International tribunals for fascist criminals. Double process standards

MOSCOW, November 20. /TASS/. November 20, 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the opening of the Nuremberg trials, which tried the case of the main Nazi criminals responsible for unleashing the Second World War. This was the first experience in history of condemning crimes of a national scale - the ruling regime, its punitive institutions, senior political and military figures.

For the first time, war criminals failed to evade responsibility, citing the need to carry out orders from above.

The Nuremberg trial is the only one of its kind in the history of world jurisprudence; it has the greatest social significance for millions of people around the globe

Geoffrey Lawrence

chairman of the tribunal

24 government and military leaders of Nazi Germany were put on trial. Cases against the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) Adolf Hitler and representatives of the Fuhrer's inner circle - Joseph Goebbels (Minister of Education and Propaganda) and Heinrich Himmler (Minister of the Interior and head of the SS) were not initiated, since they committed suicide yet before the process starts.

The issue of recognizing as criminal was also brought up for consideration by the tribunal:

• SS (Schutzstaffel, security detachments, paramilitary forces of the NSDAP),
• SA (Sturmabteilung, assault troops),
• SD (Sicherheitsdienst, security service),
• Gestapo (Gestapo, Geheime Staatspolizei, secret state police),

as well as the government, the leadership of the NSDAP, the General Staff and the High Command of the German Armed Forces.

How was the tribunal created?

The issue of punishing Nazi criminals was raised by the leaders of the USSR, Great Britain and the USA even before the end of World War II.

It was emphasized that Nazi officers and soldiers who committed “atrocities, murders and mass executions” on the territory of the occupied countries, after the end of the war, would be sent “to the places of their crimes and will be judged by the peoples against whom they committed violence.”

The agreement on the establishment of the International Military Tribunal was concluded by the governments of the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France on August 8, 1945 in London.

Tribunal Statute

On the same day, the tribunal's charter was adopted. His first article noted that the goal of the Nuremberg trials was “a speedy and fair trial and punishment of the main war criminals of the Axis countries.”

Article 6 of the statute classified three main groups of crimes:

crimes against peace (unleashing a war of aggression);

war crimes (violations of the laws and customs of warfare recorded in various international documents, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907);

crimes against humanity (murder of civilians, racism, genocide, etc.).

The defendants were accused of these crimes, as well as “participation in the creation and implementation general plan to accomplish them."

Article 27 provided for "the death penalty or such other punishment as the tribunal considers just."

To find the defendant guilty and determine his punishment, the votes of at least three members of the tribunal were required.

It is believed that the process marked the beginning of the formation and development of a new direction of jurisprudence - international criminal law and justice.

Who entered the tribunal

To make judicial decisions, each of the four parties appointed one member and one alternate to the tribunal:

• USSR- Chairman of the Supreme Court of the USSR, Major General of Justice Ion Nikitchenko and Colonel of Justice Alexander Volchkov;
• USA- former prosecutor general of the country Francis Biddle and judge John Parker;
• Great Britain- Chief Justice Geoffrey Lawrence and Justice Norman Birket;
• France- Professor of Criminal Law Henri Donnedier de Vabres and Judge Robert Falco.

An indictment committee was also established, to which each of the four governments appointed a chief prosecutor:

• USSR- Prosecutor of the Ukrainian SSR Roman Rudenko;
• USA- US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson;
• Great Britain- lawyer Hartley Shawcross;
• France - law professor François de Menton, but during the trial he was replaced by lawyers Charles Dubost and Champetier de Ribes.

Other prosecutors also took part in the trial.

Continuation

"Youtube/moymoymoyification"s channel"

Press about the tribunal

Media representatives from 31 countries attended the trial. In the USSR, the press reported daily on what was happening in Nuremberg. TASS information was supplemented by reports from journalists present at the meetings, including famous writers Leonid Leonov, Ilya Erenburg, Boris Polevoy and documentary filmmaker Roman Karmen.

Today at 10 a.m. local time (12 p.m. Moscow time) a meeting of the International Military Tribunal took place. For many years in a row, the Nazis held their congresses in Nuremberg, where they outlined aggressive plans to enslave the world, where, to the beat of drums and the sounds of fanfare, the Nazis boasted of their victories and proclaimed a “new order” in Europe

TASS correspondent

Before the opening of the meeting, the hall was filled with:

“There are 20 main German war criminals in the dock. Four defendants are missing. There is no Martin Bormann, Hitler’s deputy for the leadership of the Hitler party. He cowardly fled after heart-rendingly calling on the German army and the German people to fight until last straw blood. Defendant Robert Ley hanged himself in prison without waiting for trial. The defendant Gustav Krupp von Bohlen lies in Salzburg, paralyzed, and, according to experts, cannot stand trial. Defendant Kaltenbrunner, a famous executioner and one of the leaders of the Gestapo, suddenly fell ill. But the court announced its decision to examine his case in his absence,” TASS reported.

It's like we're in the devil's kitchen right now. What we learn deserves such a name. Thanks to the documents brought by the prosecution, we see how a bunch of international robbers, intoxicated by their bloody successes in Western Europe, completely cold-bloodedly planned not only the dismemberment of our Motherland, not only the robbery of its peoples, but also their physical extermination

Boris Polevoy

During the trial, a film was shown about the crimes of the Nazis in the concentration camps of Majdanek, Sachsenhausen, Auschwitz, as well as in the occupied territories of the USSR. This moment, which was called the confrontation between executioners and victims, is considered the culmination of the Nuremberg trials.

When they showed a film about the camps, Schacht turned his back to the screen - he didn’t want to watch; others looked on, and Frank cried and wiped his eyes with a handkerchief. It sounds implausible, but I saw it: Frank, the same one who wrote that in Poland when he arrived there there were three and a half million Jews, and in 1944 of them a hundred thousand remained, sobbed when he saw on the screen what which I have seen a million times in reality; maybe he cried over himself - he realized what awaited him

Ilya Erenburg

12 death sentences

The process lasted 11 months.

During this time, 403 open court hearings took place. A total of 360 witnesses were questioned and about 200 thousand written testimonies were reviewed.

Most were found guilty on all charges or partially. None of them admitted their guilt.

The tribunal sentenced twelve defendants to death, and another nine to prison terms, including life sentences. Three were acquitted.

The following were sentenced to death by hanging:

• Hermann Goering ("successor of the Fuhrer", President of the Reichstag, Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force);
• Wilhelm Keitel (Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht High Command);
• Joachim von Ribbentrop (Foreign Minister);
• Hans Frank (Governor General of occupied Poland);
• Wilhelm Frick (one of the leaders of the NSDAP);
• Alfred Jodl (Chief of Operations of the German High Command);
• Ernst Kaltenbrunner (Head of the Main Office of Reich Security);
• Alfred Rosenberg (one of the main ideologists of Nazism);
• Fritz Sauckel (led the forced deportations of the population from the occupied territories);
• Arthur Seyss-Inquart (German Commissioner in the occupied Netherlands);
• Julius Streicher (one of the ideologists of Nazism);
• Martin Bormann (head of the Nazi Party chancellery; convicted in absentia because his whereabouts were unknown; in 1973, a German court officially declared him dead).

Life imprisonment received:

• Rudolf Hess (one of Hitler's closest associates, committed suicide in Berlin Spandau prison in 1987);
• Erich Raeder (Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, released in 1955 for health reasons);
• Walter Funk (Minister of Economics, released in 1957 for health reasons).

Sentenced to 20 years in prison:

• Baldur von Schirach (one of the leaders of the NSDAP);
• Albert Speer (Minister of Armaments).

Konstantin von Neurath (one of the leaders of the SS) was sentenced to 15 years in prison, and Karl Doenitz (Hitler's successor as head of state) was sentenced to 10 years.

The leadership of the Nazi Party, SS, SD and Gestapo were declared criminal organizations.

The SA (assault troopers), the government of Nazi Germany, the general staff and the high command of the German armed forces were not recognized as criminal.

Acquitted

Acquittals were made against diplomat Franz von Papen, financier Helmar Schacht and head of the internal propaganda department of the German Ministry of Education and Propaganda Hans Fritsche.

The representative of the USSR at the tribunal, Iona Nikitchenko, issued a statement in which he expressed disagreement with the acquittals.

Continuation

Subsequently, materials from the Nuremberg trials were used during trials against fascist criminals in other countries. In particular, on their basis, a prominent figure of the NSDAP, Erich Koch (1959, Poland; the execution was later commuted to life imprisonment) and one of the Gestapo leaders responsible for the extermination of Jews, Adolf Eichmann (1961, Israel) were sentenced to death. .

Execution of the sentence

On the night of October 16, 1946, death sentences were carried out in the building of the Nuremberg prison (Herman Goering took potassium cyanide 2.5 hours before his execution).

The bodies of the war criminals were burned in a crematorium in Munich, and the ashes were scattered from the plane.

Journalists were present at the execution of the sentence - two people from each of the four Allied powers.

The initial list of accused included:

1. Hermann Wilhelm Goering, Reichsmarshal, Commander-in-Chief of the German Air Force.

2. Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy in charge of the Nazi Party.

3. Joachim von Ribbentrop, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nazi Germany.

4. Robert Ley, head of the Labor Front.

5. Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of Staff of the Supreme High Command of the German Armed Forces.

6. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, head of the RSHA.

7. Alfred Rosenberg, one of the main ideologists of Nazism, Reich Minister for Eastern Affairs.

8. Hans Frank, head of the occupied Polish lands.

9. Wilhelm Frick, Reich Minister of the Interior.

10. Julius Streicher, Gauleiter, editor-in-chief of the anti-Semitic newspaper Sturmovik.

11. Hjalmar Schacht, Reich Minister of Economics before the war.

12. Walter Funk, Minister of Economics after Schacht.

13. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, head of the Friedrich Krupp concern.

14. Karl Doenitz, admiral of the fleet of the Third Reich.

15. Erich Raeder, Commander-in-Chief of the Navy.

16. Baldur von Schirach, head of the Hitler Youth, Gauleiter of Vienna.

17. Fritz Sauckel, leader of the forced deportations to the Reich of labor from the occupied territories.

18. Alfred Jodl, Chief of Staff of the OKW Operations Command.

19. Franz von Papen, Chancellor of Germany before Hitler, then Ambassador to Austria and Turkey.

20. Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Chancellor of Austria, then Imperial Commissioner of occupied Holland.

21. Albert Speer, Reich Minister of Armaments.

22. Konstantin von Neurath, in the first years of Hitler's reign, Minister of Foreign Affairs, then governor of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

23. Hans Fritsche, head of the press and broadcasting department at the Ministry of Propaganda.

Groups or organizations to which the defendants belonged were also charged.

The defendants were charged with planning, preparing, unleashing or waging a war of aggression in order to establish the world domination of German imperialism, i.e. in crimes against peace; in the killing and torture of prisoners of war and civilians of occupied countries, the deportation of civilians to Germany for forced labor, the killing of hostages, the looting of public and private property, the aimless destruction of cities and villages, in devastation not justified by military necessity, i.e. in war crimes; in extermination, enslavement, exile and other cruelties committed against the civilian population for political, racial or religious reasons, i.e. in crimes against humanity.

The question was also raised about recognizing as criminal such organizations of fascist Germany as the leadership of the National Socialist Party, the assault (SA) and security detachments of the National Socialist Party (SS), the security service (SD), the state secret police (Gestapo), the government cabinet and the General Staff.

October 18, 1945 the indictment was received by the International Military Tribunal and handed to each of the accused in German a month before the start of the trial.

On November 25, 1945, after reading the indictment, Robert Ley committed suicide, and Gustav Krupp was declared terminally ill by the medical commission, and the case against him was dropped before trial.

The remaining accused were brought to trial.

In accordance with the London Agreement, the International Military Tribunal was formed on a parity basis from representatives of four countries. The British representative, Lord Geoffrey Lawrence, was appointed chief judge. From other countries, members of the tribunal were approved:

From the USSR: Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union, Major General of Justice Iona Nikitchenko;

From the USA: former Attorney General Francis Biddle;

From France: Professor of Criminal Law Henri Donnedier de Vabres.

Each of the four countries sent its own chief prosecutors, their deputies and assistants to the trial:

From the USSR: Prosecutor General of the Ukrainian SSR Roman Rudenko;

From the USA: Member of the Federal Supreme Court Robert Jackson;

From UK: Hartley Shawcross;

For France: François de Menton, who was absent during the first days of the trial and was replaced by Charles Dubost, and then Champentier de Ribes was appointed instead of de Menton.

During the trial, 403 open court hearings were held, 116 witnesses were questioned, numerous written testimonies and documentary evidence were considered (mainly official documents of German ministries and departments, the General Staff, military concerns and banks).

Due to the unprecedented gravity of the crimes committed by the defendants, doubts arose whether democratic norms of legal proceedings would be observed in relation to them. For example, representatives of the prosecution from the UK and the USA suggested not giving the defendants the last word. However, the French and Soviet sides insisted on the opposite.

The trial was tense not only because of the unusual nature of the tribunal itself and the charges brought against the defendants. The post-war aggravation of relations between the USSR and the West after Churchill’s famous Fulton speech also had an effect, and the defendants, sensing the current political situation, skillfully played for time and hoped to escape their well-deserved punishment. In such a difficult situation, the tough and professional actions of the Soviet prosecution played a key role. The film about concentration camps, shot by front-line cameramen, finally turned the tide of the process. The terrible pictures of Majdanek, Sachsenhausen, Auschwitz completely removed the doubts of the tribunal.

The International Military Tribunal sentenced:

To death by hanging: Goering, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sauckel, Seyss-Inquart, Bormann (in absentia), Jodl (was posthumously acquitted during a review of the case by a Munich court in 1953).

To life imprisonment: Hess, Funk, Raeder.

To 20 years in prison: Schirach, Speer.

To 15 years in prison: Neurata.

To 10 years in prison: Denitsa.

Acquitted: Fritsche, Papen, Schacht.

The Tribunal recognized the SS, SD, SA, Gestapo and the leadership of the Nazi Party as criminal organizations and did not recognize the government cabinet of Nazi Germany, the General Staff and the High Command of the Wehrmacht as criminal. A member of the Tribunal from the USSR stated in a dissenting opinion his disagreement with the decision not to recognize these organizations as criminal, with the acquittal of Shakht, Papen, Fritsche and not deservedly lenient sentence Hess.

(Military Encyclopedia. Chairman of the Main Editorial Commission S.B. Ivanov. Military Publishing House. Moscow. in 8 volumes - 2004)

Most of the convicts filed petitions for clemency; Raeder - on replacing life imprisonment with the death penalty; Goering, Jodl and Keitel - about replacing hanging with shooting if the request for clemency is not granted. All of these requests were rejected.

Death sentences were carried out on the night of October 16, 1946 in the building of the Nuremberg prison. Goering poisoned himself in prison shortly before his execution.

The sentence was carried out by American Sergeant John Wood.

Funk and Raeder, sentenced to life imprisonment, were pardoned in 1957. After Speer and Schirach were released in 1966, only Hess remained in prison. The right-wing forces of Germany repeatedly demanded to pardon him, but the victorious powers refused to commute the sentence. On August 17, 1987, Hess was found hanged in his cell.

The Nuremberg Tribunal, having created a precedent for the jurisdiction of senior government officials by an international court, refuted the medieval principle “Kings are subject to the jurisdiction only of God.” It was with the Nuremberg trials that the history of international criminal law began.

The principles of international law contained in the Charter of the Tribunal and expressed in the verdict were confirmed by the resolution of the UN General Assembly of December 11, 1946.

The Nuremberg trials legally secured the final defeat of fascism.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources

History knows many examples of cruelty and inhumanity, the bloody crimes of imperialism, but never before have such atrocities and atrocities been committed and on such a scale as the Nazis committed. “German fascism,” noted G. Dimitrov, “is not only bourgeois nationalism. This is animal chauvinism. This is a government system of political banditry, a system of provocations and torture against the working class and revolutionary elements of the peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and intelligentsia. This is medieval barbarism and atrocity. This is unbridled aggression against other peoples and countries" (961). The Nazis tortured, shot, and exterminated over 12 million women, old people, and children in gas chambers, and cold-bloodedly and mercilessly exterminated prisoners of war. They razed thousands of cities and villages to the ground, and drove millions of people from the European countries they occupied to forced labor in Germany.

It is characteristic of German fascism that, simultaneously with the military, economic and propaganda preparations for the next act of aggression, monstrous plans for the mass extermination of prisoners of war and civilians were being prepared. Extermination, torture, and plunder were elevated to the level of state policy. “We,” said Hitler, “must develop the technique of depopulation. If you ask me what I mean by depopulation, I will say that I mean the elimination of entire racial units... the elimination of millions of the inferior race...” (962)

The department of Reichsführer SS Himmler, the Supreme High Command of the Armed Forces and the High Command took direct part in the development and implementation of plans for the mass extermination of civilians. ground forces. They created a sinister “industry of human extermination” from which German monopolies profited. In order to enslave the survivors, historical monuments and national relics were barbarously destroyed, and the material and spiritual culture of peoples was destroyed.

Atrocities in Nazi Germany became the norm of behavior, the everyday life of its rulers, officials, and military personnel. The entire system of fascist institutions, organizations and camps was directed against the vital interests of entire peoples.

That is why fair retribution has become a requirement of all honest people, one of the conditions for preserving lasting peace on the ground. Soviet soldiers and soldiers of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition paved the way for international justice - the Nuremberg trials of the main Nazi war criminals. True, reactionary circles in the USA and Great Britain, under various pretexts, began a campaign aimed at preventing the trial of the fascist conspirators. Even during the war, American reactionary sociologists tried to convince their readers that war criminals were nothing more or less than mentally ill people who should be treated. The press discussed a proposal to deal with Hitler in the same way as in his time with Napoleon, who, as is known, by decision of the victorious states, without trial, was exiled for life to the island of St. Helena (963). The wording was different, but they all pursued one goal - to punish the main war criminals without investigation or trial. The main argument was that their guilt in the crimes was indisputable, and the collection of forensic evidence would allegedly require a lot of time and effort (964). According to Truman, Churchill already in October 1943 tried to convince the head of the Soviet government that the main war criminals should be shot without trial (965).

The real reason, which gave rise to such proposals, was the fear that unsightly aspects in the activities of the governments of Great Britain, the USA and other Western countries might emerge in an open trial: their complicity with Hitler in creating a powerful military machine and encouraging Nazi Germany to attack the Soviet Union. In the ruling circles of the Western powers, fears arose that a public trial of the crimes of German fascism could develop into an indictment of the imperialist system that nurtured it and brought it to power.

Bourgeois falsifiers of history are trying to distort the position of the USSR on the issue of the trial of the main war criminals. For example, West German journalists D. Heidecker and I. Leeb claim that “the Soviet Union was also in favor of putting the Nazis against the wall” (966). Such a statement has nothing to do with reality. It was the USSR that put forward the idea of ​​​​trial of fascist criminals and defended it. The position of the Soviet state was supported by all freedom-loving peoples of the world.

The Soviet Union consistently and unswervingly ensured that Hitler's leaders were brought before the International Court, and that the adopted declarations and international agreements on the punishment of all war criminals were strictly observed, because there is no greater encouragement for crimes than impunity. Moreover, the United Nations program to defeat fascism also demanded severe and fair punishment for all those who committed the most serious crimes against humanity.

Already in the notes of the Soviet government dated November 25, 1941, “On the outrageous atrocities of the German authorities against Soviet prisoners of war,” January 6, 1942, “On the widespread looting, devastation of the population and the monstrous atrocities of the German authorities in the Soviet territories they captured,” April 27, 1942 d. “On the monstrous atrocities, atrocities and violence of the Nazi invaders in the occupied zones and the responsibility of the German government and command for these crimes” (967) it was stated that all responsibility for the crimes committed by the Nazis rests with the fascist rulers and their accomplices. The documents were sent to all countries with which the Soviet Union maintained diplomatic relations and were made widely public.

The inevitability of the Nazis' criminal responsibility for their atrocities was expressed in the declaration of friendship and mutual assistance signed on December 4, 1941 by the governments of the USSR and Poland. It also established an inextricable link between the punishment of fascist criminals and ensuring a lasting and just peace.

On October 14, 1942, the Soviet government, with all determination and inflexibility, again declared that the criminal Hitlerite government and all its accomplices must and will suffer the deserved severe punishment for the atrocities they committed against Soviet people and all freedom-loving peoples. The government of the USSR emphasized the need to urgently bring to trial a special International Tribunal and punish to the fullest extent of the criminal law any of the leaders of Nazi Germany who, during the war, found themselves in the hands of the authorities of the states that fought against it (968). The task of fair and severe punishment of the fascist elite has become an important element foreign policy THE USSR.

The statement of the Soviet government was greeted by the world community with great interest and understanding, especially by the governments of countries that were victims of Hitler's aggression. Thus, the government of Czechoslovakia indicated that it considered this document as an extremely important step towards realizing the unity of all the United Nations in solving the problem of punishment for atrocities committed during the war (969).

Statements about the responsibility of the Nazis for their monstrous crimes were also made by the governments of the United States and Great Britain back in October 1941. Roosevelt noted that severe retribution awaited the Nazis for the atrocities committed, and Churchill emphasized that “retribution for these crimes will henceforth become one of the main goals of war" (970).

Strict punishment of fascist criminals was mentioned in the Moscow Declaration, signed by the leaders of the USSR, USA and Great Britain on October 30, 1943, as well as in other international agreements.

In turn, at the Potsdam Conference it was written: “German militarism and Nazism will be eradicated...” (971).

Attempts by international reaction to prevent an open trial of the leaders of the Reich failed. The peoples who won the great battle with Hitler's Germany perceived the trial of its rulers as a just act of retribution, a natural result of the Second World War.

The idea of ​​the International Criminal Court was brought to life by organizing the trial of the main fascist war criminals, which lasted almost a year - from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946, by the activities of the International Military Tribunal, created on the basis of the London Agreement of August 8, 1945. between the governments of the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France, which was joined by 19 other states. At the same time, the Charter of the Tribunal was adopted, in which the main provision was that the International Military Tribunal was established for the fair and speedy trial and punishment of the main war criminals of the European Axis countries (972).

The Tribunal was international not only because it was organized on the basis of an agreement of 23 states, but it, as indicated in the introductory part of this agreement, was established in the interests of all the United Nations. The fight against German fascism should have become and has become a worldwide concern, uniting the peoples of both hemispheres, because fascism, its misanthropic ideology and policies have always been and are a direct threat to universal peace and social progress. The states of the anti-Hitler coalition managed to achieve a coordinated policy, which included the task of military defeat of German fascism, as well as ensuring conditions for a just world. “Cooperation in the accomplishment of the great military task before us,” Roosevelt pointed out, “must be the prelude to cooperation in the accomplishment of the even greater task of creating world peace (973)

In the USSR, preparations for the trial of the main war criminals were completed in a relatively short time, since back in 1942, by Decree of the Presidium Supreme Council The USSR established an Extraordinary State Commission to establish and investigate the atrocities of the Nazi invaders and their accomplices. Its members included Secretary of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions N. M. Shvernik, Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks A. A. Zhdanov, writer A. N. Tolstoy, academicians E. V. Tarle, N. N. Burdenko, B. E. Vedeneev, I. P. . Trainin, T. D. Lysenko, pilot V. S. Grizodubova, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia Nikolai (974). More than 7 million workers and collective farmers, engineers and technicians, scientists and public figures took part in the work on drawing up the acts (975). With the help of documents and by interviewing many thousands of eyewitnesses, the commission established the facts of the monstrous atrocities of the Nazis.

Soon after the signing of the London Agreement, an International Military Tribunal was formed on a parity basis from representatives of states: from the USSR - Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the USSR, Major General of Justice I. T. Nikitchenko, from the USA - member of the Federal Supreme Court F. Biddle, from Great Britain - Chief Judge Lord D. Lawrence, from France - Professor of Criminal Law D. de Vabre. Deputy members of the Tribunal were appointed: from the USSR - Lieutenant Colonel of Justice A.F. Volchkov, from the USA - judge from the state of North Carolina J. Parker, from Great Britain - one of the leading lawyers of the country N. Birkett, from France - member of the Supreme Court of Cassation R. Falco. Lawrence was elected presiding over the first trial (976).

The prosecution was organized in a similar way. The main prosecutors were: from the USSR - Prosecutor of the Ukrainian SSR R. A. Rudenko, from the USA - Member of the Federal Supreme Court (former assistant to President Roosevelt) R. Jackson, from Great Britain - Prosecutor General and Member of the House of Commons H. Shawcross, from France - Minister Justice F. de Menton, who was then replaced by C. de Rib. In addition to the main prosecutors, the prosecution was supported (presented evidence, interrogated witnesses and defendants) by their deputies and assistants: from the USSR - Deputy Chief Prosecutor Yu. V. Pokrovsky and assistants to the Chief Prosecutor N. D. Zorya, M. Yu. Raginsky, L. N. Smirnov and L.R. Sheinin.

Under the Chief Prosecutor from the USSR, documentary and investigative parts were organized for the preliminary interrogation of the accused and witnesses, as well as the proper documentation of evidence presented to the Tribunal. The documentary part was headed by the assistant to the Chief Prosecutor D.S. Karev, and the investigative part, which included N.A. Orlov, S.K. Piradov and S.Ya. Rosenblit, was headed by G.N. Alexandrov (977). The scientific consultant of the Soviet delegation was Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. N. Trainin.

It was decided to hold the first trial of the main war criminals in Nuremberg, a city that for many years was a stronghold of fascism. It hosted congresses of the National Socialist Party and parades of assault troops.

The list of defendants to be tried by the International Military Tribunal included: G. Goering, Reichsmarschall, Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, authorized under the so-called “Four Year Plan”, since 1922 Hitler’s closest accomplice; R. Hess, Hitler's deputy in the fascist party, member of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Empire; I. Ribbentrop, Minister of Foreign Affairs, authorized representative of the fascist party on foreign policy issues; R. Ley, head of the so-called labor front, one of the leaders of the fascist party; V. Keitel, Field Marshal, Chief of Staff of the Supreme High Command; E. Kaltenbrunner, SS-Obergruppenführer, head of the Reich Security Office and Security Police, Himmler's closest accomplice; A. Rosenberg, Hitler's deputy for ideological training of members of the National Socialist Party, Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories; G. Frank, Reichsleiter of the Nazi Party and President of the Academy of German Law, Governor General of the occupied Polish territories; W. Frick, Minister of the Interior and Reich Commissioner for Military Administration; J. Streicher, Gauleiter of Franconia, ideologist of racism and anti-Semitism, organizer of Jewish pogroms; W. Funk, Minister of Economics, President of the Reichsbank, member of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Empire; G. Schacht, organizer of the rearmament of the Wehrmacht, one of Hitler's closest advisers on economics and finance; G. Krupna, the head of the largest military-industrial concern, which took an active part in the preparation and implementation of the aggressive plans of German militarism, the culprit of the death of many thousands of people deported to hard labor in Nazi Germany; K. Dönitz, Grand Admiral, commander of the submarine fleet, and since 1943 - the naval forces, Hitler's successor as head of state; E. Raeder, grand admiral, until 1943 commander-in-chief of the naval forces; B. Schirach, organizer and leader of fascist youth organizations in Germany, Hitler's governor in Vienna; F. Sauckel, SS Obergruppenführer, General Commissioner for the Use of Labor; A. Yodl, Colonel General, Chief of Staff of the Operational Leadership of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces; F. Papen, one of the organizers of the seizure of power in Germany by the Nazis, Hitler’s closest accomplice in the “annexation” of Austria; A. Seyss-Inquart, leader of the fascist party of Austria, deputy governor-general of Poland, Hitler's governor in the Netherlands; A. Speer, Hitler's closest adviser and friend, Reich Minister of Armaments and Munitions, one of the leaders of the central planning committee; K. Neyrata, former minister Foreign Affairs, member of the Imperial Defense Council, and after the capture of Czechoslovakia - Protector of Bohemia and Moravia; G. Fritsche, Goebbels' closest collaborator, head of the internal press department of the Ministry of Propaganda and head of the radio broadcasting department; M. Bormann, from 1941 Hitler’s deputy in the Nazi Party, head of the party chancellery, Hitler’s closest accomplice.

They were accused of unleashing an aggressive war in order to establish the world domination of German imperialism, that is, of crimes against peace, of killing and torturing prisoners of war and civilians of occupied countries, of deporting civilians to Germany for forced labor, of killing hostages, of robbing public and private property, the aimless destruction of cities and villages, countless devastations not justified by military necessity, that is, war crimes, extermination, enslavement, exile and other cruelties committed against the civilian population for political, racial or religious reasons, that is, crimes against humanity.

On October 18, 1945, the International Military Tribunal accepted the indictment signed by the main prosecutors from the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France, which on the same day, that is, more than a month before the start of the trial, was handed over to all defendants in order to give them the opportunity in advance prepare for the defense.” Thus, in the interests of a fair trial, from the very beginning a course was taken towards the strictest respect for the rights of the defendants. The world press, commenting on the indictment, noted that this document speaks on behalf of the offended conscience of humanity, that this is not an act of revenge, but a triumph of justice, and not only the leaders of Hitler’s Germany, but also the entire system of fascism will appear before the court (978).

Almost the entire fascist elite was in the dock, with the exception of Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler, who committed suicide, Krupn, who was paralyzed, whose case was singled out and suspended, the disappeared Bormann (he was convicted in absentia) and Ley, who, having familiarized himself with the indictment, hanged himself in his Nuremberg prison cell.

The defendants were given ample opportunity to defend themselves against the charges brought against them; they all had German lawyers (some even two), and enjoyed rights to defend themselves that were deprived of those accused not only in the courts of Nazi Germany, but also in many Western countries. The prosecutors provided the defense with copies of all documentary evidence in German, assisted the lawyers in searching and obtaining documents, and delivering witnesses whom the defense wanted to call (979).

The Nuremberg trial captured the attention of millions of people around the world. As President Lawrence emphasized on behalf of the Tribunal, “the trial which is now about to begin is the only one of its kind in the history of world jurisprudence, and it is of the greatest public importance to millions of people throughout the globe” (980). Supporters of peace and democracy saw it as a continuation of post-war international cooperation in the fight against fascism and aggression. It was clear to all honest people in the world that a lenient attitude towards those who criminally violated generally accepted norms of international law and committed atrocities against the world and humanity poses a great danger. Never before has a trial united all the progressive elements of the world in such a unanimous desire to end aggression, racism and obscurantism. The Nuremberg trials reflected humanity's anger and indignation at atrocities whose perpetrators must be punished so that they never happen again. Fascist organizations and institutions, misanthropic “theories” and “ideas”, criminals who took over the entire state and made the state itself an instrument of monstrous atrocities appeared before the court.

Hitler's regime in Germany was incompatible with elementary concept rights, terror became his law. The unheard-of provocation organized by Hitler and his closest accomplices - the burning of the Reichstag - served as a signal for the start of the most severe repressions against the progressive forces of Germany. Bonfires of works by German and foreign writers, of which all humanity is rightfully proud. The Nazis created the first concentration camps in Germany. Many thousands of patriots were killed and tortured by stormtroopers and SS executioners. As a political system, German fascism represented a system of organized banditry. The country had a wide network of organizations endowed with enormous power that carried out terror, violence, and atrocities.

The Tribunal considered the issue of recognizing the criminal organizations of German fascism - the SS, SA, Gestapo, SD, government, general staff and high command of the German armed forces, as well as the leadership of the National Socialist Party. Recognizing the criminal nature of organizations was necessary in order to ensure that national courts have the right to prosecute individuals for belonging to organizations recognized as criminal. Consequently, the principle of “specific individuals being subject to criminal liability” was retained. The question of the guilt of individuals for their membership in criminal organizations, as well as the question of responsibility for such affiliation, remained under the jurisdiction of national courts, which had to decide the question of punishment in accordance with the crime. There was only one limitation: the criminality of an organization recognized as such by the Tribunal could not be reviewed by the courts of individual countries.

The Nuremberg trials were a public trial in the broadest sense of the word. Of the 403 court hearings, not a single one was closed (981). More than 60 thousand passes were issued to the courtroom, some of them were received by the Germans. Everything that was said at the trial was carefully recorded in shorthand. The transcripts of the trial amounted to almost 40 volumes containing more than 20 thousand pages. The process was conducted simultaneously in four languages, including German. The press and radio were represented by about 250 correspondents who transmitted reports about the progress of the trial to all corners of the globe.

An atmosphere of the strictest legality reigned during the trial. There was not a single case in which the rights of the defendants were in any way infringed. In the speeches of the prosecutors, along with an analysis of the facts, the legal problems of the trial were analyzed, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was justified, and legal analysis corpus delicti, the unfounded arguments of the defendants' defenders were refuted (982). Thus, the Chief Prosecutor from the USSR proved in his opening speech that legal regime international relations, including those that find expression in the coordinated fight against crime, rests on different legal foundations. The source of law and the only law-forming act in the international sphere is a treaty, an agreement between states (983). The London Agreement and its component - the Charter of the International Tribunal - were based on the principles and norms of international law long established and confirmed by the Hague Convention of 1907, the Geneva Convention of 1929 and a number of other conventions and covenants. The Charter of the Tribunal gave legal form to those international principles and ideas that had been advanced for many years in defense of legality and justice in the field of international relations. For a long time, peoples interested in strengthening peace have put forward and supported the idea of ​​​​the criminal nature of aggression, and this has found official recognition in a number of international acts and documents.

As for the USSR, as is known, the first foreign policy act of the Soviet government was the Decree on Peace, signed by V.I. Lenin, adopted the day after the victory of the October Revolution - November 8, 1917, which declared aggression the greatest crime against humanity and put forward the position about the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. The Soviet Union is doing everything to ensure that this most important principle of its foreign policy becomes the law of international relations. A special chapter of the 1977 USSR Constitution enshrines the peaceful nature of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. The entire historical path of the USSR is a purposeful struggle for peace and security of peoples. “No people,” noted F. Castro at the First Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, “wanted peace and defended it so much as Soviet people... History also proves that socialism, unlike capitalism, does not need to impose its will on other countries through wars and aggressions” (984).

The fascist aggressors who found themselves in the dock knew that by carrying out treacherous attacks on other states, they were thereby committing grave crimes against the world; they knew and therefore tried to disguise their criminal actions with false speculation about defense. They counted on the fact, emphasized the Chief Prosecutor from the USSR R. A. Rudenko, that “a total war, having ensured victory, would bring impunity. Victory did not come in the footsteps of atrocities. The complete unconditional surrender of Germany has arrived. The hour has come for a severe response for all the atrocities committed" (985).

The Nuremberg trials were exceptional in terms of the impeccability and strength of the prosecution's evidence. The evidence included the testimony of numerous witnesses, including former prisoners of Auschwitz, Dachau and other Nazi concentration camps - eyewitnesses of fascist atrocities, as well as material evidence and documentaries. But the decisive role belonged to the official documents signed by those who were put in the dock. In total, 116 witnesses were heard in court, of which, in individual cases, 33 were called by prosecutors and 61 by defense attorneys, and more than 4 thousand documentary evidence was presented. “The accusation against the defendants,” stated in the Tribunal’s Verdict, “is based largely on documents composed by themselves, the authenticity of which was not disputed, except in one or two cases" (986).

Thousands of documents from the archives of the Hitler General Staff and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the personal archives of Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Goering and Frank, correspondence of the banker K. Schröder, etc., revealing the preparation and unleashing of aggressive wars, lay on the table of the International Military Tribunal and spoke so convincingly language that the defendants could not oppose them with a single serious argument. They were sure that documents marked “Top Secret” would never be made public, but history decided otherwise. Wide publicity and impeccable legal validity were the most important features of the Nuremberg trials. On January 3, 1946, the leader of one of the operational groups that carried out the mass extermination of civilians, O. Ohlendorf, testified: his group alone destroyed 90 thousand men, women and children during the year in southern Ukraine. The extermination of civilians was carried out on the basis of an agreement between the high command of the armed forces, the General Staff of the Ground Forces and Himmler's department (987).

From the orders of Keitel, Goering, Doenitz, Jodl, Reichenau and Manstein, as well as many other Nazi generals, noted the Chief Prosecutor from the USSR, a bloody trail was laid to numerous atrocities committed in the occupied territories (988). On January 7, SS Obergruppenführer, a member of the National Socialist Party since 1930, E. Bach-Zelewski, testified at the trial. He spoke about a meeting that took place at the beginning of 1941, at which Himmler stated that one of the goals of the campaign against the USSR “was the extermination of the Slavic population of up to 30 million...”. And when asked by lawyer A. Tom what explained this goal setting, the SS Obergruppenführer replied: “... this was a logical consequence of our entire National Socialist worldview... If for decades they have been preaching that the Slavs are an inferior race, that Jews are not people, this is the inevitable result...” (989). Far from wanting this, Bach-Zelewski contributed to exposing the misanthropic essence of fascism.

The National Socialist Party, like its leaders, was nurtured by monopoly capital and militaristic circles, and fascism was brought to life by the greedy goals of German imperialism. It is no coincidence that during the putsch in Munich in 1923, E. Ludendorff, the ideologist of the Prussian military, walked next to Hitler and his closest accomplice R. Hess. It is also no coincidence that such influential representatives of financial capital as G. Schacht, E. Staus, F. Papen joined the fascist party. The latter wrote in the book “The Road to Power” that in the struggle for power the Reichswehr was a decisive factor, “not only a certain group of generals was responsible for the events leading to January 30, 1933, but also the officer corps as a whole” (990).

Having ensured the establishment of the fascist regime, the monopolies and militarists began to prepare the country for an aggressive war. Already at the first meeting of Hitler with the generals, held on February 3, 1933, the task of future aggression was set: the development of new markets, the seizure of new living space in the East and its merciless Germanization (991).

The trial revealed criminal methods of transferring the German economy onto a war footing, the implementation of the ominous slogan “guns instead of butter,” the militarization of the entire country and the decisive role in this of the monopoly owners who occupied key positions in the military-economic apparatus. The German monopolies willingly financed not only the general predatory plans of the fascists, but also the “special events” of G. Himmler.

The defendants tried to assure the Tribunal that only Himmler and the professional SS killers subordinate to him were to blame for all the atrocities. However, it was irrefutably proven that massacres and other atrocities were conceived and planned not only by Himmler’s department, but also by the Supreme High Command, and the extermination of civilians and prisoners of war was carried out by SS and Gestapo executioners in close cooperation with the generals. Thus, the former commandant of the concentration camp R. Hess stated under oath that among those gassed and burned were Soviet prisoners of war, who were taken to Auschwitz by officers and soldiers of the regular German army (992), and Bach-Zelewski reported that the extermination of civilians (under the guise fight against partisans) he regularly informed G. Kluge, G. Krebs, M. Weichs, E. Busch and others (993). Field Marshal G. Rundstedt, speaking in 1943 to students at the military academy in Berlin, taught: “The destruction of neighboring peoples and their wealth is absolutely necessary for our victory. One of the serious mistakes of 1918 was that we spared the lives of the civilian population of enemy countries... we are obliged to destroy at least a third of their inhabitants...” (994)

Deputy Chief Prosecutor T. Taylor, based on the evidence he presented about the criminality of the Hitler General Staff and the Supreme High Command, concluded that they emerged from the war tainted by crimes. Expressing the opinion of all the accusers, he convincingly spoke about the danger of militarism in general, and German militarism in particular. German militarism, Taylor noted, “if it rises again, will not necessarily do so under the auspices of Nazism. The German militarists will link their fate with the fate of any person or any party who will bet on the restoration of German military power" (995) . That is why it is necessary to uproot militarism with all its roots.

Regarding Hitler's generals, the International Military Tribunal wrote in the Verdict: they are responsible to a large extent for the misfortunes and suffering that befell millions of men, women and children; they disgraced the honorable profession of a warrior; Without their military leadership, the aggressive aspirations of Hitler and his accomplices would have been distracted and fruitless. “Modern German militarism,” the Verdict emphasized, “has blossomed on a short time with the assistance of its last ally - National Socialism, as well or even better than in the history of past generations" (996).

Behind last years In West Germany, especially a lot of revanchist literature appeared, in which an attempt is made to whitewash Nazi criminals, to prove the unprovable - the innocence of Hitler's generals. The materials of the Nuremberg trials completely expose such falsification. He revealed the true role of the generals and monopolies in the crimes of German fascism, and this is its enduring historical significance.

The Nuremberg trials helped to tear away the veil from the mystery of the origins of the Second World War. He convincingly showed that militarism was the breeding ground in which fascism developed so rapidly. Assistant American prosecutor R. Kempner emphasized in his speech that one of the causes of the global catastrophe was the fiction of the “communist danger.” This danger, he declared, “was a fiction that, among other things, led ultimately to the Second World War” (997).

Trying to disguise their goals, the Hitler clique, as usual, screamed about the supposedly existing danger from the USSR, declaring the predatory war against the Soviet Union “preventive.” However, the “defensive” masquerade of the defendants and their defenders was exposed with utmost clarity at the trial, and the falsity of Hitler’s propaganda statements about the “preventive” nature of the attack on the Land of the Soviets was proven to the whole world.

Based on numerous documentary evidence, testimony, including that of Field Marshal F. Paulus, and confessions of the defendants themselves, the Tribunal wrote in the Verdict that the attack on the Soviet Union was carried out “without a shadow of legal justification. It was clear aggression" (998). This decision has not lost its significance even today. It is an important argument in the struggle of progressive forces against falsifiers of the history of the Second World War, who are trying to justify Hitler’s aggression against the USSR for the purpose of revanchism directed against socialist countries.

The Nuremberg trials went down in history as an anti-fascist process. The misanthropic essence of fascism, its ideology, especially racism, which is the ideological basis for preparing and unleashing aggressive wars and mass extermination of people, was revealed to the whole world. With the help of the Nuremberg trials, fascism appeared for what it is - a conspiracy of bandits against freedom and humanity. Fascism is war, it is rampant terror and tyranny, it is a denial of the human dignity of non-Aryan races. And this is inherent in all successors of German fascism in any of its forms. The trial clearly and convincingly demonstrated the danger of the revival of fascism for the fate of the world. The last word of the defendant Ribbentrop was once again confirmed close connection, which existed between the rulers of Germany and those circles of political reaction that, as soon as the bloodiest war in the history of mankind ended, began provoking new wars in order to establish their dominance over the world. The materials of the trial call: one must not allow one to downplay the crimes of fascism, to instill in the new generation a completely false and blasphemous version, as if Auschwitz and Majdanek, Buchenwald and Ravensbrück never existed, as if gas chambers and gas chambers never existed. The process has acquired special significance also because the fact of conviction of the aggressors represents a very serious warning for the future.

On July 30, 1946, the speeches of the main prosecutors ended. In his final speech, delivered on July 29 - 30, the Chief Prosecutor from the USSR R. A. Rudenko, summing up the results of the judicial investigation against the main war criminals, noted that “the Court is judging, created by peace-loving and freedom-loving countries, expressing the will and protecting the interests of all progressive humanity, which does not want a repetition of disasters, which will not allow a gang of criminals to prepare with impunity the enslavement of peoples and the extermination of people... Humanity calls criminals to account, and on its behalf we, the accusers, blame in this process. And how pathetic are the attempts to challenge the right of humanity to judge the enemies of humanity, how untenable are the attempts to deprive peoples of the right to punish those. who made the enslavement and extermination of peoples his goal and carried out this criminal goal for many years in a row through criminal means” (999).

On September 30 - October 1, 1946, the Verdict was announced. Tribunal: sentenced Goering, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sauckel, Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, as well as Bormann (in absentia) to death by hanging, Hess, Funk, etc. Raeder - to life imprisonment, Schirach and Speer - to 20, Neurath - to 15 and Doenitz - to 10 years in prison. Fritsche, Papin and Schacht were acquitted. The Tribunal declared the leadership of the National Socialist Party, the SS, SD and the Gestapo to be criminal organizations. A member of the Tribunal from the USSR in a Dissenting Opinion stated his disagreement with the decision to acquit Fritzsche, Papen and Schacht and not recognize the General Staff and members of the government cabinet as criminal organizations, since the Tribunal had at its disposal sufficient evidence of their guilt. After the Control Council rejected the petitions of those sentenced to death for clemency, the sentence was carried out on the night of October 16, 1946.

“...We share the views of the Soviet judge,” Pravda wrote in an editorial. - But even in the presence of the Dissenting Opinion of the Soviet judge, it cannot be emphasized enough that the verdict passed on Hitler’s murderers in Nuremberg will be appreciated by everyone honest people all over the world positively, for he justly and deservedly punished the gravest criminals against the peace and good of nations. The Judgment of History has ended..." (1000)

The attitude of the German population to the process is characteristic. On August 15, 1946, the American Information Administration published another review of the surveys: the overwhelming number of Germans (about 80 percent) considered the Nuremberg trials fair and the guilt of the defendants undeniable; about half of those surveyed responded that the defendants should be sentenced to death; only four percent responded negatively to the process.

According to the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, subsequent trials must take place “at such places as the Tribunal may determine” (Article 22). For a number of reasons, such as the withdrawal of the Western powers from the Potsdam and other agreements adopted during the war and immediately after its end, the activities of the Tribunal were limited Nuremberg trials. Nevertheless, the activities of the International Military Tribunal and the significance of its Judgment are of enduring significance. The historical role of the Nuremberg trials lies in the fact that for the first time in the history of international relations it put an end to impunity for aggression and aggressors in the criminal legal aspect.

The International Military Tribunal recognized aggression as the gravest crime of an international character. For the first time in history, state leaders guilty of preparing, unleashing and waging an aggressive war were punished as criminals, and the principle of “position as a head of state or a leading official of government departments, as well as the fact that they acted on orders of the government or carried out a criminal order is not a basis for exemption from liability.” The Judgment notes: “It has been asserted that international law deals only with the actions of sovereign States, without prescribing penalties for individuals,” that if a wrongful act is committed by a State, then “the persons who actually carried it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine on the sovereignty of the state" (1001). In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these provisions must be rejected. It has long been recognized that international law imposes certain duties on individuals as well as on states.

Furthermore, the Tribunal stated: “Crimes against international law are committed by men and not by abstract categories, and it is only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes that the provisions of international law can be respected... A principle of international law which, in certain circumstances, protects the agent of a State , cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal under international law" (1002).

The principles of the Charter and the Judgment of the Tribunal, confirmed by resolutions of the UN General Assembly, were a significant contribution to current international law and became its generally accepted norms. Such definitions of concepts as international conspiracy, planning, preparation and waging of an aggressive war, war propaganda were introduced into use by the current international law and the modern legal consciousness of peoples; they were recognized as criminal and, therefore, criminally punishable.

The materials of the trial and the Verdict of the Tribunal serve the cause of peace on earth, while simultaneously serving as a formidable warning to aggressive forces that have not yet abandoned their adventurous plans. The results of the Nuremberg trials call for vigilance by everyone who does not want a repeat of the bloody tragedy of the last war and who is fighting to preserve peace.

Today the situation is completely different than during the rise of Hitler's fascism. But even in modern conditions, constant and high vigilance and an active fight against fascism in all its manifestations are necessary. And here the lessons of the Nuremberg trials are of great importance.

It is widely known that over the course of a number of years in the West, in order to rehabilitate fascist war criminals, mass amnesty was applied with reference to the rules of ordinary criminal limitation; voices are heard about early release convicts. But the Nuremberg trials convincingly revealed the fact that fascist war criminals and their crimes against peace by their very nature are international crimes and for this reason the ordinary statute of limitations does not apply to them, that such political adventurers, in order to achieve their criminal goals, did not stop at any atrocities, from whose groans and anger filled the earth. Can “rescription” erase from the memory of the peoples of Oradour-sur-Glane and Lidice, the ruins of Coventry and Smolensk, Khatyn and Pirchupis and much, much more, which became an expression of fascist cruelty and vandalism? How can we forget the cellars of the Reichsbank, in which W. Funk and E. Puhl kept chests filled with gold crowns, dentures and spectacle frames, which were received from the death camps, and then, turned into ingots, sent to Basel, to the bank of international calculations?

It is known that civilization and humanity, peace and humanity are inseparable. But it is necessary to resolutely reject a humanism that is benevolent to the executioners and indifferent to their victims. And when the words “no one is forgotten and nothing is forgotten” are uttered, we are guided not by a feeling of revenge, but by a sense of justice and concern for the future of peoples. Liberation from Hitler's slavery was paid too dearly to the peoples of the world so that they could allow the neo-fascists to erase the results of the Second World War. “We call,” said L. I. Brezhnev, “to overcome the bloody past of Europe not in order to forget it, but so that it never happens again” (1003).

The verdict of the Tribunal as an act of international justice is a constant warning to all those who in various parts of the planet are trying to pursue a misanthropic policy, a policy of imperialist takeovers and aggression, inciting military hysteria, and creating a threat to the peace and security of peoples.

The lessons of the Nuremberg trials indicate that, despite differences on individual points, the Tribunal's verdict expresses the unanimous opinion of representatives of four countries in condemning the top of the Hitler gang and such criminal organizations of German fascism as the leadership of the National Socialist Party, SS, SD and Gestapo. The hopes of the world reaction that a rift between the judges was inevitable and the trial would not be completed were not realized.

The power of the Soviet Union and the leading role it played in the defeat of Nazi Germany led to an unprecedented growth in its international authority. Decide international problems without the USSR it became impossible. The Soviet Union fought to ensure that the peace settlement in Europe was based on the principles of democracy and progress, consistent with the interests of the people of the entire continent. This was clearly manifested in the decisions of the Potsdam Conference, aimed at eradicating fascism and militarism in Germany and creating conditions for the post-war revival of Germany as a democratic and peace-loving state.

The great merit of the Soviet Union is that it prevented the possibility of exporting counter-revolution to the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, which had taken the path of free and democratic development.

In connection with the transition from war to peace, one of the most important problems was the creation of an international organization designed to ensure the preservation of peace and security. And Soviet diplomacy did a lot to ensure that the United Nations lived up to these lofty goals.

The lessons of the Second World War testify to the great importance that the joint actions of the great powers had in the fight against their common enemy - fascist Germany. The lessons of the Nuremberg trials also convince us of this. The verdict of the Tribunal expressed the common opinion of the representatives of the four countries in condemning war criminals and criminal organizations of German fascism. The Nuremberg trials proved that the will to cooperate can ensure unity of action to achieve the noble goal of eliminating unjust wars from the life of mankind.

True to the Leninist principles of peace and peaceful coexistence of states, regardless of their social order The Soviet government is deeply interested in ensuring that the cooperation established during the war between the states of the anti-Hitler coalition continues after its end.

History has never seen such a trial. The leaders of the defeated country were not killed, they were not treated as honorable prisoners, and they were not given asylum by any neutral state. The leadership of Nazi Germany is almost in full force was detained, arrested and put in the dock. They did the same with Japanese war criminals, holding the Tokyo People's Court, but this happened a little later. The Nuremberg trials provided a criminal and ideological assessment of the actions of government officials with whom, up to and including 1939, world leaders negotiated, concluded pacts and trade agreements. Then they were received, visited, and generally treated with respect. Now they sat in the dock, silent or answering the questions asked. Then, accustomed to honor and luxury, they were taken to cells.

Retribution

US Army Sergeant J. Wood was an experienced professional executioner with extensive pre-war experience. In his hometown of San Antonio (Texas), he personally executed almost three and a half hundred notorious scoundrels, most of whom were serial killers. But this was the first time he had to work with such “material.”

The permanent leader of the Nazi youth organization "Hitler Youth" Streicher resisted and had to be dragged to the gallows by force. Then John strangled him manually. Keitel, Jodl and Ribbentrop suffered for a long time with their airways already clamped in a noose; for several minutes they could not die.

At the last moment, realizing that they could not pity the executioner, many of the condemned still found the strength to accept death for granted. Von Ribbentrop said words that have not lost their relevance today, wishing Germany unity and mutual understanding between East and West. Keitel, who signed the surrender and, in general, did not participate in the planning of aggressive campaigns (except for the never carried out attack on India), paid tribute to the fallen German soldiers by remembering them. Yodel gave a final greeting to his native country. And so on.

Ribbentrop was the first to ascend the scaffold. Then it was Kaltenbrunner's turn, who suddenly remembered God. His last prayer was not denied.

The execution continued for a long time, and in order to speed up the process, the convicts began to be brought into the gym where it took place, without waiting for the end of the agony of the previous victim. Ten were hanged, two more (Goering and Ley) were able to avoid shameful execution by committing suicide.

After several examinations, the corpses were burned and the ashes scattered.

Preparation of the process

The Nuremberg trials began in the late autumn of 1945, on November 20. It was preceded by an investigation that lasted six months. In total, 27 kilometers of tape film were used, thirty thousand photographic prints were made, and a huge number of newsreels (mostly captured ones) were viewed. Based on these figures, unprecedented in 1945, one can judge the titanic work of the investigators who prepared the Nuremberg trials. Transcripts and other documents took up about two hundred tons of writing paper (fifty million sheets).

To make a decision, the court needed to hold more than four hundred meetings.

Charges were brought against 24 officials who held various positions in Nazi Germany. It was based on the principles of the Charter adopted for a new court called the International Military Tribunal. For the first time, the legal concept of a crime against humanity was introduced. The list of persons subject to prosecution under the articles of this document was published on August 29, 1945, after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Criminal plans and plans

Aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the USSR and, as the document says, “the whole world,” was blamed on the German leadership. The conclusion of cooperation agreements with fascist Italy and militaristic Japan was also called criminal acts. One of the charges was an attack on the United States. In addition to specific actions, the former German government was accused of aggressive plans.

But that was not the main thing. Whatever insidious plans Hitler’s elite had, they were judged not for their thoughts about conquering India, Africa, Ukraine and Russia, but for what the Nazis did in their own country and beyond.

Crimes against peoples

The hundreds of thousands of pages that occupy the materials of the Nuremberg trials irrefutably prove the inhumane treatment of civilians of the occupied territories, prisoners of war and the crews of ships, military and merchant, who sank the ships of the German Navy. There were also large-scale ethnic cleansings carried out along national lines. The civilian population was transported to the Reich to be used as labor resources. Death factories were built and operated at full capacity, in which the process of exterminating people took on an industrial character, for which unique technological techniques invented by the Nazis were used.

Information about the progress of the investigation and some materials from the Nuremberg trials were published, although not all.

Humanity shuddered.

From unpublished

Already at the stage of formation of the International Military Tribunal, some delicate situations arose. The Soviet delegation brought with it to London, where preliminary consultations on the organization of the future court took place, a list of issues the consideration of which was considered undesirable for the leadership of the USSR. The Western allies agreed not to discuss topics relating to the circumstances of the conclusion of the mutual non-aggression treaty between the USSR and Germany in 1939, and especially the secret protocol attached to it.

There were other secrets of the Nuremberg trials that were not made public due to the far from ideal behavior of the leadership of the victorious countries in the pre-war situation and during the fighting at the fronts. It was they who could shake the balance that had developed in the world and Europe thanks to the decisions of the Tehran and Potsdam conferences. The boundaries of both states and spheres of influence, agreed upon by the Big Three, were established by 1945, and, according to their authors, were not subject to revision.

What is fascism?

Almost all documents of the Nuremberg trials have now become publicly available. It is this fact in in a certain sense cooled interest in them. They are appealed to during ideological discussions. An example is the attitude towards Stepan Bandera, who is often called Hitler’s henchman. Is it so?

German Nazism, also called fascism and recognized by the international court as a criminal ideological base, is essentially an exaggerated form of nationalism. Giving advantages to any ethnic group may well lead to the idea that members of other peoples living in the territory of the nation-state can either be forced to give up own culture, language or religious beliefs, or force them to emigrate. In case of non-compliance, the option of forced expulsion or even physical destruction is possible. There are more than enough examples in history.

About Bandera

In connection with the latest events in Ukraine, such an odious personality as Bandera deserves special attention. The Nuremberg trials did not directly examine the activities of the UPA. There were references to this organization in the court materials, but they concerned the relations between the occupying German troops and representatives of Ukrainian nationalists, and these did not always work out well. Thus, according to document No. 192-PS, which is a report from the Reichskommissar of Ukraine to Alfred Rosneberg (written in Rovno on March 16, 1943), the author of the document complains about the hostility of the Melnik and Bandera organizations towards the German authorities (p. 25). There, on the following pages, mention is made of “political impudence” expressed in demands to grant Ukraine state independence.

This is precisely the goal that Stepan Bandera set for the OUN. The Nuremberg trials did not consider the crimes committed by the UPA in Volyn against the Polish population, and other numerous atrocities of Ukrainian nationalists, perhaps because this topic was among the “undesirable” for the Soviet leadership. At the time when the International Military Tribunal was taking place, pockets of resistance in Lvov, Ivano-Frankivsk and other western regions had not yet been suppressed by MGB forces. And it was not the Ukrainian nationalists who were involved in the Nuremberg trials. Stepan Andreevich Bandera tried to take advantage of the German invasion to implement his own idea of ​​​​national independence. He failed. He soon found himself in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, however, as a privileged prisoner. For the time being...

Documentary

A cinematic documentary chronicle of the Nuremberg trials in 1946 has become more than just accessible. The Germans were forced to watch it, and if they refused, they were deprived of food rations. This order was in effect in all four occupation zones. It was hard for people who had been consuming Nazi propaganda for twelve years to see the humiliation suffered by those whom they had only recently believed. But it was necessary, otherwise it would hardly have been possible to get rid of the past so quickly.

The film “The Judgment of Nations” was shown on a wide screen both in the USSR and in other countries, but it evoked completely different feelings among the citizens of the victorious countries. Pride in their people, who made a decisive contribution to the victory over the personification of absolute evil, filled the hearts of Russians and Ukrainians, Kazakhs and Tajiks, Georgians and Armenians, Jews and Azerbaijanis, in general, all Soviet people, regardless of nationality. The Americans, French, and British also rejoiced, this was their victory. “The Nuremberg trials gave justice to the warmongers,” thought everyone who watched this documentary.

"Little" Nurembergs

The Nuremberg trials ended, some war criminals were hanged, others were sent to Spandau prison, and others managed to avoid just retribution by taking poison or making a homemade noose. Some even ran away and lived the rest of their lives in fear of discovery. Others were found decades later, and it was not clear whether punishment awaited them, or deliverance.

In 1946-1948, in the same Nuremberg (there was already a prepared room there, a certain symbolism also played a role in the choice of place) trials of Nazi criminals of the “second echelon” took place. The very good American film “The Nuremberg Trials” of 1961 tells about one of them. The picture was shot on black and white film, although in the early 60s Hollywood could afford the brightest Technicolor. The cast includes stars of the first magnitude (Marlene Dietrich, Burt Lancaster, Judy Garland, Spencer Tracy and many other wonderful artists). The plot is quite real, Nazi judges are on trial, passing terrible sentences on the absurd articles that filled the codes of the Third Reich. main topic- repentance, which not everyone can come to.

This was also the Nuremberg trial. The trial stretched out over time, it involved everyone: those who carried out the sentences, and those who just wrote papers, and those who simply wanted to survive and sat on the sidelines, hoping to survive. Meanwhile, young men were executed “for disrespect for great Germany,” men who some considered inferior were forcibly sterilized, and girls were thrown into prison on charges of having relations with “subhumans.”

Decades later

With each passing decade, the events of the Second World War seem more and more academic and historical, losing their vitality in the eyes of new generations. Quite a bit more time will pass, and they will begin to seem something like Suvorov’s campaigns or the Crimean campaign. There are fewer and fewer living witnesses, and this process, unfortunately, is irreversible. The Nuremberg trials are perceived today in a completely different way than by contemporaries. The collection of materials, available to readers, reveals many legal gaps, shortcomings in the investigation, and contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and accused. The international situation in the mid-forties was not at all conducive to the objectivity of judges, and the restrictions initially established for the International Tribunal sometimes dictated political expediency to the detriment of justice. Field Marshal Keitel, who had nothing to do with the Barbarossa plan, was executed, and his “colleague” Paulus, who took an active part in the development of the aggressive doctrines of the Third Reich, testified as a witness. At the same time, both surrendered. The behavior of Hermann Goering is also of interest, as he clearly explained to his accusers that the actions of the allied countries were sometimes also criminal, both in war and in domestic life. Nobody, however, listened to him.

Humanity in 1945 was outraged, it thirsted for revenge. There was little time, but there were a lot of events to evaluate. The war has become an invaluable treasure trove of stories, human tragedies and destinies for thousands of novelists and film directors. Future historians have yet to evaluate Nuremberg.

On November 20, 1945 at 10.00 in the small German town of Nuremberg, an international trial opened in the case of the main Nazi war criminals of the European countries of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis. This city was not chosen by chance: for many years it was a citadel of fascism, an involuntary witness to the congresses of the National Socialist Party and parades of its assault troops. The Nuremberg trials were carried out by the International Military Tribunal (IMT), created on the basis of the London Agreement of August 8, 1945 between the governments of the leading allied states - the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France, which was joined by 19 other countries - members of the Anti-Hitler coalition. The basis of the agreement was the provisions of the Moscow Declaration of October 30, 1943 on the responsibility of the Nazis for the atrocities committed, which was signed by the leaders of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain.

The building of the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, where the Nuremberg trials took place

The establishment of a military tribunal with international status became possible largely thanks to the creation at a conference in San Francisco (April-June 1945) of the United Nations - a world security organization that united all peace-loving states, which together put up a worthy rebuff to fascist aggression. The Tribunal was established in the interests of all member countries of the United Nations, which, after the end of the bloodiest of wars, set as their main goal “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war: and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person.” This is stated in the UN Charter. At that historical stage, immediately after the end of the Second World War, for these purposes it was extremely necessary to publicly recognize the Nazi regime and its main leaders as guilty of unleashing an aggressive war against almost all of humanity, which brought it monstrous grief and untold suffering. To officially condemn Nazism and outlaw it meant putting an end to one of the threats that could potentially lead to a new world war in the future. In his opening speech at the first sitting of the court, the presiding judge, Lord Justice J. Lawrence (IMT member for the UK), emphasized the uniqueness of the process and its “social significance for millions of people around the globe.” That is why the members of the international court had a huge responsibility. They were to "discharge their duties honestly and conscientiously, without any connivance, in accordance with the sacred principles of law and justice."

The organization and jurisdiction of the International Military Tribunal were determined by its Charter, which formed an integral part of the London Agreement of 1945. According to the Charter, the tribunal had the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries individually or as members of an organization, committed crimes against peace, military crimes and crimes against humanity. The IMT included judges - representatives from the four founding states (one from each country), their deputies and chief prosecutors. The following were appointed to the Committee of Chief Prosecutors: from the USSR - R.A. Rudenko, from the USA - Robert H. Jackson, from Great Britain - H. Shawcross, from France - F. de Menton, and then C. de Ribes. The Committee was entrusted with the investigation of the main Nazi criminals and their prosecution. The process was built on a combination of procedural orders of all states represented in the tribunal. Decisions were made by majority vote.

In the courtroom

Almost the entire ruling elite of the Third Reich was in the dock - senior military and government officials, diplomats, major bankers and industrialists: G. Goering, R. Hess, J. von Ribbentrop, W. Keitel, E. Kaltenbrunner, A. Rosenberg, H. Frank, W. Frick, J. Streicher, W. Funk, K. Dönitz, E. Raeder, B. von Schirach, F. Sauckel, A. Jodl, A. Seys-Inquart, A. Speer, K. von Neurath , H. Fritsche, J. Schacht, R. Ley (hanged himself in his cell before the start of the trial), G. Krupp (was declared terminally ill, his case was suspended), M. Bormann (tried in absentia, because he disappeared and did not was found) and F. von Papen. The only people missing from the courtroom were the most senior leaders of Nazism - Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler, who committed suicide during the storming of Berlin by the Red Army. The accused were participants in all major domestic and foreign political, as well as military events since Hitler came to power. Therefore, according to the French publicist R. Cartier, who was present at the trial and wrote the book “Secrets of War. Based on the materials of the Nuremberg trials,” “their trial was a trial of the regime as a whole, of an entire era, of the entire country.”

The main prosecutor from the USSR at the Nuremberg trials R.A. Rudenko

The International Military Tribunal also considered the issue of recognizing as criminal the leadership of the National Socialist Party (NSDAP), its assault (SA) and security detachments (SS), the security service (SD) and the state secret police (Gestapo), as well as the government cabinet, the General Staff and the High Command (OKW) of Nazi Germany. All crimes committed by the Nazis during the war were divided in accordance with the Charter of the International Military Tribunal into crimes:

Against peace (planning, preparing, initiating or waging a war of aggression or war in violation of international treaties);

War crimes (violations of the laws or customs of war: murder, torture or enslavement of civilians; murder or torture of prisoners of war; robbery of state, public or private property; destruction or looting of cultural property; wanton destruction of cities or villages);

Crimes against humanity (destruction of Slavic and other peoples; creation of secret points for the destruction of civilians; killing of the mentally ill).

The International Military Tribunal, which sat for almost a year, did a colossal job. During the trial, 403 open court hearings were held, 116 witnesses were questioned, over 300 thousand written testimonies and about 3 thousand documents were considered, including photo and film accusations (mainly official documents of German ministries and departments, the Wehrmacht High Command, the General Staff, military concerns and banks, materials from personal archives). If Germany had won the war, or if the end of the war had not been so swift and crushing, then all of these documents (many classified as “Top Secret”) would most likely have been destroyed or hidden forever from the world community. Numerous witnesses who testified during the trial, according to R. Cartier, were not limited to just facts, but covered and commented on them in detail, “bringing new shades, colors and the spirit of the era itself.” In the hands of judges and prosecutors there was indisputable evidence of the criminal intentions and bloody atrocities of the Nazis. Wide publicity and openness became one of the main principles of the international process: more than 60 thousand passes were issued to be present in the courtroom, sessions were conducted simultaneously in four languages, the press and radio were represented by about 250 journalists from different countries.

The numerous crimes of the Nazis and their accomplices, revealed and made public during the Nuremberg trials, are truly amazing. Everything that could be invented that was beyond cruel, inhumane and inhumane was included in the arsenal of the fascists. Here we should mention the barbaric methods of warfare and the cruel treatment of prisoners of war, which grossly violate all previously accepted in these areas international conventions, and the enslavement of the population of occupied territories, and the deliberate destruction of entire cities and villages from the face of the earth, and sophisticated technologies of mass destruction. The world was shocked by the facts voiced during the trial about savage experiments on people, about the massive use of special killing drugs “Cyclone A” and “Cyclone B”, about the so-called gas gas vans, gas “baths”, powerful cremation furnaces working non-stop day and night. Nazi subhumans, cynically considering themselves the only chosen nation that has the right to decide the destinies of other peoples, created an entire “industry of death.” The death camp at Auschwitz, for example, was designed to exterminate 30 thousand people per day, Treblinka - 25 thousand, Sobibur - 22 thousand, etc. In total, 18 million people passed through the system of concentration and death camps, about 11 million of whom were brutally exterminated.

Nazi criminals in the dock

Accusations of the incompetence of the Nuremberg trials, which arose years after its end among Western revisionist historians, some lawyers and neo-Nazis and boiled down to the fact that it was allegedly not a fair trial, but a “quick execution” and “revenge” of the victors, at least insolvent. All defendants were handed an Indictment on October 18, 1945, that is, more than a month before the start of the trial, so that they could prepare for their defense. Thus, the fundamental rights of the accused were respected. The world press, commenting on the Indictment, noted that this document was drawn up on behalf of the “offended conscience of humanity”, that this is not “an act of revenge, but a triumph of justice”; not only the leaders of Nazi Germany, but also the entire system of fascism will appear before the court. It was an extremely fair trial of the peoples of the world.

J. von Ribbentrop, B. von Schirach, W. Keitel, F. Sauckel in the dock

The defendants were given a wide opportunity to defend themselves against the charges brought against them: they all had lawyers, they were provided with copies of all documentary evidence in German, assistance was provided in finding and obtaining the necessary documents, and delivering witnesses whom the defense considered necessary to call. However, the accused and their lawyers from the very beginning of the trial set out to prove the legal inconsistency of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. In an effort to avoid inevitable punishment, they tried to shift all responsibility for the crimes committed exclusively to Adolf Hitler, the SS and the Gestapo, and made counter-accusations against the founding states of the tribunal. It is characteristic and significant that not one of them had the slightest doubt about their complete innocence.

G. Goering and R. Hess in the dock

After painstaking and scrupulous work that lasted almost a year, on September 30 - October 1, 1946, the verdict of the international court was announced. It analyzed the basic principles of international law violated by Nazi Germany, the arguments of the parties, and gave a picture of the criminal activities of the fascist state for more than 12 years of its existence. The International Military Tribunal found all the defendants (with the exception of Schacht, Fritsche and von Papen) guilty of conspiracy to prepare and wage aggressive wars, as well as of committing countless war crimes and the gravest atrocities against humanity. 12 Nazi criminals were sentenced to death by hanging: Goering, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streichel, Sauckel, Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, Bormann (in absentia). The rest received various prison sentences: Hess, Funk, Raeder - for life, Schirach and Speer - 20 years, Neurath - 15 years, Doenitz - 10 years.

The representative of the prosecution from France speaks

The Tribunal also found the leadership of the National Socialist Party, SS, SD and Gestapo criminal. Thus, even the verdict, according to which only 11 of the 21 defendants were sentenced to death, and three were acquitted, clearly showed that justice was not formal and nothing was predetermined. At the same time, a member of the international court from the USSR - the country that suffered the most at the hands of Nazi criminals, Major General of Justice I.T. Nikitchenko, in a Dissenting Opinion, stated the disagreement of the Soviet side of the court with the acquittal of the three defendants. He spoke out for the death penalty against R. Hess, and also expressed disagreement with the decision not to recognize the Nazi government, the High Command, the General Staff and the SA as criminal organizations.

The convicts' petitions for clemency were rejected by the Control Council for Germany, and on the night of October 16, 1946, the death penalty was carried out (shortly before this, Goering committed suicide).

Following the largest and longest international trial in history in Nuremberg, 12 more trials took place in the city until 1949, which examined the crimes of more than 180 Nazi leaders. Most of them also suffered a well-deserved punishment. Military tribunals, which took place after the end of World War II in Europe and in other cities and countries, convicted a total of more than 30 thousand Nazi criminals. However, many Nazis responsible for committing brutal crimes unfortunately managed to escape justice. But their search did not stop, but continued: the UN made an important decision not to take into account the statute of limitations for Nazi criminals. Thus, in the 1960s and 1970s alone, dozens and hundreds of Nazis were found, arrested and convicted. Based on the materials of the Nuremberg trials, E. Koch (in Poland) and A. Eichmann (in Israel) were brought to trial and sentenced to death in 1959.

It is important to emphasize that the goal of the international process in Nuremberg was to condemn the Nazi leaders - the main ideological inspirers and leaders of unjustifiably cruel actions and bloody atrocities, and not the entire German people. In this regard, the British representative at the trial stated in his closing speech: “I repeat again that we do not seek to blame the people of Germany. Our goal is to protect him and give him the opportunity to rehabilitate himself and win the respect and friendship of the whole world. But how can this be done if we leave in his midst unpunished and unconvicted these elements of Nazism, who are mainly responsible for tyranny and crimes and who, as the tribunal can believe, cannot be converted to the path of freedom and justice? As for the military leaders, in the opinion of some, who were simply fulfilling their military duty, unquestioningly following the orders of the political leadership of Germany, it is necessary to emphasize here that the tribunal condemned not just “disciplined warriors,” but people who considered “war a form of existence” and who never learned “lessons from the experience of defeat in one of them.”

To the question asked by the accused at the very beginning of the Nuremberg trials: “Do you plead guilty?”, all the accused, as one, answered in the negative. But even after almost a year - time quite sufficient to rethink and reassess their actions - they have not changed their opinion.

“I do not recognize the decision of this court: I continue to be faithful to our Fuhrer,” Goering said in his last word at the trial. “We’ll wait twenty years. Germany will rise again. Whatever sentence this court may give me, I will be found innocent before the face of Christ. I am ready to repeat everything again, even if it means that I will be burned alive,” these words belong to R. Hess. A minute before the execution, Streichel exclaimed: “Heil Hitler! With God blessing!". Jodl echoed him: “I salute you, my Germany!”

During the trial, militant German militarism, which was “the core of the Nazi party as well as the core of the armed forces,” was also condemned. Moreover, it is important to understand that the concept of “militarism” is by no means connected with the military profession. This is a phenomenon that, with the Nazis coming to power, permeated the entire German society, all spheres of its activity - political, military, social, economic. Militarist-minded German leaders preached and practiced the dictatorship of armed force. They themselves enjoyed the war and sought to instill the same attitude in their “flock.” Moreover, the need to counteract evil, also with the help of weapons, on the part of the peoples who became the target of aggression, could ricochet back at them.

In his closing speech at the trial, the US representative stated: “Militarism inevitably leads to a cynical and evil disregard for the rights of others, the foundations of civilization. Militarism destroys the morals of the people who practice it, and since it can only be defeated by the force of its own weapons, it undermines the morals of the peoples who are forced to engage in battle with it.” To confirm the idea of ​​​​the corrupting effect of Nazism on the minds and morals of ordinary Germans, soldiers and officers of the Wehrmacht, one, but very characteristic, example can be given. In document No. 162, presented to the International Court of the USSR, the captured German chief corporal Lecourt admitted in his testimony that he personally shot and tortured 1,200 Soviet prisoners of war and civilians in the period from September 1941 to October 1942 alone. , for which he received another title ahead of schedule and was awarded the “Eastern Medal”. The worst thing is that he committed these atrocities not on the orders of higher commanders, but, in his own words, “in his free time from work, for the sake of interest,” “for the sake of his pleasure.” Isn’t this the best proof of the guilt of the Nazi leaders before their people!

American soldier, professional executioner John Woods prepares a noose for criminals

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NUREMBERG TRIALS

Today, 70 years after the start of the Nuremberg Trials (next fall will mark 70 years since its end), it is clearly visible what a huge role it played in historical, legal and socio-political terms. The Nuremberg trials became historical event, first of all, as the triumph of the Law over Nazi lawlessness. He exposed the misanthropic essence of German Nazism, its plans for the destruction of entire states and peoples, its extreme inhumanity and cruelty, absolute immorality, the true extent and depth of the atrocities of the Nazi executioners and the extreme danger of Nazism and fascism for all humanity. The entire totalitarian system of Nazism as a whole was subjected to moral condemnation. This created a moral barrier to the revival of Nazism in the future, or at least to its universal condemnation.

We must not forget that the entire civilized world, which had just gotten rid of the “brown plague,” applauded the verdict of the International Military Tribunal. It is unfortunate that now in some European countries there is a revival of Nazism in one form or another, and in the Baltic states and Ukraine there is an active process of glorification and glorification of members of the Waffen-SS detachments, which during the Nuremberg trials were recognized as criminal along with German security detachments SS. It is important that these phenomena of today be sharply condemned by all peace-loving peoples and such authoritative international and regional security organizations as the UN, OSCE and the European Union. I would not like to believe that we are witnessing what one of the Nazi criminals, G. Fritsche, predicted in his speech at the Nuremberg trials: “If you believe that this is the end, then you are mistaken. We are present at the birth of the Hitler legend."

It is important to know and remember that the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal have not been canceled! It seems completely unacceptable to radically revise its decisions and, in general, its historical significance, as well as the main results and lessons of the Second World War, which, unfortunately, some Western historians, legal scholars and politicians are trying to do today. It is important to note that the materials of the Nuremberg trials are one of the most important sources for studying the history of World War II and creating a holistic and objective picture of the atrocities of the Nazi leaders, as well as for obtaining a clear answer to the question of who is to blame for the outbreak of this monstrous war. In Nuremberg, it was Nazi Germany, its political, party and military leaders who were recognized as the main and only culprits of international aggression. Therefore, the attempts of some modern historians to divide this blame equally between Germany and the USSR are completely untenable.

From the point of view of legal significance, the Nuremberg trials became an important milestone in the development of international law. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal and the verdict pronounced almost 70 years ago became “one of the cornerstones of modern international law, one of its basic principles,” wrote the famous domestic researcher of various issues and aspects of the Nuremberg trials, Professor A.I. Poltorak in his work “The Nuremberg Trials. Main legal problems". His point of view is of particular importance also because he was the secretary of the USSR delegation at this trial.

It should be admitted that among some lawyers there is an opinion that in the organization and conduct of the Nuremberg trials, not everything was smooth from the point of view of legal norms, but it must be taken into account that it was the first international court of its kind. However, not the most strict lawyer who understands this will ever argue that Nuremberg did not do anything progressive and significant for the development of international law. And it is completely unacceptable for politicians to take on the interpretation of the legal subtleties of the process, while claiming to express the ultimate truth.

The Nuremberg trials were the first event of this kind and significance in history. He defined new types of international crimes, which then became firmly established in international law and the national legislation of many states. In addition to the fact that at Nuremberg aggression was recognized as a crime against peace (for the first time in history!), it was also the first time that officials responsible for planning, preparing and unleashing wars of aggression were held criminally liable. For the first time, it was recognized that the position of the head of state, department or army, as well as the execution of government orders or a criminal order do not exempt from criminal liability. The Nuremberg decisions led to the creation of a special branch in international law - international criminal law.

Following the Nuremberg Trials, the Tokyo Trials were held - the trial of the main Japanese war criminals, which took place in Tokyo from May 3, 1946 to November 12, 1948 at the International Military Tribunal for Far East. The demand for the trial of Japanese war criminals was formulated in the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender of September 2, 1945, pledged to “fairly implement the terms of the Potsdam Declaration,” including the punishment of war criminals.

The Nuremberg principles, approved by the UN General Assembly (resolutions of December 11, 1946 and November 27, 1947), have become generally accepted norms of international law. They serve as a basis for refusal to carry out a criminal order and warn of the responsibility of those leaders of states who are ready to commit crimes against peace and humanity. Subsequently, genocide, racism and racial discrimination, apartheid, the use of nuclear weapons, and colonialism were classified as crimes against humanity. The principles and norms formulated by the Nuremberg Trials formed the basis of all post-war international legal documents aimed at preventing aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity (for example, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the 1949 Geneva Convention “On the Protection of Victims of War”, 1968 Convention “On the Inapplicability of the Statute of Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity”, 1998 Rome Statute “On the Establishment of the International Criminal Court”).

The Nuremberg trials set a legal precedent for the establishment of similar international tribunals. In the 1990s, the Nuremberg Military Tribunal became the prototype for the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, established by the UN Security Council. True, as it turned out, they do not always pursue fair goals and are not always completely impartial and objective. This was especially evident in the work of the tribunal for Yugoslavia.

In 2002, at the request of the President of Sierra Leone, Ahmed Kabba, who addressed the UN Secretary-General, a Special Court for Sierra Leone was created under the auspices of this authoritative organization. It was to conduct an international trial of those responsible for the most serious crimes (mainly military and against humanity) during the internal armed conflict in Sierra Leone.

Unfortunately, when establishing (or, conversely, deliberately not establishing) international tribunals like Nuremberg, “double standards” often operate these days and the decisive factor is not the desire to find the true culprits of crimes against peace and humanity, but in a certain way to demonstrate one’s political influence on the international stage, to show “who is who.” This, for example, happened during the work of the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia. To prevent this from happening in the future, political will and unity of UN member states is required.

The political significance of the Nuremberg trials is also obvious. He marked the beginning of the process of demilitarization and denazification of Germany, i.e. implementation of the most important decisions adopted in 1945 at the Yalta (Crimean) and Potsdam conferences. As is known, in order to eradicate fascism, destroy the Nazi statehood, eliminate the German armed forces and military industry, Berlin and the country's territory were divided into occupation zones, administrative power in which was exercised by the victorious states. We note with regret that our Western allies, disregarding the agreed decisions, were the first to take steps towards the revival of the defense industry, the armed forces and the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany in their zone of occupation, and with the emergence of the military-political NATO bloc and the admission of West Germany into it.

But, assessing the post-war socio-political significance of Nuremberg, we emphasize that never before had a trial united all the progressive forces of the world, who sought once and for all to condemn not only specific war criminals, but also the very idea of ​​achieving foreign policy and economic goals through aggression against other countries and peoples. Supporters of peace and democracy regarded it as an important step towards the practical implementation of the Yalta agreements of 1945 to establish a new post-war order in Europe and throughout the world, which was to be based, on the one hand, on the complete and general rejection of aggressive military force methods in international politics, and on the other hand, on mutual understanding and friendly all-round cooperation and collective efforts of all peace-loving countries, regardless of their socio-political and economic structure. The possibility of such cooperation and its fruitfulness was clearly proven during the Second World War, when most of the world's states, realizing the mortal danger of the “brown plague,” united into the Anti-Hitler Coalition and jointly defeated it. The creation in 1945 of the world security organization - the UN - served as further proof of this. Unfortunately, with the beginning " cold war“The development of this progressive process - the rapprochement and cooperation of states with different socio-political systems - turned out to be significantly difficult and did not go as expected at the end of the Second World War.

It is important that the Nuremberg Trials always stand as a barrier to the revival of Nazism and aggression as state policy in our days and in the future. Its results and historical lessons, which are not subject to oblivion, much less revision and reassessment, should serve as a warning to all who see themselves as the chosen “arbiters of the destinies” of states and peoples. This requires only the desire and will to unite the efforts of all the freedom-loving, democratic forces of the world, their union, such as the states of the Anti-Hitler coalition managed to create during the Second World War.

Shepova N.Ya.,
Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor, Senior Researcher
Research Institute (military history)
Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces

Erich Koch is a prominent figure in the NSDAP and the Third Reich. Gauleiter (October 1, 1928 - May 8, 1945) and Chief President (September 1933 - May 8, 1945) of East Prussia, Head of the Civil Administration of the Bialystok District (August 1, 1941-1945), Reich Commissioner of Ukraine (1 September 1941 - November 10, 1944), SA Obergruppenführer (1938), war criminal.

Adolf Eichmann was a German Gestapo officer directly responsible for the mass extermination of Jews during World War II. By order of Reinhard Heydrich, he took part in the Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942, at which measures for the “final solution of the Jewish question” - the extermination of several million Jews - were discussed. As a secretary, he kept minutes of the meeting. Eichmann proposed to immediately resolve the issue of deporting Jews to Eastern Europe. Direct leadership of this operation was entrusted to him.

He was in a privileged position in the Gestapo, often receiving orders directly from Himmler, bypassing the immediate superiors of G. Müller and E. Kaltenbrunner. In March 1944, he headed the Sonderkommando, which organized the dispatch of transport with Hungarian Jews from Budapest to Auschwitz. In August 1944, he presented a report to Himmler, in which he reported on the extermination of 4 million Jews.