some parts of moscow are again being veiled in the small for wildfire as following a brief reprieve volunteers have been using shovels and buckets of water to help fight the flames the drought has also destroyed the course of his crops forcing a temporary export ban to combat a surgeon prices. russia says it will want to round nuclear power plant on the twenty first of august the russian atomic agency which is building the facility to shack says it will be tightly controlled and. soldiers in germany are accusing the being government of ignoring that post-traumatic stress once they're back from the front lines it comes as the country steps up its efforts in northern afghanistan. next on his desk in cross talk discuss war crimes prosecutions and whether they serve justice will simply seek retribution.

hello and welcome to cross talk i'm peter all about immediately after the second world war major nazi leaders were put on trial for crimes there is no question that such crimes were committed however questions linger about just victor's justice what was what is the legitimacy i'm sorry legacy of nuremberg. to discuss the trial and its implications i'm joined by richard evans in cambridge he's a professor of modern history at the university of cambridge in london we have geoffrey robertson a distinguished jurist member at the united nations internal justice council in tallahassee we cross to robert dallek to a professor of history at florida state university and here in the studio with me

is jeffrey roberts they head of the school school of history at the university college cork in ireland and another member of our cross talk team elena hunger all right first of all i'd like to go to richard evans and cambridge. was justice served in nuremberg grave grave crimes were committed during the second world war nazi leaders were put on trial they were. put on trial sentenced and some of them put to death was justice served. yes on the whole i think it was have to remember that initially churchill and stalin both wanted to just kill that outside leaders so they were persuaded eventually to put them on trial and the trial was very carefully prepared and it presented an enormous amount of evidence which of course was shown to the german people so they could realise what exactly they've been supporting so on the whole of course justice is seldom perfect and the nuremberg trials weren't perfect either i do think justice was served ok on that too it

geoffrey robinson very important precedent for the future ok and what i will i will talk about the president you know you have written go ahead. you know you can take issue with the fact of ended with the death penalty we don't do that these days there was no appeal and there should have been there were problems like that but we're very lucky to have had it as richard said churchill was diabetic did opposed to it he thought hitler would use the dockers and so boxee wanted he drew up a list of the top seventy five nazis one of them shot given six hours to say their prayers and then shot and it was truman and jackson who said look this wouldn't sit well of me american conscience to kill them without hearing their side of the story in the end of course it was joe stalin who who loved show trial so long as everyone got shot in the end who voted with with the americans and so we got nuremberg but it has left

a legacy an important legacy that those who are guilty of hideous crime of horrific crimes crimes against humanity because it knows us all as human beings to think that other human beings can conceive and commit them that they will be punished here on earth. if i go to tallahassee robert but there's a lot of people that criticize the legal process of the nuremberg trials. basically coming up with. crimes defy. in crimes after the crimes that they claim they were committed in and don't get me wrong i mean i don't there's very few people that deny the terrible crimes that the nazis committed but for a lot of jurists it's a lot more complicated than that i mean we can all agree that bad people were judged and rightly judge but was the process is we should be to be just as proud of the process as the outcome. well there are two schools of. jurisprudence on this and the school left for veiled was the pragmatics school of

natural law and basically it says that whilst there was no law on the books that these people broke for the most part when they committed the crimes the crimes were so egregious that humanity had to do something to protect itself from those things happening again so. we all should should also note that since the first world war in particular with germany and also with turkey there had been attempts to bring these people to trial. as far as turkey is concerned with respect to the armenian genocide they these processes came to nothing what was done in nuremberg was innovative there were people who wrote after the war for you know volumes of essays about how it was not it was nothing but big justice but in fact of course what it was supposed to do was to set

a precedent the fact is it of course was victor's justice no doubt about that but was it something more and i would argue that it was indeed something more than that and set a very important precedent not only that but when we look at the alternatives that were being mooted at the times some of which were mentioned by colleagues but in fact it was only until the last minute the negotiations were going on behind the scenes in the united states and britain it was only at the last minute that the decision was made and to go for genuine trials and before that there were just of stalin for example suggested that tehran that something of the order of between fifty and one hundred thousand might be shot. roosevelt was mildly shocked at that but put it back down to forty nine thousand. later on. more discussions went on behind the scenes and we had the morgenthau plan and there he

came up with the figure of shooting twenty five hundred and so these are the options that run the table it was only really secretary of war the seventy six year old henry stimson of the united states who said that this would be unsatisfactory no one would do it it would set a terrible precedent and something had to be done to bring this into into the legal spear and in spite of all its flaws i think that it was a good thing that the trials were held and it did set a precedent which to be short took fifty years to follow but nevertheless i think it was a worthwhile thing and not only that i think it's very important richard mentioned the importance of showing the german people as evidence i think it was very important that historians also got a chance to study what it was like inside a fallen dictatorship and we could really look at the mechanisms of how that system worked and of course that was a an important step in its own right the problem with many of the dictatorships we

we see now we don't really get inside them anymore we don't really get the truth or it takes forever to come out ok and i think that you know we only got i only got the truth we only got the truth the prosecutors said because of the teutonic habit of writing everything down they had gehrig's signatures on the night and five degrees and could cross-examine him i've been part of the nuremberg legacy and running a court in sierra leone where of course we have to draw inferences from mass graves we have to use informers we don't have the wealth of evidence that was one of the reasons why nuremberg succeeded and one of the reasons why delivering on its legacy today is a lot more difficult than it was in that city of nine hundred forty six ok jeff in the studio with me here i mean what we just heard is the process the decision making. assess how do you try try these not you work on a sunday there's a lot of political expediency involved in there i mean is that part of the process

as well i mean i grit was justice was done was done it was victor's justice it was a show it was a show it was a show trial and the process was it was deeply flawed i mean you know tentative to the nuremberg trial was expected to judicial executions on program so in a sense nuremberg actually contained the punishment of nazi war criminals who control the i think a sense of closure to the second world war so i thought extent i think nuremberg was a very good thing i'm not so sure about its legacy not so sure about the precedents itself think that they did the as to nuremberg in the form of the current war crimes tribunals and so on i think there are a lot of question marks and you know for those. you know just come in there just for just go right ahead part because of the nuremberg trials did did not invent the offenses that they convicted the defendants from they referred back to the laws of

war established in the geneva convention they established they referred back to the not you know seven hague agreement to which germany has a signature e which further govern the laws of war and how wars to be conducted and the nineteen twenty eight pacts began which germany agreed to which outlawed essentially outlawed declaring war so there were a number of presidents against which the defendants could be conduct could be measured and these are these are war crimes trials so let's remember that three and a third million soviets soldiers were deliberately killed by the nazis and not kept involved conditions in prisoner of war camps and there's many other crimes for which there were already conventions and laws which to deal with this i think. really on president point i mean if you read your president however bryant's against you know right now i don't know if you mean it's good we have probably some truth here i've just real quickly here is always a video of the night the main charge against the nazis at the major nazi war

criminals anyway was that they would kill to have crime skits police and all of the conspiracy to plot an aggressive war the war crimes element and the crimes against humanity will search the second subsequently of course war crimes and crimes against humanity became you know perceived as being the main charge in europe which i don't i don't think it was because the president of nuremberg wasn't that there were such things as war crimes or even crimes against humanity but the the notion of these crimes will be judged by some kind of international international tribunal or or international legal system and that's where the problem lies but we can talk about that maybe in the second half of the program but there had been attempts before to set up an international tribunal the british went to with their desire to have the car use a broad group. for an international tribunal it was the americans who let him off on the basis of head of state of unity but there is still the allied tribunal i think you know this talk of victor's justice what does it mean victory produced the

opportunity to do justice to people who were guilty of heinous offenses in the losers justice if you like was it like after the first world war where nine hundred german war criminals including captains of submarines who'd machine gun sailors in the water and so on were put on trial eight or eight hundred ninety were acquitted and the other ten were allowed to escape so beware of losers justice and what's wrong with victor's justice if the procedure is correct if the correct if if it does justice to those who do so i can use a regular issue i couldn't just this was done at nuremberg but what it meant and victor's justice was it was only nazi war criminals who were brought to justice i mean there were their world war crimes where the rush from on the allies and l. on the allies that's what it's for specific late night now i'm not suggesting it

could have been otherwise i think that that was inevitable but the concept of picture justice does have a real need all right gentlemen we're going to take a short break here but when we turn we'll continue our discussion on the nuremberg trial stay with our team. hungry for the full story we've got it first hand the biggest issues get a human voice face to face with the news makers. observe nature and discover its beauty. communicate with the wild and learn. test yourself and become free.

see what nature can give you on the. welcome back to crosstalk i'm peter lavelle to remind you we are discussing the nuremberg process and its implications for modern international law. against stewart. but first let's see what russians think about those who question its justice. the pivotal role played by the soviet union in the victory over nazi germany is indisputable yet there are those who contest this history president medvedev took a stand against such historical revisionism while lawmakers in the state duma

advocated punitive measures for those denying or approving crimes established by the nuremberg tribunal the russian public opinion research center asked what russians think of introducing criminal liability for the denial of the use of sars victory over germany sixty percent said they support the initiative twenty six percent disapproved of the idea back to peter or it before we went to the break here i know that robert intel has he wanted to say something is very lively discussion go ahead. yes there is one thing about that is quite unprecedented about the trials and that is the way in which the prosecutors had to prove that there was a conspiracy to commit all these these the three main offenses and the notion of a conspiracy like this that there was this conspiracy to commit wars against peace to conspiracy to commit. war crimes and so on this is in my opinion one of the most

slippery aspects of the case because because you have to prove a conspiracy but that the defense then has to say all they have to say is that they were ignorant of it and prove that they were ignorant but the more important point is that and this brings up the political aspect of the trials is that of course we were talking about the conspiracy against peace and a conspiracy to bring about war as the nuremberg trials did well i'm afraid that then that brings up the nazi soviet pact that was signed by ribbentrop and volatile of it august one thousand thirty nine and if ever there was a conspiracy to bring about war then surely this was this would have should have been indicted so jeffrey roberts point there that this was only indicting losers so to speak is quite correct i realize i could just point problematical let me just

jump in there's some of the law about the nazis not some that was a conspiracy by hitler to bring about well from studies point of view the pact was about keeping the so you know keep them true and that sense i don't think it was was and was a aggressive conspiracy in the sense that you'll suggest yeah but what you're a big stand up and i you know i was almost secretary and i really kind and there has been more against me i mean this was mass murder and we have used the nuremberg precedent really they were terrible. we're talking about mass murder look we're. talking about genocide we're talking about widespread and systematic torture we're talking about killing people for their race or because they're political opponents on a very wide scale that use water quite simply mass murder law is now the law that is practiced student be caught soon yugoslavia and sierra leone in cambodia and so forth ok richard evans well i just i just come into yes i mean it's flawed because

it's flawed among other things because all the participant nations in a terrible trials had themselves of course committed war crimes if you look at the british and americans they had bombed german cities killing about this is exactly what i want to hear yes yes he was against the wars the laws of war as established at the hague which said that attacks on civilians are deliberate killing of civilians should not be should not be undertaken and was illegal and i just wait one more one one more votes were a quick point and that is i do think it is absolutely wrong for any state to outlaw opinions about the past i think once states start interfering in what historians can say or people can say about history it's a very slippery slope and you end up with the absurd situation that in france it's illegal to deny the armenian genocide of nine hundred fifteen and in turkey it's illegal to say it happened ok jeff i hear more jeff in the studio you brought up

here and it also was brought up just a second ago dresden for example when you look at an international tribunals that is there to perfect example and i'm not i'm not saying it should have been what the harder your gender but people will say look this is a victory is justice in and some a lot of people say victor's justice is wrong that's why the term exists go ahead it wasn't an international tribunal and you say it was me who tries to you know give your tribe from the studio a chance to speak to my wife you know the gentlemen we do we. believe that i'll go to you next interview for this audio you. i did it willingly try it was a tribunal is going to finish place it was a trial period all of the occupying powers in germany and there were far from the unconditional surrender of germany at the end the segment or so in a sense it was actually an international try to be on it was cool that it was actually a national drug on the national government mr gates in this case was the oligarchy place impose a rich by the point about the must bombing campaign it's an interesting point

there's no i don't say that i wouldn't say that the anglo-american bombing campaign was a walk i think it was militarily justified but nevertheless it's a fact that the british americans killed more than civilians that the soviet union did this result six hundred unit six hundred first german civilians died as a result of that mess from a camp by a million japanese as a result of the american bombing campaign of japan so if we're trying to look way up in a historical deal who's responsible for this is responsible and we need to have a fair. balance sheet and not just think it's all a question of just alan who was a criminal and everyone else was was innocent could a gentleman like them we have to be there we have be very clear what we mean by go ahead go ahead robert a very care that there are war crimes war crimes us be clear war crimes means going beyond what is necessary for victory that is what if you if you're going beyond what is necessary for victory now i don't know if you can prove that the united states when it bombed hiroshima and nagasaki if you look at the decision making as

i have done and look at it very closely nobody in the united states nobody in the united states military that i've been able to found all the way up to the white house. they may have been some people of so harry truman was jovial when he heard about the second bomb and this that the other thing but the fact of the matter is that after the two bombs and after the continuation of. fire bombing of japan and after the soviet union entered the war against japan between the two bombings that there was a coup in japan with a. attempt by military men to topple the emperor and to continue the war so. as far as. exceeding what is necessary to win the war i think of be a very difficult case to prove that the that these bombings were the germans were not giving in doesn't mean that the united states and the allies didn't commit war crimes and as far as i know

a lot of these crimes when they were caught are brought to justice by military courts but. that's why we were in agreement that there is that nuremberg was a flawed instrument it was an imperfect creation. and that however in spite of its imperfection in view of the times and the emotion of the times the public opinion in the united states or in britain the public wanted all these people executed en masse and there was there was blood on people's minds and that so many people in the german peace day. want to people who were acquitted to be killed and i think the good use an important point to make but what you've got to understand when is the day the nuremberg legacy is being carried on without those fools without the discrimination what we're doing in sierra leone we accused of mass murder and torture forces of all kinds including the government forces that

restore democracy its leaders were prosecuted for child sold use them for torture you know you know. there are a lot of people would say it again k.l.a. but gentlemen a lot of people would say that you know look at the war crimes alleged war crimes that israel commits but it's not being brought to trial yugoslavia was brought up a far more serbs are put on trial in him and presumably we're not you know it's you know they yeah ok one of the reasons why not use their yeah to kill the trip. who knows that have been set up in particular countries are now avoiding the era if you like of nuremberg and not discriminating are in fact prosecuting war criminals on all sides of course at this stage in human history inevitably we proceed in failed states we proceed in states that are powerful we do not hold powerful states or indeed their clients to do

justice we're getting there we're creating precedents that one day may even trip the president of the united states but we've got a long way to go ok what about their present we're running out of time if we go to richard evans was it a good is it a good precedent nuremberg yes i do think it was an international tribunal or a number of different countries involved ok they were the victor countries but nevertheless the principle is established that the international community behind it the united nations freshly in the process of being created then should actually bring to trial people who represent national states who have committed war crimes and of course since then in the numerous decades since then the whole question is geoffrey robertson it's been said to hold their third world approach has been refined is being developed now we have a much stronger much wider war effective international justice system that is

operating associate in the case of yugoslavia ok robert and tell us how see what do you think a good precedent for the for the present. it is it is a very it is a very good precedent and i'm very proud of the work that jeffrey is doing and other people like him. there is a stumbling block as far as the international criminal court is concerned you know i teach courses on genocide modern genocide and all my students there you know there's fifty or one hundred students in the class and they are very strongly opposed to genocide let me tell you and what i find interesting is that they are they all want to say in fact that genocide occurs far more often than i believe i believe it's a rep relatively rare event but nevertheless there are mass crimes and there are all kinds of other things but what is interesting is because when the when it really gets pushed gets the shot by asking this question you see the united states i say has not signed on to the international i'm not point there robert i'm afraid

we're going to have some kind of i'm afraid we're going to have to let it go there i want to thank all of you gentlemen for a very interesting discussion. ok already many thanks to my guests today geoffrey robertson richard evans robert and geoffrey roberts and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r.t. see you next time and remember cross talk means.

in taiwan multis available in the landis typee hotels in typee the how it calls a hotel tonight be sure to type the hotel's hotel while cho his the groom her tone the show would hotel and some will do misty type the hotel kuvasz photo photo from hotel resort evergreens the hotel typee grand victoria hotel gloria prince hotel

hope springs resort and spa tai toon hotel while she plans i'm closer to a hotel. the westin type a evergreen closer hotel in time to eat london hotel time ambassador type e hoto full points and i would print certainly the splined hotel in touch with the hotel in touch with both the john and gloria gold how an international house flood to change every green little hotel in talk of. the battle against a ranches all round and wall fall as makes headway as officials say for the area of bunnings forests by a fake.