Home Smell from the mouth Zvyagintsev Nuremberg is the main process of humanity. Nuremberg trial

Smell from the mouth

Zvyagintsev Nuremberg is the main process of humanity. Nuremberg trial

Otto Bismarck is one of the most famous politicians of the 19th century. He had a significant influence on political life in Europe and developed a security system. Played a key role in uniting the German peoples into a single national state. He was awarded many awards and titles. Subsequently, historians and politicians will have different assessments of who created

The biography of the chancellor is still between representatives of various political movements. In this article we will take a closer look at it.

Otto von Bismarck: short biography. Childhood

Otto was born on April 1, 1815 in Pomerania. Representatives of his family were cadets. These are the descendants of medieval knights who received lands for serving the king. The Bismarcks had a small estate and held various military and civilian posts in the Prussian nomenklatura. By the standards of 19th-century German nobility, the family had rather modest resources.

Young Otto was sent to the Plaman school, where students were hardened by hard physical exercises. The mother was an ardent Catholic and wanted her son to be raised in strict conservatism. By the time he was a teenager, Otto transferred to a gymnasium. There he did not establish himself as a diligent student. I couldn’t boast of any success in my studies either. But at the same time I read a lot and was interested in politics and history. He studied the features of the political structure of Russia and France. I even studied French. At the age of 15, Bismarck decides to associate himself with politics. But the mother, who was the head of the family, insists on studying in Göttingen. Law and jurisprudence were chosen as the direction. Young Otto was to become a Prussian diplomat.

Bismarck's behavior in Hanover, where he trained, is legendary. He did not want to study law, so he preferred a wild life to studying. Like all elite youth, he often visited entertainment venues and made many friends among the nobles. It was at this time that the hot temper of the future chancellor manifested itself. He often gets into skirmishes and disputes, which he prefers to resolve with a duel. According to the recollections of university friends, in just a few years of his stay in Göttingen, Otto participated in 27 duels. As a lifelong memory of his stormy youth, he had a scar on his cheek after one of these competitions.

Leaving the university

A luxurious life alongside the children of aristocrats and politicians was beyond the means of Bismarck's relatively modest family. And constant participation in troubles caused problems with the law and the management of the university. So, without receiving a diploma, Otto went to Berlin, where he entered another university. Which he graduated a year later. After this, he decided to follow his mother’s advice and become a diplomat. Each figure at that time was personally approved by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. After studying Bismarck's case and learning about his problems with the law in Hanover, he refused to give the young graduate a job.

After the collapse of his hopes of becoming a diplomat, Otto works in Anhen, where he deals with minor organizational issues. According to Bismarck himself, the work did not require him to significant efforts, and he could devote himself to self-development and relaxation. But even in his new place, the future chancellor has problems with the law, so after a few years he enlists in the army. His military career did not last long. A year later, Bismarck's mother dies, and he is forced to return to Pomerania, where their family estate is located.

In Pomerania, Otto faces a number of difficulties. This is a real test for him. Managing a large estate requires a lot of effort. So Bismarck has to give up his student habits. Thanks to his successful work, he significantly raises the status of the estate and increases his income. From a serene youth he turns into a respected cadet. Nevertheless, the hot temper continues to remind itself. The neighbors called Otto "mad."

A few years later, Bismarck's sister Malvina arrives from Berlin. He becomes very close to her due to their common interests and outlook on life. Around the same time, he became an ardent Lutheran and read the Bible every day. The future chancellor's engagement to Johanna Puttkamer takes place.

The beginning of the political path

In the 40s of the 19th century, a fierce struggle for power began in Prussia between liberals and conservatives. To relieve tension, Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm convenes the Landtag. Elections are being held in local administrations. Otto decides to go into politics and without much effort becomes a deputy. From his first days in the Landtag, Bismarck gained fame. Newspapers write about him as a “mad cadet from Pomerania.” He speaks quite harshly about liberals. Compiles entire articles of devastating criticism of Georg Finke.

His speeches are quite expressive and inspiring, so Bismarck quickly becomes a significant figure in the camp of conservatives.

Confrontation with liberals

At this time, a serious crisis is brewing in the country. A series of revolutions are taking place in neighboring states. Inspired by it, liberals are conducting active propaganda among the working and poor German population. Strikes and walkouts occur repeatedly. Against this background, food prices are constantly rising and unemployment is growing. As a result, the social crisis leads to revolution. It was organized by patriots together with liberals, demanding that the king adopt a new Constitution and unite all German lands into one national state. Bismarck was very frightened of this revolution; he sent the king a letter asking him to entrust him with the army’s march on Berlin. But Frederick makes concessions and partially agrees with the demands of the rebels. As a result, bloodshed was avoided, and the reforms were not as radical as in France or Austria.

In response to the victory of the liberals, a camarilla is created - an organization of conservative reactionaries. Bismarck immediately joins it and conducts active propaganda through. By agreement with the king, a military coup takes place in 1848, and the right regains its lost positions. But Frederick is in no hurry to empower his new allies, and Bismarck is actually removed from power.

Conflict with Austria

At this time, the German lands were greatly fragmented into large and small principalities, which in one way or another depended on Austria and Prussia. These two states waged a constant struggle for the right to be considered the unifying center of the German nation. By the end of the 40s, there was a serious conflict over the Principality of Erfurt. Relations deteriorated sharply, and rumors began to spread about possible mobilization. Bismarck takes an active part in resolving the conflict, and he manages to insist on signing agreements with Austria in Olmütz, since, in his opinion, Prussia was not able to resolve the conflict militarily.

Bismarck believes that it is necessary to begin long-term preparations for the destruction of Austrian dominance in the so-called German space.

To do this, according to Otto, it is necessary to conclude an alliance with France and Russia. Therefore, with the beginning of the Crimean War, he actively campaigned not to enter into the conflict on the side of Austria. His efforts bear fruit: there is no mobilization, and the German states remain neutral. The king sees promise in the plans of the “mad cadet” and sends him as ambassador to France. After negotiations with Napoleon III, Bismarck was suddenly recalled from Paris and sent to Russia.

Otto in Russia

Contemporaries say that the formation of the Iron Chancellor’s personality was greatly influenced by his stay in Russia; Otto Bismarck himself wrote about this. The biography of any diplomat includes a period of learning the skill. This is what Otto devoted himself to in St. Petersburg. In the capital, he spends a lot of time with Gorchakov, who was considered one of the most outstanding diplomats of his time. Bismarck was impressed by the Russian state and traditions. He liked the policies pursued by the emperor, so he carefully studied Russian history. I even started learning Russian. After a few years I could already speak it fluently. “Language gives me the opportunity to understand the very way of thinking and logic of the Russians,” wrote Otto von Bismarck. The biography of the “mad” student and cadet brought disrepute to the diplomat and interfered with successful activities in many countries, but not in Russia. This is another reason why Otto liked our country.

In it he saw an example for the development of the German state, since the Russians managed to unite lands with an ethnically identical population, which was a long-standing dream of the Germans. In addition to diplomatic contacts, Bismarck makes many personal connections.

But Bismarck’s quotes about Russia cannot be called flattering: “Never trust the Russians, for the Russians do not even trust themselves”; “Russia is dangerous because of the meagerness of its needs.”

Prime Minister

Gorchakov taught Otto the basics of an aggressive foreign policy, which was very necessary for Prussia. After the king's death, the "mad cadet" is sent to Paris as a diplomat. He faces the serious task of preventing the restoration of the long-standing alliance between France and England. The new government in Paris, created after the next revolution, had a negative attitude towards the ardent conservative from Prussia.

But Bismarck managed to convince the French of the need for mutual cooperation with Russian Empire and German lands. The ambassador selected only trusted people for his team. Assistants selected candidates, then Otto Bismarck himself examined them. A short biography of the applicants was compiled by the king's secret police.

Successful work in establishing international relations allowed Bismarck to become Prime Minister of Prussia. In this position, he won the true love of the people. Otto von Bismarck graced the front pages of German newspapers every week. The politician's quotes became popular far abroad. Such fame in the press is due to the Prime Minister’s love of populist statements. For example, the words: “The great questions of the time are decided not by speeches and resolutions of the majority, but by iron and blood!” are still used on a par with similar statements by the rulers of Ancient Rome. One of the most famous sayings of Otto von Bismarck: “Stupidity is a gift of God, but it should not be abused.”

Prussian territorial expansion

Prussia has long set itself the goal of uniting all German lands into one state. For this purpose, preparations were made not only in the foreign policy aspect, but also in the field of propaganda. The main rival for leadership and patronage of the German world was Austria. In 1866, relations with Denmark sharply worsened. Part of the kingdom was occupied by ethnic Germans. Under pressure from the nationalist-minded part of the public, they began to demand the right to self-determination. At this time, Chancellor Otto Bismarck secured the full support of the king and received expanded rights. The war with Denmark began. Prussian troops occupied the territory of Holstein without any problems and divided it with Austria.

Because of these lands, a new conflict arose with the neighbor. The Habsburgs, who were seated in Austria, were losing their position in Europe after a series of revolutions and coups that overthrew representatives of the dynasty in other countries. In the 2 years after the Danish War, hostility between Austria and Prussia grew in the first trade blockades and political pressure. But very soon it became clear that it would not be possible to avoid a direct military conflict. Both countries began to mobilize their populations. Otto von Bismarck played a key role in the conflict. Having briefly outlined his goals to the king, he immediately went to Italy to enlist her support. The Italians themselves also had claims to Austria, seeking to take possession of Venice. In 1866 the war began. Prussian troops managed to quickly capture part of the territories and force the Habsburgs to sign a peace treaty on terms favorable to themselves.

Land unification

Now all the ways for the unification of the German lands were open. Prussia set a course for creating a constitution for which Otto von Bismarck himself wrote. The Chancellor's quotes about the unity of the German people gained popularity in northern France. The growing influence of Prussia greatly worried the French. The Russian Empire also began to wait warily to see what Otto von Bismarck, whose short biography is described in the article, would do. The history of Russian-Prussian relations during the reign of the Iron Chancellor is very revealing. The politician managed to assure Alexander II of his intentions to cooperate with the Empire in the future.

But the French could not be convinced of this. As a result, another war began. A few years earlier, an army reform was carried out in Prussia, as a result of which a regular army was created.

Military spending also increased. Thanks to this and the successful actions of German generals, France suffered a number of major defeats. Napoleon III was captured. Paris was forced to agree, losing a number of territories.

On a wave of triumph, the Second Reich is proclaimed, Wilhelm becomes emperor, and Otto Bismarck becomes his confidant. Quotes from Roman generals at the coronation gave the chancellor another nickname - “triumphant”; since then he was often depicted on a Roman chariot and with a wreath on his head.

Heritage

Constant wars and internal political squabbles seriously undermined the politician’s health. He went on vacation several times, but was forced to return due to a new crisis. Even after 65 years, he continued to take an active part in all political processes in the country. Not a single meeting of the Landtag took place unless Otto von Bismarck was present. Interesting facts about the life of the chancellor are described below.

For 40 years in politics, he achieved enormous success. Prussia expanded its territories and was able to gain superiority in German space. Contacts were established with the Russian Empire and France. All these achievements would not have been possible without a figure like Otto Bismarck. The photo of the chancellor in profile and wearing a combat helmet became a kind of symbol of his unyieldingly tough foreign and domestic policy.

Disputes surrounding this personality are still ongoing. But in Germany, every person knows who Otto von Bismarck was - the iron chancellor. There is no consensus on why he was called that. Either because of his hot temper, or because of his ruthlessness towards his enemies. One way or another, he had a huge influence on world politics.

Bismarck began his morning with physical exercise and prayers.
While in Russia, Otto learned to speak Russian.
In St. Petersburg, Bismarck was invited to participate in the royal fun. This is bear hunting in the forests. The German even managed to kill several animals. But during the next sortie, the detachment got lost, and the diplomat received serious frostbite on his legs. Doctors predicted amputation, but everything worked out.
In his youth, Bismarck was an avid duelist. He took part in 27 duels and received a scar on his face in one of them.
Otto von Bismarck was once asked how he chose his profession. He replied: “I was destined by nature to become a diplomat: I was born on the first of April.”

© 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 long discussions that took place during the final stages of 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, both the role of the Soviet Union and the line of our accusation in the trial of the century become even clearer.

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 pay 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 NSDAP party, its assault (SA) and security (SS) detachments, the security service (SD), the secret state police (Gestapo), the government cabinet, the High Command and the General Staff.

The trial was not a quick reprisal against a defeated enemy. The indictment in 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 became a precedent for 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 prison sentences. 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, which 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. The shadow of the Cold War fell 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, a deliberate disregard for international and domestic law, a complete disregard for morality and the value of 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 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 of the 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” - lightning war - was 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 deeper into the country, the resistance of the 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 close associates of the Duce. The bodies of the murdered were then hung 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 topic of punishing war criminals who unleashed the Second World War repeatedly arose during meetings of the 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 major global event, ushering in a new era of 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 the famous lawyer, writer and historian, vice-president of the International Association of Prosecutors, author of the Rossiyskaya Gazeta 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. Is the new series a kind of logical conclusion to the theme?

Alexander Zvyagintsev: Rather, it is the beginning of a more complete examination 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 spread that Nuremberg was a long time ago, now - different times

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 intrusively 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 a messenger. Ribbentrop knew nothing about 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 defense. 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. Historical facts 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 God for forgiveness. 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 execution Frank Edelman, Goering received the capsule from the American officer Chuck Willis, with whom he had a very 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 it was along the eastern railway that Jews were transported. And he knew exactly what was happening in Majdanek, Sobibor and Belzec, in Auschwitz. I don't believe a single word he said. 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 my 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: American Army Sergeant John Woods volunteered to carry out the tribunal's sentence. 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 on short terms with him. 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, one 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 to the 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 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 ones, 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 an island in the Pacific Ocean and four years later was reported to have been electrocuted while repairing lighting fixtures. There is also another, rather creepy version, which says that he died while repairing the electric chair.

Alexander Zvyagintsev

Nuremberg: the main process of humanity

Preface

More than 70 years ago, the most significant trial in human history, the Nuremberg Trials, ended. He drew a line under the long discussions that took place during the final stages of the Second World War and after its end about the responsibility of fascism and Nazism for terrible crimes against humanity.

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.

A. O. Chubaryan, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences

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.

The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal was quickly - and not in vain - dubbed the “trial of the century.” A book by the famous lawyer and historian A.G. Zvyagintseva is the most complete and comprehensive study of this process. The book is based on rare archival documents, hard-to-find sources, the latest research, as well as memoirs of contemporaries and direct participants in those events. The decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal not only drew a line under the crimes of the Nazis during the Second World War and assessed Nazism and fascism as a system. The tribunal's assessments most seriously influenced the entire system of international law and post-war international relations. Today, when international aggression - the gravest crime as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal - is becoming almost an everyday occurrence, the work of A.G. Zvyagintseva is more relevant than ever.

A series: To the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials

* * *

by liters company.

Before the process starts

Punish the Nazis on the spot or judge them in a civilized manner?

They came not only from the public. Already at the first stage of the war, actions began at the 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.”

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 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 without 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.

Fighters of the French Resistance movement executed without trial 8348 fascists and their accomplices.

The topic of punishing war criminals who unleashed the Second World War repeatedly arose during meetings of the heads of state and government of Great Britain, the USA, the USSR and other countries.

The Charter became the main document defining the organization and operation of the International Military Tribunal. It fixed, for example, the composition of the tribunal: one judge and his deputy from each of the four victorious countries - the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France. They were appointed by the governments of the respective states.

The charter of the tribunal gave procedural guarantees to the defendants, namely: the right to defend themselves in court in person or with the help of a lawyer, to request the summons of witnesses, to provide evidence in their defense to the court, to give explanations on the charges brought against them, to question witnesses in person or through a lawyer, to address the court with the last word. The statute provided for the delivery of a copy of the indictment in German to the accused before the start of the trial.

Many mutually acceptable decisions at the conference were difficult to come by. The most serious problem was the contradictions between the legal systems of the USSR, Great Britain, the USA and France, which established the tribunal. Overcoming them required a lot of time and nerves, lengthy discussions, and concessions. The competence of the lawyers of the victorious countries was not in doubt, but their legal and political views were sometimes sharply opposed. To the credit of these people, they tried to find a compromise and fulfilled the responsibility assigned to them by the world community.

On August 8, 1945, the day the agreement was signed, the chief prosecutors from each of the four countries met for the first time together to draw up an agreed list of defendants. Everyone agreed that it would most likely be 10-12 people from different Nazi power structures. USSR representative I. T. Nikitchenko insisted that industrialists must also be on the list. As a result, the number of defendants increased.

24 war criminals from all power structures of Nazi Germany were put on trial: Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, Ley, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Funk, Schacht, Gustav Krupp, Doenitz, Raeder, Schirach, Sauckel, Jodl, Papen, Seyss-Inquart, Speer, Neurath, Fritsche and Bormann - for preparing, unleashing and waging aggressive wars, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

But not all of them took their places in the dock. Ley committed suicide before the trial began. Krupp's case was suspended because he was declared terminally ill. The search for Bormann did not produce results, and he was tried in absentia.

On the same day, changes occurred among the representatives of the USSR. General I. T. Nikitchenko was transferred from prosecutors to judges of the International Military Tribunal. He urgently went to Moscow to recruit employees. The Prosecutor of the Ukrainian SSR, R. A. Rudenko, was appointed as the prosecutor on the Soviet side.

The agreement on the organization of the International Military Tribunal, designed to try the main war criminals, had no analogues in history. It was important not only for the countries participating in the war, but also for the fate of humanity.

Describing the trial, the Chief Prosecutor from the USSR R. A. Rudenko emphasized that this was the first time when criminals who had taken possession of an entire state and made the state itself an instrument of their monstrous crimes were brought to trial. In the dock were people whose criminal activities were not limited to the borders of one state and led to consequences unheard of in their severity.

Many countries and representatives of the public declared the need for such a process, and it is no coincidence that 19 more states then joined it.

The verdict of the International Military Tribunal, which recognized aggression as the gravest international crime and punished the aggressors, is rightly assessed by the world community as a verdict of history.

Why Nuremberg?

At first, no one thought that the meeting place of the International Military Tribunal should be symbolic. The Soviet side insisted on holding the trial in Berlin; the Americans called Munich. The choice of Nuremberg was determined by the fact that the Palace of Justice located there was almost not damaged during the fighting. Its great advantage was that there was a prison in one wing of the building and there was no need to transport the accused.

Subsequently, at the instigation of the Chief Prosecutor from the United States, Robert H. Jackson, everyone began to talk about the finger of fate when choosing a place for the trial of the Nazi leaders. The Nuremberg address was even considered a certain kind of retribution - after all, Hitler’s criminals had to experience the collapse of hopes for world domination and stand trial in the city, which for them was a kind of capital of the fascist empire, where they argued that there were no laws other than those that they themselves had established.

Nuremberg is an ancient city, almost a thousand years old. The first pocket watch and the first globe appeared here, on which America, which had not yet been discovered, appeared. It was in Nuremberg that one of the first in Europe, an astronomical observatory and a gymnasium appeared. The artist Durer was born and worked in this city, the sculptors Kraft, Fischer, Stoss worked, and the folk composer Hans Sachs created his famous poems and musical works.

In 1356, Charles IV proclaimed that each new Holy Roman Emperor of the German nation should assemble his first Imperial Reichstag only here. This city was very loved by Frederick I Barbarossa, who was obsessed with the idea of world domination and died ingloriously on the outskirts of Palestine during the Third Crusade. It is natural that in the 1930s. XX century Nuremberg became the party capital of the Nazis. They considered their Germany to be the Third Reich after the Holy Roman Empire and the state of Bismarck, created in 1871.

The chronology of these Reichs is curious. The first lasted ten centuries, of which it gradually weakened over the course of six. In 1806, its last emperor, Franz II, abdicated the throne. By decree of Napoleon, Nuremberg lost its status as an imperial city and became one of the populated areas of Bavaria.

However, the idea of empire did not die. Only 60 years passed, and on January 18, 1871, after the victory over France, Otto von Bismarck proclaimed the Second Reich. The century of this empire was measured in 47 years. After defeat in the First World War in 1919, Germany lost not only all its conquests, but also the ability to maintain an army due to the payment of huge reparations.

The new pause between empires was only 14 years. The creator of the Third Reich in 1933 was Adolf Hitler. The “thousand-year” Nazi empire he declared collapsed after 12 years and ended with the Trial of Nations over its founders.

Nuremberg was subjected to intense Allied bombing also due to its imperial role. Here the Nazis organized party congresses and demonstrations. Hitler fulfilled the instructions of the Golden Bull issued by Charles IV: he held his first party congress after coming to power in Nuremberg. The goals of Nazi gatherings were primarily served by the Congresshalle - the Congress Palace - and the Zeppelin Fields - the world's widest parade road.

This is how Arkady Poltorak, who worked in the secretariat of the Nuremberg trials, describes one of the places of mass Nazi actions: “A huge stadium with stands made of gray stone. Dominating everything, towered the colossus of the central stand with many steps and benches, with black bowls on the wings, where fire burned during the days of fascist gatherings. As if cutting this colossus in half, a wide dark blue arrow passes from bottom to top, indicating with its tip where to look for Hitler. From here he looked out over the marching troops and assault troops. From here, amid the roar of a frenzied crowd, he called on them to destroy other people's hearths, to seize foreign lands, and to bloodshed.

On such days, the city trembled from the tramp of thousands of forged boots. And in the evenings it flared up like a giant fire. Smoke from the torches obscured the sky. Columns of torchbearers walked through the streets with wild exclamations and screams.

Now the huge stadium was empty. Only on the central stand were a few ladies in sunglasses, obviously American tourists. They took turns climbing into Hitler’s place and, clicking cameras, took pictures of each other.”

The same author left us a detailed description of the courthouse: “On one of the streets of Nuremberg - the wide and straight Fuerthstrasse - an entire block of buildings remained almost unscathed, and among them, behind a tasteless stone fence with oval recesses, with large double cast-iron gates, there was a massive four-story building with pompous name Palace of Justice. Its first floor without windows is a covered gallery with vaults, supported by short, round, heavy columns that seem to have grown into the ground. Above are two floors, decorated with a smooth facade. And on the fourth floor in the niches there are statues of some figures of the German Empire. Above the entrance are four large stucco shields with various emblems.

A rare strip of trees with inside a fence separates the building from the street.

If you look closely, you can see traces of war here too. On many of the columns the stone was chipped, either by a burst of heavy machine gun fire or by shell fragments. Some niches on the fourth floor are empty, apparently cleared of statues by the sudden impact of the blast wave.

Next to the Palace of Justice there is another administrative building connected to it by a passage. And from the courtyard, perpendicular to the inner facade, a long four-story prison building adjoins the Palace. Prison is like a prison. Like all prisons in the world. Smooth plastered walls and small barred windows, stuck in rows almost right next to each other.”

Having visited the Palace of Justice more than 50 years later, the author of this book no longer saw the traces of the war that Arkady Poltorak wrote about. But he noted for himself that the entire complex is in excellent condition, and the hall in which the Court of Nations was once held has become more solemn and harmonious thanks to the large chandeliers hanging from the ceiling. They were originally in the building, but in order to give the hall greater severity, ordinary lamps were hung instead of them before the process.

Arriving for the first time in Nuremberg on August 17, 1945, R.H. Jackson, I.T. Nikitchenko, H. Shawcross, A. Gro found a city in which there was no running water supply, no sewage system, no electricity, no transport and connection. But the Palace of Justice was almost ready for the work of the tribunal, and the preliminary investigation could begin.

The court has not yet opened, but is already in session...

Since a judicial action of this magnitude was taking place for the first time in the world, many strategic and organizational problems had to be solved. For this purpose, even before the start of the trial, several organizational meetings of the International Military Tribunal took place. These meetings took place not in Nuremberg, but in Berlin, in the building of the Quadripartite Control Council for Germany. The Rules of the Tribunal were discussed and adopted, current issues were considered, including the uniform of judges, the order of their placement in the courtroom, the organization of translations, the invitation of defense attorneys, the creation of a secretariat of the tribunal, the oath of office for members of the tribunal and employees of the secretariat.

It was not easy to accommodate the Allied delegations in the bombed city. If groups of 20–25 people were expected from Great Britain, France and the USSR, then the USA announced the arrival of 600 representatives who wanted to live in comfort. The wishes were mostly fulfilled. The chief prosecutor from the United States, R.H. Jackson, settled in a huge mansion with a tennis court and a music room in which there was a concert grand piano. The table could seat 20–25 people during lunch. This American drove Hitler's armored limousine and Ribbentrop's luxurious Mercedes.

There were a lot of big and small problems that needed to be solved. Suddenly the fact emerged that there was no cafeteria in the Palace of Justice, it was discovered that there were few translators, and the prosecutors were not present in full force...

Of course, the most important were legal issues, such as disagreements over the list of accused. The Soviet side insisted on its publication by September 1, 1945, but disputes continued until the start of the trial. The British, for example, were against the inclusion of the General Staff of Nazi Germany in the list of criminal organizations. Everything was decided by the vote: no one supported the British. There were also discussions on the charges.

Disputes about the form and content of the indictment continued throughout the summer of 1945. On October 10, representatives of the prosecution from the USA, Great Britain and France were ready to present their version of the indictment to the tribunal. The Chief Prosecutor from the USSR, R. A. Rudenko, who arrived in Germany on October 12, found errors in wording and a number of other shortcomings in the text and insisted on revision. The allies did not hide their irritation. There were rumors that Soviet representatives were delaying the process, coordinating every comma in the Kremlin.

The first organizational meeting took place on October 9, 1945. It was decided to create a temporary Secretariat of the tribunal. The secretary of the American delegation, Harold Willey, was temporarily appointed Secretary General, who, however, was soon replaced by US Army Brigadier General William Mitchell.

At the organizational meetings before the start of the trial, the members of the tribunal presided alternately. An exception was made for the open organizational (administrative) meeting at which the indictment from the Committee of Prosecutors was accepted. Major General I. T. Nikitchenko, a member of the tribunal from the USSR, was elected presiding at this meeting.

Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence, a member of the tribunal from Great Britain, was elected presiding over the trial in Nuremberg. By a decision of October 17, the International Military Tribunal authorized Lord Lawrence to sign all official orders and regulations.

On October 18, 1945, an open organizational (administrative) meeting of the tribunal took place in Berlin. It was attended by: Chief Prosecutor from the Soviet Union R. A. Rudenko, Chief Prosecutor from Great Britain Hartley Shawcross, Chief Prosecutor from the USA Robert Jackson was replaced by his assistant Shia, Chief Prosecutor from France Francois de Menton was represented by his assistant Dubost.

All members of the tribunal took an oath in turn, solemnly declaring that they would perform their duties honestly, objectively and conscientiously.

The meeting was opened by a member of the tribunal from the Soviet Union, Major General of Justice I. T. Nikitchenko. Then the Chief Prosecutor from the Soviet Union, R. A. Rudenko, presented the court with the text of the indictment in Russian, and representatives of the prosecution from France, Great Britain and the United States handed over texts in French and English. After this, presiding I. T. Nikitchenko made a statement: “The indictment presented by the Committee of Chief Prosecutors examines the crimes of the following accused: Hermann Wilhelm Goering, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Robert Ley, Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank , Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Walter Funk, Helmar (Hjalmar) Schacht, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, Karl Doenitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Martin Bormann, Franz von Papen, Arthur Seyss-Inquart , Albert Speer, Constantin von Neurath and Hans Fritsche - individually and as members of any of the following groups or organizations to which they respectively belonged, namely: the government cabinet, the leadership of the National Socialist Party, the security forces of the German National Socialist Party (SS) ), including the Security Service (SD) groups, the State Secret Police (Gestapo), the storm troopers of the German National Socialist Party (SA), the General Staff and the High Command of the German Armed Forces - all as set out in Appendix B.

Under Articles 16 and 23 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, accused persons may conduct their own defence, or may choose counsel from among the lawyers entitled to perform their duties before the court in their own country, or through a special counsel appointed by the military tribunal. A special secretary of the tribunal is appointed, who is charged with bringing to the attention of the accused their rights. If any of the accused wishes to have a defense lawyer who is unable to fulfill his duties, the tribunal will assign him a defense attorney.

The indictment will be served on the accused today.

The International Military Tribunal will set a trial date in Nuremberg no later than 30 days after the indictment is served.

At this point, the tribunal meeting was closed.

Later, with the start of the process, the need for organizational meetings did not disappear, and they were held regularly. This usually took place at the end of the day's court hearings, and also, if necessary, during breaks between court sessions. No transcripts of the meetings were kept. In accordance with paragraph “c” of Art. 4 of the Charter, decisions of the tribunal, with the exception of decisions on guilt and punishment, were made by a majority vote. The voice of the chairman during the discussion of controversial issues was decisive.

Despite the fact that the decisions of the tribunal were sometimes inconsistent and contradictory, the requirements of the Charter were generally adhered to. Organizational meetings also played a role in this.

...The hour for the opening of the Nuremberg trials was approaching.

Let us pay tribute to the memory and respect of those who fairly and strictly administered justice to Nazi criminals.

Composition of the tribunal:

A member of the tribunal from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the chairman is Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence.

The alternate member of the tribunal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is Judge Norman Birkett.

Member of the tribunal from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - Major General of Justice I. T. Nikitchenko.

The deputy member of the tribunal from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is Lieutenant Colonel of Justice A.F. Volchkov.

The member of the tribunal for the United States of America is Francis Biddle.

The alternate member of the tribunal for the United States of America is John J. Parker.

Tribunal member from French Republic- Henri Donedier de Vabres.

The alternate member of the tribunal from the French Republic is Robert Falco.

Secretariat:

General Secretary – Brigadier General William I. Mitchell (from November 6, 1945 to June 24, 1946), Colonel John E. Ray (from June 24, 1946).

Secretary of the USSR delegation - Major A.I. Poltorak, V.Ya. Kolomatsin (since February 1946).

Secretary of the US delegation - Harold Willey (from November 6, 1945 to July 11, 1946), Walter Gilkison (from June 16, 1946).

Secretary of the British delegation - I. D. McIllraith.

Secretary of the French delegation - A. Martin-Anvar.

Prosecutors from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:

The main prosecutor is R. A. Rudenko, State Counselor of Justice, 2nd class (Lieutenant General).

Deputy Chief Prosecutor - Colonel of Justice Yu. V. Pokrovsky.

State Counselor of Justice 3rd class (Major General) N. D. Zorya.

Colonel of Justice D.S. Karev.

State Counselor of Justice 2nd class (Lieutenant General) M. Yu. Raginsky.

Senior Adviser of Justice (Colonel) L. N. Smirnov.

State Counselor of Justice, 2nd class (Lieutenant General) L. R. Sheinin.

Investigative part:

State Counselor of Justice 3rd class (Major General) G. N. Alexandrov.

Colonel of Justice S. Ya. Rosenblit.

Senior Adviser of Justice (Colonel) N. A. Orlov.

Lieutenant Colonel of Justice S.K. Piradov.

From the United States of America:

The main prosecutor is Judge Robert H. Jackson.

Deputy Chief Prosecutor:

Colonel Robert Story, Mr. Thomas Dodd, Mr. Sidney Alderman, Brigadier General Telford Taylor, Colonel John Harlan Amen, Mr. Ralph Albrecht.

Assistants to the Chief Prosecutor:

Colonel Leonard Wheeler, Lieutenant Colonel William Baldwin, Lieutenant Colonel Smith Brockhart, Commander James Britt Donovan, Major Frank Wallis, Major William Walsh, Major Warren Farr, Captain Samuel Harris, Captain Drexel Sprecher, Lieutenant Commander Whitney Harris, Lieutenant Thomas Lambert, Lieutenant Henry Atterton , Lieutenant Brady O. Bryson, Lieutenant Bernard D. Meltzer, Dr. Robert Kempner, Mr. Walter Brudno.

From UK:

The main prosecutor is Attorney General Hartley Shawcross.

The Deputy Chief Prosecutor is Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe QC, MP.

Lead Counsel - Assistant Chief Prosecutor - Geoffrey Roberts QC.

Assistants to the Chief Prosecutor:

Lieutenant Colonel J. M. J. Griffith-Jones, Col. G. J. Phillimore Major, MP - F. Elwyn Jones, Major J. Harcourt Barrington.

From France:

The main prosecutor is the Minister of Justice, Mr. François de Menton (until January 1946), Mr. Auguste Champetier de Ribes (from January 1946).

Deputy Chief Prosecutors: Mr. Charles Dubost, Mr. Edgar Faure.

Assistants to the Chief Prosecutor, heads of departments:

Mr. Pierre Mounier, Mr. Charles Gertoffer, Mr. Delphine Debene.

Assistants to the Chief Prosecutor:

Mr. Jacques V. Herzog, Mr. Henry Delpeche, Mr. Serge Fuster, Mr. Constant Quatre, Mr. Henry Monnerey.

No matter how great and historical the trial at Nuremberg was, it was not spared from the prose of life. Before the start of the process, it suddenly became clear that the office equipment of the Soviet delegation was at the level of the People's Commissar of Justice.

“Comrade Rudenko! Please inform Comrade Rychkov (People's Commissar of Justice N.N. Rychkov. - Note auto) that the typewriters sent by NKYU with Russian font are worthless. I ask, if possible, to take with you several sets of Russian font for typewriters or send two more typewriters with Russian font, and also send two typists. The lack of typewriters and typists makes it impossible to print court materials.”
Telegraphic request from Nuremberg

The whole abyss of Nazi evil

While the Allies were preparing for the trial, the captured Nazi leaders were awaiting their fate in prison. We had to put up with the fact that there were large seizures in the list of arrested main figures of the Third Reich. “Nazi No. 1” escaped legal responsibility - Adolf Hitler, who committed suicide on April 30, 1945 in doomed Berlin. After him, the Minister of Public Education and Propaganda Goebbels committed suicide, having previously poisoned six of his children together with his wife. In British captivity, Himmler committed suicide. The British military doctor did not have time to remove the discovered ampoule of poison from the Reichsfuehrer’s mouth and declared death 12 minutes later. The Fuhrer's comrade Bormann mysteriously disappeared. Only years later it became clear that he was killed on the street while fleeing from the imperial office.

But there were also many arrested bosses in Germany. Chief Admiral of the Fleet Doenitz, who in the last days before the collapse was appointed head of the Third Reich by Hitler, Field Marshal Keitel, Chief of Staff of the Supreme High Command, Ribbentrop, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Streicher, “specialist on the Jewish question,” and other figures from the highest echelons of power were captured.

Some of those arrested were for some time captive to ideas about their own greatness and counted, if not on complete impunity, then on special treatment. Reichsmarschall Goering, detained on May 9, 1945 by the American military, insisted on a meeting with the commander of the US occupation forces, Dwight Eisenhower, and was surprised that the general did not respond to his request. Reichsführer SS Himmler, who was hiding in the stream of refugees, when arrested on May 21, 1945 by the British, immediately gave his name, apparently expecting honorable conditions. In two days he was convinced that there would be no concessions, and began to prepare for suicide...

At first, the Nazi leaders were kept in an American prison in the village of Mondorf, on the border with Luxembourg, then, on August 12, 1945, they were flown to Nuremberg on two transport planes.

Life as a prisoner in Mondorf was not difficult after all. But here they found themselves in a classic prison, learning from their own experience what it means to be deprived of rights and freedoms and to experience the contempt of others while awaiting trial and a sentence that could not be lenient. Ribbentrop lost weight and began to look like a prisoner of a concentration camp, Keitel lost 15 kilograms in weight, the skin on the previously disproportionately obese Goering hung in folds...

No one was going to create comfortable conditions for high-ranking Nazis. The elderly Keitel considered it a mockery that he was forced to sit on a stool rather than on a chair with a backrest. The diet was meager, contacts with the world were limited.

In the solitary cell of the prison block of the Palace of Justice, the area of which was about 11 square meters, at an average height human size there was a window overlooking the prison yard. The window in the door was constantly open - through it food was passed to the prisoner and observation was carried out. There was a toilet in the corner of the cell, the furniture included a bed, a hard chair and a table. It was allowed to put family photographs, paper, pencils, tobacco and toiletries on the table. The rest was confiscated.

The arrested person was obliged to lie down on the bed so that his head and hands always remained visible. The offender was immediately woken up. Daily toilet(shaving with a safety razor) was performed by a verified hairdresser who was a prisoner of war under the supervision of guards.

The cells were illuminated from the outside to exclude the possibility of suicide by electric shock. The weapon of death could have been shards of glass, so the windows had only bars without glass, and there were drafts throughout the rooms. Those arrested were given glasses only for a certain period of time; under no circumstances were they left overnight.

Thorough searches took place once or twice a week. On bathing day, which was scheduled once a week, prisoners were first examined in a special room.

The head of the prison, American Colonel Andrus, specifically announced that complaints about these strict and humiliating measures would not be accepted: “... all protests against the conditions of your detention here are not only unfounded, but also unlawful. Your idea of your own status is erroneous - you are neither captured officers nor prisoners of war... You represent a small group of people who... treated international treaties as worthless "waste paper" and believed that they could only be used for their own benefit and with impunity violate when it came to peoples of the “non-Aryan race”..." ( Irving D. Nuremberg. Last fight. M.: Yauza, 2005. pp. 289–290).

Moreover, prison conditions became increasingly harsh. To avoid suicide attempts, measures were taken additional measures: instead of tables, cardboard boxes were used, it was allowed to approach the window no closer than a meter. Chairs were placed in cells only during the day; they were removed at night. If the arrested person used a comb, pencil or glasses, then a guard was always present.

On October 19, 1945, each person arrested was handed an indictment against signature. This was a milestone, after which all those in custody moved from the category of internees to the category of accused. The gravity and scale of the incriminated acts made a strong impression on the former leaders of Germany. Despite all the precautions taken in prison, one of the accused, Robert Lay, still managed to commit suicide. So…

They all said no!

The first hearing of the International Military Tribunal for the main German war criminals was opened on November 20, 1945 at 10 a.m., presided over by Lord Justice Lawrence.

The day before, they tried to postpone it (the meeting). The reason for this was a telegram from Moscow (it arrived on November 19). It reported that the Chief Prosecutor from the Soviet Union, R. A. Rudenko, was ill, and therefore it was necessary to postpone the start of the trial. At the meeting, the demand of the Soviet delegation was supported by the French, who were offended by the tribunal’s refusal to include industrialist Alfred Krupp on the list of accused. The French Deputy Chief Prosecutor, Dubost, even threatened that France would recuse itself if the trial began without a Soviet prosecutor. The British in this situation united with the Americans, demanding that the Soviet Union formally announce that it was taking responsibility for further delays. Adding fuel to the fire, US Chief Prosecutor Jackson sharply declared that the United States would open the trial on time, even if it had to do it alone. Not only the French, but also the British were already indignant here. Jackson actually disrupted the meeting because the noise and altercation prevented it from continuing.

We gathered again in the evening. Consider the issue that was not resolved during the day. The French stood their ground: they say, if you start the process without the Soviet delegation, we will recuse ourselves. The deputy member of the tribunal from the UK prosecutors, Norman Birkett, noted that if a precedent is created, then in the future it will be necessary to postpone sessions in the event of illness of judges or prosecutors.

The bickering of the allies was interrupted by the appearance of Colonel Yu. V. Pokrovsky, deputy of R. A. Rudenko, who announced that the Chief Prosecutor from the USSR would soon arrive in Nuremberg. He emphasized that Roman Rudenko must be present at the opening of the trial in person and refused to replace him.

What delayed Rudenko's arrival? Did the USSR try to disrupt the process? Of course not.

But, knowing that everything in the USSR was decided with the blessing of I.V. Stalin, it can be assumed that until the “father of nations” approved the strategy, tactics and specific actions of the members of the delegation at the Nuremberg trials, and he approached this very scrupulously and responsibly, Rudenko remained in Moscow.

The exchange of telegrams between R. A. Rudenko and Yu. V. Pokrovsky shows that the Soviet side wanted to postpone the opening of the process for a short time - for two to three weeks. Pokrovsky, apparently out of ignorance, spoke out in the press against the postponement of the deadline, and the displeasure of the Moscow authorities was expressed. Rudenko, while in Moscow, asked his deputy to act through allies for now: “... actively support Jackson in the matter of postponing the process.” Pokrovsky’s efforts bore fruit: the French delegation agreed to the postponement. However, the Chief Prosecutor from the United States, Jackson, could not be “processed.” Fortunately, there was no conflict - the Soviet side managed to solve all the problems.

The hall on the third floor of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice, where justice was to be administered, looked stern and even gloomy. And this was done on purpose. As previously noted, the pompous chandeliers that previously decorated the room have now been replaced with ordinary lamps. In the room, decorated with dark green marble, all the windows were tightly curtained; no daylight penetrated into the hall.

On a raised platform there was a table for judges, behind it were large state flags of the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France. The level below was the secretariat, even lower were the stenographers, the desks of the prosecutor's office employees, and to the right behind them was the press.

The dock was located to the left of the entrance. Hermann Goering, “Nazi No. 2,” occupied the most prominent place - in the first row on the right, next to him was Rudolf Hess, who was defiantly reading pastoral short stories, then Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Walter Funk, Hjalmar Schacht. In the second row - Karl Doenitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Franz von Papen, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Constantin von Neurath, Hans Fritsche.

Behind them and on their sides stood American soldiers in white helmets, armed with pistols in white varnished holsters, and white batons in their hands. The flashy equipment of the military police was complemented by white belts and spats.

In front of the dock were defense lawyers in lawyer's robes.

Of the Nazi leaders brought to justice, Hermann Goering, the second-largest man in the state after Hitler, attracted everyone's attention. He is a leader here too, for which he was dubbed the “Fuhrer of the dock.”

The Reichsmarshal, previously incredibly obese, had lost a lot of weight, his cheeks sagged, his clothes hung on him like on a hanger. He was famous in Germany pathological passion to the outfits. He had thirty uniforms that he designed for himself. And at the trial Goering was dressed unusually: a gray jacket with yellow piping and gold buttons, breeches with the same piping, tucked into high boots. He was constantly writing something, from time to time passing papers through security to his defender. Sometimes he looked up from his writing and said something animatedly to Hess, sitting to his left, then began writing again.

Hess, who had been Deputy Fuhrer before his flight to England, was immersed in reading a book. He portrayed a man who had lost his memory. Sometimes his dull gaze from deep, hole-like eye sockets looked around the hall, Hess stood up, began to whisper something to Ribbentrop and quickly fell silent, delving deeper into the book.

Ribbentrop sat all the time in his favorite position, with his arms crossed over his chest. Keitel, in a green uniform without shoulder straps or awards, tensely craned his neck, holding his headphones with one hand. Rosenberg, raising his sharp nose, listened to the remarks of the judges and prosecutors...

Kaltenbrunner was absent from the first meeting because he had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage two days earlier. Seventy-five-year-old Gustav Krupp was declared incompetent for health reasons. Martin Bormann was considered missing.

Everything in the courtroom suggested a well-thought-out order. Each place, including the places of the defendants, was radioed, so that any speech could be listened to at will in Russian, English, French and German languages. Stenographers rotated every 25 minutes to produce a complete transcript of the meeting in four languages by the end of the day. The trial was filmed through special glass openings in the walls so as not to disturb the silence.

Outside, the Palace of Justice was surrounded by reliable security. Traffic on the nearby streets was blocked, and only American patrol tanks drove along them.

In his brief opening remarks, the presiding officer, Lord Lawrence, emphasized:

“...The process that is now about to begin is unique in the history of world jurisprudence, and it is of the greatest public importance to millions of people around the globe. For this reason, those who take any part in it have a great responsibility, and they must discharge their duties honestly and conscientiously, without any connivance, in accordance with the sacred principles of law and justice.”

Everyone in the room was imbued with the historical importance of the event. A gloomy shadow came over the faces of the accused, who had previously tried to act at ease - talking, writing notes to lawyers, making notes for themselves. It was clear that a big and sharp struggle lay ahead. None of the defendants was in a hurry to repent. When asked by the presiding officer whether they were found guilty, all Nazi figures answered: “No.”

Well, that’s what the court does, to examine all the pros and cons and give them an impartial legal assessment.

Interrogations of the defendants began in February 1946. Among them were very intelligent people, with a strong character, and skillful demagogues. Verbal duels with them required a lot of tension. Despite the fact that the tribunal defended a just cause and the judges and prosecutors had a lot of experience, the Nazi bosses, especially those like Goering, in some cases outplayed them, caught them in mistakes and inaccuracies.

Prison doctor Gilbert, a psychiatrist, compiled an interesting document to help the tribunal, in which he reflected his observations of the defendants. Gilbert determined their coefficients mental development, important character traits and attitudes towards each other.

According to Gilbert, Schacht had the highest IQ, Streicher the lowest. Gilbert believed that Speer, Schacht, Fritsche and possibly Frank would testify against Goering. Goering will be supported by Ribbentrop and Rosenberg. Keitel and Schirach hesitate.

He defined Streicher as an inert person, obsessed with obsessive ideas. Gilbert suggested that he would base his defense on spiritual purification, world Zionism, and the teachings of the Talmud.

Ribbentrop is an ambitious egoist and opportunist. One could count on Neurath, Papin, Schacht and Speer, if asked the right questions, to “sink” Ribbentrop.

Papen is courteous, prudent, far-sighted. Hostile towards Goering, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg. To obtain evidence against them, it is better not to “put pressure” on Papen, but to use cross-examination.

Hess is passive, apathetic. Hysterical with paranoid deviations. You can expect anything from him, including a relapse of amnesia. It's best not to subject him to intense interrogation.

Keitel has an IQ almost the same as Ribbentrop. Behind the outward determination lies a weak character. Speer can give the most serious evidence against Keitel.

According to Gilbert, Jodl is one of the few who takes his own position on issues of morality and military affairs. With the right questions, Jodl can testify against Goering, whom he does not like for his arrogance and the wealth acquired during wartime. Out of officer solidarity, he will not testify against Keitel.

Rosenberg is an amateur philosopher, a blind adherent of Hitler. He needs to be treated more strictly. One can accuse him of actively preaching an ideology with the help of which many atrocities were committed.

Hans Frank suffers from a split personality and has hidden homosexual tendencies, which became the cause of manifestations of sadism and masochism. He realizes that he is guilty and will be executed. It is unclear how he will behave during interrogation.

Wilhelm Frick is an extremely selfish subject for whom morality and ethics do not exist. Behavior is difficult to predict.

Shakht is an ambitious and arrogant person. Seething with indignation because he found himself in the dock along with the Fuhrer’s henchmen. Schacht made a statement that he was preparing an assassination attempt on Hitler and at the end of the war he himself ended up in a Nazi concentration camp.

Dr. Gilbert estimated Doenitz's IQ to be slightly lower than that of Schacht. He is calm and confident, prison did not break him.

Raeder is painfully sensitive, irritable, prone to fantasies.

Escape to the kingdom of the dead

Millions of people on earth would then like to see in the dock in Nuremberg the main culprit of the tragedy of the twentieth century - the Fuhrer of Germany Adolf Hitler. However, he escaped the Court of Nations by taking his own life during the storming of Berlin by Soviet troops. Some of his high-ranking henchmen also chose death by poison. About others, for example about Martin Bormann, there was no reliable information at that time...

HITLER Adolf (1889–1945) – Fuhrer and Chancellor of the Third Reich. Participant of the First World War - corporal. Since 1919 - a member of the German Workers' Party (DAP), subsequently, since 1920, - the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). Having created assault detachments (SA) and security detachments (SS), he attempted a coup in 1923 - the “Beer Hall Putsch”. He spent nine months in prison, where he wrote the book “Mein Kampf” (“My Struggle”). In 1930, the NSDAP became the second largest party in the country, receiving financial support from industrialists. Since 1933 – Chancellor. In 1934, he united the posts of chancellor and president, declaring himself Fuhrer. He pursued a policy of repression within the country. In the international arena, he relied on aggression (withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933, the creation of the Wehrmacht in 1935, the capture of the Rhineland demilitarized zone in 1936, the annexation of Austria and the capture of Czechoslovakia in 1938, the attack on Poland in 1939. , occupation of Europe in 1940, attack on the USSR in 1941). Tens of millions of people, including civilians, died in the war he started. The economy of the occupied territories and countries suffered huge losses. He committed suicide on April 30, 1945 during the capture of Berlin by the Soviet army. Hitler's corpse was doused with gasoline and burned in the courtyard of the Imperial Chancellery.

Event "Archive": final decision on the remains of Adolf Hitler

After the war, many legends circulated that the burned corpse belonged to a double, and Hitler himself managed to escape. From time to time, “eyewitnesses” appeared who “met” the Fuhrer in different parts of the planet.

In fact, Hitler's remains were identified with absolute certainty and were secretly buried and reburied in Soviet military camps in East Germany. Together with them, the bodies of Eva Braun, Joseph Goebbels, his wife Magda and six children were interred twice. The second burial was made on February 21, 1946 in Magdeburg. In April 1970, the burial was opened, and all the remains were finally destroyed.

Carrying out the event "Archive"

The purpose of the event: to remove and physically destroy the remains of those buried in Magdeburg on February 21, 1946 in the military camp on the street. Westendstrasse near house number 36 (now Klausenerstrasse) war criminals.

Involve to participate in this event: the head of the KGB PA, military unit 92626, Colonel N. G. KOVALENKO, operational employees of the same department... In order to implement the event:

1. Two or three days before the start of work on the burial site, the forces of a security platoon of the KGB army OO set up a tent, the size of which would allow, under its cover, to carry out the work envisaged by the plan.

2. The security of the approaches to the tent, after its installation, is carried out by soldiers, and at the time of work - by the operational personnel allocated for the “Archive” event.

3. Organize a hidden post for counter-surveillance of a house near the place of work, in which local citizens live, in order to detect possible visual reconnaissance. If such surveillance is detected, take measures to suppress it, based on the specific situation.

4. Carry out excavations at night, place the discovered remains in specially prepared boxes, which are taken by car to the training fields of the engineer and tank regiments of the GSVG in the area of Rotten Lake (Magdeburg District of the GDR), where they are burned and then thrown into the lake.

5. Document the implementation of the activities planned by the plan by drawing up reports:

A) the act of opening the burial (the act reflects the condition of the boxes and their contents, the inclusion of the latter in the prepared boxes);

B) act of burning the remains.

The acts should be signed by all the above-listed operational employees of OO VCh pp 92626.

6. After removing the remains, the place where they were buried should be restored to its original condition. Remove the tent two to three days after the main work has been carried out.

7. Cover story: since the event will be carried out in a military camp, access to which is prohibited for local citizens, the need to explain the reasons and nature of the work performed can only arise in relation to officers, members of their families and civilian employees of the army headquarters living on the territory of the town.

The essence of the legend: the work (installation of a tent, excavation) is carried out in order to check a criminal arrested in the USSR, according to which valuable archival materials may be located in this place.

8. If the first excavation, due to inaccurate instructions about the location of the “Archive,” does not lead to its discovery, organize a business trip to the place of Major General Comrade, who is now retired and living in Leningrad. GORBUSHINA V.N., with the help of which to carry out the activities provided for in this plan.
Head of the 3rd Directorate of the KGB Lieutenant General Fedorchuk March 20, 1970 F. K-1os, op. 4, d. 98, l. 2–3 (script)

The Fuhrer's ashes were carried away by the Biederitz River

During the night and morning of April 4, 1970, operatives opened the secret burial place of “war criminals” near house number 36 on Klausener Strasse and discovered five decayed boxes “stacked crosswise on top of each other.” The tree rotted and turned into dust, the remains were mixed with the soil. There was almost nothing left of the children's bodies. According to the count of the best preserved shin bones and skulls, there were 10–11 corpses in the burial. The next day, April 5, all the carefully collected bones were destroyed.

The “event” went without anyone’s unwanted attention. Surveillance of a nearby house in which German citizens lived did not reveal “suspicious actions on their part.” The Soviet people who were in the military camp did not react in any way to the secret action: “... there was no direct interest in the work being carried out and the tent installed at the excavation site.”

After the remains were removed, the area was restored to its previous appearance...

(on the physical destruction of the remains of war criminals)

According to the plan for the “Archive” event, an operational group consisting of the head of the KGB PA under the USSR Council of Ministers, military unit 92626, Colonel N. G. Kovalenko and employees of the same department... burned the remains of war criminals removed from burial in a military camp on the street . Westendstrasse near house number 36 (now Klausenerstrasse).

The destruction of the remains was carried out by burning them at the stake in a vacant lot near the city of Schönebeck, 11 km from Magdeburg.

The remains were burned out, crushed into ash along with coal, collected and thrown into the Biederitz River, about which this act was drawn up.
Head of the KGB PA, military unit 92626 Colonel Kovalenko Employees of the KGB PA, military unit no. 92626 (signatures) April 5, 1970 F. K-1os, op. 4, d. 98, l. 7–8 (script)

* * *

The given introductory fragment of the book Nuremberg. The main process of humanity (A. G. Zvyagintsev, 2016) provided by our book partner -

Zvyagintsev Nuremberg is the main process of humanity. Nuremberg trial

Otto von Bismarck: short biography. Childhood

Leaving the university

The beginning of the political path

Confrontation with liberals

Conflict with Austria

Otto in Russia

Prime Minister

Prussian territorial expansion

Land unification

Heritage

Preface

From the author

Part 1
Before the process starts

Chapter 1
Punish the Nazis on the spot or judge them in a civilized manner?

* * *

* * *

New on the site

Recipes with nutmeg

In a flask with a capacity of 0

Pu-erh tea black "Xiao To - Mini to cha" (100 g) Description of Pu-erh tea xiao tocha

Anna Sparrow biography. Kotui history. Personal life of Anya Vorobei

Kotui history Anya Sparrow biography years of life

Most popular

Prayer to Saint Paraskeva for peace in the family

Blessed John the Fool for Christ's sake

Sedmiozernaya Mother of God Hermitage

The feat of the martyr Agnia - "a vow that exceeds the laws of age"

Structure and properties of proteins

POPULAR SECTIONS

Otto von Bismarck: short biography. Childhood

Leaving the university

The beginning of the political path

Confrontation with liberals

Conflict with Austria

Otto in Russia

Prime Minister

Prussian territorial expansion

Land unification

Heritage

Preface

From the author

Part 1 Before the process starts

Chapter 1 Punish the Nazis on the spot or judge them in a civilized manner?

* * *

* * *

New on the site

Most popular

POPULAR SECTIONS

Part 1
Before the process starts

Chapter 1
Punish the Nazis on the spot or judge them in a civilized manner?