Soviet Judgment at Nuremberg: A New History of the International Military Tribunal After World War II

by Francine Hirsch

The Nuremberg Trials (IMT), most notable for their aim to bring perpetrators of Nazi war crimes to justice in the wake of World War II, paved the way for global conversations about genocide, justice, and human rights that continue to this day. As Francine Hirsch reveals in this new history of the trials, a central part of the story has been ignored or forgotten: the critical role the Soviet Union played in making them happen in the first place. While there were practical reasons for this omission--until recently, critical Soviet documents about Nuremberg were buried in the former Soviet archives, and even Russian researchers had limited access--Hirsch shows that there were political reasons as well. The Soviet Union was regarded by its wartime Allies not just as a fellow victor but a rival, and it was not in the interests of the Western powers to highlight the Soviet contribution to postwar justice. Stalin's Show Trials of the 1930s had both provided a model for Nuremberg and made a mockery of it, undermining any pretense of fairness and justice. Further complicating matters was the fact that the Soviets had allied with the Nazis before being invaded by them. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 hung over the courtroom, as did the fact that the everyone knew that the Soviet prosecution had presented the court with falsified evidence about the Katyn massacre of Polish officers, attempting to pin one of their own major war crimes on the Nazis. For lead American prosecutor Robert Jackson and his colleagues, focusing too much on the Soviet role in the trials threatened the overall credibility of the IMT and possibly even the collective memory of the war.

Soviet Justice at Nuremberg illuminates the ironies of Stalin's henchmen presiding in moral judgment over the Nazis. In effect, the Nazis had learned mass-suppression and mass-murder techniques from the Soviets, their former allies, and now the latter were judging them for crimes they had themselves committed. Yet the Soviets had borne the brunt of the fighting--and the losses--in World War II, and this gave them undeniable authority. Moreover, Soviet jurists were the first to conceive of a legal framework for viewing war as a crime, and without that framework the IMT would have had no basis. In short, there would be no denying their place at the tribunal, nor their determination to make the most of it. Illuminating the shifting relationships between the four countries involved (the U.S., Great Britain, France, and the U.S.S.R.) Hirsch's book shows how each was not just facing off against the Nazi defendants, but against each other and offers a new history of Nuremberg.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, World War II, Law, Soviet Union, Russia, War

432 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 2020

About the author

Francine Hirsch is an American historian, specializing in modern Europe with a focus on Russia and the Soviet Union. She is a recipient of the Herbert Baxter Adams Prize for her book, Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union, as well as honors from the American Society of International Law, the Council of European Studies, and the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies for her work.

Hirsch has a B.A. from Cornell University, and completed her M.A. and Ph.D. from Princeton University. She is currently a professor of history at University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Reviews

[Michael Samerdyke · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a terrific book.

Francine Hirsch looks at the familiar topic of the Nuremberg trials with the emphasis on the Soviet experience of the trials. The result is fascinating, as we see how the trial was affected by the "Iron Curtain" speech, how the German defendants worked on driving a wedge between the Soviets and the Western Allies, and just see the familiar story from a different angle.

Hirsch writes in a compelling style that kept me turning the pages, even though I knew the major outline of what she was going to say.

This book makes exceptional use of Soviet sources, sources that reveal all kinds of shortcomings in the Soviet "team" and make the trial a more human experience.

Highly recommended to anyone with an interest in WWII.

[Patches · Rating 5 out of 5]

5/5 stars

Wow. Hirsch’s book walks you through the history of the Soviets at Nuremberg, from their unexpected contributions to international law, their mistakes in the courtroom resulting from their lack of international experience, and how ultimately the courtroom became the site of one of the first battles of the Cold War. The Soviets, fumbling with a top-down government structure that required all decisions, no matter how big or small, to be approved combining with their desperation to keep their own war crimes concealed (read: secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Katyn Massacre); found themselves outmatched at Nuremberg. They had expected to be a glorious victor who was sowing their place on the international stage, a trial that would mirror the drama and guilty verdicts of the 1930s Moscow Show Trials. They had expected to control the script, manipulate the narrative, but this was not to be. As they say, it is the winners who write history, and the Western perspective has dominated histories of Nuremberg since the trials. This is why it was interesting to finally read the history of Nuremberg from the perspective of the Soviets.

Despite the inherit complexity of the topic, Hirsch manages to write in an accessible way without leaving anything out. This book is clearly a result of years of research and has the citations to prove it. It is organized chronologically and follows the Soviets before, during, and after the trials. While sometimes dense, all of the information is justified to be there.


tldr; a compelling read and worthwhile contribution to the history of nuremberg

[Kristi · Rating 5 out of 5]

WOW!! I don't know how to begin to review this unique look at the Trial of Nuremberg told from the Soviet perspective. I believe a good way to begin is to remind American readers of a few facts about WWII. I am in no way denigrating our role in the victory over the war in Europe. We supplied England, the Soviet Union and other Allies with materiel and basic supplies and we certainly fought bravely when we entered the war in December of 1941, but we did not do so without the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Until then American, not necessarily FDR's, opinion was largely that of isolationism and not getting enmeshed in another "European" war. Imagine what might have been different if we had joined England, France and other nations in declaring war in September of 1939 when the Nazis invaded Poland instead of watching as Hitler took over Western Europe and began steps toward the genocide / Holocaust..... Also I am by no means denying the bravery and loss of Americans once they joined the fight. Just as an example the American strategy for most of the air war in Europe was to do daylight precision bombing until late in the war. The British Commonwealth nations bombed at night. We took greater risks and higher casualties. I am proud of our country and its role in WWII, but we were never invaded ( except for the Aleutian Islands of Alaska ) and suffered far less casualties per capita than many other major Allied powers. For example: Total Civilian and Military Deaths - The United Kingdom: 450,700 out of a population of 47,760,000 - France: 567,600 out of a population of 107,624,472 - United States: 440,700 out of a population of 132,164,569 - Poland: 5,600,000 out of a population of 35,000,000 . ( 16% of the inhabitants). (At 0.30%, the U.S. had the lowest death toll as a percentage of total population of the major combatants of the European war.) The figure for the Soviet Union has never been established completely but the estimate provided by the author is 27,000,000 out of a 1939 census of 170,500,000. After Operation Barbarossa began in June of 1941, the Soviets fought for the next 4 years. Is it any wonder that Stalin wanted a second front in Europe???? This does not mean that I think Stalin was a good guy - unofficial estimates concerning the total number of Stalinism repression / pogrom deaths in 1937–38 total 950,000–1,200,000. These were his own people who were being murdered by the state on Stalin's behalf........ To be continued *** Stalin and the Soviets were resentful at American assumption of the role of savior. The Politbureau believed that the West was disrespectful and forming their own alliance against them. They were not happy that the war crimes trial was being held in Nuremberg in the American sector of Germany!! Not entirely an erroneous assumption... Contrary to most if not all expectations, the Soviets were the first to suggest the idea of an International Military Tribunal. Their assumptions of how such a tribunal would conduct its proceedings was that it was merely a show trial ala Stalin's style and that defendants would be executed. They really had little knowledge of Western law and the idea that the Nazis on trial could hire lawyers to defend them. Throughout the year they would be playing catch-up or losing ground. They were also not fond of the idea of Crimes Against Humanity / genocide which might just open their own behaviors to scrutiny. You think?? Then there is the issue of the Polish massacre in the Katyn Forest. Was it the responsibility of the Nazis or were the Soviets the murderers???? Adding to the suspense of the actual trial, you have to throw in at least one murder and the NKVD surveillance of those who were surveilling. Even when you know the outcome of the trial, this marvelous author manages to keep the readers on the edge of their seats. Cannot recommend highly enough if you are a devote' of WWII history. Kristi & Abby Tabby

[Micebyliz]

It's an odd thing to be reading this book at the same time as Russia is now the aggressor in war. A war that should never be happening. Are we as humans always fated to repeat the mistakes of the past?
I admire the grit it must have taken to stick with this research for so many years to produce this book. What a project.
A grim subject to be sure, but i have to admit that i enjoyed some parts of it. The descriptions of the parties and escapades (if you will). People getting a little drunk :) and stumbling over not speaking the same language but finding a way to communicate, having a good time despite their differences and eventually working out the wrinkles in their agenda. This, to me, was the meat of the whole process. They did not have nearly enough translators (a sad story there) and they were trying out the new IBM system (another story) but whaddaya know? some alcohol works wonders.
Sure there were problems, some serious ones. But the principals got to know each other briefly and it was critical. Didn't last, but it helped.

[David Niose · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very impressive piece of work. Well written and very well researched. Anyone interested in the Nuremberg trial will enjoy this new contribution, with all the drama of the historically important trial told from the unique standpoint of the Soviets. And anyone interested in Soviet history will enjoy this particular snapshot of 1945-46, with many of the usual important old Bolsheviks making appearances, and many lesser knowns as well.

[Liz Forsberg Cassidy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eye-opening. One of the most interesting things I learned from this book was how the Soviet Union had struggles with translation in the trials. Speaking German was a cause for suspicion in WWII Soviet Union, and many of the people who would have served as translators had been killed, putting the Soviets at a relative disadvantage. I read this book to get a better understanding of the early beginnings of the Cold War, and I learned a lot.

[K C · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really eye-opening perspective. I've always thought of the Nuremberg trails in a vacuum of history. Showing the behind the scenes negotiations and the Cold War starting at the same time makes for a very interesting read.

[Peter Leon · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating account of the Nuremberg trials from a Soviet perspective

So much has been written about the Nuremberg trials - and the vexed issue of victors’ justice over the defendants - but so little about the Soviet role in them. While Stalin, Molotov’s and to an extent Vyshinsky’s influence over the Soviet prosecution team and judge are reasonably well known, very little is known about how Soviet legal theory and jurisprudence influenced the tribunal’s capital charges of crimes against humanity and genocide against the defendants (and ultimately the Genocide Convention). This outstandingly well researched and readable book brings Nuremberg to life again and reminds us all — never again.