The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Maria Raabe, spokeswoman for the archive, said: "The Bonn agreements state clearly that the archives should not be opened to historical researchers. There are a large number of documents dealing with sensitive issues such as disease, homosexuality or rape." She said the committee would meet in mid-May at the earliest to reach a decision.
My initial reaction to your article, was Woah, I didn;t know that existed, why did I not know this. All the holocaust deniers would have a much tougher time to do their business, with an archive detailing individuals.
Having read the spoleswomans comment I can understand one of the reasons why it has not been made more public.
I am not familiar enough with the policies of the Birtler Behoerde (which hosts all the Stasi documents). but I assume (based on nothing) that their experience might have lead to a reassesment of the enourmously strict access that existed for this holocaust archive, since they have "similarly detailed information".
So in conclusion, my opinion would be, access not to rummage, while individuals are still alive, but with specific research questions and anonymised results. Those are being presented to the researchers by the archive personnel, that can blacken out individual information that is too sensitive.
No direct access for historians.
The historians in my opinion should not be banned from accessing so much primary information. Their mission besides the event recording is to prevent the things from repeating, to keep the world conscious alive, so to speak ,and remind the human race of the existence of past, no matter what. This is something that should be spoken of, so that it will not be forgotten. Ever.
A question in my scenario that a historian could ask would be. Well I don't know where to start really.
But from what I know how archives work, they need to be catalogued first - something I would assume is in place - then you establish cross references, but if you stand in front of this huge pile of information you need assistance from those that know it best - the curators.
Their preparation of the information would in my suggestion, not reveal the individual, but the actions against them.
Yes, in history it is easier to become emotionally involved if you know the individual (have you been to the Holocaust Museum in DC? They try to achieve this, with giving you a passport of an individual at the entrance to the museum, and originally you would be told at the end of the tour, if you survived or not....)
However, as for this archive, I would vote for the publication of the abstract information, revealing as much as possible, without the infringing of individuals rights.
by Oui - Dec 5 9 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 9
by Oui - Dec 95 comments
by Oui - Dec 815 comments
by Oui - Dec 620 comments
by Oui - Dec 612 comments
by Oui - Dec 59 comments
by Oui - Dec 44 comments
by Oui - Dec 21 comment
by Oui - Dec 168 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 243 comments
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments