Knowledge Matters™

I’ve been corresponding lately with Wayne Thompson, who is interested in medical knowledge management in austere conditions, and contributes to the Journal of Special Operations Medicine . Wayne sent me this article titled “Germany to open Holocaust records ”. For the first time in 60 years extended family of Holocaust victims, researchers and other interested parties will be able to access Nazi records held in an archive at Bad Arolsen, Germany. Apparently there are between 30 million and 50 million records about 17 million Jews and enslaved labourers. The archives contain information about Schindler’s List, Anne Frank’s deportation and three million testimonies of survivors explaining their harrowing experience. Of course these numbers are estimates, but the sheer volume is mind-boggling. By one estimate if these records were laid end to end they would cover 25 linear kilometres . Just imagine the information management problem, let alone the knowledge management problem!

The most interesting thing about the release of these documents is that for 60 years the International Committee of the Red Cross has used these records to trace missing and dead Jews and forced labourers, but seemingly denied access to them by other agencies, Holocaust survivor families, and researchers! In fairness the activities of the International Tracing Service of the International Committee of the Red Cross has been overseen by a committee of 11 countries for the past 60 years, who were complicit in this restriction. Of note though is the German comment that the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been particularly helpful! Indeed this report says “Regrettably many families seeking critical information from the ITS receive incomplete responses sometimes years after their requests were submitted”. Why am I not surprised?

As I alluded to before the sheer volume of paper records makes this an information management challenge of the first order. Secondly, and more importantly, the closed shop approach of the Red Cross means they simply don’t have the resources. In 1994 immediately following the Rwandan genocide I witnessed first-hand the bureaucratic workings of the Red Cross. I saw the tracing service in operation at Ngara refugee camp , which at the time was the biggest refugee camp in the world. I was impressed with their work, but not impressed with their parent body in Kigali. As part of the Australian Medical Support Force we were shunned by the Red Cross because we were a military force – albeit a force providing medical support. Médecins Sans Frontières was similarly shunned because they were often collocated with military forces – in locations where they could actually provide help, and be protected. I have also experienced the frustration of being unable to donate medical supplies to the Red Cross whilst serving in Bougainville in 2000. Why? - Because the supplies were coming from a military force.

My point is the International Committee of the Red Cross is so neutral and apolitical it is political! 60 years of closed shop work, with little or no inter-agency collaboration means the Bad Arolsen archive is now mainly of value to researchers, rather than survivors. If ever there was a justification for collaboration and openness this was it, but it should have occurred years ago, when survivors could have sought reparation. My worry is we will learn nothing from this example. Genocide knowledge management, with the goal of reuniting families and prosecuting war criminals requires collaboration and openness. Inter-agency and cross organisation collaboration matters!

Regards, Graham