system's structure. Hayes's "mutually negating desires" is its name in the field.[^70]

**9.8** The Holocaust remains larger than this labor history. It was the murder of six million European Jews.[^9] The field finds its causes in Nazi anti-Jewish policy and gives it no colonial or economic cause.[^10] Labor deferred the murder for some of the people who were put to work, and only for a time.[^11] The labor history in this paper describes an industrial form that the killing passed through at certain sites: on Hachtmann's chronology, industrial deployment of camp prisoners from late 1942 to mid-1944, and in the war's final months construction for the relocation of industry underground.[^52] It does not explain why the killing was done.

## 10. Concentration as colonial repertoire

**10.1** The camp has a colonial history before Nazism. Alan Kramer: "Concentration camps emerged in the violent imperial response to colonial liberation movements around the turn of the twentieth century: in Cuba (1895–8), the Philippines (1899–1902), South Africa (1899–1902), and German South West Africa (1904–7). The imperial powers drew on their own experience of counter-insurgency warfare as well as transnational knowledge transfer. Concentration camps became a byword for misery and mass death. Yet it is problematic to see the colonial camps as antecedents in a genealogical line at the end of which stand the Nazi death camps."[^73] His alternative: "imperial wars and the drift towards 'total war' formed a common archive which inspired the architects of the concentration camps."[^73] In the book's account, "In the aftermath of total war and revolution, 1911 to 1923, one authoritarian state after another reimported colonial counter-insurgency practices", and "the great majority of them were not sites of genocide".[^74]

**10.2** In German South West Africa the camps put captives to work. Mohamed Adhikari, after Casper Erichsen: "Survivors were herded together into completely inadequate accommodation"; "it is estimated that over half of all prisoners-of-war died in captivity." "Captives had to endure forced labour, rampant disease, deliberate neglect"; "Prison labour was used mainly for dangerous and back-breaking work on infrastructural projects around the town." Shark Island was a camp where "it was the intention of the colonial administration and the army that a large proportion of prisoners die".[^16]

**10.3** The continuity claim and its critics are both on record. Zimmerer's chapter, as Adhikari reports it, points "especially to continuities with the horrors perpetrated by the Nazi regime four decades later"; "From Windhoek to Auschwitz" is his phrase.[^16] Eckert's closing chapter denies a "direct path".[^16] Adhikari: "Clearly an explanation of Nazi violence cannot simply be reduced to colonial influences."[^16] Gerwarth and Malinowski hold that the Nazi war of annihilation broke with colonial traditions.[^15]

**10.4** This paper takes Kramer's word. The repertoire of concentration, forced labor by captives, racial classification and settler clearance stood in a common archive from about 1900.[^73] The Nazi state drew on that archive in the East. No line of descent from Windhoek to the Nazi camps is claimed here. The joining of the camp to the assembly line belongs to 1942–44 and to German industry.[^39][^52]

## 11. Conquest metabolized at the core: continental imperialism

**11.1** Arendt distinguished two imperialisms by their distance from home. Of the overseas kind, the nation-states advised against "the introduction of 'administrative massacres' (A. Carthill) that might well have broken the nonviolent rebellion in India, and against a continuation of the 'government of subject races' (Lord Cromer) because of the much-feared boomerang effect upon the mother countries."[^75] "The so-called hypocrisy of British policies was the result of the good sense of English statesmen who drew a sharp line between colonial methods and normal domestic policies, thereby avoiding with considerable success the feared boomerang effect of imperialism upon the homeland. In other countries, particularly in Germany and Austria, the alliance took effect at home in the form of pan-movements … The aim of these 'movements' was, so to speak, to imperialize the whole nation".[^76]

**11.2** Of the continental kind: "The chief importance of continental, as distinguished from overseas, imperialism lies in the fact that its concept of cohesive expansion does not allow for any geographic distance between the methods and institutions of colony and of nation, so that it did not require boomerang effects in order to make itself and all its consequences felt in Europe. Continental imperialism truly begins at home."[^77] The chapter opens: "Nazism and Bolshevism owe more to Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism (respectively) than to any other ideology or political movement."[^77]

**11.3** Césaire made the charge from the colonized side. What the bourgeois of the twentieth century "cannot forgive Hitler for is not crime in itself, the crime against man, it is not the humiliation of man as such, it is the crime against the white man, the humiliation of the white man, and the fact that he applied to Europe colonialist procedures which until then had been reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the coolies of India, and the blacks of Africa." "It is this result, this boomerang effect of colonization that I wanted to point out."[^78] Foucault, in a lecture of 4 February 1976, is quoted as saying that colonization "had a considerable boomerang effect on the mechanisms of power in the West".[^79] Patricia Owens credits Arendt as perhaps "the first to articulate what today we call 'blowback' and she termed the 'boomerang effect'."[^80]

**11.4** Arendt's continental imperialism is the frame this paper needs, and the boomerang is the case it sets aside. The boomerang returns colonial methods from a distant colony to the metropole. Continental imperialism, in Arendt's words, "does not allow for any geographic distance between the methods and institutions of colony and of nation".[^77] Nelson's inner colonization supplies a settlement history of the same problem of geographic contiguity: the frontier "always within the empire's borders".[^26] The war economy gave the contiguity a physical form. The conquered population was carried into the core: Soviet civilians in residence camps segregated from Germans; eastern laborers on the line under German foremen; camp prisoners in a subcamp on the plant grounds.[^30][^45][^51] Herbert reads the forced-labor program as the preview of a continent ordered by race.[^34] The colony entered the factory. Conquest was metabolized at the industrial core.

**11.5** Arendt does not carry her own frame into the labor relation. She judged the camps economically irrelevant.[^81] Her claim concerns ideology and movement. This paper extends it to labor on the evidence of Herbert, Hachtmann and USHMM, and stops where §9 stops.

## 12. What the argument claims and does not claim

Slavery capitalized the person and measured capacity. Fordism narrowed the legal claim to labor-time while refining the measurement of activity. Nazi war Fordism joined that refined measure of activity to a state ontology that assigned populations different ranges of coercion. Conquest supplied the populations through which that differentiated labor order could be industrially instantiated. Industrial modernity kept radically unfree labor and learned to compose standardized production with graded human status.

The argument claims that Germany was an advanced industrial power for which labor became a binding wartime constraint, and that Lebensraum, a land program on the American and British imperial model, was turned in practice into a labor supply; that the East was conceived as a continental colony, through an institution of inner colonization older than Nazism; that conquest became labor policy, bringing millions of deported civilians and prisoners of war into Reich industry; that war Fordism, dated by Hachtmann from 1933, decomposed work horizontally while the racial state decomposed persons vertically, with wage tier, ration and segregation following classification; that Hachtmann's aptitude tests show the instruments of the verb crossing the racial grade, which the regime overrode; that the camp was attached to the factory from the second half of 1942, as a form whose industrial use engaged a minority of camp prisoners between late 1942 and mid-1944 and whose network spread in 1944; that at the factory camps the prisoner's working day was allocated and replaced as a flow, a third relation beside the owned noun and the hired verb of the first half; and that racial-juridical classification acted as a switch selecting the coercive regime under which the industrial verb was extracted. It does not claim that the camps were founded as labor institutions, that camp labor was a large share of the war economy's workforce, that forced labor was generally profitable, that the Nazi camps descend from the colonial camps of 1900, or that the Holocaust has an economic or colonial cause. Extermination and exploitation sometimes reinforced each other and sometimes destroyed each other's objects. The murder of the Jews of Europe is larger than the labor history told here.

---

## Open verification items (stated at deposit)

Items below were either kept out of the prose or are used with the status stated in their notes.

1. Hachtmann, IRSH 2010: page numbers for every quotation (read from the Cambridge Core HTML, which gives no page breaks); the translator, unnamed on the page; Roth's 1991 essay (p. 90) and Sofsky, *Ordnung des Terrors*, pp. 193–225, to be read for their own wording.
2. Herbert, ILWCH 58 (2000): the page breaks of the FES PDF (printed pp. 192–218) were not all checked; pp. 199–200 as cited.
3. USHMM: no page revision dates were visible. "Generalplan Ost" by name was not seen in the Lebensraum article; the plan is cited from Nelson, ch. 8.
4. Tooze, *The Wages of Destruction*: quoted only through Gordon's review (pp. 166, 462); Tooze's own pages on the United States and the *Zweites Buch* unread. James Buchan's characterization ("a figment of Hitler's fears and imagination") is left out.
5. Beckert, AHR 2017: only the abstract was read. The draft's triad of "gigantic economic space, resource abundance and infrastructural integration", and any specifically German observers, are left out.
6. Scherner, IHR 2024: the drafts' figure that synthetic fuel took "roughly ten times as much labour" as American petroleum for equal output is unverified (paywalled) and left out of the prose.
7. *Table Talk*: all lines from the Trevor-Roper English (Enigma 2000 text) and to be collated with Jochmann (1980) and Picker; Evans's "The Russian space is our India" to be traced to Mazower's translation and page. "The Volga will be our Mississippi" was not found in the English edition and is dropped.
8. Nelson, ch. 8: the year of Meyer's *Raumenge* statement (Nelson's footnote not fully visible); Nelson (ed.), *Germans, Poland, and Colonial Expansion to the East* (2009), unchecked.
9. Spoerer: figures from the 2008 Norbert Wollheim Memorial text; the 2001 monograph unread; the split of his 13.5 million into civilians, prisoners of war and camp prisoners left out.
10. The "around 35,000" Monowitz figure is attributed to Spoerer 2008 (with 23,000–30,000 deaths). It is not on the BASF page, which gives "about 25,000" deaths. The Auschwitz Museum and Hilberg (vol. 2, p. 994f) figures, reported through Wikipedia, are left out.
11. Monowitz (subcamps-auschwitz.org): the testimony's author and date; the drafts' "fear of being declared unfit" was not found on the page and is dropped.
12. IG Farben judgment: quoted from the Mazal transcription of *Trials of War Criminals* VIII, pp. 1180 and 1187 ("und", "he" are transcription errors); to be collated with the printed volume. "Rail infrastructure" is not among the tribunal's factors and is dropped.
13. Hayes 2004: note 5 cites Pohl and Siekmann, *HOCHTIEF*, p. 182, while the text names Philipp Holzmann; Wagner, *IG Auschwitz* (2000), p. 290, to be read for the 15 percent finding.
14. Allen, *The Business of Genocide* (2002): book unread; his argument is cited from his 2004 symposium essay.
15. Wachsmann, *KL* (2015): contents only; his account of the 1942 turn unread and unused.
16. Volkswagen figures (60 percent; four concentration and eight forced-labor camps; 300 Hungarian Jewish metalworkers) rest on the Jewish Virtual Library; to be checked against Mommsen and Grieger (1996).
17. "Vernichtung durch Arbeit": origin and the Kaienburg, Kárný, Pingel and Wagner positions are cited through Wikipedia (citing Buggeln 2014); Nuremberg document 654-PS and the Goebbels–Thierack exchange of 14 September 1942 not read.
18. Browning: quoted through Lerchenmueller's H-Genocide review; *Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers*, p. 59, to be read.
19. Streit's Soviet POW figures, Kleinschmidt's sector shares, the Nuremberg slave/forced vocabulary (Gellately and Stoltzfus, p. 216) and the EVZ payment range (Reuters 2007): all through Wikipedia. Whether the EVZ sums were graded by the slave/forced distinction is an inference of the research notes, unverified.
20. Gerwarth and Malinowski, "Hannah Arendt's Ghosts": volume and pages (commonly *CEH* 42:2, 2009, 279–300) unconfirmed; the 2007 *GG* article cited from its abstract.
21. Kramer (OUP 2025): abstracts only. Adhikari (*Kronos* 2008): a review essay; Erichsen, Zimmerer and Eckert to be read directly, and the volumes holding the Zimmerer and Eckert chapters identified. Post-1907 labor ordinances in South West Africa left out.
22. Arendt, *Origins* (Harcourt 1973): page numbers from OCR running heads (xvii, 155, 223); her judgment that the camps were economically irrelevant is cited through Wikipedia and to be located in the text. The South Africa disclaimer (p. 206 context) is left out.
23. Césaire: printed page in the Monthly Review edition (commonly p. 14 in 1972; p. 36 in 2000); the transcription's "-3-" is not the MR page.
24. Foucault, *Society Must Be Defended*, lecture of 4 February 1976: quoted through secondary sources; Macey translation page (commonly 103) unverified.
25. Pohl to Himmler, 30 April 1942: GHDI English, from *Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression* VIII; Nuremberg document number not seen.
26. Evans on Baranowski (LRB 2011) and on Mazower (LRB 2008): to be checked against the issues.

## Where the archive's deposits connect

- **#499**, Rex Fraction, *Autonomous Semantic Warfare: A Field Manual*, Ch. 4, "Semantic Labor Camp" (Σ_Captured): "producing meaning under conditions of axiomatic subordination, with exit costs that function as structural coercion". It records that critics called the term "inflammatory". Its companion term **Semantic Empire** (Σ_Empire), "one ontology attempts to dominate all others … pursuing assimilation or elimination", takes its examples from medieval Christianity, Enlightenment rationalism, Fukuyama and Soviet Marxism. This section supplies the historical camp to which the term's name refers, and the case of an empire that classified populations before it set them to work (§§5, 8).
- **#923**, *Reflexive Foreclosure and the Worst-Case Surface*, §5, "temporal sequestration": a category "remains available for retrospective analysis but is inhibited when its criteria are applied to institutions operating in the present tense". This section is retrospective analysis of the kind the deposit says remains available. Its §6 criteria for campification (subcamp, supplier camp, contract, daily allocation) are stated so that they can be applied.
- **#950**, *Operative Semiotics: A Grundrisse*, §4b.8, "The Operator and Evil": "The concentration camp began with a naming: this population is distinct, this distinction is load-bearing, this name carries the weight of state policy"; σ_V can reduce a person to "a unit of labor-power in a system that consumes the unit and discards the person." §8 here gives the naming its historical operation: the classification as switch, reading the verb to set the fate of the noun.
- **#148**, *Semantic Technique and Collective Ownership*, §2.3, "The Industrial-Machinery Parallel": factory owners recognized in craft machines "a capturable procedural substrate". The first half supplied the enslaved source the parallel omits. This half supplies its war form: the Fordist procedure staffed by conquered populations (§4).
- **#1545**, *The Semantic Proletariat Is a Class Relation, Not a Demographic*, §4: the capture chain ending in "fixed semantic capital ... with provenance increasingly erased across refinement". §7 here is a case where the laborer was carried on no books at all: the allocated day, the prisoner replaced by transport.

## Notes

[^1]: Lee Sharks, "The Noun Becomes a Verb: Slave Valuation, the Civil War, and the Transformation of the Laboring Body," working draft, 7 October 2026, opening and §5.16–5.17.

[^2]: Adam Tooze, *The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy* (London: Allen Lane, 2006), 166 and 462, as quoted in Robert J. Gordon, review, *Journal of Economic History* 69, no. 1 (March 2009): 312–316, https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northwestern.edu/dist/6/5500/files/2021/04/Tooze.pdf. Tooze's book not read directly; see "To verify before deposit".

[^3]: USHMM, Holocaust Encyclopedia, "Lebensraum," https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/lebensraum. The quoted planning sentence there reads: "many tens of millions of people in this territory will become superfluous and will have to die or migrate to Siberia".

[^4]: USHMM, Holocaust Encyclopedia, "Nazi Camp System," https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-camp-system.

[^5]: USHMM, Holocaust Encyclopedia, "SS and the Camp System," https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/ss-and-the-camp-system.

[^6]: Mark Spoerer, *Zwangsarbeit im Dritten Reich* (Frankfurt am Main: Norbert Wollheim Memorial / Goethe-Universität / Fritz Bauer Institut, 2008), https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/53957/1/pdf_Mark_Spoerer_Zwangsarbeit_im_Dritten_Reich.pdf. The full estimate is in Spoerer, *Zwangsarbeit unter dem Hakenkreuz* (2001), not read.

[^7]: Ulrich Herbert, "Forced Laborers in the Third Reich: An Overview," *International Labor and Working-Class History* 58 (Fall 2000): 192–218, abstract, 192, https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/14895169.pdf.

[^8]: Stiftung Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft (EVZ), "Ten facts," https://www.stiftung-evz.de/en/who-we-are/foundation/ten-facts/.

[^9]: USHMM, Holocaust Encyclopedia, "Introduction to the Holocaust," https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust.

[^10]: Robert Gerwarth and Stephan Malinowski, "Hannah Arendt's Ghosts: Reflections on the Disputable Path from Windhoek to Auschwitz," *Central European History* (published online 15 May 2009), https://core-cms.cambridgecore.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/hannah-arendts-ghosts-reflections-on-the-disputable-path-from-windhoek-to-auschwitz/A32FF8D3C3F0741055EC861BDBAB73A6. Volume and pages unconfirmed; the argument is summarized from the visible text.

[^11]: Christopher R. Browning, *Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 59, as reported in Joachim Lerchenmueller's review, H-Genocide, April 2002, https://phdn.org/archives/www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewstr47.htm.

[^12]: "Extermination through labour," *Wikipedia*, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_through_labour, citing Marc Buggeln, *Slave Labor in Nazi Concentration Camps* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), and, for Wagner, his work of 2009. Secondary; see "To verify before deposit".

[^13]: Richard J. Evans, "The Scramble for Europe," *London Review of Books* 33, no. 3 (2011), https://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n03/richard-j-evans/the-scramble-for-europe, reviewing Shelley Baranowski, *Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

[^14]: Jürgen Zimmerer, *From Windhoek to Auschwitz? Reflections on the Relationship between Colonialism and National Socialism* (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2024), doi:10.1515/9783110754513, abstract, OAPEN, https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/87809.

[^15]: Robert Gerwarth and Stephan Malinowski, "Der Holocaust als 'kolonialer Genozid'? Europäische Kolonialgewalt und nationalsozialistischer Vernichtungskrieg," *Geschichte und Gesellschaft* 33 (2007): 439–466, abstract, https://zeitgeschichte-digital.de/doks/frontdoor/index/index/year/2014/docId/175.

[^16]: Mohamed Adhikari, "'Streams of blood and streams of money': new perspectives on the annihilation of the Herero and Nama peoples of Namibia, 1904–1908," *Kronos* 34, no. 1 (November 2008): 303–320, review essay on Jeremy Silvester and Jan-Bart Gewald, eds., *Words Cannot Be Found* (2003); Casper Erichsen, *"The Angel of Death Has Descended Violently Among Them"* (2005); and Jürgen Zimmerer and Joachim Zeller, eds., *Genocide in German South-West Africa* (2008), https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0259-01902008000100014&script=sci_arttext.

[^17]: Rüdiger Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour: Aspects of the Work Deployment of Concentration Camp Prisoners in German Industry between 1941 and 1944," *International Review of Social History* 55, no. 3 (December 2010): 485–513, doi:10.1017/S0020859010000416, Cambridge Core, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-review-of-social-history/article/fordism-and-unfree-labour-aspects-of-the-work-deployment-of-concentration-camp-prisoners-in-german-industry-between-1941-and-1944/ADBD6F297CB4177DB9D6F533CBDA4759. Quotations are from the HTML text, which gives no internal page numbers; the translator is not named.

[^18]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," quoting Karl-Heinz Roth, "I.G. Auschwitz. Normalität oder Anormalität eines kapitalistischen Entwicklungssprungs?" (1991), 90 (Hachtmann's n. 28), and Wolfgang Sofsky, *Die Ordnung des Terrors* (1993), 193–225 (Hachtmann's n. 29). Roth and Sofsky are quoted in Hachtmann's English.

[^19]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," on the term "war Fordism."

[^20]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," on the skilled-labour shortage of 1934–35 and the new plants, with Volkswagen at Fallersleben, built on the model of River Rouge, as his example.

[^21]: Sven Beckert, "American Danger: United States Empire, Eurafrica, and the Territorialization of Industrial Capitalism, 1870–1950," *American Historical Review* 122, no. 4 (October 2017): 1137–1170, doi:10.1093/ahr/122.4.1137, abstract.

[^22]: Gordon, review of Tooze, *Journal of Economic History* 69, no. 1 (2009): 312–316. The sentences quoted are Gordon's own.

[^23]: *Hitler's Table Talk, 1941–1944*, trans. Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, intro. H. R. Trevor-Roper (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1953; New York: Enigma Books, 2000), entries of 2 August 1941 (evening), 17–18 September 1941 and 17 October 1941 (evening), archive.org text, https://archive.org/download/HitlerTableTalk/Hitler%20TableTalk_djvu.txt. The "Redskins" line is also quoted by USHMM, "Lebensraum."

[^24]: "Hitler's Table Talk," *Wikipedia*, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_Talk, reporting Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw on the need to collate the English with the German editions (Jochmann 1980; Picker), Richard Carrier (2003) on the passages translated from François Genoud's French, and Mikael Nilsson, *Hitler Redux* (2020).

[^25]: Richard J. Evans, "Let's learn from the English," *London Review of Books* 30, no. 18 (25 September 2008), https://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n18/richard-j-evans/lets-learn-from-the-english, reviewing Mark Mazower, *Hitler's Empire* (London: Allen Lane, 2008).

[^26]: Robert L. Nelson, *Frontiers of Empire: Max Sering, Inner Colonization, and the German East, 1871–1945* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024), ch. 1, "Settler Colonialism and How to Tell a Story," 1–15, doi:10.1017/9781009235402.001, open access, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/frontiers-of-empire/settler-colonialism-and-how-to-tell-a-story/71902D86CF12A262AD1C1619528176B7.

[^27]: Nelson, *Frontiers of Empire*, ch. 8, "The Legacy of Max Sering and Inner Colonization: The Second World War and Its Aftermath," 254–274, doi:10.1017/9781009235402.008, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/frontiers-of-empire/legacy-of-max-sering-and-inner-colonization/92BCDD16D3F6D616EAF834066B44D841. The *Raumenge* sentence is Meyer's, quoted by Nelson.

[^28]: Willeke Sandler, *Empire in the Heimat: Colonialism and Public Culture in the Third Reich* (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), chapter "Africa or the East? Colonialists during the Second World War, 1939–1943," doi:10.1093/oso/9780190697907.003.0009, abstract.

[^29]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," on "war Fordism" and "war Taylorism" as categories.

[^30]: USHMM, Holocaust Encyclopedia, "Forced Labor: In Depth," https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/forced-labor-in-depth.

[^31]: Herbert, "Forced Laborers in the Third Reich," 199.

[^32]: "Forced labour under German rule during World War II," *Wikipedia*, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II, citing Christoph Kleinschmidt. Secondary.

[^33]: "Forced labour under German rule during World War II," *Wikipedia*, citing Christian Streit, *Keine Kameraden*. Secondary; the share given there is 57.5 percent.

[^34]: Herbert, "Forced Laborers in the Third Reich," 199–200.

[^35]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," abstract. The German abstract has "Herrschaftstechnologie," "Ausbeutungsinnovation" and "Kriegsfordismus."

[^36]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," on Jürgen Bönig (Hachtmann's n. 18), followed by his quotation of Otto Bauer (1931).

[^37]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour." His section titles include "Assembly-Line Production As An Exploitation Innovation."

[^38]: Sharks, "The Noun Becomes a Verb," §§5.9 and 5.13, quoting Henry Ford, *My Life and Work* (1922), ch. V.

[^39]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," on the aircraft industry. "Messerschmidt" is the article's spelling.

[^40]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," following his list of branches. The point is Hachtmann's; the drafts had given it to Hayes.

[^41]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," on Auto Union, October 1943. "such as system" is the article's text.

[^42]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," on prisoner fees.

[^43]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," concluding sections, on Milch's "Ultra" plan, Opel, automation, and the expectations of the regime's leaders and of industry.

[^44]: Herbert, "Forced Laborers in the Third Reich," on the Polish workers.

[^45]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," on the composition of the workforce from 1941.

[^46]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour."

[^47]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," on aptitude testing; his n. 24 grounds the testing of prisoners in the Siemens subcamp at Bobrek and Siemens sites at Ravensbrück.

[^48]: Sharks, "The Noun Becomes a Verb," §5.7, on Frederick W. Taylor, *The Principles of Scientific Management* (1911).

[^49]: Oswald Pohl, report to Heinrich Himmler, 30 April 1942, English translation from *Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression*, vol. VIII (Washington, DC: USGPO, 1946), in German History in Documents and Images (GHDI), https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-germany-1933-1945/oswald-pohl-s-report-to-heinrich-himmler-on-the-expansion-of-the-concentration-camps-april-30-1942.

[^50]: USHMM, Holocaust Encyclopedia, "Forced Labor," https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/forced-labor.

[^51]: BASF, "IG Farben," corporate history page, https://www.basf.com/global/en/who-we-are/history/IG-Farben. The page is BASF's; IG Farben i.L. existed until 2012.

[^52]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," with his n. 27, citing Herbert.

[^53]: Herbert, "Forced Laborers in the Third Reich," 200.

[^54]: Michael Thad Allen, "The Business of Genocide," in *Forced and Slave Labor in Nazi-Dominated Europe: Symposium Presentations* (Washington, DC: Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, USHMM, 2004), 9, https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Publication_OP_2004-02.pdf. His book is *The Business of Genocide: The SS, Slave Labor, and the Concentration Camps* (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002).

[^55]: *Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals*, vol. VIII, *United States v. Carl Krauch et al.* (the IG Farben case), judgment, 1180, Mazal Library transcription, https://phdn.org/archives/www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/08/NMT08-T1180.htm. "und" and "he" are errors of the transcription.

[^56]: *Trials of War Criminals*, vol. VIII, judgment, 1187, https://phdn.org/archives/www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/08/NMT08-T1187.htm. The same page finds that the evidence does "not show that the choice of the Auschwitz site and the erection of a buna and fuels plant thereon were matters of compulsion, although favored by the Reich authorities".

[^57]: "Volkswagen, Hitler and the Nazis," Jewish Virtual Library, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/volkswagen-hitler-and-the-nazis. Tertiary; the commissioned history is Hans Mommsen with Manfred Grieger, *Das Volkswagenwerk und seine Arbeiter im Dritten Reich* (Düsseldorf: Econ, 1996), not read.

[^58]: Sharks, "The Noun Becomes a Verb," §2.9, quoting Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, ch. 10, §5, and J. E. Cairnes, *The Slave Power*, 110–111 (Marx's n. 74), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm.

[^59]: Sharks, "The Noun Becomes a Verb," §2.10.

[^60]: Hachtmann, "Fordism and Unfree Labour," on terminology.

[^61]: Benjamin B. Ferencz, *Less Than Slaves: Jewish Forced Labor and the Quest for Compensation* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979).

[^62]: USHMM, Holocaust Encyclopedia, "Concentration Camps, 1942–1945," https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/concentration-camps-1942-45.

[^63]: "Konzentrationslager Auschwitz III-Monowitz," Sub Camps of Auschwitz, https://subcamps-auschwitz.org/auschwitz-subcamps/monowitz/. The testimony is quoted on that page; its author and date are to be recorded.

[^64]: USHMM, Holocaust Encyclopedia, "Auschwitz / Fürstengrube," https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/auschwitz-fuerstengrube.

[^65]: Sharks, "The Noun Becomes a Verb," §2.4, quoting Caitlin Rosenthal, "Plantations Practiced Modern Management," *Harvard Business Review*, September 2013.

[^66]: Sharks, "The Noun Becomes a Verb," §1.2, on ICPSR 7422, *Slave Hires, 1775–1865*.

[^67]: Sharks, "The Noun Becomes a Verb," §§1.16 and 5.15.

[^68]: "Extermination through labour," *Wikipedia*, citing Robert Gellately and Nathan Stoltzfus, eds., *Social Outsiders in Nazi Germany* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 216. Secondary.

[^69]: "Forced labour under German rule during World War II," *Wikipedia*, citing Erik Kirschbaum, Reuters, 2007. Secondary.

[^70]: Peter Hayes, "Forced and Slave Labor: The State of the Field," in *Forced and Slave Labor in Nazi-Dominated Europe: Symposium Presentations* (Washington, DC: Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, USHMM, 2004), 1–7, at 4, https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Publication_OP_2004-02.pdf.

[^71]: Hayes, "Forced and Slave Labor," 1.

[^72]: Hayes, "Forced and Slave Labor," 5, with nn. 5–6 (Pohl and Siekmann, *HOCHTIEF*, 182; Bernd Wagner, *IG Auschwitz* [2000], 290). The reading as "an act of allegiance to a community" follows Helmut Walser Smith.

[^73]: Alan Kramer, *Concentration Camps: A Global History* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025), ch. "From Early Modern Europe to Colonial Warfare," 15–50, doi:10.1093/9780192520906.003.0002, abstract.

[^74]: Kramer, *Concentration Camps*, book abstract, doi:10.1093/9780192520906.001.0001.

[^75]: Hannah Arendt, *The Origins of Totalitarianism*, new ed. (San Diego and New York: Harcourt Brace, 1973), preface to Part Two, c. xvii, archive.org text, https://archive.org/download/hannah-arendt-the-origins-of-totalitarianism/Hannah%20Arendt%20-%20The%20Origins%20of%20Totalitarianism_djvu.txt. Pages from OCR running heads.

[^76]: Arendt, *Origins*, ch. 5, c. 155.

[^77]: Arendt, *Origins*, ch. 8, "Continental Imperialism: the Pan-Movements," c. 222–223.

[^78]: Aimé Césaire, *Discourse on Colonialism*, trans. Joan Pinkham (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972), transcription at https://abahlali.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CesaireDiscourseonColonialism.pdf. Printed page unverified; "boomerang" translates "choc en retour".

[^79]: Michel Foucault, *Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76*, lecture of 4 February 1976, as quoted in "Imperial boomerang," *Wikipedia*, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang, through Stephen Graham, "Foucault's boomerang: the new military urbanism," openDemocracy, 14 February 2013. Secondary.

[^80]: Patricia Owens, *Between War and Politics: International Relations and the Thought of Hannah Arendt* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), ch. 4, "The Boomerang Effect: On the Imperial Origins of Total War," 52–71, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299362.003.0004, abstract.

[^81]: "Extermination through labour," *Wikipedia*, summarizing Arendt's typology of labor, concentration and annihilation camps. Secondary; the passage in *Origins* is to be located.