Four to one: what the Allied countries talked about during the Nuremberg trials

The role of the four Powers in the Nuremberg Tribunal determined the structure of the charges and the format of international justice after the war. However, the Nuremberg trials were layered, and this was facilitated by both legal traditions and political goals. For more information, see the Izvestia article.

About how it was organized

Andrei Klimov, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, told Izvestia that today everyone is used to the expression "international law," but international law is not something that was once written for all ages. The Nuremberg trials marked the first milestone in the history of international law.

— When it occurred to me to put an end to the history of the Third Reich and punish those executioners who led it under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, the victorious nations agreed to organize a tribunal. It was a new story, because no one had seen this before, because the countries were very different. There were countries representing British law — the Americans and the British. There was France, which represented continental Europe, its legal traditions and norms. There was the Soviet Union, a state with a completely different ideology, a different political system, and its own legal system," Klimov explained.

The position of the Soviet Union

The Soviet Union presented a significant body of evidence at the Nuremberg trials, including documents from the occupation administrations, interrogation protocols, CHGK materials, and eyewitness accounts of atrocities in the border and occupied areas.

In comparison with the allied countries, the Soviet Union was distinguished by a tougher approach to the collective responsibility of the Reich leadership. The Soviet delegation insisted on a broad interpretation of the concept of crimes against humanity and sought to emphasize the systemic nature of aggression on the Eastern Front — the deliberate nature of Germany's genocidal policy on the territory of the USSR was consistently emphasized.

The US approach

The United States was the main organizer of the tribunal's structure and the prosecution's format. The American side has developed the basis of the indictment, highlighting four key categories of crimes. This is how the formal legal framework of the process was created.

The American delegation sought to achieve maximum procedural transparency and limit the use of emotional evidence, with an emphasis on legal provability.

The UK approach

The UK has maintained a pragmatic and legally rigorous position. British lawyers sought to avoid politicizing the process and insisted on careful observance of procedures, standards of evidence and the rights of the accused.

The British side paid special attention to proving crimes against peace related to planning an aggressive war. London emphasized documents of a diplomatic and military nature, showing Germany's preparation for violations of international agreements concluded before 1939.

France's position

France has focused on crimes committed in Western Europe, in particular on occupation policies, deportations, shootings, destruction of infrastructure, and the use of forced labor. The contribution of the French delegation was to systematize data on the repressive policy of the German authorities in France and neighboring countries.

The difference between the French approach was the attempt to emphasize the moral and ethical dimension of the crimes of the Reich. France sought to show the effects of the occupation on the civilian population by presenting numerous eyewitness accounts and materials from local archives.

The right beginning

Despite the common goal of holding the leadership of the Third Reich accountable, the Allies often disagreed on individual legal issues.

— There were many legal concepts before 1945. They were in the Middle Ages, during Roman law, prehistoric times. Every nation had its own ideas about the legal concept, but the new era of this view began precisely with the Victory on May 9, 1945, because the lesson learned as a result of this difficult war had an impact on many things, including law. The events gave a very powerful impetus to come to legal compromises, although each state had its own legal norms, and from this came not just agreements, but whole systems of agreements," Klimov explained.

During the Nuremberg trials, the USSR insisted on the widest possible use of documentary and witness materials, especially on crimes in the East. The United States strove for an accurate legal formulation of the charges, providing for the possibility of subsequent use of judicial experience. Great Britain demanded strict compliance with procedural rules. France emphasized the humanitarian consequences of crimes and the role of victims.

However, the Nuremberg Tribunal was the first international court based on the coordinated but diverse approaches of the victorious countries.

— The tribunal was organized. A lot of work was done professionally for a long time, after which the conclusions were announced, which were accepted by virtually all participants in the process. It laid the foundations for the subsequent development of international law. Of course, it borrowed some from the past, but still, it was then that the peaceful existence of a state with different political systems, with different political structures, was defined in the system and at the heart of this system, which accepted norms on an equal footing, taking into account their sovereignties, which were generally recognized in the future.

Klimov added that generally accepted norms became the first "bricks" of international law, so we can safely say that a new system of international relations and international legal relations was laid as a result of the Victory of the Allied coalition in World War II.

All important news is on the Izvestia channel in the MAX messenger.