III.1. Savoir et se taire ? Le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge et la Shoah
As early as the end of WWII, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was condemned for its response to the Holocaust. The world’s oldest humanitarian institution was primarily criticised for its silence. The ICRC did not publicly denounce the deportation of Jewish civilians to concentrat...
Gardado en:
| Autor Principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Idioma: | Français |
| Publicado: |
2019
|
| Acceso en liña: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Résumé: | As early as the end of WWII, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was condemned for its response to the Holocaust. The world’s oldest humanitarian institution was primarily criticised for its silence. The ICRC did not publicly denounce the deportation of Jewish civilians to concentration and extermination camps. Because the organisation appeared to know what was happening in these places, its silence was all the more condemnable. Knowing and yet remaining silent was considered a sign of cowardice and passivity—and even of willing complicity with the perpetrators. A series of events, including the visit of the ICRC to the Theresienstadt Ghetto and the issuance of travel documents to war criminals, only served to underscore the criticisms against the Genovese organisation.This article seeks to examine both sides of the issue. It begins with an explanation of how the ICRC functioned during WWII and a discussion of the differences between the headquarters in Geneva and operations in the field. It then lists the criticisms, both justified and unfounded, that have been leveled against the ICRC for its silence before examining the relevance of each accusation. The article’s preliminary conclusion points to reasons as to why the term “silence” became so closely associated with the ICRC. |
|---|