Military Review

Unknown documents of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Part of 4. Misconception or falsification?

17
Unknown documents of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Part of 4. Misconception or falsification?

F.Gaus (left) when signing the treaty on friendship and borders between the USSR and Germany 28.09.1939.


In a previous publication, Gaus's Third Affidavit? considered a unique document from the State Archives of the Russian Federation, emphasizing the difficult conditions of the course of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the work of the Soviet delegation. Published a document in the collection "The USSR and the Nuremberg Process. Unknown and Little-Known Pages stories". Published documents shed light on many previously unknown to ordinary readers side of the Nuremberg process. However, the scientific editor and the compiler of the collection have a number of questions. Or rather, the author’s separate comments on archival documents are not entirely clear. The author has a lot to say on the Internet:" Natalia Sergeevna Lebedeva (1939). She graduated with honors from the Moscow State Institute of History and Archives (1962). She worked at the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. From 1967, at the Institute of General History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (RAS). Currently, he is a leading researcher at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a member of the Russian-Polish Group on Difficult Issues of Russian-Polish Relations in the History of the Twentieth Century. In 1970, she defended her thesis on "The Prehistory of the Nuremberg Process". In 1996, the University of Lodz (Poland) awarded her a doctorate degree, habilitated in the field of general history. N. S. Lebedeva is a prominent expert in the history of modern international relations and the history of World War II, who made a major contribution to the study of the Katyn crime of the Stalinist regime. She is the author of the monographs “Preparing the Nuremberg Trials,” “Unconditional Surrender to the Aggressors,” “Katyn: a Crime against Humanity,” and others.

The book, edited by such a specialist of the highest class, should all be perceived as the ultimate truth. But this is not the case. Immediately after the text of the "third" affidavit of Gaus in the collection of documents on p. 455 are the comments of the author. We read: "In the testimony on oath of 15 in May, F. Gause spoke in detail about his trip to Moscow with I. Ribbentrop in August and September of 1939." What evidence is Gaus talking about? We know the three dates of affidavits: 15 March, 11 April and "fake affidavit" from May 17. But 15 May Gaus did not give evidence. Probably the author was mistaken and, judging by the retelling of these testimonies given on his own, this is an affidavit of March 15. When a schoolboy makes a mistake in a history lesson in a date, he gets a deuce. And the doctor? Or is the task specifically to confuse readers? Because at the very end of the author's retelling of this “Gaus’s affidavit of 15 May”, we suddenly read (p. 455): “And Gaus’s affidavit also describes the preparation, and especially the content of not only the Soviet-German friendship and border treaty, but also the text of all three secret protocols to it. " This phrase is probably already quoted by young historians in his dissertations; it sounds in schools in history lessons. The full text of the first Gaus affidavit has already been cited earlier. Anyone who reads knows that it is mainly about the "Non-Aggression Treaty of 23.08.1939" and the secret protocol, and not about the "Treaty of Friendship and Borders of 28.09.1939". And even more so Gause nowhere leads the texts of all three secret protocols to the treaty of friendship and borders. All this is a misunderstanding or deliberate falsification? Maybe this is the fictitious date of the alleged testimony of Gaus - 15 May?

But the most interesting is in the section "Introduction", prepared directly by the compiler of the collection. There the author describes the preparation of the Nuremberg process and its course. On page 53 we read:
"On May 17, Hess's defense attorney Alfred Seidl received an affidavit (ie, a certified affidavit) of Friedrich Gaus, the former head of the legal department of the German Foreign Ministry. He accompanied I. Ribbentrop on his trips to Moscow in August and September 1939. Gaus in detail described the course of negotiations and the content of secret protocols to the Soviet-German non-aggression pact of 23 August and the treaty of friendship and the border of 28 September 1939 (see doc. No. 238) Rudenko, not having a translation of this document and, apparently, did not knowing who Gaus was, did not prevent his affidavit from being brought before the Tribunal. "

There are many questions at once. Why is the context of the author's explanations made as if it is a question of Gaus’s first and only affidavit at the Nuremberg process? Why not even mention the existence of the first two affidavits? How could Rudenko not know who Gaus was by 17 in May, when his affidavit from 15 March has been regularly appearing at the Tribunal’s meetings for two months and was attached to court documents? How could Rudenko prevent the presentation of the “third” affidavit from 17 to the Tribunal in May if defender Seidl did not even mention him during the process? And why did the compiler of the collection decide to publish only the third, not even translated affidavit, but, at least, not the second, already available in the documents of the Tribunal with the translation? It creates a clear impression that readers are trying to mislead the events that took place in 1946.

If a young scientist is mistaken in his reasoning, then this can be understood. But if a venerable specialist is misleading the general public, knowing full well how things were in fact, how many affidavits were there and what was written in them, then this can only be called falsification and distortion of facts. But why? The author of the collection is considered one of Russia's leading experts on the Nuremberg process and the Katyn case. In particular, the statements of the Russian leadership about the full recognition of the Katyn massacre went with its submission to the “dashing” years. And if research on this issue, Mrs. doctor conducted in the same way?

I am not a historian, my field of activity is economics. But I want to appeal to all military historians: maybe it’s time to take the description of military history in your own hands? Maybe it's time to submit to the general public the real historical documents that determined the course of development of the country? Otherwise, speculation and falsification in the history of our country will remain for a long time.


F.Gaus in 1947 in the course of the military tribunal №4 - Wilhelmstrasse Process.

References:
1. USSR and the Nuremberg process. Unknown and little-known pages of history: Sat. documents / Scientific. editor and compiler N.S. Lebedeva. M .: MFD, 2012. - 624 with. - (Russia. XX century. Documents).
Author:
Originator:
http://spandau-prison.com/neizvestnye-dokumenty-njurnbergskogo-tribunala-chast-4/
17 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. populist
    populist 29 January 2017 15: 25
    +8
    I am not a historian, my area of ​​activity is economics. But I want to appeal to all military historians: maybe it's time to take the description of military history into our own hands?

    It seems that the author has never served in the army. No.
    I read in the 90s Rezun: here the stupidity is written, there is nonsense ... And there is plenty of it all. I understand, but historians are silent? Is it strange? Then he read somewhere that historians were forbidden to speak on Rezun’s themes.
    And the article is correct. Madame is engaged in falsification.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 29 January 2017 20: 47
      +1
      And the article is correct. Madame is engaged in falsification.
      You are not in that dark forest looking for a black cat. Cats are pets. and do not live in the forest
      Around 2012, they celebrated 25 years of pop music “Tender May”. Alexei Mitrofanov (a former deputy and associate of Zhirinovsky and transferred to Just Russia) spoke briefly.

      According to him, he was still a young worker who went with Lask May and drove to the stadiums, with the help of the police authorities and the admin resource of people, for the masses
      sent to the stadium). The money from the performance of “LM” went to the NNN fund (did not remember), which was headed by A. Yakovlev. Companion MS Gorbachev.
      It became clear that there were 12 “LM” squads, no one could squeeze them, and the purchase by “LM” producer A Razin of MSGorbachev’s home (after the death of MSGor-a’s mother), and the wide road to the TV center.
      1. populist
        populist 29 January 2017 23: 24
        0
        antivirus
        You are not in that dark forest looking for a black cat. Cats are pets. and do not live in the forest

        Some black cats were waiting hi And others clung to the dark forest sad What can you do; human factor. bully
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 29 January 2017 23: 38
          +3
          Quote: populist
          Some black cats were waiting, while others clung to a dark forest.

          Well, it means that it was not for nothing that the Vatican accused cats of witchcraft. repeat belay
          1. Cat
            Cat 30 January 2017 05: 36
            +2
            Well, well, be careful with this! I’ll find your slipper, it’s not enough!
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 30 January 2017 09: 38
              +2
              all this is a joke, and A Mitrofanov is the son of the deputy Foreign Ministry of the USSR. This is where the children were sent to build a career.
              And you're talking about some kind of Katyn. Yakovlev did not eat bread in vain.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 29 January 2017 15: 35
    +12
    In 1996, the University of Lodz (Poland) awarded her a doctorate in general history. N. S. Lebedeva
    ... Well, if the Poles assigned her a doctor ... apparently not in vain, apparently tried .. wink
    1. ruskih
      ruskih 29 January 2017 15: 48
      +10
      Well, if the book "Katyn: ....." was published in 1994, it is logical that in 1996 "the Poles assigned a doctor to her ..." fellow
  3. BLOND
    BLOND 29 January 2017 16: 15
    +10
    Unknown documents of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Part 4

    Huh ... (exhaled)
    I read all 4 parts with bated breath and after three was silent ...
    Let the author Andrei Plotnikov forgive me, but as an optimist I was afraid of the worst - we thought again we attacked Europe in 1941 (you know how modern historians have it: everything is beautiful, and then upside down)
    Thank you for the article!
  4. Niccola Mack
    Niccola Mack 29 January 2017 18: 07
    +4
    The topic of secret protocols is interesting - fakes or not, but let's ask a key question all the same!
    On the basis of what did Guderian and Krivoshein decide that Brest is Soviet and the borders will pass just like that?
    Oral accords of Stalin and Ribbentrop in negotiations?
    In my opinion this is unrealistic.
    Stalin and Molotov, like Hitler and Ribbentrop, are not suckers like Gorbachev, whom Reagan promised that NATO would not expand east, and then everyone in the West “forgot” the promise. You can’t come up with promises.
    Given the degree of trust in each other, both parties would probably require appropriate writing. Without discrepancies.
    So it seems to me that Guderian and Krivoshein had unambiguous and clear instructions based on real documents.
    But whether the originals of the documents on von Lesch’s film and our “originals”, or fake is a big question !!!
    1. ruskih
      ruskih 29 January 2017 18: 15
      +1
      I will correct you a little:in CM.
      1. Niccola Mack
        Niccola Mack 29 January 2017 18: 19
        +1
        Thanks, I already saw it myself - but essentially?
        1. ruskih
          ruskih 29 January 2017 19: 04
          +1
          And "essentially" there is no time and mood hi
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 January 2017 17: 47
      +1
      Yes, what there ... everything has been published long ago. No riddles.

      http://www.runivers.ru/doc/d2.php?SECTION_ID=6379
      & CENTER_ELEMENT_ID = 147680 & PORTAL_ID = 6379

      "SECRET ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL
      TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN GERMANY AND THE SOVIET UNION
      When signing the non-aggression treaty between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the undersigned ombudsmen of both sides discussed in a strictly confidential manner the question of delimiting areas of mutual interests in Eastern Europe. This discussion led to the following result:
      1. In the event of a territorial-political reorganization of the regions belonging to the Baltic states (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern border of Lithuania is at the same time the border of the spheres of interests of Germany and the USSR. At the same time, the interests of Lithuania in relation to the Vilnius region are recognized by both parties.
      2. In the event of a territorial-political reorganization of the regions belonging to the Polish State, the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR will be approximately along the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula and Sana. The question of whether it is desirable in the mutual interests to preserve the independent Polish State and what the borders of this state will be can only be finally clarified in the course of further political development. In any case, both Governments will resolve this issue by way of friendly mutual agreement.
      3. Concerning the southeast of Europe from the Soviet side, the USSR’s interest in Bessarabia is underlined. On the German side, it declares its complete political disinterest in these areas.
      4. This protocol will be kept strictly secret by both parties.
      Moscow, 23 August 1939 of the year

      By authority of the USSR Government V. Molotov
      For the Government of Germany I. Ribbentrop

      EXPLANATION TO THE SECRET ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL OF AUGUST 23, 1939
      In order to clarify the first paragraph of clause 2 of the Second Secret Additional Protocol of August 23, 1939, it is hereby clarified that this paragraph should be read in the next final version, namely:
      2, In the case of the territorial and political reorganization of the areas that make up the Polish State, the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR will approximately pass along the rivers Pissa, Narew, Vistula and San.
      Moscow, August 28, 1939.

      By authority of the USSR Government V. Molotov
      For the Government of Germany F. von Schulenburg

      Quoted from: Foreign Policy Documents, 1939, vol. 22, Book 1 - M .: International Relations, 1992, pp. 630-632, 670
      1. Niccola Mack
        Niccola Mack 31 January 2017 18: 22
        +2
        Yes, what there ... everything has been published long ago. No riddles.

        The Protocols of the Zionist Wise Men have also been published more than once.
        What, too - no riddles?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 31 January 2017 19: 19
          +1
          There are originals with signatures. Molotov, etc. in Russian, in
          German
          But to believe or not to believe is your business, of course. I do not insist.
          I don’t see any sensation here at all. Well, we decided how to divide
          piece of Europe, well, divided. This is history, these people have died.
          Descendants are not responsible for their affairs.
  5. Watson J.
    Watson J. 31 January 2017 00: 06
    +1
    Kungurov A. - There were no secret protocols, or the Fake that destroyed the USSR