© A.G. Zvyagintsev, 2016
© Publishing, design. Eksmo Publishing House LLC, 2016
Preface
More than 70 years ago, the most significant trial in human history ended - Nuremberg trial. He drew a line under the lengthy discussions that took place at final stage The Second World War and after its end, about the responsibility of fascism and Nazism for terrible crimes against humanity.
The Nuremberg trial, its work, completion and decisions were a reflection of the political realities of that time, demonstrating the common positions of the countries participating in the anti-Hitler coalition, united in the name of the fight against the fascist threat to the world.
The decisions of the International Military Tribunal created the most important legal precedent, according to which not just the criminals were convicted, but also the political system that gave rise to these crimes - Nazism, its ideology, the economic component and, of course, all the military and punitive bodies of the Nazi Reich.
An important decision of the tribunal was that it rejected the arguments of the accused generals and their defenders that they were only following orders, thereby placing not only those who gave criminal orders, but also their executors under conditions of legal liability.
The Nuremberg trials introduced another important norm, abolishing the statute of limitations for crimes of fascism and Nazism against humanity. This provision is extremely important and relevant today, when in a number of countries an attempt is being made to consign the crimes of past years to oblivion and thereby justify the criminals.
At the Nuremberg trials, the issue of cooperation with fascism and Nazism was also acutely raised. In the decisions of the tribunal this issue was highlighted in a special paragraph. On their basis, following the Nuremberg trials, trials were held in many European countries, and some figures, even of the highest rank, were convicted.
These solutions are also very relevant today. It is no secret that in a number of countries now they not only do not condemn those who collaborated with the Nazis, but also organize parades and parades of those who fought with weapons in their hands during the Second World War in the same ranks with the Nazis, including together with the SS formations .
The book by A. G. Zvyagintsev examines a wide range of problems related to the preparation, progress and results of the Nuremberg process. From these materials the role of Soviet Union, and the line of our accusation at the trial of the century.
In our country, and in the world as a whole, no new serious documentary collections or research works on the history of the Nuremberg trials have been published for a long time.
The book by A. G. Zvyagintsev fills this gap. Along with other advantages, its value also lies in the fact that the author used numerous, previously virtually unknown documents, including from the personal archive of participants in the Nuremberg trials.
In this regard, I would like to draw Special attention to the research part of the book, where the author goes to the level of generalization and analysis of documents, events, facts, and shares memories of meetings with people directly related to the topic being covered. And here one senses a special nerve and deep concern about the situation in the world.
Turning today to the history of 70 years ago, we are once again not only talking about such “lessons of Nuremberg” as rejection and condemnation of xenophobia, violence, renunciation of aggression, educating people in the spirit of respect for each other, tolerance for other views, national and confessional differences - but as before we declare that no one is forgotten, nothing is forgotten. And this book is intended to support this eternal flame of memory.
A. O. Chubaryan, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences
From the author
Humanity has long learned to judge individual villains, criminal groups, bandits and illegal armed groups. The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg became the first experience in history of condemning crimes of a national scale - the ruling regime, its punitive institutions, senior political and military figures. 70 years have passed since then...
On August 8, 1945, three months after the Victory over Nazi Germany, the governments of the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France entered into an agreement to organize the trial of the main war criminals. This decision evoked an approving response throughout the world: it was necessary to give a harsh lesson to the authors and executors of cannibalistic plans for world domination, mass terror and murder, ominous ideas of racial superiority, genocide, monstrous destruction, and the plunder of vast territories. Subsequently, 19 more states officially joined the agreement, and the tribunal began to rightfully be called the Court of Peoples.
The process began on November 20, 1945 and lasted almost 11 months. 24 war criminals who were members of the top leadership of Nazi Germany were brought before the tribunal. This has never happened before in history. Also, for the first time, the issue of recognizing as criminal a number of political and state institutions- the leadership of the fascist party NSDAP, its assault (SA) and security (SS) detachments, the security service (SD), the secret state police (Gestapo), the government cabinet, the Supreme Command and the General Staff.
The trial was not a quick reprisal against a defeated enemy. Indictment on German was handed to the defendants 30 days before the start of the trial, and then they were given copies of all documentary evidence. Procedural guarantees gave the accused the right to defend themselves in person or with the help of a lawyer from among German lawyers, to request the summons of witnesses, to provide evidence in their defense, to give explanations, to interrogate witnesses, etc.
Hundreds of witnesses were questioned in the courtroom and in the field, and thousands of documents were reviewed. The evidence also included books, articles and public speeches of Nazi leaders, photographs, documentaries, and newsreels. The reliability and credibility of this base was beyond doubt.
All 403 sessions of the tribunal were open. About 60 thousand passes were issued to the courtroom. The work of the tribunal was widely covered by the press, and there was a live radio broadcast.
“Immediately after the war, people were skeptical about the Nuremberg trials (meaning the Germans),” the deputy chairman of the Bavarian Supreme Court, Mr. Ewald Berschmidt, told me in the summer of 2005, giving an interview to the film crew who were then working on the film “Nuremberg Alarm.” – It was, after all, a trial of the victors over the vanquished. The Germans expected revenge, but not necessarily the triumph of justice. However, the lessons of the process turned out to be different. The judges carefully considered all the circumstances of the case, they sought the truth. The perpetrators were sentenced to death. Whose guilt was less received different punishments. Some were even acquitted. The Nuremberg trials set a precedent international law. His main lesson was equality before the law for everyone - both generals and politicians.”
September 30 – October 1, 1946 The Court of Peoples rendered its verdict. The accused were found guilty of grave crimes against peace and humanity. Twelve of them were sentenced to death by hanging by the tribunal. Others faced life sentences or long terms in prison. Three were acquitted.
The main links of the state-political machine, brought by the fascists to a diabolical ideal, were declared criminal. However, the government, the High Command, the General Staff and the assault troops (SA), contrary to the opinion of Soviet representatives, were not recognized as such.
A member of the International Military Tribunal from the USSR, I. T. Nikitchenko, did not agree with this withdrawal (except for the SA), as well as the acquittal of the three accused. He also assessed Hess' life sentence as lenient. The Soviet judge outlined his objections in a dissenting opinion. It was read out in court and forms part of the verdict.
Yes, there were serious disagreements among the judges of the tribunal on certain issues. However, they cannot be compared with the confrontation of views on the same events and persons that will unfold in the future.
But first, about the main thing. The Nuremberg trials acquired world-historical significance as the first and to this day the largest legal act of the United Nations. United in their rejection of violence against people and the state, the peoples of the world have proven that they can successfully resist universal evil and administer fair justice.
The bitter experience of World War II forced everyone to take a fresh look at many of the problems facing humanity and understand that every person on earth is responsible for the present and the future. The fact that the Nuremberg trials took place suggests that state leaders do not dare ignore the firmly expressed will of the people and stoop to double standards.
It seemed that all countries had bright prospects for collective and peaceful solutions to problems for a bright future without wars and violence.
But, unfortunately, humanity too quickly forgets the lessons of the past. Soon after Winston Churchill's famous Fulton speech, despite convincing collective action at Nuremberg, the victorious powers were divided into military-political blocs, and the work of the United Nations was complicated by political confrontation. Shadow " cold war"sank over the world for many decades.
Under these conditions, forces intensified who wanted to reconsider the results of the Second World War, to belittle and even nullify the leading role of the Soviet Union in the defeat of fascism, to equate Germany, the aggressor country, with the USSR, which waged a just war and saved the world at the cost of enormous sacrifices. from the horrors of Nazism. 26 million 600 thousand of our compatriots died in this bloody massacre. And more than half of them - 15 million 400 thousand - were civilians.
A lot of publications, films, and television programs have appeared that distort historical reality. In the “works” of former brave Nazis and numerous other authors, the leaders of the Third Reich are whitewashed, or even glorified, and Soviet military leaders are denigrated - without regard to the truth and the actual course of events. In their version, the Nuremberg trials and the prosecution of war criminals in general are just an act of revenge by the victors on the vanquished. In this case, a typical technique is used - to show famous fascists on household level: Look, these are the most ordinary and even nice people, and not executioners and sadists at all.
For example, Reichsführer SS Himmler, the chief of the most sinister punitive agencies, appears as a gentle nature, a supporter of animal protection, a loving father of the family, who hates obscenity towards women.
Who was this “tender” nature really? Here are Himmler’s words spoken publicly: “...How the Russians feel, how the Czechs feel, I don’t care at all. Whether other peoples live in prosperity or die out of hunger, I am interested only insofar as we can use them as slaves for our culture, otherwise I don’t care at all. Whether 10 thousand Russian women will die from exhaustion during the construction of an anti-tank ditch or not, I am interested only insofar as this ditch must be built for Germany ... "
This is more like the truth. This is the truth itself. The revelations fully correspond to the image of the creator of the SS - the most perfect and sophisticated repressive organization, the creator of the concentration camp system that horrifies people to this day.
There are warm colors even for Hitler. In the fantastic volume of “Hitler studies”, he is both a brave warrior of the First World War and an artistic nature - an artist, an expert on architecture, and a modest vegetarian, and an exemplary statesman. There is a point of view that if the Fuhrer of the German people had ceased his activities in 1939 without starting the war, he would have gone down in history as the greatest politician in Germany, Europe, and the world!
But is there a force capable of freeing Hitler from responsibility for the aggressive, bloodiest and cruelest world massacre he unleashed? Of course, the positive role of the UN in the cause of post-war peace and cooperation is present, and it is absolutely indisputable. But there is no doubt that this role could have been much more significant.
Fortunately, a global clash did not take place, but military blocs often teetered on the brink. There was no end to local conflicts. Small wars broke out with considerable casualties, and terrorist regimes arose and were established in some countries.
The end of the confrontation between blocs and the emergence in the 1990s. the unipolar world order did not add resources to the United Nations. Some political scientists even express, to put it mildly, a very controversial opinion that the UN in its current form is an outdated organization that corresponds to the realities of the Second World War, but not to today’s requirements.
We have to admit that the relapses of the past are echoing more and more often in many countries these days. We live in a turbulent and unstable world, becoming more fragile and vulnerable every year. The contradictions between developed and other countries are becoming more acute. Deep cracks have appeared along the borders of cultures and civilizations.
A new, large-scale evil has emerged - terrorism, which has quickly grown into an independent global force. It has many things in common with fascism, in particular the deliberate disregard for international and domestic law, complete disregard for morality, value human life. Unexpected, unpredictable attacks, cynicism and cruelty, mass casualties sow fear and horror in countries that seemed well protected from any threat.
In its most dangerous, international form, this phenomenon is directed against the entire civilization. Already today it poses a serious threat to the development of mankind. We need a new, firm, fair word in the fight against this evil, similar to that, what the International Military Tribunal said to German fascism 70 years ago.
The successful experience of countering aggression and terror during the Second World War is relevant to this day. Many approaches are applicable one to another, others need rethinking and development. However, you can draw your own conclusions.
This book describes the most striking episodes of the Judgment of Nations. It presents previously unpublished materials, eyewitness accounts, and recently declassified archival documents. Largely thanks to this, it was possible to take a more complete and comprehensive look at the Nuremberg trials, open its unknown pages to a wide range of readers, and understand the motivation for the behavior of the participants in the tribunal, the actions of the heads of state and government in the context of history.
It is no secret that the popularizers of fascism have a certain influence on young minds, which poses a huge danger for future generations. The book is designed to be understandable also for young readers. There are no abstruse reasonings or moral teachings in it, but there is the bitter truth of life. Anyone who wants to have their own and qualified opinion about history, especially about the history of war crimes, will read this work with interest.
The author presented some topics from the angle of his own ideas and newly discovered facts. The book also debunks or disavows some common stereotypes and myths. Time not only buries secrets, but sometimes reveals them, even after decades. Perhaps the author was luckier than his predecessors who turned to the history of the Nuremberg trials, because starting in 1970 he had the opportunity to meet with Roman Andreevich Rudenko, listen to his speeches, including memories of the Nuremberg trials, which always and everywhere became the subject of discussion . Not only his brothers Nikolai Andreevich and Anton Andreevich, but also other relatives and close associates, including those who directly worked under his leadership in Nuremberg, told me about everything that was connected with Nuremberg, about the activities of R. A. Rudenko. The documents and photographs they presented became a valuable addition to the factual component of the book, as did the opinions of authoritative Russian and foreign researchers.
Time is a harsh judge. It is absolute. Being not determined by the actions of people, it does not forgive disrespectful attitude towards the verdicts that it has already rendered once, be it a specific person or entire nations and states. Unfortunately, the hands on its dial never show humanity the vector of movement, but, inexorably counting down the moments, time willingly writes fatal letters to those who try to be familiar with it.
Yes, sometimes the not so uncompromising mother history placed the implementation of the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal on the very weak shoulders of politicians. Therefore, it is not surprising that the brown hydra of fascism in many countries of the world has again raised its head, and the shamanistic apologists of terrorism are recruiting more and more proselytes into their ranks every day.
The activities of the International Military Tribunal are often called the “Nuremberg epilogue”. In relation to the executed leaders of the Third Reich and dissolved criminal organizations, this metaphor is completely justified. But evil, as we see, turned out to be more tenacious than many imagined then, in 1945–1946, in the euphoria Great Victory. No one today can claim that freedom and democracy have been established in the world completely and irrevocably.
In this regard, the question arises: how much and what efforts are required to make concrete conclusions from the experience of the Nuremberg trials that would be translated into good deeds and become a prologue to the creation of a world order without wars and violence, based on real non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and peoples, as well as respect for individual rights...
Part 1
Before the process starts
Chapter 1
Punish the Nazis on the spot or judge them in a civilized manner?
On September 1, 1939, the troops of Nazi Germany invaded Poland. This event marked the beginning of the Second World War, the bloodiest and cruelest in human history. The continent was shaken by bombing, artillery shelling, and volleys of firing squads. The basis of the “new German order” in the occupied countries was terror.
The aggressive plans of the Nazis came true with ominous speed. The first big result of the “blitzkrieg” was lightning war– became the occupation of almost all of Europe. The Nazi idea of world domination began to be filled with real content.
Having seized the resources of dozens of countries, on June 22, 1941, the Nazis attacked the USSR, seeing in our country another victim of the blitzkrieg. However, after the successes of the first period of the war, which were explained by the factor of surprise, better weapons and combat experience, the Nazis had to give up hope of a quick victory.
As the invaders advanced inland, resistance Soviet troops did not weaken, but grew. The official declaration of war by the leadership of the USSR as the Great Patriotic War was fully consistent with reality. On our part, the struggle quickly acquired a national, patriotic character.
Acting according to detailed satanic plans, the fascists from the first days of the war reached the limit of cruelty and barbarity in their treatment of prisoners of war and civilians. Mass killings of innocent people, sending citizens into slavery, and plundering vast territories were common practice. Our people rose up to a just and holy war with a clear desire to rid themselves and the world of absolute evil - the “brown plague” of fascism.
Information about the monstrous atrocities of the Nazis quickly became public knowledge. The whole world watched with growing horror what was happening in the countries that were invaded. Proposals for severe punishment for war criminals have become a normal human reaction to terrible and disgusting acts.
They came not only from the public. Already at the first stage of the war, actions began on state level. On April 27, 1942, the USSR Government presented the ambassadors and envoys of all countries with a note “On the monstrous atrocities, atrocities and violence of the Nazi invaders in the occupied Soviet regions and on the responsibility of the German government and command for these crimes.”
On November 2, 1942, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree “On the formation of the Extraordinary State Commission to establish and investigate the atrocities of the Nazi invaders and their accomplices and the damage they caused to citizens, collective farms, public organizations, state enterprises and institutions of the USSR."
The commission collected a lot of materials incriminating the Nazis in the destruction of millions of civilians, including children, women and the elderly, in the inhuman treatment of prisoners of war, as well as in the destruction of cities, villages, monuments of antiquity and art, and the deportation of millions of people into German slavery. These were the testimonies of witnesses and victims, documentary materials- photographs, examination reports, exhumations of the bodies of the dead, original documents published by the Nazis themselves and completely exposing them.
However, the idea of an international process did not arise and take hold immediately. Some Western statesmen thought of dealing with war criminals, not caring about procedure and formalities. For example, back in 1942, British Prime Minister W. Churchill decided that the Nazi leadership should be executed without trial. He expressed this opinion more than once in the future.
Similar ideas existed on the other side of the Atlantic. In March 1943, US Secretary of State C. Hull said at a dinner attended by the British Ambassador to the US, Lord Halifax, that he would prefer to “shoot and physically destroy the entire Nazi leadership.”
Some military personnel looked at this problem even more simply. On July 10, 1944, American General Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed shooting representatives of the enemy leadership “while attempting to escape.”
Thoughts were also expressed to completely destroy the entire German General Staff, and this is several thousand people, the entire SS personnel, all the leading levels of the Nazi party, right down to the grassroots, etc. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt not only did not object to his comrades-in-arms, but in fact they supported. On August 19, 1944, he remarked: “We must be really tough with Germany, and I mean the whole German people, not just the Nazis. The Germans must either be castrated or treated in such a way that they forget and think about the possibility of people appearing among them who would like to return to the old days and again continue what they did in the past.”
Such judgments were typical of many Americans. According to a sociological survey in 1945, 67% of US citizens were in favor of quick extrajudicial execution of Nazi criminals, in fact, in favor of lynching. The British, too, were burning with a thirst for revenge and were able to discuss, as one of the politicians noted, only the place where to put the gallows and the length of the ropes.
Of course, such views had a right to exist. The unprecedented atrocities of the fascists caused rage and general indignation in many countries, depriving people of the patience so necessary for organizing and conducting trials according to all the rules of jurisprudence. Extrajudicial killings did take place, and it is difficult to blame, for example, the resistance movement fighters who shot the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. (On April 27, 1945, a detachment of partisans stopped a Wehrmacht convoy, in one of the trucks there was Mussolini, dressed in a German uniform. He was identified and detained. The next day, Colonel of the Resistance movement Valerio, who arrived from Milan, executed the dictator, his mistress Clara Petacci and two the Duce's close associates then hung their bodies upside down at a gas station in Milan.)
Fighters of the French Resistance movement executed without trial 8348 fascists and their accomplices.
Retribution, of course, took place, but there is no doubt that in the event of a public trial, the lesson of history would be more in line with the spirit of the times and the concepts of legality and would become even more clear and instructive.
Hotheads proposed destroying Germany as an industrial state. US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau put forward a “Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a Third World War.” In accordance with it, it was planned to dismember and decentralize the defeated country, completely destroy heavy industry and aviation, and turn it into an agricultural territory under the strict control of the United States and Great Britain. Morgenthau thought of turning Germany into one big potato field.
This plan was seriously discussed, for example, on September 11, 1944, at a meeting in Quebec between American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, but was not adopted. The plan had serious opponents, including British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, United States Secretary of State Cordel Hull and US Secretary of Defense Stimson. Subsequently, information was leaked to the press. The public reaction was sharply negative. Five American labor unions adopted a declaration rejecting the plan as economically unjustified and containing “the seeds of a new war.” However, Morgenthau did not give up attempts to promote his “radical” ideas for a long time.
Stalin turned out to be much more far-sighted than Western politicians; even at the beginning of the war he advocated a legal procedure for punishing war criminals. When Churchill tried to impose his opinion on him, Stalin firmly objected: “Whatever happens, there must be ... an appropriate judicial decision. Otherwise people will say that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were simply taking revenge on their political enemies!”
“We must do this,” the British Prime Minister argued at a meeting with Stalin in the Kremlin on October 9, 1944, “so that even our grandchildren do not have the chance to see how defeated Germany rises from its knees!” Stalin did not agree in principle with this formulation of the question. “Too harsh measures will arouse a thirst for revenge,” he replied to Churchill.
This approach was expressed not only at the negotiations. The demand for the creation of an International Military Tribunal was contained, for example, in the statement of the Soviet government of October 14, 1942 “On the responsibility of the Nazi invaders and their accomplices for the atrocities they committed in the occupied countries of Europe.”
Even during the war, the first trials of Nazi criminals took place in the USSR. For example, at a meeting of the Soviet military tribunal in Kharkov in December 1943, the case of three German officers accused of barbaric executions of civilians using gas vans, or, more simply put, gas chambers, was considered. The trial itself and the public execution of the convicts became the subject of a documentary film shown throughout the country.
Gradually, the Western allies also approached the idea of the court. Along with cynical proposals for a tribunal as a formal cover for a predetermined execution, thoughts were expressed about the need for a serious trial and fair verdicts.
“If we just want to shoot Germans and choose this as our policy,” said Judge Robert H. Jackson, in the future the Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials for the United States, “then so be it. But then don’t hide this atrocity under the guise of justice. If you have decided in advance to execute a person in any case, then there is no need to put him on trial. However, we should all know that the world community has no respect for those courts that are initially only an instrument for delivering a guilty verdict.”
The possibility of holding the International Court was laid down by agreements between the allies on mutual assistance in waging war against aggression and on cooperation in the post-war period in the interests of peace and security. The creation of the United Nations became a strong basis for joint activities. A conference of representatives of the USSR, Great Britain, the USA and China on the formation of the UN took place from August 21 to September 28, 1944 in Washington.
The theme of punishment of war criminals who unleashed the Second world war, repeatedly arose during meetings of heads of state and government of Great Britain, the USA, the USSR and other countries.
The contours of future actions became increasingly clear. From July 17 to August 2, 1945, the Potsdam (Berlin) Conference of the Heads of Government of the USSR, Great Britain and the USA took place. At it, the problems of the post-war structure of Europe were resolved, important decisions were made on the demilitarization and denazification of Germany, including on the punishment of war criminals. The Allies made a formal commitment to try those responsible with speedy and fair trials. The final document noted that the ongoing negotiations in London would develop a consensus on this issue and set a specific date for the start of the process.
The historic London Conference took place at Church House (Westminster). The adoption of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and other documents was preceded by long and painstaking work.
The atmosphere of the conference was tense due to the enormous responsibility of the meeting participants. The International Military Tribunal promised to be a grandiose world event, opening new era international cooperation. The scale of the crimes was also unprecedented. The pages of newspapers and magazines were full of chilling details about the atrocities of the Nazis; before the eyes of the meeting participants stood the ruins of once flourishing cities and villages. Multi-volume documentary evidence of Nazi crimes caused some confusion among experienced lawyers.
The first meeting of the conference took place on June 21. It considered the list of the accused, and four subcommittees were appointed to resolve the controversial situation between the British and the Americans, who disagreed on what should be the approach to legal proceedings: on the basis of a list of names, in the opinion of the British, or on the basis of a preliminary collection of evidence, as was believed Americans.
The Soviet delegation was not present at the first meeting. Deputy People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs A. Ya. Vyshinsky, in response to a request, said that representatives of the USSR would arrive on June 23. However, the Soviet delegation arrived on June 26 and immediately made a constructive proposal to sign an agreement or protocol, to which the necessary changes or additions would be made in the future. Thus, the Charter of the court will be developed, which will determine the rules and procedures of the process. The proposal was accepted.
Work began on the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. Controversy immediately arose. After all, all contracting parties had different legal systems. Each country had its own national schools and had its own national procedural legislation. Robert H. Jackson recalled feeling something of a shock “to hear the Russian delegation speak of our Anglo-American [prosecution] practices as unfair to the defendants. They made the following argument: we make charges in general terms and then present evidence at trial. Their approach requires that, at arraignment, the accused be provided with all the evidence used against him, both documents and witness statements. The indictment in this form turns into an evidentiary document. Thus, the three trials become less a matter of presenting the evidence in the indictment and more of an attempt by the defendant to rebut the evidence in the indictment. Thus, they believe that since the continental system of law places the burden of proof on the defendant, the Anglo-American system of law seems unfair to them, since it does not give the defendant an idea of the full extent of the evidence collected against him. When we present them in court, many may be surprised and may not be able to respond appropriately because it is too late to take action. Our approach is said to turn criminal justice into a game. There is definitely some rationale to this criticism."
The Rossiya 24 TV channel showed a series of films dedicated to the Nuremberg trials. Six films were released, all based on historical film and photographic documents, as well as documentary evidence from participants in the process and our contemporaries. The author of the project was a famous lawyer, writer and historian, vice-president of the International Association of Prosecutors, author of " Russian newspaper" Alexander Zvyagintsev. He shared his impressions with our correspondent.
Alexander Grigorievich, you have been studying the history of the Court of Nations for many years. Your book “Nuremberg Alarm” and the film of the same name, as well as a number of other documentaries, have been published. The new series is a kind of logical conclusion Topics?
Alexander Zvyagintsev: Rather, it is the beginning of a more complete study of the unique trial of Nazism, the results of which are extremely relevant today. The first six films have been released, but work is ongoing and more to come.
The idea began to creep in that Nuremberg was a long time ago, now times are different
Have you discovered new pages in archival documents?
Alexander Zvyagintsev: There are not pages of materials about the process, but volumes, kilometers of film and photographic films, many frames from which viewers will see for the first time, no one has touched them before. The outline of the films is made up of current shooting. We traveled thousands of kilometers with the film crew, visited many memorable places, found living witnesses to those events, met with the descendants of the participants in the trial on one side and the other.
What is characteristic is that the children and grandchildren of the convicted, with whom we were able to meet, openly and honestly condemn the crimes of their relatives, which cannot be said about many current politicians. By the way, this is one of the motivating reasons to take on new paintings. The idea that Nuremberg was a long time ago began to be persistently dragged into our consciousness, now there are different times and a different structure of the world, so that the Yalta and Potsdam agreements of the victorious powers in World War II on the post-war structure of Europe are outdated. And the Nuremberg trials are a trial of the victors over the vanquished...
A familiar song, it was composed back in Nuremberg by the Nazi criminals themselves and their lawyers. They stated that they knew nothing about the atrocities and there was nothing to judge them for. But they were then given a worthy rebuke - these shots are in your film.
Alexander Zvyagintsev: The chief US prosecutor at the trial, Robert Jackson, said in his closing speech: “If you believe the defendants, not one of them saw evil. Goering never suspected the program of extermination of the Jews, although he personally signed dozens of decrees. Hess simply conveyed Hitler’s orders without reading them, like the messenger, Ribbentrop knew nothing about them. foreign policy. Keitel had no idea about the results of the implementation of his orders. Kaltenbrunner believed that the Gestapo and SD were something like traffic control... To find these people innocent means, with the same reason, to say that there was no war, there were no murders, there were no crimes."
The chief prosecutor from the USSR, Roman Rudenko, expressed himself even more convincingly: “We ask, was the charge brought against the defendants confirmed in court? Was their guilt proven? Only one answer can be given to this question. These crimes have been proven. Neither the testimony of the defendants nor the arguments could refute them defenses. They cannot be refuted, because the truth cannot be refuted, and it is the truth that is the lasting result of the present process, the reliable result of our long and persistent efforts.”
You often have to communicate with representatives of the authorities of Western countries. Is Europe really trying to erase the dark pages of the war from its memory and forget the lessons of Nuremberg?
Alexander Zvyagintsev: I think that individual politicians do this solely for the sake of certain selfish interests. Honest, unbiased people still give real assessments today. I can refer to a conversation with the ex-chairman of the European Union response group, former Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Spain Felipe Gonzalez Marquez. Here's what he said about this:
I think that the Nuremberg trials were an inevitable historical necessity. I do not share the point of view of the negativists who deny everything that happened. The historical facts are so obvious that to deny them is to commit a crime. After all, there was no better procedure! Worse would be simply pure revenge - the execution of those who were responsible for the horrors committed. On the contrary, the creators of these horrors were allowed to have a set of guarantees for the purpose of protection, which, by the way, they themselves never provided to their victims. So I see it clearly: the Nuremberg trials are a historical necessity, an extraordinary precedent for thinking about what happened and what happened next, and, finally, a sadness that history teaches us little because history is little studied .
How did the defendants themselves behave during the trial? Did they have a sense of guilt and remorse for the heinous crimes they committed?
Alexander Zvyagintsev: Judging by the trial materials, no. To the question - do you admit your guilt? - everyone answered in turn: nain! However, there is evidence that some of them, like Keitel, Frank and Speer, came very close to admitting what they had done. According to the testimony of assistant judge Yves Beigbeder, Hans Frank, for example, said that Germany would need about a thousand years to remove the burden of guilt. During interrogation, he stated: “Based on the deepest feelings and experience gained during the five months of this Tribunal, I want to emphasize that, having been able to look at all the monstrous atrocities that were committed, I feel the deepest guilt. We call on the people of Germany, of which we were the leaders, to leave this path on which we were doomed to failure and which will lead to the damnation of all who try to follow it anywhere in the world." But in the presence of his accomplices, he took a step back: “It’s not me, it’s the regime, it’s Hitler.”
Goering wanted to die from a bullet. He was refused. A plan arose to get an ampoule of poison
It is known that two priests, a Lutheran and a Catholic, were assigned to the defendants, who constantly communicated with the inhabitants of the cells and their families. Did they leave any revelations from their charges?
Alexander Zvyagintsev: American pastor Henry Gierecki, who was fluent in German, and his assistant, Catholic priest Sixtus O Conner, tried to return the accused to the fold of the church, but both gave their word to remain silent about the events of those days. Gierecki's son Hank told how one day, many years later, he and his father were sitting on the porch of their home in Illinois. And Hank asked, "What did these guys tell you? Did they realize they had done something terrible? Were they willing to accept atonement?" There wasn't a soul around. Nobody heard them. However, Henry Gierecki replied to his son: “Hank, you know, I can’t talk about this. I will never tell anyone this.”
But it is known that the chaplain gave communion to some prisoners, which means there was repentance.
When he walked around the prisoners and talked with them on the eve of execution, which the convicts were not informed about, Goering asked him to receive communion as well. This request amazed Gierecki. One day Goering told him: “I cannot ask for forgiveness from the Lord. I cannot say - Jesus, save me! For me, he is just another smart Jew.” Gierecki did not believe that Goering believed in the Lord, and he rejected the request for communion, leaving the cell.
Apparently, Goering did find out about the upcoming execution and took poison that same night to avoid the gallows. Was it possible to establish how the poison got into his hands?
Alexander Zvyagintsev: There are many opinions about the ampoule with potassium cyanide. Some believe that Goering had it hidden in a hole in his tooth, others - in a tube of cream. There is a version that Goering kept it in the heel of his boot, as the Nazis did. There were even romantic assumptions - supposedly his wife gave an ampoule of poison to Goering during a kiss. But experts believe that this is impossible - the ampoule could break at any moment.
Two weeks before his execution, Goering filed a petition to be sentenced by firearms; he wanted to die from a bullet. He was refused. Apparently, then the plan was hatched to get an ampoule of poison. According to the inspector of the legal service of the execution of punishments, Frank Edelman, Goering received the capsule from the American officer Chuck Willis, with whom he had very close relations. a good relationship. Willis himself spoke about this years later, showing the gold watch that Goering gave him, and also gave him leather gloves and many other things. Sometimes he autographed his photographs, and Willis sold them when leaving the prison building; they were expensive. Goering used it to get an ampoule of potassium cyanide. But this can no longer be verified.
Did Goering's wife and other defendants have the opportunity to see the prisoners?
Alexander Zvyagintsev: During the entire process, the priests looked after the relatives of the Nazis, making sure that there was a roof over their heads and food, so that they did not fall into despair and did not give up. Both believed that their relatives had done nothing wrong. This is what the son of the “Polish butcher” Hans Frank, the governor general of Poland, where the most terrible concentration camps were located, Niklas Frank said: “Our mother enjoyed the privileges of her life. She adored her Mercedes, she had her own driver, she lived in luxury. After the war, she happily traded with the Jews in stolen jewelry, jewelry - bracelets, rings, as if nothing had happened."
And about his father, he expressed himself even more categorically: “After all, every day we, the Germans, committed the most terrible crimes on the territory of Poland. But what can we say, if precisely in the eastern railway Jews were being transported. And he knew exactly what was happening in Majdanek, Sobibor and Belzec, in Auschwitz. I don't believe a word he says. And there is not a single reason to justify the fact that he said different things, now one thing, now another. I would even say that all his life, every time he opened his mouth, he lied. He always lied to make himself look better."
There are many legends about how the sentences of criminals were carried out.
Alexander Zvyagintsev: A sergeant volunteered to carry out the tribunal's sentence American army John Woods. He immediately became a local celebrity - he willingly signed autographs and interviews and even posed with a coil of thick rope. A competition was announced for the position of executioner. They said that Woods was from a family of hereditary executioners and had already sent 350 criminals to the next world in his native San Antonio. However, later doubts arose about this...
However, no one wanted to be with him short leg. Soviet translator Tatyana Stupnikova recalled how she once came to the dining room and had nowhere to sit. She saw that there was a free table, an American sergeant was sitting, and she went straight there. The sergeant immediately began to fuss: “What can I bring you?” I brought her 4 glasses of ice cream, which was in great short supply. "Let's talk". She will never understand why everyone is looking at her strangely. She quickly ate and left. Our translators tell her: “Why did you sit down with him? He’s an executioner.”
Why did they doubt Woods' professionalism?
Alexander Zvyagintsev: Prepared for execution gym. There they installed a high platform with gallows, it was curtained with dark material. All those sentenced had the right last word. Julius Streicher, a convinced anti-Semite, began shouting his slogans and “Long live Hitler!” Others expressed hope for the Lord's forgiveness or went to their death in silence. Some had to be dragged up the 13 steps of the stairs by force.
The execution took two and a half hours. “It was a quick job,” Sergeant Woods later boasted.
After the execution, chaplains came to pray over the bodies of the hanged. What they saw shocked them so much that they then took a vow of silence. The executioner miscalculated the length of the rope and the hatch door. The condemned hit their faces against the edges of the hatch; many hung, gasping for breath, for several minutes - their necks did not break. Most likely, John Woods got the place of executioner by cunning in order to earn extra money. After the execution, he started a unique business: he put into circulation the ropes on which the condemned were hanged. There were several options: long pieces, smaller pieces and very short pieces, depending on who would pay how much. Supposedly such a “souvenir” brings happiness. He made a decent amount of money and took it to the States.
Got rich?
Alexander Zvyagintsev: He became quite rich, but it did not bring him happiness. He settled on the island in Pacific Ocean and four years later was reported to have died from an electrical discharge while repairing lighting fixtures. There is also another, rather creepy version, which says that he died while repairing the electric chair.
