"After the completion of the trial, it was unacceptable to justify Nazism"
On the night of October 16, 1946, ten of Hitler's accomplices were executed in Nuremberg. The execution was the result of a trial that lasted just under a year. Charges were brought against 24 representatives of the top of the Third Reich: 12 were sentenced to death, three to life imprisonment, and four more to terms ranging from 10 to 20 years. Three defendants were acquitted. However, according to Alexander Chubaryan, PhD, scientific director of the Institute of Universal History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, not only individual figures were judged, but also the entire system and its ideology. On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the verdict, Izvestia talked with the scientist about the significance of the Nuremberg Tribunal and its impact on world history.
— What was the result of the Nuremberg trials? Besides the fact that the war criminals were punished?
— The Nuremberg trials are one of the greatest historical and legal events of the 20th century. He played a huge role in the history of international law and judicial practice. There were individual representatives of the regime in the dock, but they were judged not only by them, but also by the entire system, the order established by the Nazis and its anti-human manifestations. This was the peculiarity of the Nuremberg trials: neither before nor after it was such that the court considered the crimes of an entire system. The prosecution presented a large amount of collected evidence that confirmed the atrocities of Nazi Germany and its leaders.
Alexander Chubaryan, Scientific Director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences
But despite the condemnation of this ideology, it has not left the stage. Today's events show that Nazism is not a relic of the past, but a living phenomenon. The ideology that infected the German people and other European countries in the 20th century is alive and still significant to some. Unfortunately, this fact is not being given due attention in Europe. This is the oblivion of Nuremberg.
Alexander Chubaryan is a researcher at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, President of the State Academic University of Humanities, and Russia's largest specialist in the history of relations between Russia and Europe in the 20th century. He is the author of more than 350 scientific papers, including several monographs. On October 14, Alexander Chubaryan turned 95 years old.
— Let's go back to the beginning of the process. At the first meeting, the defendants stated that they did not consider themselves guilty in front of society. In your opinion, were they really convinced of this, or were they just, as they say, trying to save face?
— There are different points of view on this. On the one hand, this is a common practice of any court: the accused do not admit guilt. In the dock were people who had previously held key roles in Germany. They all knew perfectly well how the confession would turn out for them, and they knew how this process would end. In my opinion, as in the opinion of many historians, they rather followed certain tactics than sincerely believed in their innocence. A normal person cannot consider himself innocent and declare it, knowing that in the system created with his help, millions of people were killed in gas chambers.
Commanders of the armed forces of Nazi Germany in 1935-1945 at the Nuremberg Trials
But the generals who found themselves in the role of the accused also referred to the fact that they were simply following orders from their superiors. That is, they admitted that they had participated in anti-human crimes, but justified themselves by saying that it was the decision of their superiors. Hermann Göring, one of Hitler's closest associates, tried to shift all responsibility onto the Fuhrer who committed suicide.
Business people behaved the same way — managers, directors and owners of the largest companies that financed Germany. They claimed that they supported the regime, but did not know exactly where their money was going. Their trials took place from 1946 to 1949.
It took quite a long time to prove the guilt of the criminals who tried to refer to the execution of orders.
The first meeting of the Nuremberg Trials was held on November 20, 1945. A month earlier, an International military tribunal was opened in Berlin, where 24 top government and military figures of the Third Reich, as well as Nazi organizations, were charged. Germany's leaders were tried for violations of the laws of war, crimes against peace and humanity, and conspiracy to commit them. The trial was conducted by judges from the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France. The Soviet Union was represented in Nuremberg by the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the USSR, Major General of Justice Ion Nikitchenko.
— In 1946, 24 people were brought before the court. Did they realize that they were facing not just a prison sentence, but the death penalty?
— I think most of them were ready for this. But the defendant always tries to minimize his guilt, hoping that the judge will mitigate the punishment. And as a result of the Nuremberg trials, not all were sentenced to death, meaning some were able to convince the court that they deserved another punishment.
View of the prison building adjacent to the courtroom
— Four countries participated in the meetings — the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France. What role did each of them have?
— The Nuremberg Tribunal was the culmination of the cooperation of the anti-Hitler coalition. The prosecutors of all countries generally adhered to the same position.
In my opinion, this unity of several countries is also the great importance of the whole process. He did not introduce additional disagreements into the relations of the former allies, although in 1946, during the main period of the hearings, the Cold War had already begun.
More controversies arose during subsequent trials: for example, the United States tried to mitigate the responsibility of business representatives who supported the Nazi regime. This affected the sentences — as a result, they were convicted quite mildly, and after a while the punishment for some of them was revised.
— Countries assessed the sentence of Rudolf Hess, who escaped the death penalty, differently. The Soviet Union expressed its disagreement with this decision.
— There were indeed disagreements about Hess. He received a life sentence, served more than 40 years and committed suicide. You know, there are different points of view about this... I think Hess's sentence was influenced by his flight to England in 1941. The purpose of his act is still unknown — the information is still classified.
Defendants Rudolf Hess and Hermann Goering (from right to left) in the dock
But despite the discrepancies in the assessment of the role of some individuals, the court has justly sentenced one of the most dangerous and bloody regimes in the history of mankind.
— What is the role of the Nuremberg trials in world history?
— I think it's primarily political. At that time, two such processes were taking place simultaneously in the world.: The Nazis were tried in Nuremberg, and the Japanese in Tokyo. They were similar to each other, and the perpetrators received similar sentences. And both tribunals ushered in a whole new era, created a political and legal framework, and consolidated the universal condemnation of the ideas of Nazism and fascism. This is of great importance for the whole world.
In addition, it is thanks to the process that the concept of "crime against humanity" has been established in international law. This is a very significant and serious achievement of Nuremberg. And the main justice is that they condemned both specific perpetrators and the entire Hitlerite system.
— What followed the verdict?
— First of all, the condemnation of Nazism in society. After all, this ideology was widely supported not only in Germany, but also in some other European countries.
It is important that Germany itself has condemned its past. After the Nuremberg trials, it was unacceptable to justify Nazism. Our relations with Germany, which developed after the war, and the absence of anti-German sentiment in Soviet society were associated with a unified condemnation of the regime. We were united by this thought.
In Soviet times, I often talked with colleagues from the German academic community: then it was impossible to imagine a professor at a university justifying Nazism and continuing to work. And this can be traced in modern history.: Ten years ago, the current President of Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, while in Volgograd, thanked the Soviet Union for liberating his country from Nazism.
In addition, after the verdict, a series of trials began in different countries against those who supported and helped the regime. In the Soviet Union, specific people who committed atrocities on the territory of our country were tried.
Therefore, we can say that Nuremberg is a phenomenon of world and European history. But, unfortunately, today Germany does not respond properly to the manifestation of Nazism and its justification in a number of European countries.
— Five years ago, in an article dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the verdict, you said that young people are almost not familiar with the Nuremberg trials. Has anything changed since then?
— There is very little information about this in the European textbooks that I am familiar with. Therefore, the younger generation in some countries knows almost nothing about the process.
Considerable attention is being paid to this topic in Russia, but, of course, more can be done. This is important not only for assessing the past, but also for the present — for understanding why the revival of Nazism is dangerous. It should be recalled that in Germany in the 1920s everything started harmlessly. The manifestations of Nazism, which Europe initially treated with condescension, escalated into the extermination of people and led to this result. Therefore, it is important to understand how this system worked.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
