Harvard. Com events, and you can also sign up for our weekly newsletter and browse our shelves. This evenings discussion will conclude with time for questions. Go to the q a box at the bottom of the screen. Well get through as many as we can. In the chat box during this presentation, youll see a link to our online shop for Curbside Pickup or delivery. We thank you for your support during this trying time. You will also find a lunge to donate in the chat box link to donate in the chat box. Now more than ever, the future of a landmark independent bookstore, thank you for tuning in in support of our authors and the incredible staff of booksellers at Harvard Bookstore. We sincerely appreciate your support now and always. And finally, as you may have experienced these last few months, technical issues may arise. If they do, well to our best to solve them quickly and efficiently. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Now im pleased to introduce tonights speaker. Francine hirsch is professor of history at the university of wisconsinmadison where she teaches courses on soviet and modern european history. Her first book, empire of nations, receive several awards including the Herbert Baxter of american 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, suspense and politics in the former soviet union. His books include soviet dissidents and the last days of stalin, and his writings have appeared in the wall street journal, the new york times, the boston globe and many more. Tonight francines book, soviet judgment at nuremberg was called a comprehensive and revelatory new history. Im so pleased to turn things over to tonights speakers, francine and josh. The virtual podium is all yours. Thank you. How are you . Good. I want to congratulate francine on her wonderful book. Im holding it up with the cover. Francine, lets gun with kind of a begin with kind of a preface question, by reminding our listeners about when the nuremberg trials took place and what was their purpose . Sure, absolutely. I wanted to also say thank you to the Harvard Bookstore and the davis center and to you, joshua. Its a real honor to be here today. The nuremberg trials, also known as the International Military tribunal, imt, took place from november 1945october 1946, and were coming up on the 75th anniversary. Four countries, the United States, Great Britain, france and the soviet union got together to try the former nazi leaders and their organizations for conspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes and crime against humanity. This was, of course; the first of the nuremberg trials, but it was the only fourpower one. The 12 subsequent nuremberg trials that happened later including the judges trial were carried out by the u. S. Alone, and i just want to say from the start thats one of the reasons that Many Americans tend to associate nuremberg with the United States. There are other reasons as well that we can talk about too. When did the allies, led by franklin roosevelt, Winston Churchill and josef stalin, when did they begin to discuss when and how to hold nazi leaders responsible for their crimes . When did that process began . Well, this process, work of course, began in the muddle of the second world war. One of the key arguments i make in the book is nuremberg would not have happened without the soviet union, because right from the start, the soviets were the ones calling for a tribunal. The foreign minister calling for an announcement made an announcement calling for this in the darkest days of the war, in 1942, for a number of reasons. The war was horrible to the soviet union. And in this pronouncement, molotov called for the cooperation of all interested governments in bringing nazi leaders to justice. Now, of course, there was many discussions about the war, 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, especially reluctant about the idea of having any kind of trials before the war was over because they were very concerned about retribution. I see. Your book, soviet judgment at nuremberg, provides a long overdue account of how soviet legal theorists contribute to to the allies understanding of war crimes such as crimes against peace in the waging of aggressive war should be directed against the leadership, the nazi leadership, including their political and military leaders. How were you able to document their role in creating the Legal Framework of the nuremberg trials . Do you have a favorite document or two youd like to tell us about . Well, i love 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 was perhaps the most fruitful to work in in terms of documenting the actual daytoday goings on of the trial. But in terms of the legal side of things, it was wonderful to work in the archive of the i academy of sciences because the soviet jurist who was, had such an influential role, was a jurist at the a academy of Sciences Institute of law. As the war was going on, actually in april 1942, soviet lawyers turned to them and asked them to study this question of the criminal responsibility of leaders for waging a war of aggression and for crimes carried out during a war of aggression which was not a part of International Law are. We can talk about the details if people are interested later. Working in the industry of im sorry, in the institute of laws and archives at the academy of sciences, i was able to see the early drafts, hissed ideas that later his ideas that later became part of a book. I was able to see the deliberations among the lawyers at the academy of sciences and the role of andre vishinksy who ends up heading up a couple of commissionings. Those archives were important. The thing is in terms of tracing the role of the soviet jurist and how his ideas became fundamental to the trial, it was key to work not just in the moscow archives, but in archives in the United States as well. So a wonderful find in working in the archive at the university of wyoming, the one who typically gets credit for bringing in certain ideas about aggressive war and certain ideas about conspiracy, we know from his archives that he was reading the work as well. So that was one way to trace things. And also looking at the United Nations War Crimes Commissions material, and that was the commission that preseeded the actual united preceded the actual United Nations that meant in london and that was talking about this question of punishing war criminals. So it was really a lot of fun to look at this paper trail and to see the work go from, you know, the institute of law to ministry of Foreign Affairs and eventually to make it to london and then to the United States. When was the media in 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 19 i believe thats in 1942, but id have to double check in terms of the exact details of when thats happening. His ideas are introduced, they start to get a hearing in 1943. So its actually at the height of the war. This is all happening initially well, the soviets are really at work at this at the height of the war. In terms of the london commission, yeah, id have to, id have to double check sure. [laughter] its in there. By the way, its at a point when they werent clear who would win the war. Well, thats exactly right. And thats part of why when it was never clear that the nuremberg trials would happen or that any trial like that would happen. And i think whats so remarkable on the soviet side of things is that the soviets, again, really in the darkest days of the war they are talking about a potential trial of war criminals, they are, they have also set up their own War Crimes Commission, the Extraordinary State Commission with the explicit aim of documenting every single war crime and every single atrocity committed in occupied soviet territory. And before the war is victorys a dream. The soviet unions been destroyed at the very beginning of the war. The amount of devastation thats been done to i industries, to towns, to cities, to the countryside, its astounding, right . And its really at that moment when things are so grim that the soviets are really starting to think about this question of war crimes. And, again, with other countries not being so interested at that point. Among the war crimes the germans are carrying out on the eastern front, the soviet front, was a systematic shooting of jews in towns and village and cities throughout germanoccupied soviet territory. Right. 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 nkdd, the soviet secret police, was gathering reports of those crimes as well. Okay. Now, how were jurists from such great legal traditions, how were they able to coordinate their efforts as they planned the tribunal, collected evidence, summonedded witnesses over many months . There must have been moments of real contention and misunderstanding. This was not easy. This was not easy at all. First of all, on a very basic, fundamental issue, right . These countries have different legal traditions. The legal tradition of the United States and Great Britain were closer. The legal tradition of france and the soviet union were closer, but then the soviets had their own kind of legal tradition, of course, that involved show trials, right, and things along those lines as well. Is so thats part of it. These four countries, they had very different political systems, and they also had had very different experiences of the war. We think about the soviet union which by the end of the war has lost 27 million people, right . Which has been absolutely devastated. You think about france which surrendered early, and then the United States and britain have taken a beat as well, and the United States comes out in a better position, of course, comes into the war late and with nowhere near, right, 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. Im talking now once they agreed that this should happen. And theres mistrust, theres, you know, in some ways i write a lot in the book about the parties and the dinners and the events that happened outside of, you know, the courtroom or the negotiating room in london like before the pretrial period. And i would say that those were incredibly important at helping to smooth things along because things were so incredibly contentious. And things were contentious for so many reasons. In the working out of the indictments the months before the trial, when we think about the indictment as i tell myself sworn legal 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. And they all wanted to tell different stories. They all wanted to claim the story of the war, right, for themselves. And they all had Different Things that they wanted included or left out. The british and the french didnt want the munich pact included in the story of the war. The soviets, they wanted the molotov pact to be included but only in a certain way. No one wanted to talk about any kind of working together with the nazis or ace peezments, right appeasements, right . They wanted to leave that out so it becomes very contentious even early on in terms of how the story is going to be told. Id like to ask you specifically about two things. First, how did they work out what to say about the nazisoviet pact of august 1939 which led directly to the germanization of poland and the start of world war ii in europe . The germans invaded from the west, and two, three weeks later the soviet Union Invaded poland from the east. How was that handled . It must have been a very delicate set of negotiations. And secondly, we know now that under stalins orders thousands of polish officers were murdered in the spring of 1940 in soviet territory of after the soviet invasion of poland. The entire mans found those graves germans found those graves and made it sound, rightfully, that the soviets had carried out. Uhhuh. And when the soviet union liberated that for story, look a what we found, the german massacre of polish soldiers. How was that handled . Those are great questions. These are things for the soviets when theyre worried about the most. And when i say soviets, the things that stalin and molotov are worried about the most. When it comes to molotov pact and were talking about, again, the pact itself is a nonaggression pact if, but then there are these secret protocols that lay out the division of europe in case of war. And i think one of the most interesting things, one of the most interesting documents that i found, actually, was a report from london from a soviet diplomat named ivanov who writes that during these negotiations its become apparent to him that redenko had not been told about who was he . The soviet chief prosecutor. So redenko, they send the soviet chief prosecutor first to london to work on the indictment, and eventually they tell him. By the time he gets to nuremberg, he knows. We dont know exactly what he knows, but he knows enough. But in london hes flying blind, and this is a big problem. So one thing i wanted to make clear in terms of both of these things, the soviets are not expecting a trial the way that we think about a trial. The soviets experience is more with a show trial in the sense of a trial where the script is known from the start. They were very surprised to learn that the defense would be able to serve as witnesses on their own behalf and that theyd be able to call witnesses. They thought that evidence that they introduced would stand. Because of article 21 in the charter which said that evidence produced by new War Crimes Commission would, was accepted, but they thought that this meant that the defense could contest it. So what ill start with now, in the working out of the indictments the soviets again, this is coming from moscow, this is coming from stalin, its coming from the head of the secret commission, its coming from the soviet secret police they make a decision to include katine, a massacre that the soviets had committed. They decide to include it in the indictment as a german war crime. There had been talk in moscow before this about holding a show trial around that. But someone gets the idea that, no, lets just go with it at nuremberg. So it goes into the indictments. And in the deliberations about the indictments again, among all four countries of the prosecution, this is an issue because the americans have a pretty clear idea that its, you know, maybe not certain, but probably likely, at least plausible that the soviets are the ones who committed the massacre, and they understand that in including this in the indictment now as a nazi crime, this can threaten the credibility of the tribunal. So the u. S. Prosecutor robert s. Jackson, the main were u. S. Prosecutor and sir maxwell [inaudible] they try to convince him not to include this at all. And redeneko says his hands are tied, that hes under ordereds to have it included. The initial number the soviets had put in was 900 and something, and then at the last minute, i dont remember if it was 10,000 or 11,000, right . Again, jackson has this moment of, well, like if the trials are going to go on, do we accept this . Theres moments of compromise, right anything that everyone is making. And redenko says if it does not include katine in the indictment, i have to go back to moscow and talk to stalin, and thats going to take a few weekses. So at that point they just want things to move on, and they let it in, and then it becomes a whole big thing in the tribunal when the nazis when the German Defense, basically, they ask to bring defense witnesses and to contest the soviet charges, and the western judges overrule the soviet judge to allow that to happen. So that is a critical moment in the trial, and its something that plays out over the course of the trial and that everyone really is concerned about. As the trials going forward, jackson is actually getting more and more evidence suggesting that the soviets are guilty of a crime. And how is it finally decided . When the nazi leaders were convicted, was the crime of katine held against them or dropped . Its dropped, keithly. And theyre not allowed in the documents about this. I tried to look for something that explains why its not included in the judgment, but its not in the judgment. All right. Yeah. One of the most important soviet personalities youve mentioned, Andre Vishinsky, remind us who he was and how he was involved with the International Military tribunal. Sure, id love to. And i have a little bit that i have a couple of very short readings that im going to do today, and one of them is, indeed, about hum. So ill tell you a little bit about him as i set this up, and then ill be reading a little bit from chapter five of the book. Great. Yeah. So i want to make clear that in nuremberg we have a coming together of people in four countries, as weve already talked about, with very different justice systems and very different experiences of the war. And a big point i make throughout the book is that people and personalities matters a great deal. One of the more notable personalities on the soviet side e is vishinsky whos reporting to molotov, right . Hes been involved in early soviet discussions about nuremberg from the start. Now, he has an interesting history, right . And he has an interesting, in quotes, reputation in the west. He was best known for his role as the chief prosecutor of the mosses cow trials moscow trials which took place from 19361938. This was a series of three major show trials that were spectacularly staged in moscow, and stalin had used these trials to get rid of his rivals. Now, as preparations begin in earnest, its stalin who hand picks vishinsky. And, by the way, they had spent time together in prison back in 1913. So he hand picked him to head a secret moscowbased commission thats going to be in charge of overseeing the soviet delegation and the soviet case from afar. And this gives a sense, too, of what the soviets think is going to happen in nuremberg. They have this idea that the secret commission thats in moscow is going to be able to somehow, you know, pull the strings of the punishments in nuremberg on the soviet side and get them to do what they want, and things become more complicated than that, of course. All right. So the nuremberg trials started on november 20th at a week when things are already not going, quoteunquote, according to plan for the soviets. There are all kinds problems. They dont have enough translators, they dont have enough interpreters, right . And this is a huge thing. Theres a sense too that u. S. Prosecutor jackson is trying to take over the bulk of the case or, and there were rumors. There are rumors that the defense is looking to introduce evidence implicating the soviet union in war crimes and in crimes against peace. And remember, crimes against peace, this is the term that was introduced, this is the crime of waging an aggressive war. So the soviets, they introduce this charge of crimes against peace. This becomes like a crime, evens talking about it in russia, right . And now the concern is that the soviets, of course, are guilty of it. So this is an excerpt from chapter five. On thursday, november 25th, Andre Vishinsky came to town. His arrival created heightened alert among the members of the soviet delegation. The prosecutors and judges all knew that they were in nuremberg to do his bidding, and that their fates rested in his hands. Even the western prosecutors were stirred up. According to u. S. Assistant prosecutor keller, the u. S. Delegation had regarded vishinsky as an ominous figure because of his role in the moscow trials. Everyone eyeded him with curiosity. What exactly what business . How would he behave . He had come to nuremberg primarily to insure that the soviet prosecution successfully repelled a push for the tribunal to consider highly sensitive evidence about the germansoviet nonaggression pact, the molotov pact weve been talking about. The instigator of this request was alfred riedel, former member of the nazi party, who claimed some documents about the pacts secret protocols. These 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 crimes against peace. The evening after his arrival, he called a meeting with the members of the soviet delegation. Many issues were discussed. At the end of the meeting, vishinsky broached the most sensitive issue of all, a 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 dependence. 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. Vishinsky now presented this list to the soviet delegation. Not surprisingly, this highly secret list which had been type thed out on a single sheet of paper which i saw in the archives, cool included a number of items about sovietgerman relations including the germansoviet nonaggression pact of 1939 and all questions relating to it. In other words, the secret protocols. Molotovs visit to berlin and visit to moscow. It also included more general topics including the sovietbaltic republic and sovietgerman relations. He now ordered the chief prosecutor to reach a verbal agreement with the french, british and american prosecutors to steer clear of questions that their countries did not want raised by the accused. He also instructed redenko to get the other prosecutors, the western prosecutors, to agree that they would review each others evidence before it was submitted to the tribunal. Finish redenko was to oppose the admission of any documents that were harmful to soviet interests. He did not give permission to share a physical copy with any of the western leaders. Once the copy was in circulation, the soviets would lose the shield of plausible deniability. Wow. Vishinskys visit one more bit was an occasion. Even to those unaware of his direct involvement with the trials and knew him only as a soviet dignitary, right . As the visiting Deputy Foreign minister. Jackson gave a dinner at the grand hotel in his honor. Vishinsky directly from his meeting with the soviet delegation still peeve at jackson, im pretty sure. At one point in the evening, he rose and proposed a toast to the defendants, may their path lead straight from the courthouse to the grave. Everyone had drained their glasses before the translation was finished, and the american judges were appalled to hear that they had drunk to the deaths of the accused. This was perhaps the only time the soviets did not mind the sluggish pace of interpretation from russian into english. Vishinsky visibly enjoyed the moment. Wow. Short lu after his visit, because in november of 1945, by january the soviets turn to present their prosecution evidence began. Could you tell us how they presented their case against nazi leaders . What did they focus on, and was there anything surprising about their approach . Yeah. So let me just say that at the very beginning when the paces is divided up, they divide it up in such a way that the americans jackson takes charm of the conspiracy charge. The british are going to take charge of the crime are against peace charge, and the soviets and french are talking about the west and the soviets in the east. Okay. All good, right . But 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 on and on. And part of why it goes on as long as it does is that jackson has taken the conspiracy charge and used it to talk about all aspects of the entire case arguing that all the other crimes are connected to conspiracy. So the soviets in the leadup, initially theyre only supposed to focus on war crimes and crime against humanity in the east. But they actually do present some on all of the other crimes wanting to make sure they have their fair day in court, righting . But the most, i would say the most the part of their cases that has the most impact is the witness testimony that they bring in. And the witness testimony in particular talking about crimes against humanity. So im not sure, i have another reading. Im not sure if this is a good time for it yeah. I just want to make clear that to the surprise of many people, i think many people [inaudible] this is where the soviets explicitly bring up thats right. The soviet jews both in the baltic parts of the country that have been incorporated in the soviet union and in the ukraine and elsewhere. So this surprised westerners, and as youll tell us, one of the surprising witnesses was the famous yiddish poet. Yeah. And i wanted to say about this too the three soviet witnesses who are brought in to talk about crimes against the j withers ws and jews and cobsation examples which ill talk about, this was a late in the game decision. So one of the things that i looked at was the working up of the soviet list of witnesses, and they start in november putting together a list of witnesses, potential witnesses. Theyre not sure that they want to call witnesses. And then the three witnesses who were brought in from poland, theyre late additions. So ill talk a little bit about that now, and if we have time, we can talk about it more. But, yeah, its extremely important. So will the me set the scene now for this. Its late february 1946. Were three months into the trial, and the soviet prosecution is finally presenting its part of the game. The assistant prosecutor smirnoff is presenting on crimes against humanity, and he is about to call a grid you should poet to the yiddish poet to the witness box. He and his wife had been interned in the ghetto for the first two years of the war. In september 1943 they had fled and joined a group of partisans. Six months later, in march 1944, soviet leaders had staged a rescue operation, airlifting them out of germanoccupied territory. He was taken to moscow where a worked with a writer and others to compile evidence of german atrocities against the jews. And initially the soviets are thug of just including this evidence. Theres no talk at the beginning of sending the poet himself. So soviet secret Police Agents, i want to say too, had been screening possible witnesses for the soviet case since november, but all the while soviet leaders stalin, vishinsky have been on the fence about serving witnesses at all. They considered having the soviet prosecution build its case on documentary evidence alone. Moscow made the final decision to send witnesses in late january, after the french prosecution had called witnesses to testify about the nazi concentration camps. The french testimony had been very powerful. It had brought meaning to the numbers, giving voice to individual suffering. The soviets ultimately sent ten witnesses, and the poet was the latest addition to that list. So this excerpt is from chapter eight. The poet had spent a couple of fitful days and sleepless nights nervously waiting to testify. The responsibility of representing the jewish people weighed on him heavily. Will i pass 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 it had been a matter of reciting the jewish prayer for the dead. His voice trembled and his body shook as he told the court about the operations. He described how in the autumn of 1941 the manhunters of the sd had barged into jewish homes day and night, dragging men away to a nearbyville an, most of whom were never heard of again. He also spoke of the pogrom the germansed had initiated in july 1941. Even before the ghetto was organized that owg, half of the citys Jewish Population had been murdered, he attested. Before the occupation some 80,000 jews had lived in the city. At the end of the war, there were only 600 jews left. Summer november asked for a clarification. 79,400 persons were exterminated . The answer, yes with. The most harrowing part of the testimony was his recounting of the murder of his newborn son in december 1941 by german soldiers in the hospital, and that part is much too disturbing to read. So ill go on. He had testified for almost 40 minutes, and he was spent. Shaken to the core as he later wrote in his diary. He was consume by both his own suffering is and his desire for vengeance but also strengthened by the knowledge that the jewish people had survived, hardened by the ardent, intense feeling that no power of darkness is able to annihilate us. He considered it a matter of jewish itsny that he, a yiddish poet, had survived to judge rosenberg and frank in nuremberg and all who had a hered to his adhered to his ideology. He had done well speaking for the jewish people and also testifying on debehalf of the soviet people. Three of the soviet assistant prosecutors all congratulated him afterwards for so ably doing his part. The poet 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 to of the entire soviet people in the occupied east. Let me add two things from my own research sure. I who my biography of around burg. They met for the first time in moscow, of course, became very close friends. And aronburg wrote a report in april of 1944 which stunned many soviet jews that called it the official newspaper of the soviet communist party, highlighting 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 smartly had gone into the courtroom [inaudible] convinced him that it would be a selfless act of selfsacrifice. The american guards would have to shoot him. Tell me, was his testimony at nuremberg covered in the soviet press . I believe so, yeah. I hadnt followed it in the press. Have you . Yes. One of the soviet journalists was also of jewish background, he covered he wrote a book about it, he covered it in the soviet press. Later on, of course, the soviets were very hesitant to acknowledge jewish suffering on theirer the tour, but there were moments during the war and in nuremberg where they were happy to, and they did and that needs to be acknowledged. In reading your book, i can tell how much you enjoyed telling how the jury u. S. Es both participated and reacted. What did the archives reveal about the soviet delegation . Yeah. In nuremberg in comparison to people from the west . Im sorry, i didnt hear the last bit. You cut out. How did their what did we learn when informants were making reports back to superiors in moscow, how did the soviet women and men dress . Oh. [laughter] yeah, thats one of yeah. No, no, no, thats great. Thats great. So, yeah. I mean, again, archival materials are so incredibly rich roman carmen, who was the soviet filmmaker, he left some doorlies and letters be diaries and letters behind, and theres this huge amount of correspondence. And the number of the journalists, they have dual roles there, right . If on the one hand, theyre there to report on the trials for the soviet press. Theyre also there to try to get their writing published in the west, so theyre doing that as well. But they are, as are many of the members of the soviet delegation, theyre also serving as informants, and i do talk about that in the book, this dual role. Its interesting, this idea of informants. In nuremberg, among the soviet delegation, everyone was of informing on everyone else. So you have actual secret Police Agents who are writing back reports about the trials and about the night life and the telling on each other, right . Theyre talking about people going to the bars and drinking too much and all of this and the love affairs. So thats part of it e. And then the journalists, i mean, probably because theyre journalists, theyre writers, right . They write some of the most interesting letters home also talking about whats going on. And one was an editor of a newspaper and writes like a sixpage treatise that basically after of the first month of the trial was reporting on all of the problems and all of the difficulties that the soviet delegation is having. And so he a talks about, again, this question of translators and intrpters, this is all over the document. This comes up again and that this is, like, dangerous actually he says, right . He writes about how there are notebooks about soviet law in the library there, and this is a problem. He writes about how the americans basically are showing all of their movies to a captive audience and, like, prevailed upon moscow to send some good soviet movies too. And then this heart rah breaking part of it where heartbreaking part of it where he talks about the soviet women, the stenographers, the typists and some of the translators and interpreters and how theyre being made fun of by the british and the americans for their shabby clothing, and i just you just feel so bad for them. He basically conclude that the soviets are going to be this International Power on the international stage, thaw need to learn, right, how to do this. And part of doing this is, again, having the translators and the interpreters. But it also involves dressing people a certain way, right . So, yeah, those kinds of letters are heartbreaking. Let me are have a final question for you before we turn to finish. Oh, or wow. Okay. [laughter] in your book you conclude that the nuremberg trial was an opening chapter of the kohl war. Why do you believe that the cold war. I believe its an opening chapter of the cold war because of what people are experiencing there and how theyre talking about it as well. So thats not just something that i conclude in retrospect. What you see in march, in march 1946 in the nuremberg courtroom, right . The day so churchill gives his, you know, what we now know as his iron curtain speech. He gives it in the west. Hes a civilian at that point, but hes still churchill. And basically, you know, denouncing talking about the dangerouses of communism, right . Concern dangers of communism. Theres a lot in that speech. But the next day in the courtroom when the soviets arrive, they see the Defense Attorneys are holding up these newspapers for their clients to be able to read, and the newspapers have these banner headlines, you know, about the cold war, basically, talking about the speech and churchill urged everyone to stand the up the russians. And so that moment in march is a critical moment in the trials because that is also the time that the defense case starts. So the prosecution is presented for months and months and month, the soviets go last. They do a wonderful job, by the way. And, again, the soviet witnesses leave such an impression on everyone. And then, you know, two days later the defense is up and presenting. And the western judges, in part because theyre worried about the soviets and victors justice and all of this, they really go out of their way to let the defendants have free rein. And so its at those moments when, again, the defendants are talking now in court. They talk about sovietgerman cooperation. And the soviets, when they are stalin ask and molotov back in moscow, right . As theyre interpreting whats going on, thaw dont, they see this as part of a concerted effort of the west against them, that the wen lawyers and western judges are letting this happen. And so everyone, again, in the correspondence, in letters, theres chatter about, like are, tensions between the other countries and the soviet union. Its even declared at one point that the only, the only i cant remember the exact quote, but its a great quote about how at this point in the trial, its only in the trials, actually, that all the countries are working together. Otherwise theyre not, that its falling apart. So the alliance, the war time alliance, during nuremberg we really see it come under strain. And, again, the cold war chill that blows into the courtroom. So i think thats really significant in terms of understanding the rhythm of the trials and what happens by the end of the trials. But one of the things i argue in the book is its really also critical for understanding what happens later. Because the nuremberg trials, rightly so, have been seen as the birthplace of postwar human rights. Great, thats great. It was. But i think its really important for us 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 a off, and thats one of the things i look at in the last chapter, the postnuremberg moments as well. Very good. Francine, thank you. Id like to turn the program back to maddie, and lets hear what questions and comments were hearing from our listeners. Thank you. Thank you so much, josh. [inaudible] [laughter] if youve been in london for research, could you tell us why the allies decided to establish at nuremberg the military tribunal and not a civil tribunal, and what were the consequences of this decision . Oh, that is such a great question. That is such a 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. Now remember, at the start so its interesting. The soviets are pressing for a tribunal. They have their own idea about what a tribunal should look like. The british are reluctant in part because are these really crimes . Is a war of aggression really a crime . You know, it goes back to the law, right . Crime against humanity, its not clear. Can you like, how is that going to work exactly . So theyre concerned that if its a regular tribunal, then theres just going to be, its going to be more difficult, right . If legally. Whereas if its a military tribunal, the laws are somewhat different. So that decision is made in those negotiations early on because they see it as giving them the ability to do things. They think initially they think its going to be a more straightforward way. Thank you. Next from barbara. Atrocities were committed by many, all question mark in world war ii. For nongermans prosecuted and sentenced to death or were there other trials that handled nongermans . Yeah. So the nuremberg trials were for german leaders and their organizations, right . So its axis powers. But then, yeah, there were other trials. Theres, of course, the due chen trials, and the thing about nuremberg is its a power tribunal, but a after nuremberg, all of the countries have their own trials, and they try war criminals from all different, from all different countries. The soviets have a number of romanian and hungarian war criminals in custody, and they have those trials as well. Again, the thing were talking about, its the axis powers, right . Who are the ones who are tried in these trials. May i just add something. The soviets actually held the first war crimes trial in 1943 finish. Thats right. And they brought to trial soviet civilians who had cooperated with the germans in the killing of j e ws in others in sovieter the tour. And there was another soviet territory. And there was another payment in december of 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. So the soviets actually carried out hundreds and hundreds of trials of collaborators and of captured german officers. Thank you. Thanks for your talk, francine and joshua. I have a question regarding [inaudible] sorry if i sawld that wrong. Because the soviets wants to include it [inaudible] do you think this discredits any of the Legal Offense . Discredits the nuremberg trial, the fact that katine was included in no, i dont. And i think that was part of the reason. So they part of the reason why the western judges allowed so what happens with katine, so the soviets include this evidence. It goes in, its included in the indictment, and at that point its looking pretty ugly, right . Its not clear theyve committed, actually, a couple of days later its in the indictment and the indictments published, thats when jackson gets more information that pretty much confirm that the soviets have done it, and i think its from reading his papers, it seems like its one of husband his biggest regrets, that that happened. But then the fact that the soviets are called to task, the western judges overruling, they allow for the German Defense to call three witnesses to contest soviet ed. The soviets call witnesses too, but the fact that that happens over two days in court in july and the fact that it disappears from the tribunal, i new that that i think that shows it was not a show trial, right . It never was. And that the soviets had this idea of what it was going to be, and that doesnt happen. The soviets are very upset about how that plays out, of course, as well. And it seems to them, again, that its the western powers being up on them. But thats i think that the western judges can save the day on that. A followup question from hillary. The second question she has is about the soviet role in selecting defendants. Do you want to say any more on that . Yeah, no. Of course. One of the reasons soviets wanted an International Tribunal was that most of the defendants were in a memo 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 lists of potential defendants. E they have a list of some generals that they captured, they have a list of one of the ones the soviets bring in, the propaganda person, right . And so they get a couple of defendants in there, but theyre not major defendants. And thats because of who has who in custody. Ill add too that the soviets really wanted there to be a second International Tribunal. Thaw really did, because one of the ways in which they and the french thought that nuremberged had failed was that they ended up not [inaudible] industrialists because there was a whole hull hullabaloo where [inaudible] was ill and thats a whole interesting story that we dont have time for today. So, again, most of the big industrialists, american and british custody, and by the end of the trial, i mean, jacksons just had it with the soviets. The british have too, but its all over the documents in terms of jackson just being done and pretty much they decided 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. Thank you. [inaudible] a question about the influence of the nuremberg trials inside the soviet union. How does propaganda contribute to that time, and how was what was the reaction of the soviet people . Hard to tell from the document that i looked at, soviet press coverage, it is a controlled trust so the fact that it is covered in soviet pravda, people read pravda, doesnt tell us what people thought about the trials and what was going on. From memoirs i have a sense that early on there was interest in the trials and what was going on. If the news is any indication that is all anybody cared about but people had other problems too. Think about what is happening in the soviet union, the soviet war what does it look like to have a country where 7 million are dead where millions more are homeless, the amount of destruction and a lot of the focus of people is on rebuilding, trying to restart their lives which is not to say there is not interest. I never want to Say Something unless ive seen the documents and i want to do more research in terms of reception and that is one of the things that is hard to get at. A good final question, what impact if any did the nuremberg trials have on the application program, the lasting impression . That is something that is still debated in terms of the impact of the trial. It is complicated in terms of nuremberg itself and what happened with the cold war coming it even more than the nuremberg trials, part of the purpose in germany was to be to reeducate the german public and a similar question to what billy asked, there is the question about what germans thought about it and a bunch of writers in germany at the time who are covering the trials as well they write home saying there is not much interest in the german population, the german population is trying to survive. And again, it is supposed to play the role of education, how do we measure that . But in terms of the Lasting Impact of International Law, in terms of the development, human rights legislation, all of this, the nuremberg trials are foundational. But again, the cold war comes in and the soviets at the same moment they are complaining about the americans, another set of trials, their documents talk about denazification is a huge failure because of letting people going the americans and british, another jurist organization, it is made of socialist states, proclamation after proclamation, they need to join together again to go after the remaining nazi criminals and theres not enough effort on that and the soviets are appalled at how many nazi leaders are let go, the effort on building a strong germany, the decision is made not to go through with the reparations, very interesting story as well. A huge thank you for a wonderful night, thanks to all of you, you can learn more on facebook, judgment at nuremberg. So in the chat box, have a good night, keep reading. Thank you for having me. On sp