home Folk remedies Trial of war criminals in Nuremberg. The Nuremberg Trials, its significance for history and the entire world community

Trial of war criminals in Nuremberg. The Nuremberg Trials, its significance for history and the entire world community

On October 1, 1946, the verdict of the International Military Tribunal was announced in Nuremberg, condemning the main war criminals. It is often called the “Court of History”. It was not only one of the largest trials in human history, but also a major milestone in the development of international law. The Nuremberg trials legally secured the final defeat of fascism.

In the dock:

For the first time, the criminals who made the entire state criminal were found and suffered severe punishment. The initial list of accused included:

1. Hermann Wilhelm Goering (German: Hermann Wilhelm Göring), Reichsmarshal, Commander-in-Chief of the German Air Force
2. Rudolf Hess (German: Rudolf Heß), Hitler's deputy for leadership of the Nazi Party.
3. Joachim von Ribbentrop (German: Ullrich Friedrich Willy Joachim von Ribbentrop), Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nazi Germany.
4. Robert Ley (German: Robert Ley), head of the Labor Front
5. Wilhelm Keitel (German: Wilhelm Keitel), Chief of Staff of the Supreme High Command of the German Armed Forces.
6. Ernst Kaltenbrunner (German: Ernst Kaltenbrunner), head of the RSHA.
7. Alfred Rosenberg (German: Alfred Rosenberg), one of the main ideologists of Nazism, Reich Minister for Eastern Territories.
8. Hans Frank (German: Dr. Hans Frank), head of the occupied Polish lands.
9. Wilhelm Frick (German: Wilhelm Frick), Reich Minister of the Interior.
10. Julius Streicher (German: Julius Streicher), Gauleiter, editor-in-chief of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Stormtrooper" (German: Der Stürmer - Der Sturmer).
11. Hjalmar Schacht, Reich Minister of Economics before the war.
12. Walter Funk (German: Walther Funk), Minister of Economics after Schacht.
13. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach (German: Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach), head of the Friedrich Krupp concern.
14. Karl Doenitz (German: Karl Dönitz), admiral of the fleet of the Third Reich.
15. Erich Raeder (German: Erich Raeder), Commander-in-Chief of the Navy.
16. Baldur von Schirach (German: Baldur Benedikt von Schirach), head of the Hitler Youth, Gauleiter of Vienna.
17. Fritz Sauckel (German: Fritz Sauckel), head of forced deportations to the Reich of labor from occupied territories.
18. Alfred Jodl (German: Alfred Jodl), Chief of Staff of the OKW Operations Command
19. Franz von Papen (German: Franz Joseph Hermann Michael Maria von Papen), Chancellor of Germany before Hitler, then ambassador to Austria and Turkey.
20. Arthur Seyß-Inquart (German: Dr. Arthur Seyß-Inquart), Chancellor of Austria, then Imperial Commissioner of occupied Holland.
21. Albert Speer (German: Albert Speer), Reich Minister of Armaments.
22. Konstantin von Neurath (German: Konstantin Freiherr 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 Fritzsche (German: Hans Fritzsche), head of the press and broadcasting department at the Ministry of Propaganda.

Twenty-fourth - Martin Bormann (German: Martin Bormann), head of the party chancellery, was accused in absentia. Groups or organizations to which the defendants belonged were also charged.

The investigation and the essence of the accusation

Shortly after the end of the war, the victorious countries of the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France, during the London conference, approved the Agreement on the establishment of the International Military Tribunal and its Charter, the principles of which the UN General Assembly approved as generally recognized in the fight against crimes against humanity. On August 29, 1945, a list of major war criminals was published, including 24 prominent Nazis. The charges brought against them included the following:

Nazi Party Plans

-Use of Nazi control for aggression against foreign countries.
-Aggressive actions against Austria and Czechoslovakia.
-Attack on Poland.
-Aggressive war against the whole world (1939-1941).
-German invasion of the territory of the USSR in violation of the non-aggression pact of August 23, 1939.
-Collaboration with Italy and Japan and aggressive war against the United States (November 1936 - December 1941).

Crimes against peace

“All of the defendants and various other persons, for a number of years prior to May 8, 1945, participated in the planning, preparation, initiation and conduct of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and obligations.”

War crimes

-Killings and ill-treatment of civilians in occupied territories and on the high seas.

-Removal of the civilian population of the occupied territories into slavery and for other purposes.
-Killings and cruel treatment of prisoners of war and military personnel of countries with which Germany was at war, as well as persons sailing on the high seas.
-Aimless destruction of large and small cities and villages, devastation not justified by military necessity.
-Germanization of the occupied territories.

Crimes against humanity

-The defendants pursued a policy of persecution, repression and extermination of the enemies of the Nazi government. The Nazis imprisoned people without a trial, subjected them to persecution, humiliation, enslavement, torture, and killed them.

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

Court

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 J. 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 I. T. Nikitchenko.
-from the USA: former Attorney General of the country F. Biddle.
-from France: professor of criminal law A. Donnedier de Vabre.

Each of the 4 countries sent its main prosecutors, their deputies and assistants to the trial:

– from the USSR: Prosecutor General of the Ukrainian SSR R. A. Rudenko.
- from the USA: member of the federal Supreme Court Robert Jackson.
-from UK: Hartley Shawcross
-from 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.

The trial lasted ten months in Nuremberg. A total of 216 court hearings were held. Each side presented evidence of crimes committed by Nazi criminals.

Due to the unprecedented gravity of the crimes committed by the defendants, doubts arose as to whether democratic norms of legal proceedings would be observed in relation to them. For example, representatives of the prosecution from England and the USA proposed not to give 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.

Court verdict

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 Soviet side protested in connection with the acquittal of Papen, Fritsche, Schacht and the non-application of the death penalty to Hess.
The Tribunal found the SS, SD, SA, Gestapo and the leadership of the Nazi Party criminal. The decision to recognize the Supreme Command and the General Staff as criminal was not made, which caused disagreement from a member of the tribunal from the USSR.

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.
The death penalty was carried out on the night of October 16, 1946 in the Nuremberg prison building. Goering poisoned himself in prison shortly before his execution.

The sentence was carried out “at his own request” by American Sergeant John Wood.

Sentenced to life imprisonment, Funk and Raeder 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.

Results and conclusions

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 enshrined in the Charter of the Tribunal were soon confirmed by decisions of the UN General Assembly as generally recognized principles of international law. Having convicted the main Nazi criminals, the International Military Tribunal recognized aggression as the gravest crime of an international character.

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

2. Soviet guard at the tribunal building during the Nuremberg trials.

4. General view of the meeting room of the International Military Tribunal in the Palace of Justice, where the Nuremberg trials took place.

5. The building where the sessions of the International War Crimes Court were held.

6. The Soviet guard takes over at the courthouse.

7. View of the dock of the Nuremberg trials.
In the first row in the dock: Goering, Hess, von Ribbentrop, Keitel, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Funk, Schacht. In the second row - Doenitz, Raeder, von Schirach, Sauckel, Jodl, von Papen, Seyss-Ingwart, Speer, von Neurath, Fritzsche.).

8. Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence (UK)- Chairman of the International Military Tribunal at the Palace of Justice at the Nuremberg Trials.

9. Meeting of the International Tribunal in Nuremberg.

10. The main prosecutor from the USSR at the Nuremberg trials R.A. Rudenko. speaks at a court hearing.

11. Speech by the chief prosecutor from Great Britain H. Shawcross at the Nuremberg trials.

12. Speech by the representative of the prosecutor from France at the Nuremberg trials.

13. Speech by the chief US prosecutor R. Jackson at the Nuremberg trials.

14. Portrait of the deputy chief judge at the Nuremberg trials, Lieutenant Colonel A.F. Volchkov.

15. Portrait of the chief prosecutor from the USSR at the Nuremberg trials, Lieutenant General and R.A. Rudenko.

16. Portrait of a member of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg from the USSR, Major General of Justice I.T. Nikitchenko.

17. K.P. Gorshenin and A.Ya. Vyshinsky at the meeting of the International Military Tribunal in the Palace of Justice at the Nuremberg Trials.

18. Speech by Colonel Pokrovsky, Deputy Chief Prosecutor from the USSR, at the Nuremberg Trials.

19. Speech by the assistant to the chief prosecutor from the USSR, State Counselor of Justice 3rd class Zorya at the Nuremberg trials.

20. Defendant von Papen in the dock during the Nuremberg trials.

21. Defendant V. Funk in the dock during the Nuremberg trials.

22. Goering and Hess in the dock at the Nuremberg trials.

23. Defendant Frick in the dock during the Nuremberg trials.

24. Interrogation of the defendant V. Keitel at the Nuremberg trials.

25. Interrogation of F. Paulus at the Nuremberg trials.

26. Defendant G. Goering answers questions from prosecutor R. Jackson during the Nuremberg trials.

27. German criminals from the concentration camp in Belsen, the head of the concentration camp I. Kramer, the chief doctor of the concentration camp F. Klein, the head of the barracks P. Weingart and G. Kraft in the dock during the Nuremberg trials.

28. A. Hitler's personal photographer G. Hoffmann explains the content of his photographs to representatives of the Soviet and American prosecution at the Nuremberg trials.

29. Members of the court listen to the US representative.

30. Members of the International War Crimes Court.

31. General view of the tribunal meeting.

32. International Military Tribunal. In the dock:
(1st row (from left to right): Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Funk, Schacht; 2nd row: Doenitz, Raeder, Schirach, Sauckel, Jodl, Papen, Seyss-Inquart , Speer, Neurath, Fritsche. According to the verdict of the court on October 1, 1946, Goering, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Rosenberg, Kaltenbrunner, Frick, Frank, Streicher, Sauckel, Jodl, Seyss-Inquart and Bormann in absentia were sentenced to death by hanging; Hess, Funk and Raeder - to life imprisonment in Spandau prison; Schirach, Speer - to 20 years; von Neurath - to 15 years; Doenitz - to 10 years)

33. The prosecution considers evidence of crimes.

34. The main representative of the Soviet side for the prosecution, R.A. Rudenko (left).

35. In the press box at a meeting of the International War Crimes Tribunal.

36. Field Marshal F. von Paulus during a break between sessions of the International Tribunal.

37. Ribbentrop, von Schirach, Keitel, Sauckel in the dock at the Nuremberg trials.

38. Goering, who lost 20 kilograms during the trial with his defender.

39. Hermann Goering listens to the prosecution's presentation.

40. Deputy leader of the NSDAP Rudolf Hess at the trial.

41. Commissioner General for LaborIu Fritz Sauckel and Chief of Staff of the OKW Field Marshal Generalwilhelm keitel.

42. Field Marshal W. Keitel takes the oath.

43. The death sentence of A. Seys-Inquart was carried out. October 16, 1946

44. Chief of the Wehrmacht General Staff, Infantry General Alfred von Jodl.

45. Gauleiter of the Netherlands Arthur von Seys-Inquart.

46. Defendants Frank and Jodl at the Nuremberg Trials.

47. Protector of Bohemia and Moravia Wilhelm Frick at trial.

48. Defendant Streicher in the dock during the Nuremberg trials.

49. Julius Streicher at trial.

50. One of the leaders of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich, Konstantin von Neurath.

51. Minister of Armaments Albert von Speer.

52. Commanders-in-Chiefth naval forces of the Third Reich, Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz.

53. Ambassador of the Third Reich to Turkey Franz von Papen.

54. Deputy Minister of Propaganda Hans Fritsche.

55. One of the leaders of the German military industry, Hjalmar von Schacht.

56. Complex of prison buildings in Nuremberg.
(The building where war criminals were kept is marked with a white arrow).

57. Interior view of the solitary cell where the main German war criminals were kept.

58. Internal view of the camera.

59. Lighting of the cells of the main German war criminals in prison in Nuremberg.

60. Lunch rations of the Nuremberg trial defendants.

61. Distributing food to the cells of German war criminals in a prison in Nuremberg.

62. One of the buildings of the prison in Nuremberg, where the main German war criminals were kept.

63. Interrogation of General G. Guderian.

64. The corpse of Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering, sentenced to death by the International Tribunal in Nuremberg,
who committed suicide 2 hours before execution. October 16, 1946

65. The body of the executed Julius Streicher (1885-1946). October 16, 1946

66. Judges of the Nuremberg Tribunal at work in the courtroom.

67. G. Frank, W. Frick, J. Streicher, A. Jodl, J. Schacht, A. Seyss-Inquart and A. Speer in the dock of the Nuremberg trials.

68. Hermann Wilhelm Göring (1893-1946) and Rudolf Heß (1894-1987) in the dock at the Nuremberg trials.

69. The body of the executed Friedrich Sauckel (Ernst Friedrich Christoph Sauckel, 1894-1946). October 16, 1946

70. Hermann Goering in the courtroom during the Nuremberg trials.

71. Judges of the Nuremberg Tribunal review documents at a table in a conference room.

72. The body of an executed Obergruppenführerand SS Ernst Kaltenbrunner (Ernst Kaltenbrunner, 1903-1946). October 16, 1946

73. Former SS Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf (1907-1951) testifies during the Nuremberg trials.

74. J. Schacht, F. von Papen and G. Fritsche with US Army Colonel B. Andrus during the Nuremberg trials.
All three - G. Fritsche, J. Schacht and F. von Papen - were the only ones who were acquitted at the Nuremberg trials. Subsequently, they were all sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in the denazification trials.

75. The body of the executed Wilhelm Frick (1877-1946). October 16, 1946
Wilhelm Frick served as Minister of the Interior of Germany (1933-1943), Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia (1943-1945), and was one of the ideologists and leaders of the NSDAP.

76. The body of the executed Alfred Rosenberg (Alfred Ernst Rosenberg, 1893-1946). October 16, 1946
A. Rosenberg was the creator of “racial theory”, head of the Central ResearchGo Institute for National Social Affairsistic ideology and education, Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories (Reichsministerium für die besetzten Ostgebiete).

77. The body of the executed Hans Frank (Hans Michael Frank, 1900-1946). October 16, 1946
Hans Frank was Governor GeneralOrom of Poland (1939-1945), was a lawyer for the NSDAP before coming to power, after coming to power he participated in the development of new laws of Nazi Germany. Hjalmar Schacht and Arthur Seyss-Inquart in the dock of the Nuremberg trials.

85. American Master Sergeant John Woods (John Clarence Woods, 1911 – 1950) prepares a noose for a condemned man at the Nuremberg trials.

86. Hermann Goering at lunch during the Nuremberg trials.

87. Body of a German Colonel Generalka Alfred Jodl, executed on October 16, 1946 by the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal along with 9 other war criminals in the gym of the Nuremberg prison.

91. American simultaneous interpretation device operators in the courtroom during the Nuremberg trials.

92. A view of the corridor of the Nuremberg prison, where the main Nazi criminals were kept, who were monitored around the clock by American soldiers guarding the prison.

93. Private 1st Class, 18th Infantry Regiment, US 1st Infantry Division, Joseph L. Pichierre stands near Rudolf Hess's cell in Nuremberg prison.

94. Meeting of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Hermann Göring, former Commander-in-Chief1st Luftwaffe, sitting in the witness box (center right) wearing a gray jacket, headphones and dark glasses. Sitting next to him are Rudolf Heß, former deputy of the Führer for the Party, Joachim von Ribbentrop, former German Foreign Minister, Wilhelm Keitel, former Chief of Staff of the Supreme High Commandof the German Armed Forces and SS-Obergruppenführer Ernst Kaltenbrunner.

In accordance with the “Agreement between the Governments of the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Provisional Government of the French Republic for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Chief War Criminals of the European Axis Countries” of August 8, 1945, the International Military Tribunal was established to try war criminals, organization, jurisdiction and whose functions were defined in the Charter attached to this Agreement.

According to Article 2 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, it is formed on a parity basis from representatives of the four great powers in accordance with the London Agreement, namely the Tribunal consists of four members and their deputies.

However, Article 3 states that neither the Tribunal, nor its members, nor their deputies can be challenged by the prosecutor, the defendants or the defense. During the trial, a member of the Tribunal can only be replaced by his deputy.

To have a quorum, the presence of all four members of the Tribunal or their alternates replacing absent members of the Tribunal is required. The members of the Tribunal, before the start of the trial, agree on the selection of one of their number as chairman. Decisions are made by the Tribunal by a majority vote, the presiding officer having a casting vote; recognition of guilt and determination of punishment are always made by a majority vote of at least three members of the Tribunal (Article 4)

Composition of the International Military Tribunal:

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

Colonel of Justice A.F. Volchkov;

From the USA: former Attorney General of the country F. Biddle;

John Parker;

For the UK: Chief Justice Geoffrey Lawrence;

Norman Birket;

From France: Professor of Criminal Law Henri Donnedier de Vabre;

Robert Falco.

Article 6 of the Charter recognized the following actions as criminal, entailing individual liability:

a) crimes against peace, namely: planning, preparing, initiating or waging war of aggression or war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy aimed at carrying out any of the foregoing acts;

b) war crimes, namely: violation of the laws or customs of war. These violations include the killing, torture or deportation into slavery or for other purposes of the civilian population of the occupied territory; killing or torturing prisoners of war or persons at sea; hostage killings; robbery of public or private property; wanton destruction of cities or villages; destruction not justified by military necessity, and other crimes;

c) crimes against humanity, namely: murder, extermination, enslavement, exile and other cruelties committed against the civilian population before or during the war, or persecution on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime, subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, regardless of whether these acts are a violation of the domestic law of the country where they were committed or not.

The directors, organizers, instigators and accomplices who participate in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the above-mentioned crimes shall be liable for all acts committed by any persons in furtherance of such plan.

Article 7 of the Charter emphasized the special responsibility of defendants who held high positions as heads of state or responsible officials of various government agencies, whose status not only did not exempt them from criminal prosecution, but could not even serve as a basis for mitigation of punishment.

While Article 8 of the Charter established that if the defendant acted on the orders of the government or the order of his superior, he was not exempt from liability, but this circumstance could be considered as an argument for mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal recognized that the interests of justice so required.

The tribunal, when deciding the verdict, was not limited by the types of punishment.

Thus, according to Article 27 of the Charter, the Tribunal had the right to sentence the perpetrator to death or other punishment that it considered fair.

In accordance with Article 28 of the Statute, the Tribunal had the right, in addition to the punishment it determined, to order the confiscation of stolen property from the convicted person and to order the transfer of this property to the Control Council in Germany.

Article 14 of the Charter provided for the creation of a Committee to Investigate and Convict Major War Criminals, consisting of the chief prosecutors from each great power. The tasks of the Committee were to coordinate the positions of the main prosecutors on current issues of the trial. For example, the final determination of the persons subject to trial by the Tribunal, approval of the indictment and documents submitted with it, coordination of the individual work plan of each of the main prosecutors and their staff, etc.

The duties of the chief prosecutors, in accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the Charter, were to investigate, collect and present to the court all necessary evidence, prepare an indictment for approval by the Committee, conduct preliminary examinations of witnesses and defendants, act as prosecutors in court, and appoint representatives to perform such duties , what will be assigned to them, etc.

The main prosecutors, their deputies and assistants at the Nuremberg trials were:

For Great Britain: Hartley Shawcross (alternate to David Maxwell-Fyfe);

From the USSR: Prosecutor of the Ukrainian SSR R. A. Rudenko (deputy: Yu. V. Pokrovsky, assistants: N. D. Zorya, D. S. Karev, L. N. Smirnov, L. R. Sheinin);

For the USA: US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (alternates: Thomas Dodd, Telford Taylor);

For France: François de Menton, who was absent during the first days of the trial and was replaced by Charles Dubost, and then Champetier de Ribes was appointed instead of de Menton (alternate: Edgar Faure).

The content of the Charter of the Tribunal and the practice of its activities indicate that all, without exception, the main German war criminals at the Nuremberg trials enjoyed such procedural guarantees, such opportunities for defense against the charges brought against them, which never existed not only in the courts of the “Third Reich”, but also in many Western countries at that time.

Here are the basic procedural guarantees.

The indictment in German was served on each defendant a month before the start of the trial; all the defendants had defenders - German lawyers, in most cases chosen at their own request, and many of the lawyers speaking at the trial were official like-minded people of the defendants - they were members of the Nazi party; the defendants were given an unlimited opportunity to give explanations to the Tribunal, to petition for the summoning of witnesses and the request of documents; the defendants' defense lawyers cross-examined prosecution witnesses; Finally, the defendants made their final statements before the court after the prosecutors spoke.

The Tribunal steadily demanded that the prosecutors provide the defense not in one, but in many copies, copies of all documentary evidence of the prosecution, to assist the defense in finding and obtaining documents, and to bring to Nuremberg the witnesses whom the lawyers wanted to call. In addition, in many cases the Tribunal provided the defense with additional opportunities for lawyers to perform their duties.

On a dais under the flags of the four allied powers (USSR, USA, Great Britain and France) are seats for members of the International Military Tribunal, opposite are lawyers in black and purple robes, and on the right are tables for representatives of the prosecution. American military police stand motionless with their hands behind their backs.

And behind the barrier, on two benches, are defendants accused of monstrous atrocities that led to the death of tens of millions of people. Almost the entire Nazi ruling clique ended up in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice with the exception of Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels, who committed suicide; Krupp, paralyzed, Bormann, who disappeared and tried in absentia, and Ley, who hanged himself in prison after reading the indictment.

The following appeared before the Tribunal as defendants:

Hermann Wilhelm Goering - Reich Marshal, Commander-in-Chief of the German Air Force, Hitler's closest assistant, “Man No. 2,” as he was called in the Reich. It was he who was officially announced as Hitler's first successor, he was the organizer of the assault troops and the Gestapo, the creator of the first concentration camps.

The extermination of the Jewish population is associated with the name of Goering. He was the most active instigator after Hitler in aggressive wars with the goal of conquering world domination, the ideologist and creator of a program for the destruction of entire nations, the robbery of occupied countries, the use of slave labor of prisoners of war and people forcibly stolen from other countries to Germany. Goering was involved in the Nazi preparations for bacteriological warfare and mass savage experiments on people.

Rudolf Hess - Hitler's deputy for leadership of the Nazi Party, Obergruppenführer of the SS and SA (assault and security detachments), the direct organizer of aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. He was declared Hitler's next successor after Goering. Hess signed such misanthropic documents as “on the protection of honor and conscience” and decrees depriving Jews of the right to vote and work in public institutions. It was he who initiated the creation of special laws for Poles and Jews in the occupied lands.

In 1941, he flew to England with the aim of organizing joint actions against the USSR. There he was interned (detained) until the end of the war.

Joachim von Ribbentrop - Foreign Minister of the Third Reich, one of the most active organizers of the preparation and conduct of aggressive wars. Together with Hitler's closest henchmen, Ribbentrop developed plans for the colonization of occupied countries, robbery, enslavement and mass extermination of their citizens, and actively participated in the implementation of these plans in practice. On his instructions, a “special purpose battalion” was created, which, following the advanced units of the Wehrmacht, plundered museums and libraries in the occupied territories.

Wilhelm Keitel - Field Marshal General, closest military adviser, like-minded person and comrade-in-arms of Hitler. His hands set the entire military machine of the Third Reich in motion. He led not only the preparation and conduct of aggressive wars, but also the development of orders that sanctioned war crimes and crimes against humanity. “Human life in the East is worth nothing!”, “Only draconian methods can ensure order in the conquered areas” - such expressions were replete with the orders signed by Keitel.

Ernst Kaltenbrunner - Chief of the Security Police, SS Obergruppenführer, executioner and Himmler's right hand. It was the Gestapo and German political intelligence that were subordinate to him. He was in charge of guarding concentration camps, led teams that carried out murders of people in gas chambers, torture, and mass executions of civilians. Kaltenbrunner was responsible for the extermination of millions of Jews, atrocious crimes against concentration camp prisoners and prisoners of war, against women, the elderly and children in the occupied territories.

Alfred Jodl - Colonel General, Keitel's deputy and one of Hitler's closest advisers. Everything related to the preparation and implementation of the aggressive plans of Nazi Germany is inextricably linked with his name. Under the Barbarossa plan (plan for an attack on the Soviet Union), along with the signatures of Hitler and Keitel, there is also the signature of Jodl. It was they who prepared the orders for the destruction of Moscow and Leningrad and other cities, and gave sanctions for the ruthless destruction of all patriots who did not accept fascist slavery.

Julius Streicher is one of the founders and leaders of the Nazi party, the ideologist of anti-Semitism, “Judaophobe No. 1,” as he called himself, the organizer of Jewish pogroms. Calling for the physical extermination of all Jews, he wrote: "...Only when world Jewry is destroyed will this problem be solved." It was this concept that was adopted by the fascist leaders, who in 1942 adopted the directive on the “final solution” of the Jewish question, according to which more than 6 million of the Jewish population were exterminated in Europe.

Hans Frank - Reichsleiter of the Nazi Party on legal issues, president of the Academy of German Law, governor-general of the occupied Polish territories, who turned them into a continuous concentration camp. He systematically and systematically imposed hunger and poverty, terror and lawlessness there, and authorized the mass extermination of the Jewish and Polish population.

Wilhelm Frick - Reich Minister of the Interior, Reichsleiter, member of the Council of Ministers for Defense of the Empire, General Commissioner for Administration, in charge of preparing the rear for war. For a number of years, the Gestapo, as well as other police services of the “Reich,” were under his command. It was Frick who issued the order in 1940 to exterminate the mentally ill and the elderly.

Hjalmar Schacht - President of the Reichsbank, Minister of Economics, Commissioner for War Economy. It was he who helped the German monopolists ensure Hitler's rise to power. Shakht is the creator of the military industry, the financier of bloody wars.

Walter Funk - Reich Minister of Economics, President of the Reichsbank, one of Hitler's main economic advisers. Continuing the work of Schacht, he put the entire economy of Germany, and then the economy of the occupied countries, at the service of the aggressive plans of the Nazis. None other than Funk turned the Reichsbank storerooms into a storage place for valuables looted by the Nazis in occupied countries, including gold crowns, spectacle frames and other items made of precious metals taken from concentration camp prisoners killed in gas chambers.

Karl Dennitz - Grand Admiral, Commander of the Submarine Fleet, Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy since 1943; After Hitler's suicide, his successor as head of state. By order of the Grand Admiral, hospital ships and steamers were sunk, on which civilians were evacuated, including old people, women, children, no measures were taken to rescue crews from sunken ships, etc.

Erich Raeder - Grand Admiral, took an active part in the planning, preparation and conduct of aggressive wars of Nazi Germany. The idea of invading Norway was put forward by Raeder, who also called for the occupation of Greece.

Six days before the attack on the USSR, Raeder gave the order to attack submarines in the Baltic Sea. It was he who initiated unlimited submarine warfare. It was his headquarters that issued the blasphemous directive on the destruction of Leningrad and more than 3 million of its inhabitants.

Baldur von Schirach - organizer and leader of the Hitler Youth youth organization, imperial governor and Gauleiter of Vienna. For a decade and a half, he corrupted German youth with the poison of racism and militarism, introducing misanthropic ideas into the minds of young men and women. Schirach was also responsible for the enslavement of the Austrian people, for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. It was he who led the eviction of 60 thousand Jews from Vienna, who were then exterminated in concentration camps.

Fritz Sauckel - SS Obergruppenführer, General Commissioner for the Use of Labor. One of the dark pages of fascism is associated with his name - the mass abduction of people from occupied countries for use as labor in German enterprises and farms. “All men,” he taught, “should be fed, housed, and treated in such a way as to exploit them with the greatest effect at the least cost.” On his orders, more than 10 million foreign workers and prisoners of war were sent to hard labor in Germany.

Franz von Papen is one of the active organizers of the Nazi seizure of power, vice-chancellor in Hitler's first cabinet. As the leader of the Catholic Party, Papen sought to ensure the support of the Vatican for the Hitler regime. As ambassador to Turkey in 1939-1945, he led espionage activities and the organization of all kinds of provocations.

Arthur Seyss-Inquart is one of the leaders of the fascist party. He helped Hitler carry out the Anschluss, i.e. capture of Austria, and during the war authorized mass terror against the Polish and Dutch peoples.

Albert Speer - Hitler's comrade-in-arms and favorite, Reich Minister of Arms and Ammunition, head of the widely branched military construction organization "Todt". It was he who during the war headed all military construction and military production of Nazi Germany.

Konstantin von Neurath - Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs with the rank of SS general, Chairman of the Privy Council, member of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Empire. A Prussian aristocrat, a diplomat of the old school, it was he who helped Hitler take the first steps in his aggressive policy. As protector of Bohemia and Moravia, for four and a half years he imposed a regime of bloody terror in Czechoslovakia - the so-called “new order”.

Hans Fritsche is Goebbels' closest collaborator, head of the internal press department of the Ministry of Propaganda, then head of radio broadcasting. Through his speeches, he cultivated in the Germans a feeling of hatred towards other peoples, and ensured that his compatriots meekly follow the Nazi party. His personal responsibility for the political and moral corruption of the German people is great.

On November 20, 1945, the indictment was announced, and the next day each defendant was asked whether he pleaded guilty.

The answers were standard: “I do not plead guilty,” as Keitel, Frank, Funk, Raeder and others answered. Goering, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Speer clarified: “I do not plead guilty in the sense that I am charged.”

And only Hess introduced some variety, saying: “No. I plead guilty before God."

The process was conducted in four languages - English, Russian, French and German. There were 403 open court hearings of the Tribunal. 33 prosecution witnesses gave oral testimony against individual defendants;

In addition to the 19 defendants, 61 defense witnesses were questioned. An additional 143 defense witnesses testified by submitting written responses to interrogatories. The Tribunal appointed commissioners to collect evidence relating to the organizations. 101 defense witnesses testified before commissioners, and 1,809 affidavits from other witnesses were submitted.

In particular, in its verdict, the Tribunal referred to the written testimony of Hermann Grabe dated November 10, 1945, who was the manager and chief engineer who headed the branch of a German company in Zdolbunov in Ukraine from September 1941 to January 1944. First he described the attack on the Jewish ghetto in Rivne:

“Then powerful electric lights were turned on, installed throughout the ghetto. Members of the SS and police, in groups of 4 to 6, entered, or at least tried to enter, the houses. Where doors and windows were closed and residents did not open them after knocking, members of the SS and police broke into the windows and broke down the doors with beams and entered the home. The residents were dragged out onto the street in the condition in which they were, regardless of whether they were dressed or asleep... One car after another was filled. The screams of women and children, the cracking of whips and gun shots filled the ghetto.”

“...Then shots were heard from behind the embankment in quick succession, one after another. The people who got off the trucks - men, women and children of all ages - had to undress according to the orders of one SS man who had a whip in his hands... Without shouting or crying, these people undressed, gathered in small groups of families, kissed and said goodbye to each other with a friend, and then awaited orders from another SS man, who was standing near the pit, also with a whip in his hand... At that moment, the SS man standing by the pit shouted something to his comrade. The latter scolded about 20 people and ordered them to go to the embankment... I crossed to the other side of the embankment and found myself in front of a huge grave; huddled closely together, people lay one on top of the other so that only their heads were visible. The pit was already 2/3 full; according to my calculations, there were about a thousand people there... Now the next group of people came up, they went down into the pit, lay down on the previous victims and were shot.”

According to the written testimony of Ohlendorf, the former head of the third directorate of the RSHA (main imperial security office), who led one of the special forces ZIPO (security police) and SD (security service under SS Reisführer Himmler), called Einsatzgruppen, created to fight partisans and exterminate Jews and communist leaders, as well as other groups of the population:

“When the German army invaded Russia, I commanded Einsatzgruppe D in the southern sector, and during my year in that position, Einsatzgruppe D killed approximately 90,000 men, women and children.

Most of them were Jews. Among those killed were also communist party workers.”

The order issued by the defendant Keitel on July 23, 1941, the draft of which was developed by the defendant Yodel, stated:

“Given the vast expanses of the occupied territories in the East, the available armed forces to maintain security in these territories will be sufficient only if any resistance is punished not by prosecuting the perpetrators, but by creating such a system of terror on the part of the armed forces that will be sufficient in order to eradicate from the population any intention of resistance. Commanders must find means to carry out this order through the use of draconian measures."

In its verdict, the Tribunal emphasized that from the evidence presented it is clear that, in any case, in the East, mass murders and atrocities were committed not only for the purpose of suppressing opposition and resistance to the German occupation forces. In Poland and the Soviet Union, these crimes were part of a plan to get rid of the entire local population by expulsion and extermination in order to colonize the liberated territory by the Germans. Hitler wrote in the same spirit in Mein Kampf; this plan was made abundantly clear by Himmler in July 1942 when he wrote:

“Our tasks do not include the Germanization of the East in the sense as it was previously understood, that is, Germanization, which consists in teaching the population the German language and German laws; We want to ensure that only people of pure German blood live in the East.”

In August 1942, one of Rosenberg's subordinates summarized the policy regarding the eastern territories, which had previously been formulated by Bormann, as follows:

“The Slavs must work for us. If we no longer need them, they can die. Therefore, compulsory vaccinations and medical care by German doctors seem unnecessary.”

In October 1943, Himmler again stated:

“I am not in the least interested in the fate of a Russian or a Czech. We will take from other nations that healthy blood of our type that they can give us. If the need arises, we will take their children away from them and raise them in our midst. The question of whether a given nation is thriving or dying of hunger interests me only insofar as we need representatives of a given nation as slaves for our culture; Otherwise, their fate is of no interest to me.”

Six reports were also submitted summarizing the contents of a large number of other affidavits. 38 thousand affidavits signed by 155 thousand people were submitted in the case of political leaders; 136,213 – in the SS case; 10 thousand – in the SA case; 7 thousand – in the SD case; 3 thousand - in the case of the OKW General Staff and 2 thousand - in the Gestapo case.

As for the testimony of defense witnesses, the Chief Prosecutor from the USSR R.A. gave a vivid and convincing assessment of them in his final speech (delivered on July 29-30, 1946). Rudenko:

“...These witnesses had to, with their testimony, soften the guilt of the defendants, belittle their actual role in committing atrocities, whitewashing them at all costs. These witnesses in the vast majority of cases were defendants in other cases.

What kind of objectivity and reliability of the testimony of such defense witnesses can we talk about if the innocence of the defendant Funk had to be confirmed by his deputy and accomplice, a member of the SS since 1931, Hoyler, who has the rank of SS Gruppenführer; if the criminal Reiner, a member of the fascist party since 1930, Gauleiter of Salzburg and then Carinthia, was called to testify in favor of Seys-Inquart?

These so-called “witnesses,” such as Bühler, the right hand of the defendant Frank and his accomplice in all crimes, or Bole, one of the main leaders of the Nazis’ espionage and sabotage activities abroad and the head of the foreign department of the Nazi Party, came here to in order to, having committed perjury, try to shield their former masters and save their own lives.”

To death by hanging: Hermann Goering, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Fritz Sauckel, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Martin Bormann (in absentia) and Alfred Jodl.

To life imprisonment: Rudolf Hess, Walter Funk and Erich Raeder.

To 20 years in prison: Baldur von Schirach and Albert Speer.

To 15 years in prison: Constantin von Neurath.

To 10 years in prison: Karla Dönitz.

Acquitted: Hans Fritsche, Franz von Papen and Hjalmar Schacht.

The Tribunal found the SS, SD, Gestapo and the leadership of the Nazi Party criminal.

The Nazi Cabinet, the General Staff and the High Command of the Wehrmacht (OKW) were not recognized as criminal organizations.

Soviet judge I. T. Nikitchenko filed a dissenting opinion, where he objected to the acquittal of Fritsche, Papen and Schacht, the non-recognition of the German cabinet, the General Staff and the OKW as criminal organizations, as well as life imprisonment (rather than the death penalty) for Rudolf Hess.

Jodl was posthumously completely acquitted in a Munich court retrial in 1953, but this decision was later annulled under US pressure.

A number of convicts submitted petitions to the Allied Control Commission for Germany: Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, Sauckel, Jodl, Keitel, Seyss-Inquart, Funk, Doenitz and Neurath - for pardon; 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.

On August 15, 1946, the American Office of Information published a review of surveys, according to which the overwhelming number of Germans (about 80%) 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 4% responded negatively to the process.

The death sentences were carried out on the night of October 16, 1946 in the gymnasium of Nuremberg prison. Goering poisoned himself in prison shortly before his execution (there are several assumptions about how he received the poison capsule, including that it was given by his wife during their last date with a kiss). The sentence was carried out by American soldiers - professional executioner John Woods and volunteer Joseph Malta. One of the witnesses to the execution, writer Boris Polevoy, published his memoirs about the execution.

Going to the gallows, most of them retained their presence of mind. Some behaved defiantly, others resigned themselves to their fate, but there were also those who cried out for God's mercy. All but Rosenberg made short statements at the last minute. And only Julius Streicher mentioned Hitler. In the gym, where American guards were playing basketball just 3 days ago, there were three black gallows, two of which were used. They hanged one at a time, but in order to finish it quickly, the next Nazi was brought into the hall while the previous one was still hanging on the gallows.

The condemned walked up 13 wooden steps to an 8-foot-high platform. Ropes hung from beams supported by two posts. The hanged man fell into the interior of the gallows, the bottom of which was covered with dark curtains on one side and covered with wood on three sides so that no one could see the death throes of the hanged.

After the execution of the last convict (Seys-Inquart), a stretcher with Goering's body was brought into the hall so that he would take a symbolic place under the gallows, and also so that journalists could be convinced of his death.

After the execution, the bodies of the hanged and the corpse of the suicide Goering were laid in a row. “Representatives of all the Allied powers,” wrote one Soviet journalist, “examined them and signed the death certificates. Photographs were taken of each body, clothed and naked. Then each corpse was wrapped in a mattress along with the last clothes it was wearing, and with the rope on which he was hanged and placed in a coffin. All the coffins were sealed. While the rest of the bodies were being handled, Goering's body, covered with an army blanket, was brought on a stretcher... At 4 o'clock in the morning the coffins were loaded into trucks and taken away, accompanied by a military escort to Munich, where they immediately headed to the outskirts of the city to the crematorium.The ashes were scattered from the plane into the wind.

Those sentenced to life imprisonment served their sentences in Berlin's Spandau prison. After Speer and Schirach were released in 1966, only Hess remained in prison. Until 1987, Hess served his sentence alone and was the only prisoner in prison. On August 17, 1987, Hess was found hanged in a gazebo in the prison yard.

2015 is the year of the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials. It took place in the city of Nuremberg (Germany) from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946 at the International Military Tribunal.

The first trial of the main war criminals was held in Nuremberg because for many years this city was a stronghold and symbol of fascism. It hosted congresses of the National Socialist Party and parades of assault troops. There were other reasons for this, including purely technical ones.

The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg is the first international court in history. Its result was the recognition of Hitler's aggression as a grave criminal offense, the condemnation of crimes of a national scale, the ruling regime of Hitler, his punitive institutions, and the highest political and military figures of Nazi Germany. It is often called the “Court of History”.

It was one of the largest trials in human history. He played an important role in the development of international law in general and the development of relations between states around the world after the Second World War.

This historic trial legally secured the final defeat of fascism and went down in history as an anti-fascist trial. The 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. The trial clearly and convincingly demonstrated the danger of the revival of fascism for the destinies of the whole world.

The Second World War brought enormous material and human losses to humanity. 26 million 600 thousand of our compatriots died in this bloody massacre. And more than half of them - 15 million 400 thousand - were civilians. It is impossible to accept the atrocities of the fascists calmly and remain indifferent to them. The world has never seen such cruelty in human-to-human relations. Mass plunder of vast territories, mass executions, the creation of “death factories”, torture, experiments on people, the destruction of entire nations, inhumane treatment of prisoners of war... All these are crimes, a long list of which can be listed endlessly.

Long before the end of World War II, representatives of the Allied governments repeatedly spoke out about the need to bring to justice and punish the war criminals who started the war, began mass terror and murder, and proclaimed the ideas of racial superiority and genocide. This idea about the responsibility of the Nazis for their monstrous crimes against peace and humanity was reflected in many international documents.

In particular, the demand for the creation of an International Military Tribunal was contained in the statement of the Soviet government dated October 14, 1942 “On the responsibility of the Nazi invaders and their accomplices for the atrocities they committed in the occupied countries of Europe.”

The agreement on the creation of the International Military Tribunal and its charter were developed by the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France during the London Conference, held from June 26 to August 8, 1945. The jointly developed document reflected the agreed position of all 23 countries participating in the conference; the principles of the charter were approved by the UN General Assembly as generally recognized in the fight against crimes against humanity.

The Nuremberg trials had specific features previously unknown to judicial practice. This is explained by the fact that the commission of monstrous atrocities by the fascists and Nazis was public knowledge and required appropriate legal qualifications and condemnation.

Thus, the charter stated that groups and organizations could be the subjects of prosecution; judges had the right to independently determine the course of the process. Another innovation was that the court was a court of final instance, its main goal was to specify and qualify the degree of guilt of the accused - the main war criminals, hence the name - military tribunal.

The first list of accused, which was agreed on August 8, 1945 in London, did not include Hitler, his closest subordinates Himmler and Goebbels, because. at that time their death was reliably established.

At the same time, Bormann, who was allegedly killed on the streets of Berlin, was on the list and accused in absentia.

In total, 24 war criminals who were members of the top leadership of Nazi Germany stood trial.

The initial list of accused included:

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

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 committed against the civilian population for political, racial or religious reasons, that is, crimes against humanity.

The International Military Tribunal was formed on a parity basis from representatives of the four powers in accordance with the London Agreement:

From the USSR: Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union, Major General of Justice I. T. Nikitchenko; Colonel of Justice A.F. Volchkov;

From the USA: former Attorney General F. Biddle; John Parker (English);

For the UK: Chief Justice Geoffrey Lawrence; Norman Birket (English);

From France: Professor of Criminal Law Henri Donnedier de Vabre (English); Robert Falco (German).

From each country, the main prosecutors, their deputies and assistants were sent to the trial.

The main accusers were:

From the USSR - Prosecutor of the Ukrainian SSR Roman Andreevich Rudenko (deputy: Yu.V. Pokrovsky, assistants: N.D. Zorya, D.S. Karev, L.N. Smirnov, L.R. Sheinin);

From the USA - member of the federal Supreme Court Robert Jackson;

From Great Britain - Attorney General and Member of the House of Commons Hartley Shawcross;

From France - Minister of Justice Francois de Menton, who was then replaced by Champetier de Ribes.

The main prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials from the USSR, Roman Rudenko, speaks at the Palace of Justice. November 20, 1945, Germany.

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 defense.

Thus, in the interests of a fair trial, a course was taken from the very beginning towards the strictest respect for the rights of the defendants.

Thus, the defendants were given ample opportunity for defense; they all had German lawyers (some even two), and enjoyed rights 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 for and obtaining documents, and delivering witnesses that the defense wanted to call.

Thus, despite the crimes committed by the defendants against humanity and peace, the basic principles of criminal proceedings were observed, namely:

Legality;

Administration of justice only by the court; equality of all participants in the judicial process before the law and the court;

The independence of judges and their subordination only to the law;

Ensuring proof of guilt; competitiveness of the parties and freedom to present their evidence to the court and to prove their credibility to the court;

Support of the state prosecution in court by the prosecutor;

Providing the accused with the right to defense; publicity of the trial and its full recording by technical means;

Bindingness of the court verdict; inevitability of punishment.

It should be especially noted that the Nuremberg trial was a public trial in the broadest sense of the word.

Of the 403 court hearings, not a single one was closed. 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 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 process to all countries.

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, a legal analysis of the elements of the crime was given, and the unfounded arguments of the defendants' defenders were refuted.

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.

Of course, 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.

At the same time, the accused behaved boldly and brazenly, skillfully playing for time, hoping that the post-war aggravation of relations between the USSR and the West and rumors about the impending danger of a coming war would put an end to the trial.

The court hearings were tense. 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.

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 enslavement with impunity nations and the extermination of people... Humanity calls criminals to account, and on its behalf we, the prosecutors, 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 their goal and carried out this criminal goal for many years in a row through criminal means.”

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 organizations of German fascism as criminal - the SS, SA, Gestapo, SD, as well as the leadership of the National Socialist Party.

The Nuremberg trials became a precedent for international law. One of his main achievements was the implementation of the principle of equality before the law for all and the inevitability of punishment.

Today we are seeing a picture of fascism being revived again. Under these conditions, those who want to rethink the results of the Great Victory in their own way, level out the leading role of the Soviet Union in the defeat of fascism, and equate Germany, the USSR and the aggressor country are becoming more active.

Against this background, a lot of different publications, films, and television programs appear that distort historical facts and events.

In public speeches of many extremists, and a number of politicians, the leaders of the Third Reich and their accomplices are glorified, while Soviet military leaders, on the contrary, are denigrated. In their interpretation, the Nuremberg trials are just an act of revenge by the victors on the vanquished. At the same time, they characterize famous fascists as ordinary and rather nice people, and not executioners and sadists.

However, it should be emphasized that the verdict of the Nuremberg trials entered into legal force, no one challenged it or canceled it, and attempts by individual radical forces to interpret it in their own way do not have any legal basis, or moral right in general.

Distortion of historical truth, denigration of the Soviet past, fascism of ideology elevated to the rank of state ideology in a number of former Soviet republics leads to manifestations of racism and nationalism in the most extreme and extremist forms. And we need to fight this.

Our main task is to try to prevent this “reinterpretation”, preserve reliable information about it and pass it on from generation to generation unchanged.

The interests of caring for the Great Victory, for the memory of those who gave their lives in the name of getting rid of fascism, are incompatible with the facts of falsification of the history of the war, with the facts of desecration of monuments to liberating soldiers, with facts when discord is artificially instilled among fraternal peoples who fought together against fascism.

From the indictment speech of the chief prosecutor from the USSR R.A. Rudenko:

Gentlemen Judges!

To carry out the atrocities they had planned, the leaders of the fascist conspiracy created a system of criminal organizations, to which my speech was dedicated. Now those who set out to establish domination over the world and exterminate nations are awaiting the coming verdict with trepidation. This sentence should reach not only the authors of bloody fascist “ideas”, the main organizers of the crimes of Hitlerism, who were put in the dock. Your verdict must condemn the entire criminal system of German fascism, that complex, widely branched network of party, government, SS, and military organizations that directly carried out the villainous plans of the main conspirators. On the battlefields, humanity has already pronounced its verdict on criminal German fascism. In the fire of the greatest battles in the history of mankind, the heroic Soviet Army and the valiant troops of the allies not only defeated Hitler’s hordes, but also established the high and noble principles of international cooperation, human morality, and humane rules of human coexistence. The prosecution fulfilled its duty to the high court, to the blessed memory of the innocent victims, to the conscience of the people, to its own conscience.

May the judgment of the peoples be carried out on the fascist executioners - fair and severe.

Websites were used to prepare the information.

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, C. 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 barbaric methods of warfare, cruel treatment of prisoners of war, grossly violating all international conventions previously adopted in these areas, the enslavement of the population of occupied territories, 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 Lekurt 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 a historical event, first of all, as the triumph of 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.

The Nuremberg Trials were followed by the Tokyo Trials, the trial of major Japanese war criminals, which took place in Tokyo from May 3, 1946 to November 12, 1948 at the International Military Tribunal for the 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 of the 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.

The year 2015 goes down in history - the seventieth year since the end of World War II. Rodina published hundreds of articles, documents, and photographs dedicated to the holy anniversary this year. And we decided to devote the December issue of our “Scientific Library” to some of the results and long-term consequences of the Second World War.
Of course, this does not mean that the military theme will disappear from the pages of Rodina along with the anniversary year. The June issue is already being planned, which will be dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the start of the Great Patriotic War, analytical materials from prominent Russian and foreign scientists are waiting in the editorial portfolio, letters about native front-line soldiers continue to arrive for the column ""...
Write to us, dear readers. There are still many unfilled shelves in our “Research Library”.

Editorial "Motherland"

Public trials of the Nazis

The history of World War II is an endless list of war crimes of Nazi Germany and its allies. For this, humanity openly tried the main war criminals in their lair - Nuremberg (1945-1946) and Tokyo (1946-1948). Due to its political-legal significance and cultural imprint, the Nuremberg Tribunal has become a symbol of justice. In its shadow remained other show trials of European countries against the Nazis and their accomplices and, first of all, open trials held on the territory of the Soviet Union.

For the most brutal war crimes in 1943-1949, trials took place in 21 affected cities of five Soviet republics: Krasnodar, Krasnodon, Kharkov, Smolensk, Bryansk, Leningrad, Nikolaev, Minsk, Kiev, Velikiye Luki, Riga, Stalino (Donetsk), Bobruisk, Sevastopol, Chernigov, Poltava, Vitebsk, Chisinau, Novgorod, Gomel, Khabarovsk. They publicly convicted 252 war criminals from Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Japan and several of their accomplices from the USSR. Open trials in the USSR of war criminals carried not only a legal meaning of punishing the perpetrators, but also a political and anti-fascist one. So films were made about the meetings, books were published, reports were written - for millions of people around the world. Judging by the reports of the MGB, almost the entire population supported the accusation and wanted the most severe punishment for the defendants.

At the show trials of 1943-1949. The best investigators, qualified translators, authoritative experts, professional lawyers, and talented journalists worked. About 300-500 spectators came to the meetings (the halls could no longer accommodate), thousands more stood on the street and listened to radio broadcasts, millions read reports and brochures, tens of millions watched newsreels. Under the weight of evidence, almost all the suspects admitted to their crime. In addition, in the dock there were only those whose guilt was repeatedly confirmed by evidence and witnesses. The verdicts of these courts can be considered justified even by modern standards, so none of the convicts were rehabilitated. But despite the importance of open processes, modern researchers know too little about them. The main problem is the inaccessibility of sources. The materials of each trial amounted to up to fifty vast volumes, but they were almost never published 1 because they are stored in the archives of former KGB departments and are still not completely declassified. There is also a lack of culture of memory. A large museum opened in Nuremberg in 2010, which organizes exhibitions and methodically examines the Nuremberg Tribunal (and the 12 subsequent Nuremberg trials). But in the post-Soviet space there are no such museums about local processes. Therefore, in the summer of 2015, the author of these lines created a kind of virtual museum “Soviet Nuremberg” 2 for the Russian Military Historical Society. This website, which caused a great stir in the media, contains information and rare materials about 21 open courts in the USSR in 1943-1949.

Justice in time of war

Before 1943, no one in the world had experience of trying the Nazis and their collaborators. There were no analogues of such cruelty in world history, there were no atrocities of such a temporal and geographical scale, therefore there were no legal norms for retribution - neither in international conventions nor in national criminal codes. In addition, for justice it was still necessary to free the crime scenes and witnesses, and capture the criminals themselves. The Soviet Union was the first to do all this, but also not right away.

From 1941 until the end of the occupation, open trials were held in partisan detachments and brigades - over traitors, spies, looters. Their spectators were the partisans themselves and later residents of neighboring villages. At the front, traitors and Nazi executioners were punished by military tribunals until the issuance of Decree N39 of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on April 19, 1943 “On punitive measures for Nazi villains guilty of murder and torture of the Soviet civilian population and captured Red Army soldiers, for spies, traitors to the motherland from among Soviet citizens and for their accomplices." According to the Decree, cases of murder of prisoners of war and civilians were submitted to military courts attached to divisions and corps. Many of their meetings, on the recommendation of the command, were open, with the participation of the local population. In military tribunals, partisan, people's and military courts, the accused defended themselves, without lawyers. A common sentence was public hanging.

Decree N39 became the legal basis for systemic responsibility for thousands of crimes. The evidence base was detailed reports on the scale of atrocities and destruction in the liberated territories; for this purpose, by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of November 2, 1942, the “Extraordinary State Commission for the establishment and investigation of the atrocities of the Nazi invaders and their accomplices and the damage they caused to citizens was created, collective farms, public organizations, state enterprises and institutions of the USSR" (ChGK). At the same time, investigators interrogated millions of prisoners of war in the camps.

The open trials of 1943 in Krasnodar and Kharkov became widely known. These were the world's first full-fledged trials of the Nazis and their collaborators. The Soviet Union tried to ensure a worldwide resonance: the meetings were covered by foreign journalists and the best writers of the USSR (A. Tolstoy, K. Simonov, I. Ehrenburg, L. Leonov), and filmed by cameramen and photographers. The entire Soviet Union followed the processes - reports of the meetings were published in the central and local press, and readers' reactions were also posted there. Brochures were published about the trials in different languages, they were read aloud in the army and behind the lines. Almost immediately, the documentaries “The Verdict of the People” and “The Trial is Coming” were released and were shown in Soviet and foreign cinemas. And in 1945-1946, documents from the Krasnodar trial on “gas chambers” (“gassenwagens”) were used by the international tribunal in Nuremberg.

According to the principle of “collective guilt”

The most thorough investigation was carried out as part of ensuring open trials of war criminals in late 1945 - early 1946. in the eight most affected cities of the USSR. According to the directives of the government, special operational investigative groups of the Ministry of Internal Affairs-NKGB were created on the ground; they studied archives, acts of the ChGK, photographic documents, interrogated thousands of witnesses from different regions and hundreds of prisoners of war. The first seven such trials (Bryansk, Smolensk, Leningrad, Velikie Luki, Minsk, Riga, Kyiv, Nikolaev) sentenced 84 war criminals (most of them were hanged). Thus, in Kyiv, the hanging of twelve Nazis on Kalinin Square (now Maidan Nezalezhnosti) was seen and approved by more than 200,000 citizens.

Since these trials coincided with the beginning of the Nuremberg Tribunal, they were compared not only by newspapers, but also by the prosecution and defense. Thus, in Smolensk, state prosecutor L.N. Smirnov built a chain of crimes from the Nazi leaders accused at Nuremberg to the specific 10 executioners in the dock: “Both of them are participants in the same accomplice.” Lawyer Kaznacheev (by the way, he also worked at the Kharkov trial) also spoke about the connection between the criminals of Nuremberg and Smolensk, but with a different conclusion: “The sign of equality cannot be placed between all these persons” 3 .

Eight Soviet trials of 1945-1946 ended, and the Nuremberg Tribunal also ended. But among the millions of prisoners of war there were still thousands of war criminals. Therefore, in the spring of 1947, by agreement between the Minister of Internal Affairs S. Kruglov and the Minister of Foreign Affairs V. Molotov, preparations began for the second wave of show trials against German military personnel. The next nine trials in Stalino (Donetsk), Sevastopol, Bobruisk, Chernigov, Poltava, Vitebsk, Novgorod, Chisinau and Gomel, held by resolution of the Council of Ministers of September 10, 1947, sentenced 137 people to prison terms in Vorkutlag.

The last open trial of foreign war criminals was the Khabarovsk trial of 1949 against Japanese developers of biological weapons, who tested them on Soviet and Chinese citizens (more on this on page 116 - Ed.). These crimes were not investigated at the International Tribunal in Tokyo because some potential defendants received immunity from the United States in exchange for experimental data.

Since 1947, instead of individual open trials, the Soviet Union began to conduct closed ones en masse. Already on November 24, 1947, the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, the USSR Ministry of Justice, the USSR Prosecutor's Office N 739/18/15/311 issued an order, which ordered that the cases of those accused of committing war crimes be considered at closed sessions of the military tribunals of the Ministry of Internal Affairs troops at the place of detention of the defendants (that is, practically without calling witnesses) without the participation of the parties and sentence the perpetrators to imprisonment for a period of 25 years in forced labor camps.

The reasons for the curtailment of open processes are not entirely clear; no arguments have yet been found in the declassified documents. However, several versions can be put forward. Presumably, the open trials carried out were quite enough to satisfy society; propaganda switched to new tasks. In addition, conducting open trials required highly qualified investigators; there were not enough of them locally due to the post-war personnel shortage. It is worth taking into account the material support of open processes (the estimate for one process was about 55 thousand rubles); for the post-war economy these were significant amounts. Closed courts made it possible to quickly and en masse consider cases, sentence defendants to a predetermined period of imprisonment and, finally, corresponded to the traditions of Stalinist jurisprudence. In closed trials, prisoners of war were often tried on the principle of “collective guilt”, without concrete evidence of personal participation. Therefore, in the 1990s, the Russian authorities rehabilitated 13,035 foreigners convicted under Decree N39 for war crimes (in total, during 1943-1952, at least 81,780 people were convicted under the Decree, including 24,069 foreign prisoners of war) 4.

Statute of limitations: protests and controversy

After Stalin's death, all foreigners convicted in closed and open trials were handed over to the authorities of their countries in 1955-1956. This was not advertised in the USSR - residents of the affected cities, who well remembered the speeches of the prosecutors, clearly would not have understood such political agreements.

Only a few who came from Vorkuta were imprisoned in foreign prisons (this was the case in the GDR and Hungary, for example), because the USSR did not send investigative files with them. There was a Cold War, and there was little cooperation between Soviet and West German justice authorities in the 1950s. And those who returned to Germany often said that they were slandered, and confessions of guilt in open trials were extracted by torture. Most of those convicted of war crimes by the Soviet court were allowed to return to civilian professions, and some were even allowed to enter the political and military elite.

At the same time, part of West German society (primarily young people who themselves did not experience the war) sought to seriously overcome the Nazi past. Under public pressure, open trials of war criminals took place in Germany in the late 1950s. They determined the creation in 1958 of the Central Department of Justice of the Federal Republic of Germany for the prosecution of Nazi crimes. The main goals of his activities were to investigate crimes and identify persons involved in crimes who could still be prosecuted. When the perpetrators are identified and it is established which prosecutor's office they fall under, the Central Office completes its preliminary investigation and transfers the case to the prosecutor's office.

Nevertheless, even identified criminals could be acquitted by a West German court. According to the post-war German Criminal Code, the statute of limitations would have expired for most World War II crimes in the mid-1960s. Moreover, the twenty-year statute of limitations applied only to murders committed with extreme cruelty. In the first post-war decade, a number of amendments were made to the Code, according to which those guilty of war crimes who did not directly participate in their execution could be acquitted.

In June 1964, a “conference of democratic lawyers” meeting in Warsaw heatedly protested against the application of a statute of limitations to Nazi crimes. On December 24, 1964, the Soviet government made a similar declaration. The note dated January 16, 1965 accused the Federal Republic of Germany of seeking to completely abandon the prosecution of Nazi executioners. Articles published in Soviet publications on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Nuremberg Tribunal spoke about the same thing.

The situation seems to have been changed by the resolution of the 28th session of the UN General Assembly of December 3, 1973, “Principles of international cooperation regarding the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.” According to its text, all war criminals were subject to search, arrest, and extradition to the countries where they committed their atrocities, regardless of time. But even after the resolution, foreign countries were extremely reluctant to hand over their citizens to Soviet justice. Motivating that the USSR's evidence was sometimes shaky, because many years had passed.

In general, due to political obstacles, the USSR in the 1960-1980s tried not foreign war criminals, but their accomplices, in open trials. For political reasons, the names of the punishers were almost never heard at the open trials of their foreign masters in 1945-1947. Even the trial of Vlasov was held behind closed doors. Because of this secrecy, many traitors with blood on their hands were missed. After all, the orders of the Nazi organizers of executions were willingly carried out by ordinary traitors from the Ostbattalions, Jagdkommandos, and nationalist formations. Thus, at the Novgorod trial of 1947, Colonel V. Findeisen 6, the coordinator of punitive forces from the Shelon battalion, was tried. In December 1942, the battalion drove all the residents of the villages of Bychkovo and Pochinok onto the ice of the Polist River and shot them. The punishers hid their guilt, and the investigation was unable to link the cases of hundreds of executioners from “Shelon” with the case of V. Findeisen. Without understanding, they were given the same sentences for traitors and, together with everyone else, were amnestied in 1955. The punishers disappeared somewhere, and only then was the personal guilt of each gradually investigated from 1960 to 1982 in a series of open trials 7 . It was not possible to catch everyone, but punishment could have overtaken them back in 1947.

There are fewer and fewer witnesses left, and the already unlikely chance of a full investigation into the atrocities of the occupiers and holding open trials is decreasing every year. However, such crimes have no statute of limitations, so historians and lawyers need to search for evidence and bring to justice all suspects still alive.

Notes
1. One of the exceptions is the publication of materials of the Riga trial from the Central Archive of the FSB of Russia (ASD NH-18313, vol. 2. LL. 6-333) in the book by Yu.Z. Kantor. Baltics: war without rules (1939-1945). St. Petersburg, 2011.
2. For more details, see the project “Soviet Nuremberg” on the website of the Russian Military Historical Society http://histrf.ru/ru/biblioteka/Soviet-Nuremberg.
3. Trial in the case of Nazi atrocities in the city of Smolensk and the Smolensk region, meeting on December 19 // News of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies of the USSR, N 297 (8907) dated December 20, 1945, p. 2.
4. Epifanov A.E. Responsibility for war crimes committed on the territory of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War. 1941 - 1956 Volgograd, 2005. P. 3.
5. Voisin V. ""Au nom des vivants", de Leon Mazroukho: une rencontre entre discours officiel et hommage personnel" // Kinojudaica. Les representations des Juifs dans le cinema russe et sovietique / dans V. Pozner, N. Laurent (dir.). Paris, Nouveau Monde editions, 2012, R. 375.
6. For more details, see Astashkin D. Open trial of Nazi criminals in Novgorod (1947) // Novgorod historical collection. V. Novgorod, 2014. Issue. 14(24). pp. 320-350.
7. Archive of the FSB department for the Novgorod region. D. 1/12236, D. 7/56, D. 1/13364, D. 1/13378.