Britain, it appears, was initially against the Nuremberg trial, and would have preferred that at the end of the war the Nazi minions simply executed without trial or put behind bars — regardless of who he deserved. This became clear in the day or after the declassification of diaries, which conducted in 1940-1950,. then head of the British counterintelligence service MI5 Guy Liddell, reports The Guardian. Liddell's diaries for a long time kept in the safe of successive chiefs of each other MI5 codenamed «Wallflowers». And now they have become available (but were quickly edited).
According to records Liddell, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced a proposal to abandon the creation of the Court of Justice in February 1945 at the Yalta conference favorites 3 powers the anti-Hitler coalition, but this offer was refused, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin. The position of the United States and favorites USSR Britain forced to agree to the Court.
Recall, for the first time thought verbovaniya Nazi leaders to justice was fixed by 3 powers more 1 November 1943 in the so-called. Declaration of the capital. In it the USSR, USA and Great Britain promised each other that "will haunt them (Nazi war criminals. — Comm. KM.RU) in the most remote parts of the world … to do with them justice." As we see, the British understood the "justice" rather peculiar. Where then did this preference Churchill extrajudicial executions over the judicial process?
Explains Guy Liddell, who 21 June 1945 dictates its own Secretary following record (it was discussed about the visit of the representative of the management of the British military administration, representatives of MI5 and the Office of Special Operations, who found the arguments in favor of holding the trial of military offenders): "Personally, I I think all of this function is quite scary. Attorney General insisted that the Commission of Inquiry ruled that certain people should be put to death, and others — to send to jail for various periods of time, that this proposal should be brought before the House of Commons, and that certain military authority should be transferred to the possibility for locate and arrest these people, and to bring the execution of the sentence. It was even more reasonable proposal, which does not have hurt the reputation of the law. "
In July 1946, Liddell flew to Nuremberg together with the Deputy Governor of MI5 Oswald Harker to personally monitor the trial. There, his fear over the fact that this process not much different from the show trials, confirmed: "It is impossible to get rid of the feeling that most of what the defendants were engaged for 14 years and they are now responsible to the Tribunal, the Russian engaged in for 28 years. This significantly thicken the atmosphere of the fictitious nature of the court and leads me to the conclusion that I am most concerned about: this tribunal is tribunal favorites that made the charter of its own, its function and its their own rules of evidence in order to deal with the vanquished. "
It turns out that of Nazi offenders who had fallen into the hands of the Allies, it would be better to inflict extrajudicial executions so that it "does not hurt the reputation of the law"? How then do you want to take so terrifying at the moment the public of Poland and of the entire West shooting of Polish officers at Katyn, in which the Nuremberg tribunal accused the Nazis, but the responsibility for that at the moment is passed on to the NKVD? After Katyn — clean water extrajudicial execution (in this case, even the principal, whom she immediately implemented)! And it is that "better" Nuremberg? It turns out that, yes. That's what the critics agree Court, considered one of the foundations of international law, with an emphasis on which, can be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity!
Yes, of course, the British in the world is considered to be people who are very sensitive to the law as such, and the purity of at least some of the legal process, of course, asks equal basis. In this sense, of course, the Nuremberg trial can not be considered a model: there really was judged favorites losers. But does this mean that in such a case, the losers, no matter what terrible crimes they did not, in general, lack of jurisdiction? Maybe we generally have no right to judge them, because they were living on our own — the other "laws"? At least some common people, and not a supporter of the "purity" of the legal genre, will testify that this is not the case that evil must be punished, and it is better to punish him in court than in the "Katyn."
Anxious — British style — reverence for the law in general can not be considered the final standard, some truth in the last instance. A unless law unfair or enacted in violation of the accepted norms of humanity — how do you want to treat him? Moreover, as aptly prominent Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, the legal field — only the lower limit of morality. Why should then bow to this "lower limit"? Obviously, this is not a call for non-compliance with legislation, but simply their deep semantic evaluation.
But those same Englishmen, and of many of our home-grown pro-Western liberals call us unconditionally obey virtually even what law. The arguments of the same Liddell, for example, simply fade to the background of these evaluations the Nuremberg trial, which gave a couple of years back the Russian "human rights defender" Sergey Kovalev (the one in the 1990s, being under Yeltsin, the Ombudsman called on Russian fighter surrender Chechens after gunmen massacred them): "Let us remember the Nuremberg trials. From the perspective of law is untainted orgies, it's a tribunal favorites over the vanquished, while there was not even trying to hide it. What is equality of the parties? This tribunal that judged on for him to write the law. Was deliberately violated fundamental, the most important principle of law: the law has no reverse power. We decided that is. And hanged people, many of whom had acted strictly in accordance with the laws of their own country, then in effect. Terrible laws, barbaric, but the laws. "
Agree: Churchill Liddell rest here.
And yet the real reason for the increasing acts of all in the near future attacks on the decisions of the Nuremberg trial is beyond a purely legal level. Maybe Mr. Churchill spoke against such judgment, for fear that in the course of the process can swim out various kinds of nasty details about the role played by the United States and in England as Hitler came to power, and in his anger against USSR? After all, what the Anglo-Saxons sponsored Hitler and his Nazi party from the 20-ies of the XX century, has long been no secret. And the version of that weird flight of Rudolf Hess to Britain was, in fact, the last attempt to Berlin and London to agree on a joint strike against the Soviet Union, now also tends to divide a large number of professionals. Yes, eventually all the publicity these unsightly stories avoided (at what cost — history is silent), but it was a risk. And so it is very simple: the wall — and ends in the water.
And another important note. It is clear that the story is not the subjunctive mood, and yet simple, sure, it would be to predict the response to Court, if (God forbid, of course) defeated side it could be the leaders
of Russia / Soviet Union. Almost certainly would have inspired us (if we, the Russian then generally preserved), that such a "Nuremberg" is a model of modern law that we have to pochetat as an icon. And repent and confess and repent …
But bad luck for the West: we (more precisely, our grandfathers and fathers) then went favorites. And Nuremberg solutions are an important integral part of the post-war world order, where as a favorite made our first home / USSR. Grandfathers and fathers have provided to our country the status of the majestic power that has the right to judge his righteous tribunal criminals who have brought untold suffering to our people. That is to undermine, devalue this particular status and face in the end, all the sample solutions to minimize the importance of Nuremberg and review other important outcomes of the second World War.