Military Review

Why was Churchill afraid of Nuremberg?

61
Why was Churchill afraid of Nuremberg?Declassified documents say that he demanded to shoot the Nazi leaders without any trial.

Britain, it turns out, was originally against the Nuremberg Tribunal and would prefer that at the end of the war the Nazi leaders without trial simply be executed or put in jail - depending on who deserves it. This became known the other day after the declassification of diaries, which was conducted in 1940-1950. the then head of counterintelligence of the British MI5 service Guy Liddell, reports The Guardian. Liddell's diaries were kept for a long time in the safe of successive MI5 chiefs, codenamed “Wallflowers.” And now they have become available (although they were edited at the same time).

According to the records of Liddell, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced a proposal to abandon the establishment of the Tribunal in February 1945 at the Yalta Conference of the leaders of the three Allied Powers in the anti-Hitler coalition, but this proposal was rejected by Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin. The position of the leaders of the USA and the USSR forced Britain to agree to the holding of the Tribunal.

Recall that for the first time the idea of ​​bringing the Nazi leaders to justice was recorded by the three powers even 1 in November 1943 in the so-called. Moscow Declaration. In it, the USSR, the United States and Great Britain promised each other that they "would persecute them (Nazi criminals. - Approx. KM.RU) in the most remote parts of the world ... to administer justice to them." As we see, the British understood “justice” in a rather peculiar way. Where did Churchill have such a preference for extrajudicial punishment of the judicial procedure?

Guy Liddell explains that 21 of June 1945 dictated to his secretary the following entry (it dealt with the visit of a representative of the leadership of the British Military Directorate, as well as representatives of MI5 and the Office of Special Operations who were looking for arguments in favor of a war criminal trial): Personally, I think this whole procedure is pretty awful. The Attorney General insisted that the commission of inquiry decided that certain people should be executed, and the rest to be sent to prison for different periods, that this proposal should be submitted to the House of Commons and that a certain military authority should be transferred to the detection and arrest of these people, as well as to carry out the sentence. This was a much more reasonable proposal that would not harm the reputation of the law. ”

In July, 1946, Liddell flew to Nuremberg, along with MI5 deputy head Oswald Harker, to personally oversee the trial. There, his fears that this process differs little from the show courts proved: “It’s impossible to get rid of the feeling that the defendants did most of what the 14 years were doing and that they are now accountable to the court for 28 years. This greatly thickens the atmosphere of fictitiousness of the entire judicial process and leads me to the conclusion that worries me the most: this court is a court of winners who created their own statute, their own procedure and their own rules of evidence in order to crack down on the defeated. ” .

It turns out that it would be better to inflict extrajudicial reprisals on the Nazi criminals who fell into the hands of the allies, so that this “does not harm the reputation of the law”? And then how would you order to perceive the horrendous Polish and all Western public now shooting Polish officers near Katyn, in which the Nuremberg Tribunal accused the Nazis, but the responsibility for which is now being transferred to the NKVD? After all, Katyn is a pure extrajudicial punishment (in this case it doesn't even matter who exactly it was done by)! And is she "better" in Nuremberg? It turns out that yes. This is what the critics of the judicial process, considered to be one of the foundations of international law, are based on, and relying on it can be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity!

Yes, of course, the British in the world are considered to be people who are very sensitive to the law as such, and the purity of any legal process, of course, requires equal rights of the parties. In this sense, of course, the Nuremberg Tribunal cannot be considered a benchmark: there the winners really judged the vanquished. But does this mean that in this case the losers, no matter how monstrous the crimes they committed, are not at all under jurisdiction? Maybe we have no right to judge them at all, since they lived according to their own - other “laws”? Any sensible person, and not a supporter of the "purity" of the legal genre, will testify that it is not so that evil must be punished, and it is better to punish him in court than in Katyn.

The reverent before the law in general can not be considered the ultimate ideal, a kind of ultimate truth. And if the law is unfair or enacted in violation of generally accepted human norms - how would you order it to be treated? Moreover, as noted by the outstanding Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviev, the legal field is only the lower limit of morality. Why then bow to this "lower limit"? Of course, this is not a call for non-compliance with legislation, but simply their deep semantic assessment.

But those same British, and many of our home-grown Western liberals urge us to obey virtually any law implicitly. The reasoning of the same Liddell, for example, simply faded against the background of similar assessments of the Nuremberg Tribunal, given several years ago by the Russian “human rights activist” Sergei Kovalev after which the militants brutally murdered them): “Recall the Nuremberg Trials. From the point of view of law, this is pure disgrace, this is after all the trial of the victors over the vanquished, and there have not even been any attempts to hide it. What is the equality of the parties here? This is a court that judged by specially written laws for it. The fundamental, most important principle of law was deliberately violated: the law is not retroactive. We decided that it has. And they pulled people, many of whom acted strictly in accordance with the laws of their country, which were then in force. Horrible laws, barbaric, but laws. "

Agree: Churchill and Liddell are resting here.

And yet the true reason for all the recent attacks on the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal has been lying beyond a purely legal plane. Perhaps Mr. Churchill opposed such a trial because he feared that during the process all sorts of unpleasant details could emerge about the role played by both the United States and Great Britain both in Hitler’s coming to power and in his aggression against the USSR ? After all, the fact that the Anglo-Saxons sponsored Hitler and his Nazi party, starting with the 20-ies of the XX century, is no longer a secret. And the version that the strange flight of Rudolf Hess to England was, in fact, the last attempt by Berlin and London to agree on a joint strike against the USSR, now also tends to share a considerable number of experts. Yes, as a result, the publicity of all these unsightly stories was avoided (at what cost - история is silent), but there was a risk. And so everything is simple: to the wall - and the ends in the water.

And one more important note. It is clear that history does not know the subjunctive mood, and yet it would be easy, probably, to predict the reaction to the Tribunal if (God forbid, of course) the leaders of Russia / USSR would have been the defeated side. Almost certainly we would be inspired (if we, the Russians, were after all preserved), that such a “Nuremberg” is the standard of modern law, that we should honor it as an icon. And repent, and repent, and repent ...

But here is the bad luck for the West: we (or rather, our grandfathers and fathers) then came out victorious. And the decisions of Nuremberg are the most important integral part of the entire post-war world order, where Russia / USSR was the winner in the first place. Grandfathers and fathers provided our state with the status of a great power, which, by its righteous court, has the right to judge the criminals who have brought our people incalculable suffering. It is precisely to this point that all attempts to diminish the significance of the decisions of Nuremberg and reconsider the other major results of World War II are aimed at undermining and devaluing this very status.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru
61 comment
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. подводник
    подводник 10 November 2012 08: 27
    +12
    Himmler ate an ampoule of poison when he was captured by Britons — such an official version ...
    Or maybe he just knew a lot and could tell a lot about the "friendship" of the Britons and Hans .... or maybe about the great Che himself?
    Goering also ate when the Yankees guarded him.
    There are many questions in the death of Hess, who was guarded by the same Yankees.
    But I believe that someday everything secret will become apparent .... Although everything is already clear ...
    1. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 10 November 2012 17: 19
      +8
      What may not be clear there. The fat British hog knew that if the main faces sing for cleanliness, and even in Russian hands it will become too much known, and who is the real sponsor and organizer of DRAG NAH.
      1. Kaa
        Kaa 10 November 2012 18: 35
        +5
        Quote: Sakhalininets
        who is the real sponsor and organizer DRAG NAH OSTEN.

        ... prisoner Hess, condemned by the tribunal, could tell, just before his release, EMNIP, in 1987, mysteriously hanged himself, with 2 strangulation
        furrows on the neck and just in the "British guard shift". Apparently, not only Sir Winston was afraid of these revelations ...
        1. Oles
          Oles 10 November 2012 20: 05
          +2
          Hess didn’t just fly to the Great Britain ...
        2. Oles
          Oles 11 November 2012 00: 04
          +1
          yes ... hanged himself ... with someone else's help ... helped ... otherwise he couldn’t ... hang himself
    2. datur
      datur 11 November 2012 12: 10
      -1
      подводникNOT, just an belay laughing yes Glycans did not find a dose of brandy to bang Churchill- wink -
  2. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 10 November 2012 08: 51
    -14
    Churchill had nothing to fear at the Nuremberg Tribunal, for that matter! Personally, I believe that in this respect he was right in demanding the execution of Nazi criminals without trial ...
    For me, the Nuremberg Tribunal itself does not look like a completely legitimate event; in some ways, this is a mockery of common sense, especially this impression intensifies when you begin to get acquainted with its materials in more detail ...
    The results of NT generally raise more questions than give answers ...
    This is some kind of Jewish chicanery than "honest" punishment of war criminals ...
    1. Skavron
      Skavron 10 November 2012 14: 28
      +3
      Quote: Brother Sarich
      Personally, I believe that in this respect he was right in demanding the execution of Nazi criminals without trial ...

      Oh brother, didn’t you recently protect Paulus and swore that he was not guilty and there’s nothing to shoot him for? Somehow quickly you changed your mind to the opposite ...
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 10 November 2012 19: 56
        -3
        I did not change anything in my beliefs - I just need to understand something!
        The shooting would have been carried out according to the simple law of the winner, if you are organizing a court or trial, then in any case you have to act according to some law, and according to this law the very Paulus is innocent!
        1. Skavron
          Skavron 10 November 2012 22: 07
          +1
          Quote: Brother Sarich
          I did not change anything in my beliefs

          Yes? Well, then it seemed to me.


          Brother, well, tell me, by what law did they judge? If the Soviet, then how is Paulus not guilty ??? Are you all right with your brains?
          A man fought against the Soviet Union, made a plan for its capture, put a huge number of lives of Soviet citizens ... and he is not guilty ??? Yes, in the USSR they put it against the wall for lesser sins.
          And you get minuses only for trying (and somehow clumsily and stupidly) to justify Nazi criminals.

          And instead of flaunting your knowledge, you would have already said something more serious. And then all "read the materials" ... but in essence - all your comments - this is an empty concussion.
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 10 November 2012 22: 22
            0
            Oddly enough - but he was not guilty!
            There is no excuse - you just need to think, and not to pour emotions ...
            Explaining the details is long, and it’s pointless, and some simple things cannot be understood by some ...
            By the way, do you imagine the volume of NT materials? Or a brief summary?
            1. Skavron
              Skavron 10 November 2012 22: 27
              +1
              Quote: Brother Sarich
              By the way, do you imagine the volume of NT materials? Or a brief summary?

              Of course, dear.
              Quote: Brother Sarich
              Oddly enough - but he was not guilty!

              Gygyg ... so answer HOW IT COULD NOT BE GUILTY? !!!
              Quote: Brother Sarich
              There is no excuse - you just have to think

              You believe, I’m sitting, I think, as the drafter of the plan of attack on my country, and then the person who brings this plan to life (or rather death), may not be guilty. And I just can’t imagine.
              Can you help? You read it all, you know everything. Tell me the sir, wretched ... explain to the illiterate.
              1. Skavron
                Skavron 10 November 2012 22: 32
                0
                Well, at least in a nutshell ... try not to get away from a direct answer again.
              2. Brother Sarych
                Brother Sarych 10 November 2012 22: 41
                0
                Paulus was a prisoner of war, but we already spoke about the status of a prisoner of war ...
                And he could not be presented with war crimes, again according to the laws of that time ...
                Moreover, he collaborated with anti-fascists, being a prisoner ...
                My question is this: are you testing my knowledge or are you just curious?
                If you are experiencing knowledge, I can add that at that time a really significant figure was urgently needed, which could have called for the surrender of German troops, and Paulus became such a figure! The Germans had a very developed subordination even in captivity, so in the Krasnogorsk camp the generals kept aloof even from the colonels, it’s clear that no one listened to every little thing, and here they managed to persuade the field-marshal to cooperate! Only for this they forgave him a lot ...
                1. Skavron
                  Skavron 10 November 2012 23: 11
                  0
                  ATP for the answer.
                  Quote: Brother Sarich
                  are you testing my knowledge or just so curious?

                  Trying to understand your position. And then it is painfully zealous You defend the innocence of Hitler's generals. So neither one nor the other.
                  Quote: Brother Sarich
                  Only for this they forgave him a lot ...

                  Somehow comrade Stalin didn’t really like his generals either, but here is such humanity. All this is strange.
                  Quote: Brother Sarich
                  And he couldn’t be presented with war crimes, again according to the laws of that time ..

                  How is this impossible? By what (whose) laws? The others were shown quite specifically, and not only presented, but also hanged. Not everyone is true.
                  Purely from a human point of view, and from a legal point of view - Paulus is guilty!
                  First of all, before the USSR, for drawing up an attack plan, for military operations on Soviet territory. This is quite enough for "vyshak". And for lesser crimes, even if the accused repented and cooperated, he could be put up against the wall. So they weren't convinced.
                  Although, I suspect that we will remain each with his own. Although I personally believe, and I will consider Paulus guilty, and worthy of the Nuremberg loop ...
                  1. Brother Sarych
                    Brother Sarych 10 November 2012 23: 33
                    -1
                    Under no law will a prisoner of war be responsible for participating in hostilities! He may be responsible for violating the laws of warfare - for executing prisoners of war, for example, but also if there is evidence for this ...
                    For example, the SD was recognized as a criminal group, and belonging to this group could lead to liability, but the Wehrmacht - no! Even the Waffen-SS is not a criminal group!
                    1. Rink
                      Rink 12 November 2012 02: 30
                      +1
                      Quote: Brother Sarich
                      Under no law will a prisoner of war be responsible for participating in hostilities! He may be responsible for violating the laws of warfare - for executing prisoners of war, for example, but also if there is evidence for this ...
                      For example, the SD was recognized as a criminal group, and belonging to this group could lead to liability, but the Wehrmacht - no! Even the Waffen-SS is not a criminal group!

                      You distort, and apparently consciously.
                      In Nuremberg, it was not the rank and file who were tried for following orders and participating in hostilities, but the supreme leadership for organizing an unprovoked aggression against sovereign countries, for plans that entailed multimillion-dollar victims. For the mass executions of civilians, for the destroyed villages, burned together with people, for concentration camps, crematoria and gas chambers, for attempts to destroy entire nations - what is now called "crimes against humanity." These "pranks" are illegal at all times, and there is no need to invent special laws prohibiting the burning of living people in a crematorium or in a village church. And the fact that "there is no reverse action" of such a law is also not a cover.
                      The executors of these orders were also tried - the heads of concentration camps, doctors who performed deadly experiments there on the living and innocent, "innocent" SS men who shot and hanged the civilian population.

                      Do you "forget" about it because it is much more difficult to justify? But you really will bother somehow to whitewash these, otherwise it somehow turns out unfairly ... They attacked a bunch of countries, shed atrocious seas of blood - and they themselves were taken and hanged! What is this doing, brothers ?! is it now that - and Bush can be hanged for the attack on Iraq and a million killed civilians, and Obama for Libya? not ..... so it does not roll, Nuremberg must be canceled!
                2. major1976
                  major1976 26 December 2012 01: 24
                  +1
                  The Germans have Paulus like Vlasov with us !!! Both traitors !!!
          2. Oles
            Oles 11 November 2012 00: 12
            -2
            oh damn !!! there was one who talks about his minusesAnd openly ... beauty !!! and then here they quietly put for nothing ... and their faces do not show ... stsikuny))) SHAME FUEL !!!)))
    2. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 10 November 2012 19: 58
      -1
      I can attribute a bunch of minuses simply to total ignorance - people simply do not understand what they read!
      Count for work and get acquainted with the materials of Nuremberg - everything is far from simple there!
      1. Skavron
        Skavron 10 November 2012 21: 58
        0
        Quote: Brother Sarich
        A bunch of cons ...

        Not a minus fundamentally)
    3. Pablo
      Pablo 10 November 2012 23: 14
      +3
      GRIF "SECRET" IN THE CASE OF HESS, IN 2011 lived for 50 years out of love for art!
    4. Oles
      Oles 11 November 2012 00: 08
      +2
      hmm ... interesting ... thoughtful ... read ... there is something in this ... fanning the "halakost", which was not ... hmmm ...
    5. kush62
      kush62 11 November 2012 06: 24
      +4
      And in another article, Sarych writes about pity for the SS prisoners in England. Not by convention, you see, the lads from the British intelligence did. And then immediately shoot without trial. Some kind of fermentation in my thoughts.
  3. Taratut
    Taratut 10 November 2012 09: 48
    -5
    And how do you order then to perceive the so terrifying audience of Poland and the whole West now the execution of Polish officers near Katyn, in which the Nuremberg tribunal accused the Nazis, but the responsibility for which is now shifted to the NKVD?
    The author is not up to date. Nobody was blamed for Katyn. Lowered on the brakes. And the representative of the USSR on this occasion did not express any protests, although he generally liked to protest.

    But does this mean that in this case, the vanquished, no matter how heinous crimes they commit, are generally beyond jurisdiction? Maybe we have no right to judge them at all, since they lived according to their own - other "laws"?
    Logically, the new German authorities should judge. True, they too were not independent.

    The arguments of the same Liddell, for example, simply fade against the background of similar assessments by the Nuremberg Tribunal, which several years ago, the Russian "human rights activist" Sergei Kovale
    The author disavows the quite logical statements of Kovalev with a negative assessment of his personality. And the statement itself is quite reasonable.
    Conquer the Germans - what, they would have nothing to show? Yes, only the execution of prisoners in the western regions and the order "drive the German into the cold" is quite pulling on crimes against humanity. And how much Stalin's aides and NKVD workers would have told in the caring hands of the Gestapo ...

    And the version that the strange flight of Rudolf Hess to England was, in fact, the last attempt of Berlin and London to agree on a joint attack on the USSR, now also tends to share a considerable number of experts.
    If you wanted to agree - why did Hess have to so fly? He would have legitimately gone with the approval of the Fuhrer.

    Nuremberg's decisions are the most important integral part of the entire post-war world order, where Russia / USSR acted as the winner
    This is where it says about "first"? In Nuremberg?
    In fact, it was always emphasized that this is a GENERAL victory.
    Read the same Tippelskirch.
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 10 November 2012 11: 29
      +3
      The shooting of the Poles in Katyn was recognized by the Germans as a tribunal, actually, but this did not stand out in the SEPARATE case - they considered that a trifle, compared to the rest!
      Yes, the winners were out of court, and this was enshrined in an official decision!
      This is what was recognized that the victory is common - yes, I still would not recognize it! Like, and we plowed ...
      1. Taratut
        Taratut 10 November 2012 12: 07
        -12
        Quote: Brother Sarich
        The shooting of the Poles in Katyn was recognized by the Germans as a tribunal, actually, but this did not stand out in the SEPARATE case - they considered that a trifle, compared to the rest!

        Killing thousands of officers is a trifle? I wonder how Churchill would explain it.
        The tribunal did not support the Soviet prosecution, and there is no Katyn episode in the verdict of the tribunal.
        As for "and we plowed."
        Let's clarify. America and England entered the war virtually voluntarily.
        England gave guarantees to Poland and complied with them.
        Hitler declared war on America, but frankly - wish this USA - and Hitler would not have done that. By December, the United States had actually shown itself as a non-combatant ally. Arms supplies, security of British ships, etc. That is, the USA and England basically fought against Nazism. The USSR was FORCED to fight, as it was subjected to aggression.
        The role of the allies is huge. Fight Hitler one on one with the USSR-it is unlikely that the USSR would resist.
        It’s not necessary to reduce everything to the one who killed how many soldiers and burned the tanks.
        1. vardex
          vardex 10 November 2012 13: 25
          +18
          The role of allies was 4% of the entire Soviet military-industrial complex during the war. And Hitler fought against us not alone but in fact all of Europe attacked us. And the opening of a second front ....... well, understand all of Europe would be socialist.
          1. Skavron
            Skavron 10 November 2012 14: 31
            +7
            Quote: vardex
            Well, understand all of Europe would be a socialist

            That's right...
          2. Taratut
            Taratut 11 November 2012 16: 50
            -1
            Quote: vardex
            The role of allies 4% of the entire Soviet military-industrial complex during the war. And Hitler fought against us not alone but in fact all of Europe attacked us

            And this nonsense is massively supported. I feel sorry for you, ignorant unfortunate.
        2. Skavron
          Skavron 10 November 2012 14: 31
          +5
          Quote: Taratut
          Fight Hitler one on one with the USSR-it is unlikely that the USSR would resist.

          Oh well ... Hitler initially had no chance of winning.
        3. datur
          datur 10 November 2012 19: 31
          +4
          Killing thousands of officers is a trifle? “Where is the evidence?” “England gave guarantees to Poland and fulfilled them.” “Well, this is an interesting thought! Let's clarify. America and England entered the war virtually voluntarily. - So practically they started it !!!! the truth then they themselves were not happy with their initiative !!!! By the way, according to your logic, it turns out that the trial of the Nazis was an abuse - they acted by law! the law of your country! that is, in your opinion the mass executions of the execution of civilians is the execution of the law \? and they are not to blame? - if you think so, then YOU are just a bastard !!!!!
        4. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 10 November 2012 19: 50
          +1
          Yes. trifle - against the background of the rest!
          The Katyn episode was not isolated in a separate production, but was included in the number of other crimes of the Nazis ...
          So the fact that the prosecution did not support it is simply a lie, which was persistently supported by fans of the revision of history ...
          England entered the war voluntarily? America? Well, such nonsense can be frozen about any country that participated in any war ...
        5. Prophetic
          Prophetic 10 November 2012 21: 41
          +6
          America and England entered the war virtually voluntarily
          The only thing they did voluntarily was to raise this monster - Hitler. Read Starikov if you want to figure out something.
          That is, the United States and England fundamentally fought against Nazism.
          ... What an illiterate nonsense! Churchill: "If we see that Germany wins, we must help Russia. If Russia wins, we will help Germany" He: "By the end of the war, I want to see Germany in a coffin, and Russia on the operating table." The outbreak of war in Europe allowed the United States to finally emerge from the Great Depression and become the No. 1 power. The fact that Russia would also win was not planned.
          Quote: Taratut
          Fight Hitler face to face with the USSR-it is unlikely that the USSR would stand
          If not for the Munich agreement, then Hitler would not only not have reached Moscow, he would not have passed Czechoslovakia. 12 countries attacked the USSR. The entire economy of Europe worked for Germany. Throughout the war (until the end of 1944), Hitler received gas for tanks from Romania and from standard oil (USA), led by Prescott Bush, George Bush’s grandfather.
          75% of all iron ore is from neutral Sweden. 99% aluminum ore from Argentina. More than half of all tanks are from the same Czechoslovakia. England re-exported copper ore from all over the world for Hitler. 50% of all nickel Canadian Nickel Trust, the remaining 50% British firms. 30% of the capital of the "General Electricity Company" was controlled by General Electric (USA), 40% of the German telephone and telegraph industry belonged to ITT (USA, Morgana). Before the Second World War, the huge growth of the aviation, shipbuilding industry, communication facilities in Germany was provided by the USA and England. Moreover, they forgave Germany gigantic debts and turned a blind eye to the non-payment of reparations. It is the so-called. "allies" and raised Hitler like a monster from a test tube. And it is a shame not to know this in our time.
          1. Skavron
            Skavron 10 November 2012 22: 12
            -3
            I laughed for a long time ... especially when you recommend reading Starikov. Yes, now such "historians" as dogs are not cut ...
            1. majorlnb
              majorlnb 11 November 2012 16: 20
              +2
              Have you read at least one Starikov’s book? Probably not. Why do you give derogatory assessments?
          2. majorlnb
            majorlnb 11 November 2012 16: 24
            +1
            It is all THIS that makes the West in every possible way "delete" the USSR from history and leave it, the USSR, only the role of the "Evil Empire". Otherwise, sooner or later, you will have to give clear answers to questions about your actions. And these same questions are more and more.
        6. valex
          valex 11 November 2012 20: 13
          +1
          And what about the extermination of many thousands of captured Red Army soldiers in Poland after the Civil War? Quote: "That is, the United States and England fought on principle against Nazism. The USSR was FORCED to fight, as it was subjected to aggression." And all the naval battles between Grandfleet and Hochsee were clashes of principles or the defense of the island from invasion? If in Russia they are trying to say: "How can we treat the country (USA) so badly that saved us from German slavery," then our grandfathers and fathers in graves to turn over from such a shame! Basically, I didn't minus anyone, but such a performance
    2. rexby63
      rexby63 10 November 2012 14: 23
      +6
      it was always emphasized that this is a common victory



      Victory is common, but if it were in reality, a politician like Churchill would not have given an inch of Europe to Stalin. I understand your love for the "civilized world", but sometimes you also need to learn to face facts
      1. datur
        datur 10 November 2012 19: 33
        +5
        rexby63, Churchill was the most important enemy of the USSR after Hitler !!!!
    3. 11Goor11
      11Goor11 10 November 2012 18: 03
      +9
      Taratut
      The author disavows the quite logical statements of Kovalev with a negative assessment of his personality. And the statement itself is quite reasonable.

      If this statement seems reasonable to you, then this in itself speaks well about your "mind"
      The fundamental, most important principle of law was deliberately violated: the law has no retroactive effect. We decided that it has. And they pulled people up, many of whom acted strictly in accordance with the laws of their country, then in force. Horrible laws, barbaric but laws

      This is called Jesuitism (well, very flexible "moral" principles and pseudoscientific chatter)
      Following your hypocritical "logic" you, Taratut, have just acquitted the fascists. They acted according to their laws! Rotten philosophy is this your "mind" ?.
      Nuremberg had a clear goal, not to kill the Nazis quietly, but to highlight the entire infection so that others would not be accustomed.
      But alas, the lessons have been forgotten and now the American and Saudi elite presents themselves as invulnerable and unpunished.
    4. Kaa
      Kaa 10 November 2012 18: 42
      +6
      Quote: Taratut
      If you wanted to agree - why did Hess have to fly like that? He would have legitimately gone with the approval of the Fuhrer.

      "If Hitler and Churchill had agreed in 1941 about a simple betrayal of the USSR by Britain, then these documents would obviously not have become secret. The British would have boasted of Churchill's wisdom. And the Germans would certainly have found a way to celebrate the successes of foreign policy, although they did not help much in the end. But the British are hiding it, and, therefore, there is something else here. And indeed, if Churchill and Hitler came to an agreement, then logically another point should follow from this betrayal - how exactly England and Germany should imitate war friend Against a friend. Agreed not to land troops in vital places of their states? Good. But this is inaction, and something needs to be done. After all, British aviation together with the American could bomb key German factories in a matter of months and leave its army unarmed The Germans could have done the same with England. But it is not profitable for either side. What to do? And there is only one thing to do - to agree on that the German aviation in England, and the British in Germany, will bomb exclusively the civilian population. Especially the Germans in England. After all, it was extremely important for Churchill and the British elite, who colluded, that the British voters by the time of Germany's victory over the USSR were mentally prepared for peace with the Germans, that they were afraid of war, so that they would not perceive it as football, so that they would not see death in the form of a funeral. on somewhere far away killed English soldiers, and directly - in the form of their killed children, burned down houses. So that they yearn not for victory, but for an end to the bombing. "Http://igpr.ru/library/delo_gessa
      1. majorlnb
        majorlnb 11 November 2012 16: 30
        +2
        So there was no need to fight, stop supplying strategic goods and Germany was on its knees.
        And even earlier, to prevent the Munich agreement and the strengthening of Germany. Once admitted, then they WANTED the birth of the Reich and the Second World War.
    5. datur
      datur 10 November 2012 19: 11
      +7
      Taratut, my friend do not smoke, that’s horrible, otherwise God brings you to know where !!!! Katyn - where is the strong evidence that they ours banged? Kovalev is scum worthy only of execution! The Nuremberg Tribunal in your opinion-a mockery of the Nazis! just go nuts! everything was just done according to the law-the law of the winners !!!!! we’ll wait for the flight when the Angles declassify their archives (they’ve kept the archives of this period very secret, why would this be?) the common victory is yes! only now in the same beloved west are you trying to push through the idea that in the 2nd world war the USSR is to blame for no less, or even more, than Nazi Germany !!!! and Churchill - yes, for England he is a hero - for us it was an ENEMY no less than Hitler !!!!
    6. Pablo
      Pablo 10 November 2012 22: 45
      +3
      MORE THAN THERE WAS THE PACT "CHURCHILL - GESS", TYPE "RIBBENTROP MOLOTOV" (. "WE DO NOT TOUCH YOU, YOU DO NOT TOUCH US") WARSAW.
      LIKELY THE AGREEMENT WAS CONCLUDED IN ENGLAND - GERMANY IN 1941.
      THE GERMANS PROVIDED THEIR REARS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON THE USSR, CHURCHILL FULFILLED THE CONTRACT, VERY FULLY RESISTING, THE OPENING OF THE SECOND FRONT, UP TO THE RED ARMY'S EXIT TO THE BORDER OF THE USSR - "EUROPE"
      NAFIG GERMANS DO NOT NEED ENGLAND
  4. Rezun
    Rezun 10 November 2012 10: 49
    +9
    The Naglo-Saxons (there is no other word for it) - they want to reduce the Second World War to a confrontation between Hitler and Stalin. It would not have been Nuremberg, they would have shouted that "the Stalinist hordes drowned Europe in blood." --He, from the very beginning, “cut through” everything (who gave, who took, who ordered).
    1. Taratut
      Taratut 10 November 2012 11: 26
      -7
      Quote: Rezun

      Arrogant Saxons (there is no other word) - they want to reduce the Second World War to the confrontation between Hitler and Stalin.

      Strange version. At the beginning of World War II, Hitler and Stalin did not oppose each other. This is to say the least.

      Quote: Rezun
      There would be no Nuremberg, they would have yelled that "the Stalinist hordes drowned Europe in blood"

      And what is their role then? Helped to drown?

      Quote: Rezun
      He “cut through” everything from the very beginning (who gave, who took, who ordered).

      And who gave what? I guess what you're driving at. But if we seriously start a discussion on this subject, you will quickly be blown away.
      1. 11Goor11
        11Goor11 10 November 2012 18: 26
        +6
        Taratut
        Strange version. At the beginning of World War II, Hitler and Stalin did not oppose each other. This is to say the least.

        International relations are much more complicated than your childhood ideas about "friendship" and "enmity" and are just very well described by the word "confrontation"
        Was there cooperation in the aviation industry, the training of officers? It was.
        Have a non-aggression pact? It was.
        Was there preparation for war, intelligence, preparation for sabotage in the rear of the future enemy? It was.
      2. datur
        datur 10 November 2012 20: 04
        +1
        Strange version. At the beginning of World War II, Hitler and Stalin did not oppose each other. To put it mildly .- Well, yes, and the West was almost an ally !!
        And what is their role then? Did they help to drown? ---- actually they freed them from the Nazis !!!!
      3. Prophetic
        Prophetic 10 November 2012 23: 37
        +5
        At the beginning of World War II, Hitler and Stalin did not oppose each other
        What a dumb, illiterate nonsense !?
        Facts: 1935 The USSR concludes a military treaty of mutual assistance with Czechoslovakia. Italy attacks Abessinia. Nobody opposes him. Japan is organizing a terrible massacre in China. 200 thousand civilians were killed. The "civilized" world does not notice this at all. 1936 Germany helps Franco to arrange a coup in Spain and introduces its troops there. Who is opposed to Hitler? THE USSR. Our instructors, pilots, tankers are going. Armament supplied. Who organized the blockade of Spain and prevented it? That's right, England and France. Further. 1937 The British minister Halifax, during negotiations with Hitler, gave consent on behalf of his government to the "acquisition" of Austria by Germany. A little later, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain announced in parliament that Austria could not count on the protection of the League of Nations. Which met with fierce criticism of the USSR. 1938 Austria annexed. The West did not lift a finger, although it could swat the German army like a fly. Hitler is called Man of the Year. The USSR invites France and England to publish a declaration on behalf of these powers warning that Czechoslovakia will be rendered assistance in the event of an attack by Germany. The result is the opposite. The Munich agreement took place and Czechoslovakia surrendered to Hitler without a fight. Russia was not given the opportunity to send troops. Only after Stalin became convinced of the impossibility of organizing an international rebuff to the aggressor did he make a brilliant move - concluded a peace treaty with Germany.
        1. Letnab
          Letnab 14 November 2012 06: 28
          0
          add that this pact made Japan take offense at Germany, since Germany and Japan were part of the Anti-Comintern Treaty.
    2. vardex
      vardex 10 November 2012 13: 28
      +2
      Stalin forced the imperialists to fight against each other ...
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 10 November 2012 14: 07
        +1
        Here in one article it is said that it was Churchill who forced the Germans and the USSR to fight each other ... Who to believe, people, huh?

        Most likely, everyone pushed everyone to war with each other - it was profitable, again, to everyone ...
      2. datur
        datur 10 November 2012 20: 06
        0
        rather, he contrived our evil enemies to become allies !!! but lossYY
  5. wax
    wax 10 November 2012 13: 54
    +3
    And did Nuremberg, and the UN Security Council with the right of veto .... _ a great politician. I counted on stability at 50, and it turned out for sure. But the last ones were reborn, and everything was delayed ...
  6. Evgan
    Evgan 10 November 2012 14: 05
    +2
    I’ll express my opinion on the article: it is entitled “Why Churchill was afraid of Nuremberg”, but in fact it says that he was afraid, without describing the reasons. Or am I missing something in it?

    I put the article "minus"
    1. datur
      datur 10 November 2012 20: 11
      +3
      Evgan, correctly Churchill was afraid that some documents would come to light! but apparently the allies agreed that they would not show them !! there are a lot of secret chips !!!! and so, at the church’s stigma in the gun !!!! not not a snout, but a snout, for it was the main enemy of the USSR, the main enemy !!!!
      x
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 10 November 2012 23: 18
        0
        Datur, yes, Churchill was afraid that something would come up, I do not argue - but where in the article about this ??
        And as for the main enemy of the USSR - if you compare with Hitler, is it still the first?
        1. datur
          datur 11 November 2012 12: 05
          0
          Churchill was the main ENEMY of the USSR - read those documents111 yes 1 laughing
          1. Evgan
            Evgan 11 November 2012 16: 14
            0
            Yes, I wanted to read the article, but to the point ... :)
  7. rexby63
    rexby63 10 November 2012 14: 18
    +1
    The position of the leaders of the USA and the USSR forced Britain to agree to hold the Tribunal.


    Imagine if it were now if Stalin and Roosevelt went on about Churchill
  8. Skavron
    Skavron 10 November 2012 14: 39
    -7
    After all, the fact that the Anglo-Saxons sponsored Hitler and his Nazi party, starting in the 20s of the XX century, is no longer a secret.


    Well, of course, but Stalin sponsored all of Germany until June 22.
    Incidentally, the war of England (and potentially the USA), began earlier than the war with the USSR. So at a time when the Germans and the British exchanged bombing strikes, comrade Stalin calmly supplied raw materials and bread to Germany. Thus supporting the warring Germany. Isn't it strange?
    1. rexby63
      rexby63 10 November 2012 15: 11
      +6
      when the Germans and the British exchanged bomb attacks


      About "exchanged", you exaggerated somewhat. And regarding raw materials and bread, for six months in 1940, Germany supplied the Soviet Union with equipment worth 84,2 million Reichsmarks. Thus, supporting the industry of a potential enemy. "Isn't it strange"?
      1. Skavron
        Skavron 10 November 2012 16: 11
        -3
        Quote: rexby63
        Germany supplied the Soviet Union with equipment worth 84,2 million Reichsmarks. Thus, supporting the industry of a potential enemy. "Isn't it strange"?

        Well, I’m talking about the same thing ... they kept each other in full ...

        About "exchanged", you exaggerated a little
        Why? Who didn’t bomb anyone? Britain Germany or Germany Britain ???
        1. rexby63
          rexby63 10 November 2012 18: 21
          +1
          Both Germany and Britain were bombed, but we are talking about the period 1939-22.06.1941 Here the word "exchanged" is more appropriate, in my opinion, to replace with "Germany bombed, and Britain tried to answer. In 1942, there is already yes, the British Air Force has done some work.
          1. Skavron
            Skavron 10 November 2012 22: 16
            -2
            well ... if so. The main thing that Britain answered.
    2. smile
      smile 10 November 2012 21: 58
      +5
      Skavron
      Does it surprise you that throughout the war, the United States supplied the Nazis with raw materials and fuel? Do not be lazy - please read Hayem's book "Trade with the Enemy" (just type in Google), after that you won't want to bring up this topic for a long time - it is very inconvenient for your Western ideals .. you can also read the materials of the special commission of the US Congress, which investigated the supply of high-tech military and dual-use products to Hitler throughout the war ... the accidental death of three senators (within a year) who led the investigation certainly happened by the will of God. ..
      1. Skavron
        Skavron 10 November 2012 22: 47
        -2
        Quote: smile
        for your western ideals ..

        my dear, how do you know about my ideals ???
        Quote: smile
        But does it not surprise you that throughout the war the United States supplied the Nazis with raw materials and fuel?

        In this life, I used to not be surprised at anything. So it is not surprising. Yes, I didn’t say that the United States didn’t supply or supply anything, I just pointed out that Hitler was sponsored by the whole world, and like a mad dog they ran into each other, just ...
        Read my comments carefully before I write anything.
    3. major1976
      major1976 26 December 2012 01: 38
      0
      Yes, the USSR supplied raw materials and bread, and in return received machine tools, weapons and technology !!! What is more important for a more agricultural country? The answer is obvious !!! And there is nothing wrong with this trade !!! But the backstage trade of England and the USA in the course of the war with Germany is a crime for which to be judged !!! It seems to me that this is one of the facts of the publication of which Churchill was afraid !!!
  9. bazilio
    bazilio 10 November 2012 16: 48
    -2
    Hmm, the Nuremberg Tribunal is an exception in the theory of state and law, and still does not have similar precedents. The main contentious issues are which NPAs to apply and who should judge. If the situation with the choice of laws is a little simpler, it would be possible to apply conflict of laws rules by analogy, for example, apply the laws of the country or countries on the territory of which crimes and other conflicts of association were committed. And the second question is more complicated - according to the theory of state and law and based on sound logic, a judge must be an unbiased person and he must understand the matter objectively (about education and qualifications I’m silent, and so it is clear). Based on modern processes. norms, generally unified, a judge having any relations or relations with one of the parties in the process, as well as having a personal interest, is subject to challenge. According to theory, the ideological panel of judges of the NT should consist of citizens of that country or countries who were not affected by WWII at all and had no contact with any of the parties to the process. Where it was possible to find such judges, given that it should be precisely high-class lawyers who are able to deal with the laws of other countries. In the future, as we know, disputed issues were resolved - international courts were created.
    1. igordok
      igordok 10 November 2012 23: 11
      +2
      Quote: bazilio
      In the future, as we know, disputed issues were resolved - international courts were created.

      One Hague court is worth. negative
      1. mda
        mda 11 November 2012 14: 38
        0
        All these "international courts" only judge those who violate human rights (not subject to the United States)
        1. bazilio
          bazilio 12 November 2012 08: 41
          0
          ))))) I got cons for mentioning international courts?
  10. Black
    Black 10 November 2012 23: 02
    -1
    World geopolitics is not done with clean hands and noble deeds. Both us and the British have something to hide. The whole truth, maybe, will be recognized by our grandchildren, and maybe by them.
    But you don’t have to scold Mr. Che. He is a patriot of his country. The main thing for their politicians of that time is not ashamed. Not our time !!!
  11. patrianostra
    patrianostra 10 November 2012 23: 05
    +2
    The islanders have always played a double or even a triple game in their desire to push their potential opponents into independence, are they allied with them or not. Example 1917 in Russia. 1914 in August, when Germany declared war on Russia, the Britons suggested that if they Germans occupy that part of Belgium, the so-called corner, then they British would not enter the war, that is, the same Naht drag remains.
  12. kush62
    kush62 11 November 2012 06: 45
    0
    Documents classified for a long time only speak of very good decency and the dark affairs of politicians from different countries. Because if contemporaries learn about their affairs and deeds, there will be chaos in the world. Well, after hundreds of years, they don’t care what they think about them. That is why Churchill did not want any ships.
    1. majorlnb
      majorlnb 11 November 2012 16: 37
      0
      There, such "decent" actions are hidden that, most likely, Great Britain will have to disown such actions for a very long time !!!
  13. Patos89
    Patos89 11 November 2012 09: 03
    0
    I think the process is just a show. Churchill was right about what
    1. psdf
      psdf 11 November 2012 14: 44
      +1
      The presence of this process for many years prevented the USSR from being put on a par with Hitler. That is why Churchill was so angry.
    2. majorlnb
      majorlnb 11 November 2012 16: 43
      0
      Unlike WWXNUMX, WWII killed millions of civilians !! They killed them deliberately, creating various, including racial, theories for this. To leave it without judgment is to get it over and over again. The ideologists and performers of Khatyn, Maidanek, Auschwitz and other "wonders of the civilized world" MUST BE PUNISHED.

      And your acceptance of the Nuremberg court as a show makes you an accomplice in crimes - you justify them!
  14. psdf
    psdf 11 November 2012 14: 43
    0
    The more often I hear about the revision of the results of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the more clearly the anxious feeling that after some time the results of the Second World War will have to be shown.
    It is especially sad (about the revision) to hear from the citizens of the so-called. post-Soviet space. The very "fifth" column, about which so much has been written in action.
  15. homosum20
    homosum20 11 November 2012 18: 49
    +1
    After nuremberg, Germany is a practically occupied country. Even its foreign exchange reserves are stored in England and the United States.
    You think this is bad for the economy:
    read http://lenta.ru/articles/2012/11/09/fedorov/.
    We are a US colony. We cannot print a ruble without their permission. The interest rate, which determines a country's investment opportunities in its own economy, is determined by the United States. (By the way, China determines this itself.) The "budget rule" created conditions under which every dollar put in the gold and foreign exchange reserves (gold and foreign exchange reserves) is considered "sterilized" (it will never return to circulation), and the US FRS immediately place release a new dollar.
    You understand? All that Russia (and other countries in which it was not the state bank, but the central bank) bought up - for living goods or money - in the gold and foreign currency reserves no longer exists. This is a gift from the USA. In the amount of dollar gold reserves, they feed their unemployed, build aircraft carriers and missile defense. And WE (not only us) finance it. This is a sentence of 89-91, which we signed tagged.
    You see why he is honored in London, etc.
    Scary, really.
    And without any nuremberg.