Tonight herbert bookstore continues bring authors on their works to you and others in the community during this challenging time. Every week we are hosting events on zoom and this evenings discussion will conclude with time for your questions, we have a question for speakers anytime tonight go to the q a box at the bottom of the screen and we will get to as many as we can, and the chat box during the presentation you will see a link to purchase tonights book on the online shop for curbside pickup, also theres a link support Harvard Bookstore thank you for your support during this trying time, we will also find a link to donate in the chat box, its purchases and contributions make this virtual author series possible and now more than ever supports the future of a landmark in dependent bookstore, thank you for tuning in and support authors an incredible staff of booksellers at Harvard Bookstore. We sincerely appreciate your support now and always, finally, technical issues may arise, if they do, we will do our best to resolve them quickly, thank you for your patience and understanding. Now im pleased to introduce tonight speaker professor Francine Hirsch is out abat the university of wisconsin madison. She teaches courses on soviet and modern european history, her first book empire of nation and cryptographic knowledge on the making of the soviet union received several awards including the Herbert Baxter adams prize of the american historical association. Joshua rubenstein has been professionally involved with human rights and International Affairs for over 40 years as an activist and independently recognized scholar of literature aband politics in the former soviet union. s books include soviet events, struggle for human rights in the last days of stalin and his writings have appeared in the wall street journal, new york times, boston globe and many more, tonight they will be discussing francines book soviet judgement at nuremberg, a new history of the International Military after World War Two called the copperheads of and celebratory new history by lynn viola, author of the stalinist perpetrator on trial. Im pleased to turn things over to connect speakers francine and josh at the podium is all yours. Very nice, thank you. I want to congratulate francine on her wonderful book, and holding it up. Francine, lets begin with kind of a preface question, lets begin by reminding our listeners about when the nuremberg trials took place and what was their purpose . I wanted to also say thank you to the Harvard Bookstore and the data center and to you joshua, its a real honor to be here today. To begin, the nuremberg trials also known as the International Military tribunal or imt, just placed november 1945 october 1946 and occupied germany and coming up on the 75th anniversary. For countries United States, great britain, france and the soviet union got together to tie the former nazi leaders and organization for conspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This was of course the first of the nuremberg trials but the only for power one 12 steps to put nuremberg trials that happen later including the ab were carried out by the c alone and i want to say from the start that thats one of the reasons that Many Americans tend to associate nuremberg with the United States, there are other reasons as well we can talk about too. Went to the allies led by Franklin Roosevelt Winston Churchill and joseph stalin, wonder they began to discuss whether and how to hold nazi readers responsible for their crimes . Wonder that process began . This began in the middle of the Second World War and what i want to say and whats one of the key arguments i make in the book is that nuremberg would not have happened without the soviet union because right from the start the soviets were the one who were really out in front calling for special International Tribunal, made an announcement calling for this of the darkest phase of the war in october 1942 for a number of reasons including the soviets saw this as key for reparations, the war was horrible for the soviet union and in this pronounced molotov culture the cooperation of all interest in governments in bringing aband other nazi leaders to justice. Of course there were many discussions about the war and many discussions about how to bring the nazis to justice but in terms of an International Tribunal, britain and the United States were at first reluctant about this idea and especially reluctant about the idea of having any kind of trial before the war it was over because they were very concerned about retributions. I see, your book soviet judgement at nuremberg provides a long overdue account of how soviet legal theorist contributed to the allies understanding of war crimes such as crimes against peace and the waging an aggressive war should be directed against the leadership, the nazi leadership and including their political and military leaders, how were you able to document their role in creating the Legal Framework the nuremberg trials . Do you have a favorite document or two from the archives you would like to tell us about . I love the archives and while in moscow i worked in a number of different archives in terms of the book as a whole the ministry of Foreign Affairs archive was perhaps the most fruitful to work in in terms of documenting the actual day today going nons of the trial, the Party Archives from the government archives but in terms of the legal side of things, it was wonderful to work in the archive the academy of sciences. The soviet jurists who had such an influential role was alan trying you know, abwas a journalist at the academy of Sciences Institute of law and as the war was going on in april 1942 soviet leaders turned to lawyers there and asked them to study this question of the criminal responsibility of leaders for waging war of aggression and for crimes that were carried out during war of aggression which was not a part of International Law we can talk about the details people are interested in later but working in the ministry of institute of law of archives i was able to see the early draft of his ideas that later became part of the book called the criminal responsibility of the rights, i was able to see the deliberations among the lawyers at the academy of sciences and the role of Andre Burzynski which we will talk about later more because he ends up heading a couple of secret commissions to try to receive the soviet delegation. Those archives were important, the same in terms of tracing try edens role the role of the soviet jurists and how his ideas became fundamental for the child it was key to look not just in the moscow archives but archives in the United States as well wonderful find and working in the archive of murray binet, which is at the university of wyoming bernet is the one who typically gets credit for bringing in the idea about aggressive war and certain ideas about conspiracy but we know from his archive that he was reading try edens work as well so that was one way to trace things and also looking at the United Nations archives material, that was a commission that preceded the actual United Nations that met in london as i was talking about also the question of punishing war criminals that they were also read try edens work. It was really a lot of fun to look at this paper trail and see you try edens work go from the institute of law to the ministry of Foreign Affairs and to eventually make it to london and then the United States. One was the median london . When did they start meeting in western europe or england to discuss plans for such a trial . In terms of the early days of the United Nations War Crimes Commission its 1942 but i would have to double check and terms of the exact details of when that is happening, the ideas were introduced, they start to get a hearing in 1943. Its actually the height of the war. This is all happening initially while the soviets over the at work ethics at the height of the war in terms of the london commission, i would have to double check that. But it was at a point they were clear who would win the war. Thats exactly right. Thats part of why, it was never clear that the nuremberg trials would happen or any trial would happen and i think whats so remarkable on the soviet side of things is that the soviets really in the darkest days of the war they are talking about a potential trial of war criminals, theyve also set up their own War Crimes Commission the Extraordinary State Commission with the explicit aim of documenting every single war crime and every atrocity committed and occupied soviet territory. And before victory victory is a dream, the soviet union has been destroyed at the very beginning of the war, the amount of devastation thats been done to industries to towns to cities, to the countryside, its astounding. Its really at that moment things are so grim that the soviets are really starting to think about this question of war crimes. And with other countries not being so interested at that point. Among the war crimes the germans are carrying outcome of the Eastern Front the soviet front where the systematic shooting jews in towns and villages and cities throughout german occupied soviet territory documenting those crimes as well. Yes they were absolutely. The Extraordinary State Commission was very carefully documenting those crimes and not just the Extraordinary State Commission, the nk bd the soviet police was gathering reports of those crimes as well. Howard jurists from such different legal traditions from america, great britain, france, soviet union, how were they able to coordinate their efforts as they plan the tribunal, collected evidence, carried out proceedings over very many months. There mustve been moments of real contention in the understanding. It was not easy, this was not easy at all. On a very basic fundamental issue in these countries have different legal traditions, ab the legal tradition of france and the soviet union were closer than the soviets had their own kind of legal tradition that involved show trials and things along those lines. The four countries have very different political systems and they also had had very different experiences of the work. Think about the soviet union, which by the end of the war has lost 27 million people, which has been absolutely devastating. You think about france which has surrendered early, lost the war early. The United States on britain has gone a beating in the United States comes out in a better position comes into the war late and nowhere near those kinds of losses so everyone is coming to the table with different ideas about justice, with different ideas about what the tribunal eventually should look like, once they agree they should happen and there is mistrust, theres in some ways i write a lot in the book about the parties and the dinners and the events that happened outside of either the courtroom or the negotiating really london like before the pretrial period, i would say those were incredibly important at helping to smooth things along, because things were so incredibly contentious. Things were contentious for so many reasons in one we think about the indictment and might seem like a boring document but its not. The indictment was a work of history that these four different powers were putting together to tell the story about the war. They all wanted to tell a different story, they want to reclaim the story of the war for themselves. They all had Different Things they wanted included or left out, the british and the french didnt want munich pact included in the story of the war to stop the soviets, they wanted the molotov track to be included but only in a certain way, no one wanted to talk about any kind of working together with the nazis are appeasements, they wanted to leave that out. It becomes very contentious, even early on in terms of how the story is going to be told. I like to ask you specifically about two things, how do they work out what to say about the nazi soviet pact of august 1939, which led directly to the german invasion of poland and the start of world war ii in europe, germans invaded from the west and two or three weeks later the soviet union made it from the east. House that handled lust about a very delicate set of negotiations, secondly, we know now that under stalins orders thousands were murdered and the string of 1940 two soviet territory. After the soviet invasion of poland, the germans found those graves and they felt the soviet union and rightfully had carried out and they were in the soviet union liberated the territory they said look what we found. These are for the soviets things that they are worried about the most. When i say the soviets, these are the things that stalin is worried about the mouse, the things that molotov is worried about the most. When it comes to the molotov pact and when we are talking about the pact itself is a nonaggression pact but then there are these secret protocols that lay out the division of europe in case of war. I think one of the most interesting things, one of the most interesting documents that i found was a report from london from the soviet diplomat named giovanna who writes back that during these negotiations with become apparent that rebecca had not been told about the secret protocols. Whose identical cannot. The soviet chief prosecutor. The soviet chief prosecutor, they sent the soviet chief prosecutor first in london to work on the indictment, then eventually they tell him, im trying to get to nuremberg, he knows them we dont know exactly what he knows but he knows not. In london is flying blind. This is a big problem. One thing i want to make clear in terms of both of these, the molotov ribbentrop pact and secret protocols and athe soviets are not expecting a trial the way that we think about a trial. The soviet experience is more with the show trial in the sense of theres a trial with the script thats known from the start. They were very surprised to learn that the defense would be able to serve as witnesses on their own behalf, that they would be able to call witnesses, they thought that evidence that they introduced would stand because of article 21 in the chart that said evidence produced by any War Crimes Commission would accepted but they thought that this meant that the defense could contest it. So for conti and working the indictment they soviets, this is coming from moscow, this is coming from stalin, its coming from Andre Burzynski, having the secret commission, its coming from the soviet secret police, they make a decision to include canteen, massacre that the soviets had committed, they decide to included in the indictment as a german war crime. They had talked moscow before this about holding a show trial but then someone got the bright idea, lets go with it at nuremberg. It goes into the indictment and in the deliberations about the indictments among all four countries of the prosecution this is an issue. The americans have a pretty clear idea maybe not certain but probably likely at least plausible the soviets are the ones who committed the massacre and understand that in including this in the indictment as the nazi crime this is can threaten the credibility of the tribunal. So u. S. Chief prosecutor robert h jackson, maine u. S. Prosecutor and David Maxwell speight, who is the british deputy chief prosecutor but ends up playing the role of prosecutor comedy try to convince road echo to not include this at all and redone cosenzas hands are tied everyone understands his hands are tied like is under orders to have included, not only does it get included, the initial number soviets had put in was 900 something and then the last minute they changed it, i remember 10,000 or 11,000, jackson has this moment of, if the trials are going to go on, do we accept it . Theres moments of compromise that everyone is making ed road echo says ab bennett becomes a whole big thing in the tribunal when the nazis abwhen the German Defense basically asked to bring defense witnesses and contest the soviet charges and the western judges overruled the soviet judge to allow that to happen. That is a critical moment in the trial and something that plays out over the course of the trial and everyone really is concerned about and as the trial is Going Forward jackson is getting more and more evidence suggesting the soviets are guilty from the crime. How is it finally decided . When the nazi leaders were convicted, was the crime that coteen held against them or dropped . It was dropped. Theres not a lot of the documents about this i try to look for something that explains why its not included in the judgment but its not in the judgment. One of the most important soviet personalities you mentioned, andre abehind the soviet effort in nuremberg, remind us who he was and how he was involved with the International Military tribunal. I have a little bit, i have a couple of very short readings im going to do today and one of them is indeed about him, i will tell you a little bit about him when i set this up and i will be reading a little bit from chapter 5 of the book. I want to make clear that in nuremberg we have a coming together of four countries with very different justice systems and very different experiences of the war and a big point they make throughout the book is that people and personalities mattered a great deal, and one of the more notable personalities on the soviet side of the story is burzynski, who at the time of the trial is the soviet Deputy Foreign minister. Burzynski is been involved in earlier soviet discussions about nuremberg from the start. He has an interesting history and an interesting reputation in the last, he was best known for his role as the chief prosecutor of the moscow trial which took place from 1936 to 1938 this was a series of three major show trials and spectacularly staged in moscow and stalin had used the trials to get rid of his rivals, as proclamations for nc earnest its stalin who handpicks burzynski, they knew each other going back, ab to have a secret moscowbased commission charged with overseeing the soviet delegation and soviet case from afar. This gives us a sense of what the soviets think is good happen in nuremberg, they have the idea that secret commission in moscow is good be able to somehow pull the strings up, the puppets and nuremberg on the soviet side and get them to do what they want and things become more competent than that of course. The nuremberg trials base that in November November 20, in a week and things are already not going according to plan for the soviets. There are all kinds of problems, the soviets they dont have enough translators, they dont have enough interpreters, this is a huge thing. There is a sense that u. S. Chief prosecutor jackson that hes trying to take over the bulk of the case and there are rumors, there are rumors a week and that the defense is looking to introduce evidence implicating the soviet union and war crimes and and crimes against peace, remember, crimes against peace, this is a term that erin triana and had introduced the soviets introduce this charge of crimes against peace, this becomes like a crime everybody talking about aggression and now the concern is that the soviets themselves are guilty of it. This is an excerpt from chapter 5. Sunday, november 25 Andre Burzynski came to town, his arrival created heightened alert among the members of the soviet delegation, the soviet prosecutors and judges all knew that they were in nuremberg to do viciousaburzynskis bidding that their fate rested in his hands. ab the u. S. Delegation had regarded burzynski as an ominous figure because of his role in the moscow trials. Everyone eyed him with curiosity, what exactly was his business . How would he behave . Primarily to ensure the soviet prosecution successfully repelled and pushed the instigator of this request was also inside outcome of the defense attorney for hans frank and the former member of the nazi party who claims to have dug up some documents about the pack secret protocol, the secret protocols, as we said, in which hitler and stalin had plotted out the division of a large part of Eastern Europe implicated the soviets in a crime against peace. The evening after his arrival, vyshinsky called the meeting with the members of the soviet delegation, many issues were discussed at the end of the meeting vyshinsky broached the most sensitive issue of all our request made by jackson, a few weeks earlier jackson had asked his british french and soviet colleagues to write a secret memorandum detailing their countrys war crimes in anticipation of potential allegations from the defense. Back in moscow soviet leaders had put their own spin on jacksons request without admitting to any wrongdoing they had made a list of taboo topics that they wanted kept out of the courtroom. Vyshinsky now could present this list to the soviet delegation, not surprisingly this highly secret list which have been typed out on a single sheet of paper, which i found in the archives rincluded a number of about soviet german relations including the german soviet nonaggression pact of 1939 and all questions relating to it. Molotovs visit to berlin and a ait also included more general topics including the soviet baltic republic and soviet german relations vyshinsky now order to soviet chief prosecutor roman atwo to steer clear of questions that their countries did not want raised by the to get the other prosecutors to agree that they would review each others evidence before it was submitted to the tribunal, he was to oppose submission of any documents that were harmful to soviet interest, vyshinsky did not give him permission to share a physical copy list with any of the western prosecutors, once the copy was in circulation the soviets would lose the shield of plausible deniability. Wow. Vyshinskys visit was an occasion, even to those who are unaware of his direct involvement with the trial and knew him only as a soviet dignitary as visiting deputy prime minister, jackson gave dinner at the grand hotel in his honor vyshinsky went directly from his meeting with the soviet delegation still peeved at jackson, im pretty sure, at one point in the evening vyshinsky rose and proposed a toast to the defendants, made their path leads straight from the courthouse to the grave everyone had drained their glasses before the translation was financed in the american judges were appalled to heal that they had jumped to the desk of the accused this was perhaps the only time the soviets did not mind the sluggish pace of interpretation from russian into english, vyshinsky visibly enjoy the moment. Wow. Certainly after his visit, which was in november 1945 by january soviet turned to present the prosecution evidence can you tell us how they presented their case against leaders, whether they focus on . And was there anything surprising about their approach . At the very beginning when the pace is divided up they divided up in such a way that the americans, jackson takes charge of the conspiracy charge, the british are going to take charge of the crimes against peace charge in the soviets on the french are each going to divide war crimes and crimes against peace. They thought this was going to be kind of quick, the fact that the soviets are not getting to present their case until february, this was kind of shocking to them that the prosecutions case is going on and on and why it goes on as long as it does is that jackson has taken the conservancy charge and use it to talk about all aspects of the entire case, arguing all the other crimes are connected to conspiracy. The soviet in the lead up initially they are only supposed to focus on war crimes and crimes against humanity in the east but they actually do present some on all the other crimes wanted to make sure they have their fair day in court. I would say the part of their case that has the most impact is the witness testimony that they bring in and the witness testimony in particular talking about crimes against humanity. Im not sure, i have another reading im not sure if this is a good time for it. I just want to make clear, and the surprise of many people i think many people abthis is where the soviets explicitly bring up the atrocities against soviet jews both in the baltic parts of the country that have been incorporated in the soviet union and in ukraine and daily russian elsewhere. The surprise westerners as you will tell us one of the surprising witnesses was a famous poet a i wanted to say about this that the three soviet witnesses who are brought in to talk about crimes against the jews and concentration camps and to give testimony, this was late in the game decision, one of the things i looked at was working above the soviet list of webabthe witnesses are late additions, i talk a little bit about that and with we have time well talk about it more but thats extremely important. Let me set the scene for this, its late february 1946, three months into the trial of the soviet prosecution is finally presenting its part of the case to stop soviet assistant prosecutor and loves me off is presenting on crimes against humanity and he is about to call you apoet to the witness box. They have been interns in the ghetto in belmont lithuania for the first two years of the war, in september 1943 they fled and joined a group of partisans, six months later in march 1944 soviet leaders staged rescue operation airlifting them out of german occupied territory. He was taken to moscow where he worked with the writer ilia ehrenberg and others to compile evidence of german atrocities against the jews. Initially the soviets are thinking of including this evidence, there is no talk at the beginning of sending him himself. Soviet secret Police Agents have been screening possible witnesses for the soviet case since november but all the while soviet leaders stolen, vyshinsky abthey considered after the french prosecution had called witnesses to testify about the nazi concentration camps. The french testimony had been very powerful, it brought meaning to the numbers giving voice to individual sufferings. The soviets ultimately send 10 witnesses and awas the latest addition to that list. This excerpt is from chapter 8 he spent a couple of days and sleepless nights nervously waiting to testify. The responsibility of representing the jewish people weighed on him heavily. When i passed the exam . Will i fulfill my mission properly for history . For my people . God only knows, he had written in his diary, now before the courtroom the poet was visibly overcome with emotion, unlike the other witnesses he remained standing in the witness box as if he later wrote he had been a matter of reciting kaddish, the jewish prayer for the dead. His voice trembled and his body shook as he told the court about the operations of the ab he described how in the autumn of 1941 the man hunters of the sd had barged into jewish homes day and night dragon men away to the nearby village of most of whom were who never heard of again. He also spoke of the athe german had initiated earlier and goes out in july 1941. Even before that was organized that august, half of the citys Jewish Population had been murdered, he had tested, before the occupation some 80,000 jews had lived in dolma, at the end of the war there were only 600 jews left, smirnov asked for clarification, 79,400 persons were exterminated, aanswered yes. The most harrowing part of his testimony was his recounting of the murder of his newborn son in december 1941 by german soldiers in the ghetto hospital in that part is much too disturbing to read. He testified for almost 40 minutes and he was spent. Shaken to the core as he later wrote in his diary. He was consumed by both his own suffering and his desire for vengeance but also strengthened by the knowledge of the jewish people had survived. Hardened by the intense feeling that no power of darkness is able to annihilate us. He considered it a matter of jewish destiny that he a yiddish poet had survived to judge rosenberg and frank in nuremberg and through them all who had adhered to their ideology. He had indeed done well speaking to the jewish people and also testifying on behalf of the soviet people, smirnov, shyam, zaria, three of the soviet assistant prosecutors all congratulated him afterwards for so ably doing his part served an Important Role for the soviet prosecution at this point during the trial, through his testimony the soviets were able to integrate the story of the annihilation of the jews into the larger narrative about german crimes against humanity and the wartime suffering of the entire soviet people and the occupied east. Let me add two things about him for my own research i wrote my biography they met for the first time in april 1944 which stunned many soviet jews ab would highlight the fate and suffering of the yiddish poet. Later when he was asked to testify at nuremberg, he got wind of the fact that he was smuggling a gun into the courtroom and shooting defendants. He convinced them that that would be a senseless act of selfsacrifice. American guards would have to shoot him. Was his testimony in nuremberg covered in the soviet press . I believe cell. Hadnt followed it in the press, have you . Yes, abone of the soviet journalist he was also jewish background, he wrote a book about it covered in the soviet press, later on the soviets were very hesitant to acknowledge jewish suffering on their territory but there are moments where they were happy to and they did and that needs to be acknowledged reading your book i can tell how much you enjoy telling about how soviet journalists participated in the reactive to social life among all the official participants. What does the archives reveal about that . About informants among the soviet delegation . In comparison to people from the west . I didnt hear the last thing you cut out. What do we learn to informants making reports back to superiors and moscow . How did the soviet women and men dress. [laughter]. [laughter] thats a. The archival materials are so incredibly rich and roman carmen, the soviet filmmaker, he left diaries and letters behind and the writer also a huge amount of correspondence. Number of the journalists they have dual roles, on one hand they are there to report on the trials, they are also there to try to get the writing published in the last, they are doing that as well. They are also serving as informants. Talk about that in the book, there is a dual role so its interesting this idea of informants in nuremberg among the soviet delegation everyone was informing on everyone else, you have actual secret Police Agents who are writing back reports about the trials and about the nightlife and the telling on each other what people are doing and talking about people going to the bars and drinking too much and all of this and the love affairs, thats part of it, and then the journalists probably because there journalist, they are writers, they write some of the most interesting letters home also talking about whats going on and mikell awas an editor he writes like a six page after the first month of the trial reporting on all the problems this comes up again that they dont have good enough translators and interpreters and its dangerous he writes about there are no books about soviet law in the library, and this is the problem, he writes about how how the americans are showing all their movies to a captive audience and prevails a come on moscow to send good soviet movies and this heartbreaking part of it where he talks about the soviet women in the delegation and the stenographers and the typists and some of the translators and interpreters and how they are being made fun of by the british and the americans for their shabby clothing and you just feel so bad for them, he concludes that saying if the soviets are going to be this International Power on the International Stage they need to learn how to do this is having translators and interpreters but also involves dressing people a certain way a aaddressing people a certain way. Those kind of letters are great. Let me have the final question for you before we turn to a okay. [laughter] in your book you conclude that the nuremberg trials was an open opening chapter of the cold war, why do you believe that . I believe its an opening chapter of the cold war because of what people are experiencing there and how they are talking about it as well. Thats not just something that i concluded in retrospect, but what you see in march 1940 sex in the nuremberg courtroom churchill gives his what we now know as his iron curtain speech he gives it in the last hes a civilian at that point but gives it and he still churchill and denouncing talking about the dangers of communism. Theres a lot in that speech. The next day in the courtroom when the soviets arrived, they see the defendants the Defense Attorneys are holding up these newspapers for their clients to be able to read and the newspapers have these banner headlines like about about the cold war basically talking about the speech on churchill everyone urging everyone to stand up against the russians. That moment in march is critical moments in the trials because thats also the time that the defense starts, the prosecutor is presented for months and months the soviets collapsed to do a wonderful job and the soviet witnesses leave such an impression on everyone then two days later the defenses up and presenting the western judges in part because they are worried about the soviets and victors justice and all best, they really go out of their way to let the defendant have a free reign. Its in those moments when the defendants are talking now in court. Part of the concerted evident of the west against them. That the western lawyers and western judges are letting this happen, and so everyone, again, in the correspondence in letter, theres chatter but tens between the other countries and the soviet union. One point declaring that the only dish dont remember the exact quote but great quote how at this point the trial only in the trial that the all countried are working together and otherwise its not, its fallen apart. The Wartime Alliance during during nuremberg we see it come under strain, and, again, its a cold war chill that blows into the courtroom. So, i think thats really significant in terms of understanding the rhythm of the trial and what happens by the end of the tried. One thing i argue in the book is this really also critical for understanding what happened later because the nuremberg trials, rightly so, have been seen as the birth place of post war human rights. Great, thats great. It was. I think its really personality to understand, too, that this was all happening in this cold war context and to understand the political origins as well as the humanitarian origins of this new language of human rights and then we really see that take off, and thats one of the things i look at in the lachapter, the postnuremberg moment as well. Very good. Francine, thank you. Id like to turn the program back to mattie and lets hear what questions and comments we are hearing from listeners. Thank you. Thank you, josh. A lot of things. One says thank you for your wonderful research. Could you tell us why the allies decided to establish a nuremberg at nuremberg a military tribunal and not a civil tribunal and what was the consequences of this decision. That is such great question. That is such great question. Part of why they decide to establish a military tribunal is so that they dont have to follow all the rules of a regular tribunal, and remember at the start, some its interesting. The soviets are pressing for a try bruinal. The british are reluctant. In part because are these really crimes is a war of aggression a crime . Its ex post facto Law Enforcement crimes against humanity, its not clear, can you how is that going to work exactly, and so theyre concerned that if its a regular tribunal, then theres just going to be its going to be more difficult, legally whereas if its a military tribunal the laws are somewhat different. That decision is made in those negotiations early on because they see it as giving them the ability to do things in what they the condition is more straightforward way. Thank you. Next from barbara, atrocities were committed by many, are there other countries involved in world war ii. The nuremberg trials were nongermans, prosecutees and sentenced to death or other trials that handled nobody germans . Yeah. The nuremberg trials were for german leaders and their organizations. So its axis powers. But then, yeah, other trials. Of course, the japan trials as well, the japan tribunal that takes place later, and then the thing about nuremberg its the four power tribunal and after nuremberg all of the countries have their own trials and they try war criminalsed from all different countries, sovietses have romanian and other at trials and were talk about its the axis powers who are the ones who are tried in these trials. Just add something. The soviets held the first war crimes trial in 1943, and they brought at the trial so soave jet civilians who cooperated with the german in the killing of jews and others in soviet territory. There was another famous trial in ukraine, in december 1943, and part of the motivation for the trial which got wide publicity in the soviet press, was to deter soviet civilians from cooperating with the nazis, with the germans. The soviets carried out of hundreds of trials of collaborators and captured german officers. From hilary. Thank you for this talk. I have a question recording compton. The soviets wanted to include it in the indictment, knowing they committed the massacre. Do grew think this discredits insure at the fact the was includes . Is that so, no, i dont. I think that was part of the reason so, part of the reason why the western judges allowed what happens with katin the soviets including this evidence, goes in, its included in the indictment, and that plan is looking pretty ugly. Not clear theyve commit a couple of these actors its in the time and the indictment is published and jackson gets more informing that pretty much confirm the soviets have done it and its one of his big from reading hays papers is his biggest regrets that happened. But then the fact that the soviets are called to task, that the western judges overruling the they allow for the German Defense to call three witnesses to contest soviet evidence. And the fact that happened over two days in court in july and the fact that it disappear from the tribunal, i think that shows that it was not a show trial, right . Never was. And that the soviets had this idea what it would be, and that doesnt happen. This the soviets are very upset how that plays out as well and seems to them, again, its the western powers ganging up on them but i think that they the western judges kind of save the day on that. The soviets role in selecting defendants. So one of the reasons they soviets wanted an International Tribunal was that most of the defendants were in most of the big gun defendants like gehrig, they were in american and british custody, and so they wanted to participate in a trial of them. So, the soviets kind of early on theyre putting together some list of potential defendants and have a list of some generals they have captured, they have a list of one of the ones that the soviets bring in, the propaganda person, and they get a couple of defendants in there, but theyre not major defendants, and that is because of who has who in custody. I resident add the soviets wanted there to be a second International Tribunal. They did because one of the ways in which they and the french thought that nuremberg had failed was that they ended up not trying the industrialists because there are was howl hule la would lieu with the kruppe case and kruppe was ill and that is an interesting store we dont have time for today. Most of the big industrialists, american in british custody, by the end of the trial jackson just hate with the soviets. The british have, too, but its all over the documents in terms of jackson being done and pretty much they decide that the americans are going to have an industrialist trial on their own and thats something that the soviets and the french are very upset about. His is billy. Hi, professor, question but the influence of the nuremberg trials inside the soviet join. How did the propaganda portray the trial and what was the reaction of the soviet people. Thats a great question and its something that theres a russian scholar i know who is actually looking a little bit more at the actual response inside the soviet union to some of the soviet coverage and what was going on. Its hard to tell from the documents that i looked at. Yes, theres soviet press coverage but remember the soviet press is a controlled press, not a free press. So the fact its covered in the soviet press and we can say that people read pravda doesnt really tell us what people thought about the trial and what was going on. From memoirs, right, from memoir is have a sense that early on, there was interest in the trials and what was going on, but again, if the news is any indication, thats all anybody cared about while the trial was going on but people had other problems the thing to think about what is hang in the soviet union at this moment, the aftermath of the war. The soviets were devastated. What does it look like to have a country where 27 million are dead, millions more are homeless. Where just again, the amount of destruction and so a lot of the focus of people is really on just rebuilding and trying to restart their lives. So, children which isnt to say theres not interest but a as a historian, i never want to Say Something unless ive seep the documents and i would need to do more research in terms of reception and thats one of the things thats hard to get at. A good final question. What impact if any did the nuremberg trials have on the denaziification programs. I think this is something thats still debated in terms of the impact of the trial, and its complicated not because of nuremberg itself but also because of what happens with, again, the cold war coming in even more, that the nuremberg trials part of the purpose is to in germany is to be to reeducate the german pock and a similar can he question to what the soviets thought and the question of what most germans thought and theres a bunch of writers who are in germany at the time who are covering the trials as well. They write home saying that theres not that much interest among the german population. The german population is also really just trying to survive, and, again, as its supposed to play the role of education and its hard to measure that. What i would say in terms of the Lasting Impact that in terms of International Law, in terms of what happens later at the u. N. , in terms of development of human rights legislation and in terms of the proclamation against genocide, that the nuremberg trials are absolutely foundational, but, again, its the cold war comes in and the soviets afterwards, at the same moment theyre complaining about the americans and the british not cooperating in another set of trials, irtheir documents, the ones i read, talk about the denaziification as a huge failure because of letting people go and think the americans and british are way too soft and so the Congress Another Jurist Organization that theyre just its made up of socialist states. They have proclamation after proation but the fact that denaziification is not working and need to join together again to good after the remaining nazi criminals and theres not enough effort and the soviets are appalled, too, at how many germans how many nazi leaders are let good as Americans Rebuilding happenings and the effort is then on building a strong germany and the decision is made also, for example, not to go through off thumb reparations payments and so thats a whole long afterstory as well. Withwithwith that, a huge thk you to francine and josh for the night. You can learn more [inaudible] an hour is fast. In the chat box and have a good night, keep reading and please be well. Thank you so much for having me. This is really fun. Thank you so much. Good night everybody. Good night. Good evening, everyone. Im connor moran the director of the wisconsin book festival. Thank you so much for being here tonight. We are absolutely delighted to be