Red Cross and the Shoah

"...Play Schubert for the Red Cross ,they will give you coffee and donuts...."1

Looking the Other Way

You have been five months in a concentration camp. There is not enough food to eat and you and your fellow inmates can visibly see your bones. When there is food to eat it is little more than watery soup with a bit of vegetable here and there. The suffering and fear are enormous. Daily, people are killed and sent to the gas chambers; you and everyone else there has lice and open sores, there is almost no medical care. Some around you are taken away to horrifying medical experiments without their permission. Every role call some are sent to backbreaking work in the quarries, some to the gas chambers--- no one knows if they can go on another minute longer: you are also freezing in the sub-zero temperatures with little clothing. Suddenly, you hear that the Red Cross, an impartial organization is coming to inspect the camp and conditions. Joy and hope momentarily fill the bleak existence. They come, they inspect, ask a few questions ande leave. You and your fellow inmates are hopeful: they will report the conditions, and things will improve. But nothing ever happens....more die each day, and you wonder what happened. After the war the few that survive find that the Red Cross reported no problems.

The Red Cross

was founded in the United States by Clara Barton in response to the great need she saw for benevolent intervention in wartime. By the twentieth century, the Red Cross had grown into an international organization, intervening in massive efforts and honed, efficient organization in providing immediate disaster relief, wartime relief and other beneficient intervention. In Israel, it is known as the Red Star, and in Muslim countries, it is now known as the Red Crescent, although its origins were in Christian ministry.

Over the past 60 years the role of the Red Cross has come under careful scrutiny from journalists, historians and holocaust scholars, for its controversial actions, or lack of actions in providing information or relief to those in concentration camps and ghettos such as Terezin or Auschwitz. In addition to disaster relief, the Red Cross was considered a neutral agency which could fill the role of observer mandated by the Geneva Treaty to ensure basic human rights. The preservation of these rights depends on accurate, unbiased information regarding conditions of prisons, interment camps and treatment of prisoners, including the provision of basic necessities such as food, clothing, warmth, and hygiene.

Neutrality or Moral Dilemma?

One of the difficulties in assessing the Performance of the Red Cross during the Shoah has to do with the philosophy of the Red Cross. Early in training, Red Cross workers are taught the critical perspective of impartiality: the Red Cross is present to provide relief and comfort, but in no way take a 'moral stand on what is going on, openly. The rationale for this is that in order to continue to provide international assistance in all conflicts and disasters; the Red Cross must not take sides. If they began to take sides, they might not be able to provide relief or medical/benevolent attention to those in need. Neutrality, though while it is necessary, is problematic because often in disaster and conflict, the moral nature of the situation is inherent and inescapable.

Individual attitudes of Red Cross workers, however are never within control of the general venue of the International Red Cross Organization. Most Red Cross workers in any given disaster situation are volunteers, and often come from the immediate area (in wartime, and for some larger disasters, trained workers are brought in from all over). Because of this local color, the population of local volunteers may exhibit less diversity than one would expect. Volunteers often are retirees, students, or other persons with time on their hands to do benevolent acts. In WWII, in Europe, many Red Cross workers were from the groups or nations of persons who were interring and resettling the Jews. It is unlikely that the formal organization in any way endorsed inattention openly or in worse scenarios even wreckless treatment, but given the zeitgeist of Europe and the demographics of the workers, it would be impossible to escape that in at least some instances, prejudice was shown.

Fifty Years Later

Fifty Years after the end of the War, documents began to surface indicating a less than stellar performance of the Red Cross's reporting of conditions of prisoners and inmates of German and Polish Conmcetration Camps and Prisons. 2,3,4 Due to the Geneva Convention and other treaties, the Red Cross, considered a neutral organization is allowed periodic inspections of facilities of incarceration, partly to assure safe and humane conditions, partly to assess the identity of persons interred, and partly to ensure guaranteed international civil rights. As historical accountings and documents began to surface it became clear that Red Cross Workers sent to Auschwitz and Terezin extremely under-reported conditions and human rights violations, or even deliberately overlooked them, ameliorating their reports. The reasons for this sanitizing of reports are varied:

Reasons for Adjusted Reports and Negligent Reports

  • 1. The Conditions may have been hidden from inspectors for the period of the Inspection.

  • 2. Extreme and threatening pressure by the Third Reich and other axis powers may have caused some to adjust reports.

  • 3. Reports may have been adjusted to keep open the door for future inspections: e.g. Some inspectors noting conditions, knew that to report them openly would cause world outcry, and the Nazis, not known for valuing or respecting the terms of the Geneva Convention5 might have ousted the access to the Camps to all benevolence or 'Watchdog' organizations

  • 4. Reports may have been sanitized due to the political beliefs of those inspecting: most were clearly more aligned with their Aryan counterparts than with the Jews, the Roma/Sinti, the Soviets or other targeted groups.

  • 5.Finally, some reports may actually be accurate, and not pressured, but done near the beginning of conflict, when far less human rights abuses had been committed. (Although the very fact of determent based soley upon racial inclusion was problematic enough.)