Η δίκη της Νυρεμβέργης: Η τελευταία μάχη

by David Irving, Αλέξανδρος Ρήγας (Μετάφραση)

Χρησιμοποιώντας αδημοσίευτα ημερολόγια και έγγραφα των πρωταγωνιστών αυτής της ιστορίας, των δικαστών, των δικηγόρων και των ίδιων των κατηγορουμένων, ο συγγραφέας συνέθεσε αυτή την αξιόλογη διήγηση, για τον τρόπο με τον οποίο διεξήχθη η «Δίκη του Αιώνα».

Genres: History, World War II, Nonfiction, War, Law, Germany, Politics

576 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

David John Cawdell Irving is an English author who has written on the military and political history of World War II, especially Nazi Germany. He was found to be a Holocaust denier in a UK court in 2000 as a result of a failed libel case.

Irving's works include The Destruction of Dresden (1963), Hitler's War (1977), Churchill's War (1987) and Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (1996). In his works, he argued that Adolf Hitler did not know of the extermination of Jews, or, if he did, he opposed it. Though Irving's negationist claims and views of German war crimes in World War II (and Hitler's responsibility for them) were never taken seriously by mainstream historians, he was once recognised for his knowledge of Nazi Germany and his ability to unearth new historical documents, which he held closely but stated were fully supportive of his conclusions. His 1964 book The Mare's Nest about Germany's V-weapons campaign of 1944-45 was praised for its deep research but criticised for minimising Nazi slave labour programmes.

By the late 1980s, Irving had placed himself outside the mainstream of the study of history, and had begun to turn from "'soft-core' to 'hard-core' Holocaust denial", possibly influenced by the 1988 trial of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel. That trial, and his reading of the pseudoscientific Leuchter report, led him to openly espouse Holocaust denial, specifically denying that Jews were murdered by gassing at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Irving's reputation as a historian was further discredited in 2000, when, in the course of an unsuccessful libel case he filed against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, High Court Judge Charles Gray determined in his ruling that Irving willfully misrepresented historical evidence to promote Holocaust denial and whitewash the Nazis, a view shared by many prominent historians. The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". In addition, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Hitler's role in the Holocaust to depict Hitler in a favourable light.

Reviews

[Hunger Artist · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nuremberg-The Last Battle. David Irving brilliantly exposes the hypocrisy of the Allied powers who are also guilty of the same "War Crimes" for which they indicted the Nazis and German military leaders. if one intend to read the history of the second World War then he must read this book as a final chapter

[Παύλος · Rating 5 out of 5]

Αν και ο συγγραφέας κατά καιρούς έχει εκφράσει κάποιες αμφιλεγόμενες απόψεις σχετικά με το ολοκαύτωμα σε σημείο που συνελήφθη και φυλακίστηκε για αυτές, το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο πιστεύω πως είναι γραμμένο με, όσο το δυνατόν, αντικειμενική ματιά. Περιέχει πλήθος πηγών (και μάλιστα εγγράφων από την δίκη) και αυτό που μου έκανε εντύπωση είναι πως σχολιάζει και την πολιτική της εποχής. Νομίζω πως τα περισσότερα έργα σχετικά με την δίκη της Νυρεμβέργης εστιάζουν στο πως παρουσιάστηκαν οι εναπομείναντες Ναζί στο δικαστήριο ενώ εδώ ο David Irving παρουσιάζει επίσης τους δικαστές, τους συνεργάτες τους και τα πολιτικά παιχνίδια τακτικής πίσω από την δίκη. Στο τελευταίο μέρος του βιβλίου γίνεται ειδική αναφορά για τον Herman Göring και την αυτοκτονία του ελάχιστα πριν εκτελεστεί - συνολικά η αίσθησή μου είναι πως ο Irving μάλλον θαύμαζε τον συγκεκριμένο (άρα επόμενο βιβλίο στη λίστα είναι η βιογραφία του Göring γραμμένη από τον Irving).

[Maria]

Започнах да си водя бележки за прочетенето в книгата още от самото начало. Но 60 стр. преди края й изгубих всякакъв интерес. Ясно ми е, че историците са хора и не успяват да са безпристрастни, но Ървинг прекали, при това много. Мнението му не просто прозира, то струи от текста. Като гледам рейтинга на книгата, успял е да впечатли малко над 100 човека. Не мога да коментирам библиографията, която е отпечатана на края на книгата, но ако е искал като читател да изпитам съчувствие към заловените германски военопрестъпници, не успя. Нито за минута не ми стана мъчно, дори напротив – през цялото време си мислех как са си заслужили всичко в затвора. Всеки удар от пазачите, всяка нощ, в която са заспивали гладни и депресирани. Изобщо не ме е грижа, че процесът е бил нагласен (а би трябвало – все пак светът до скоро се крепеше на въобразената реалност „международно право“).
Но главата за „окончателното решение“ преля чашата – сякаш има значение дали хора са умирали от газ или от тиф, и ако умрат от тиф в концентрационен лагер, това е по тяхна вина, те сами са решили да идат там, следователно никой не им е виновен, че са се заразили. Долно, много долно, особено за историк.
„Който сее ветрове, ще жъне бури“ – този израз ми се върти в главата откакто започнах да чета книгата. Няма „добри“ и „лоши“ в никоя война, на война всичко е позволено. Но ако започнеш война, не очаквай милост след края й. Прости житейски истини и все пак хората не си взимат поука. А някои като Ървинг хленчат и искат справедливосто за маниаци, сеещи ветрове и бури по цялата земя.

[Thorsten · Rating 5 out of 5]

well, one can say what one wants. The allies have also grossly distorted certain aspects of the war. My personal opinion, whilst it should be taken with a pinch of salt, is that this book simply offers an alternative view on the subject of the process of Nuremberg. One certainly does not necessarily have to agree with Mr Irvings findings but they are very well documented to say the least and if one is a true lover of history, the story as viewed from both sides must always be studied.

[Da1tonthegreat · Rating 5 out of 5]

The French Revolution was consecrated with the ritual sacrifice of King Louis. So too was the Bolshevik Revolution with the murder of the Romanovs. And so it came to pass that the New World Order that seized control of the West with the downfall of the Axis Powers would also seal its dominance with a blood purge of its defeated enemies. David Irving writes, "Given that there were to be executions, [US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson] wanted the blood to be shed with purpose – to sanctify the new framework of international law that he proposed to construct." This new supranational law would be presumed to apply universally to all persons and all nations whether they agreed to it or not. Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels had already taken their own lives and were thus unavailable for the show trial at Nuremberg. In their place, the vengeful Allies indicted all leading figures of the German government they could sweep up on ex post facto charges.

Of the defendants, Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring gave a bravura performance. Weaned off the drugs that had clouded his judgment for years, he was in top form for the final act of his life. Julius Streicher had never served in the Reich government, but was nevertheless tried and hanged for publishing an anti-Semitic newspaper. Likewise, Rudolf Hess had been incarcerated by the British since his foolhardy flight to negotiate an end to the war. Hjalmar Schact, a genuinely sinister character, was treated with kid gloves due to his intimate ties to the international banking community. Pressure from the Bank of England ensured he slipped the noose. The Allied prosecutors demonstrated their incompetence by indicting the wrong Krupp.

The trial was an Old Testament affair motivated by a Semitic hatred and desire for revenge. Many prisoners were tortured by the Allies after being captured. Henry Morgenthau, Jr., the Jewish Treasury Secretary, wanted the German people destroyed. Psychiatrists, many of them Jewish, did their best to paint the National Socialist leadership (and ideology) as insane and perverse. This trial also saw the genesis of certain major strains of propaganda regarding the 'Holocaust.' Unverified information supplied by the Soviet Union made up a good deal of the 'evidence,' as did the blatantly inaccurate testimony given under duress by the unfortunate Rudolf Höss. The 'six million' claim was accepted as fact without any proof. Irving does not blindly follow the official narrative but boldly seeks the truth – a stance that would land him in prison. There is no better historian of the Second World War.

[Dimitar Angelov · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5*
Ясно е на всеки историк или почитател на историята на ВСВ кой е Ървинг и какви преживявания е имал (и сигурно все още има) във връзка с тезите си за Холокоста, нацизма и Адолф Хитлер (даже и филм направиха - и то скъп: Denial от 2016 г.). Определян от враговете си най-меко като "ревизионист" и по-често като "неонацист", възхваляван от почитателите си като обективен изследовател на Третия райх и ВСВ, Ървинг със сигурност няма да Ви остави безпристрастни. Ако търсите сухо излагане на отдавна познати факти и придържане към трактовките, бетонирани в 20-томната съветска история на войната или пък в мнозинството либерално-демократични учебници, писани от останалите "победители", книгите му не са за Вас. Британският писател (защото той не е, както сам подчертава, академичен - сиреч "професионален" историк) изкарва наяве от архивите, до които все още му е даван достъп, непопулярни и неприятни истини, които не звучат добре нито на Изток (Катин, Секретната част на Пакта "Рибентроп-Молотов", издевателствата на "народните съдилища" след 1944 г. и мн др.), нито на Запад (използването на непозволени и нехуманни военни средстава и тактики, безпредметното унищожаване на цели градове с въздушни удари в заключителната част на войната и т. н.). Основният наратив при Ървинг според мен е не толкова фокусиран върху защитата или оправдаването на определни действия на Третия райх и неговите ръководители (той не отрича жертвите на нацизма, макар и да спори за броя им и това как точно се стига до него), колкото върху демонстрирането на това, че "съюзниците по неволя" (САЩ, Великобритания и СССР) имат не по-малко скелети в гардеробите си - както във връзка със започването на войната, така и с начина ѝ на водене и довеждане до край. Все пак смятам, че към книгите на Ървинг трябва да се подхожда с предварителна подготовка. В "Lying about Hitler. History, Holocaust, and the David Iruing Trial" Ричард Дж. Еванс систематично подлага на критика поредица твърдения и тези на Ървинг, които частично или цялостно не издържат. Това, естествено, не означава, че всичко написано от него е лъжа или "неонацистка" апологетика, но винаги трябва да имаме едно на ум - както впрочем и по отношение на писаното в "традиционните" трудове на "мейнстрийм" Оксфорд, Кеймбридж... и т. н. историците.

Няколко думи и за настоящата книга. Това със сигурност не е учебник или систематичен правно-исторически анализ на Нюрнбергските процеси. Наративът прескача от тема в тема, от личност на личност и понякога е трудно да бъде проследен. В книгата откриваме няколко смели и според мен защитими тези, които Ървинг последователно подкрепя с аргументи - (1) това е процес на "победителите" , които са и обвинители, и съдии; (2) политически погледнато процесът е безмислен и преследва основно пропагнадни цели (макар че това изиграва лоша шега на "съдещите" - особено в случая на Гьоринг); (3) юридическата основа е твърде спорна - нормите относно престъпните състави и наказанията не са съществували към момента на самите престъпни деяния (подготовка на агресивна война; военни престъпления, престъпления срещу човечеството и др.) обвинение и защита не са равнопоставени, механизмите на обжалване са изцяло проформени и т. н. (4) целият процес протича твърде хаотично, а присъдите са по-скоро продукт на преговори ��ежду съюзниците, отколкото на трезв анализ на събраните доказателства.

Това, което не ми хареса е, че подобно на процеса, книгата на Ървинг е не по-малко разбъркана. Практически невъзможно е да се намери нещо в нея като се потърси в съдържанието. Следва се определена хронология на събитията, но това не помага особено. Основният наратив върви по дневниците на Джаксън и Бидъл, прескачайки от време на време върху други архивни извори или мемоари. Последните глави са завзети от личността на Гьоринг (и как той успява да се самоубие), което е донякъде разбираемо - той е "звездата" на процеса, а и Ървинг е автор на биографията му.

Като цяло от организационна гледна точка, книгата можеше да е далеч по-добра. Относно тезите и доказателствата на Ървинг, оставям всеки да прецени - не е лошо да се отбележи, че мнозинството цитирани архивни източници са недостъпни за обикновения читател. Стилът на автора е приятен, хаплив и няма да Ви отегчи. Въпреки немалкия си обем книгата върви бързо и неусетно (а пусканите тук-там шеги и пикантни истории от ежедневнието по време на процеса ще ви развеселят).

[Alex Frame · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mr Irving writes a fantastic analysis of the post WW2 Nuremberg trials.
4 victorious allied nations USA , Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union wanted their pound of flesh and they got it though Goring cheated the noose by swallowing cyanide.
Irving had accessed much of the correspondence of the accused and some of the prosecuting side amd puts together an authentic visualisation of what was going on behind the scenes.
Relationships between the accused how each was perceiving each other. Speer doing a deal to save his skin.
The wheeling and dealing between the parties. Who was to hang who was to get prison time and who was to be freed. The Soviets wanted them all hanged.
An intense read that doesn't disappoint.

[Relstuart · Rating 2 out of 5]

David Irving has been accused of pro-Nazi sentiment. And from some of his comments (not in this book) rightly so. However, in this volume this sort of sentiment is on short leash. He does a decent job of discussing the trial and the implications. I read this at the same time as several other books on the same subject so comparing them I think he did a decent job. I didn't realize his leaning till after I purchased the book. Amazon did not have reviews highlighting his leanings listed as most helpful. I wrote a review right after reading and submitted to Amazon but apparently they declined to publish it.

I would not recommend this unless you are reading multiple volumes on this event. The author does cite his sources very well.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another good book. Its more about the american prosecuting attorney & what was at stake.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Nuremberg: The Last Battle David Irving turns his attention - and detailed research - to the International Military Tribunal held at Nuremberg in the aftermath of World War II. As the title implies the Nuremberg courtroom was the setting for the last battle between the four conquering Allied powers and the defeated Third Reich. It was also the end for a lot of the German leaders on trial as the Allies sought their pound of flesh.

Behind the scenes in preparation for the trail the representatives of the four main allied powers were wheeling and dealing on which German would be indicted and who who die, who might live. Which proved the trial itself in Nuremberg was nothing but a show trial for the assembled press, with the outcome in most cases already decided.

Nuremberg: The Last Battle in an informative account of the Nuremberg trial, using personal documents, diaries and other primary sources to document the process of a trial that was more about victor's justice than a fair judgement of the defendants in the Nuremberg dock.

[JW · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of Irving’s best works. Using the papers of American prosecutor Robert Jackson, the author provides a human eye background to the origins and conduct of the trial. He shows how the Allies moved from their original intention to summarily execute top German civil and military officials to the use of trials (to effect the same end?). The writings of American judge, Francis Biddle, exposed how the judges deliberated and passed sentences. Meanwhile the diaries and letters of the defendants, particularly Alfred Jodl and Wilhelm Keitel, help to humanize their forbidding images.
Then why only four stars? The book could have been better proof read. Also, there was a glaring production problem. Pages 346 to 347 are blank. Fortunately, these were footnote, not text pages. Still the notes from pages 185 to 193 are missing. Finally, Irving made a few careless errors in the text. For example, he refers to Felix Frankfurter as being “one of the twelve members of the Supreme Court”. The Court in the 1940s, like now, had nine members. Later, William Douglas is called Chief Justice. Douglas was only an Associate Justice. Although glaring, these minor errors don’t affect the story of the Nuremberg trial.

[Dennis Kocik · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good overview of the trials - learned some things myself that I had not known before. Recommended