Challenging times you can look at for events at harvard. Com events. Was subscribed to our newsletter. We will have time for questions at the end of the discussion. Go to the q a box and into a question well get to as many as we can. Also thank you for supporting Harvard Bookstore for your support during this trying time. Also there is a place to donate in the chat box which makes the author series possible now more than ever to support the independent landmark bookstore in support of the authors and the incredible staff of booksellers we sincerely appreciate your support now and always. As you may have experienced the last few months technical issues may arise and if they do we will do our best to resolve them quickly thank you for your patience and understanding. Im pleased to introduce tonight speaker a professor of history at the survey on modern european history ethnographic knowledge in the making of the soviet union including the price of American Historical AssociationJoshua Rubenstein human rights and International Affairs for over 40 years as an activist independently recognized scholar of literature and politics of the former soviet union. And the struggle for human rights in the last days of stalin and his writings have appeared in the wall street journal the New York Times and many more. Tonight discussing the book a history of the International Military tribunal after world war ii which is called the comprehensive history author of the perpetrator on trial. Congratulation on your wonderful book. I am holding it up. Lets begin by reminding our listeners when the nuremberg trials took place in what was the purpose . I also want to say thank you to the whole food workcenter and to you joshua, its an honor to be here today. Just to began the nuremberg trials also known as the International Tribunal took place november 1945 through october 46 that were coming up on the 75th anniversary. Great britain and france and the soviet union got together with the former nazi leaders and organizations for conspiracy and war crimes and crimes against humanity this of course was the first of the nuremberg trials but those that happen and later were carried out by the us alone i just want to say from the start thats one of the reasons and the other reasons as well we can talk about. And with the allies when do they begin to discuss to hobos not see leaders responsible for their crimes . This began in the middle of the second world war. What i want to say one of the key arguments i want to make that nuremberg will not happen with the soviet union. Soviets were the ones that are out in front calling for a special International Tribunal and then to be calling for this october 1942 for another reason the soviets saw this that the war was horrible for the soviet union and with the cooperation of all interested governments and other not see leaders to be brought to justice. Many discussions about how to bring the nazis to justice but with the International Tribunal britain and the United States were at first reluctant especially about the idea of having any kind of trial before the war was over and to be very concerned about retribution. Your book provides a long overdue account of how soviet contribute to the allied understanding of war crimes such as crimes against peace and it should be directed for the leadership including political and military readers how do you plan to document the role to create the Legal Framework from the nuremberg trials . What would you tell us about . And the minister of Foreign Affairs archive had so much to document the day today going on in the trial but on the legal side and with the academy of sciences. And then as a journalist at the academy of science and as the war was going on in 1942 turn to lawyers to study the question of the criminal responsibility and for crimes that were carried out and we can talk about the details later but in the archives to see the early draft that later became part of our book. And then to see those deliberations among the lawyers and the role of andres and we will talk about later. He was reading the works well and so that was one way to trace things. And also looking at the United NationsWar Crimes Commission that preceded and met in london and there was talking about also this question of punishing war criminals so it was a lot of fun to look at this paper trail and see the work go from the institute of law to the ministry of Foreign Affairs to make it to london and the United States. When did they start meeting to discuss plans for such a trial . I would have to double check on when that is happening. The ideas are introduced. They may start to get a hearing in 1943. So its actually at the height of the war. The soviets are at work on this in the height of the war in terms of the London Commission i would have to double check. But it was at that point they were not clear who would win. Thats part of why. It was never clear that they would have been and i think what is so remarkable on the soviet side of things is again in the darkest days of the war they are talking about a potential trial and theyve set up their own War Crimes Commission with the aim of documenting every single war crime and atrocity committed and occupied in the soviet territory and before the war, victory is a dream. The amount of devastation that has been done is astounding and its at that moment the soviets are starting to think about this question and with other countries not being so interested at that point. They were carrying out on the Eastern Front with a systematic shooting of jews in the towns and villages and cities throughout the territories. Who is documenting those as well. Absolutely. The Extraordinary Commission was documenting those crimes and not just of the commission, but the soviet chief of police was gathering reports of those as well. A. How were the jurists from Great Britain and france in the soviet union, how are they able to coordinate their efforts as they planned the tribunal and played out the scenes over many months there mustve been moments of contention and misunderstanding. This was not easy. First on a very basic fundamental issue these countries have different legal traditions. They had different experiences of the war. You think about france which surrender early and then the United States britain took a beating as well and the United States comes out in a better position so everyone is coming to the table with different ideas about justice and what the tribunal should look like. There is mistrust and in some ways i write a lot in the book about the parties and the dinners and the events that happened outside of the court roocourtroom or before the pretl period it might sound like a boring legal document, but its not. These different powers were putting together to tell the story about the war and they all wanted to tell different stories. They wanted to claim the story for themselves and they had to Different Things they wanted included or left out. The british and the french didnt want them included in the story of the war. The soviets wanted them in a certain way working together with the nazis or appeasement. So, it becomes very contentious even early on. Id like to ask specifically how did they work out what to say and then from the east so how was that handled in the negotiations and second, we know now under the orders, thousands of officers were murdered in the spring of 1940. The germans found those and made clear when they liberated that territory they said look what we found. There are these secret protocols that lay out the division in the case of war. There was a report from london from a soviet diplomat who writes back during these negotiations its become apparent he hadnt been told about the secret protocols so that eventually they tell him. But in london, hes flying bli blind. The soviets are not expecting a trial in the way we think about a trial. Its more with a show trial in the sense where the script is known from the start. They were surprised to learn that the defense would be able to serve as witnesses on their own behalf and able to call witnesses. They thought that evidence that they introduced would stand because of article 21 in the charter but they thought this meant that defense could contest it. In the working out of the indictment again just coming from moscow, coming from the soviet secret police, they make a decision to include the massacre the soviets committed. They had been talking about holding a show trial but then somebody gets the bright idea so it goes into the indictment and then the liberation among all four countries of the prosecution. This is an issue. They have a pretty clear idea they are the ones that committed the massacre. The u. S. Chief prosecutor and sir david plays the role and try to convince to not include this at all and he says his hands are tied and everybody understands his hands are tied. Not only does it not get included the number they put in was 900 something and then at the last minute they change it to 10,000 or 11,000 and so again theres this moment of if the trials are going to go on, do we accept it. He says not to include them in the indictment. I have to go back to moscow and talk to stalin and that is going to take a few weeks. At that point they want things to move on and then it becomes a big thing in the tribunal when the German Defense basically they asked to bring the defense to contest the charges. So that is a critical moment in the trial and everyone really is concerned about and as the trial is going forward, jackson is getting more and more evidence suggesting they are guilty from the crime. Theres not a lot in the documents about that and we try to look for something that explains why its not included in the judgment, but its not in the judgment. I will tell you a little bit about him and then i will be writing a little bit from chapter five of the book. We have a coming together of people from four countries with different justice systems. People and personalities matter a great deal. One of the notable personalities is at the time of the trial the Deputy Foreign minister and he is been involved in the discussions about nuremberg from the start he was best known for his role as the chief prosecutor as the trial which took place from 1936 to 1938. Stalin had used these trials to get rid of his rivals. They would be in charge from afar and this is what the soviets think is going to happen in nuremberg. They have an idea that the secret commission in moscow is going to be able to somehow pull the strings of the puppet and get them to do what they want and things become more complicated. So they start november 20th. They dont have enough translators or interpreters. Hes trying to take over the bulk of the case and there are rumors that they are looking to introduce evidence inculcating the soviet union and war crimes and crimes against peace. This is the crime of waging an aggressive war and they all knew that they were in nuremberg to do the bidding and their fate rested in his hands. The u. S. Delegation had regarded him as an ominous figure because of his role in the trial the defense attorney and a former member of the nazi party who claimed to have dug up some documents about the protocols. Hitler and stalin plotted out the division of the part of europe in the crime against peace many issues were discuss discussed. A few weeks earlier, jackson had asked his british, french and soviet colleagues to write a secret memorandum detailing the countrys war crime in anticipation. 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. Not surprisingly this secret list that had been typed out on a single sheet of paper that i found in the archive included a number of items about the soviet german relations including the german soviet nonaggression pact of 1939 and all questions relating to it in other words the secret protocol. The visit to berlin and moscow included more general topics including the republic and soviet german relations. It was to oppose the submission of any documents that were harmful to soviet interests. They didnt give permission to share a physical copy of the list with any of the western prosecutors. Once the copy was in circulation the soviets would lose the shield of the plausible deniability. Jackson gave a dinner at the grand hotel in his honor and he went there directly. The american judges were appalled to hear that they had dropped. This was perhaps the only time the soviets did not mind the pace of interpretation from russian into english. They enjoyed the moment. Can you tell us how they presented the case and was there anything surprising about the approach . At the beginning when its divided up the british will take charge against the time this was kind of shocking to them. They are only supposed to focus on war crimes and crimes against humanity in the east, but they actually do present some on the other crimes to make sure they have their fair day in court this is a surprise those that are brought in to talk about crimes against the jews and concentration camps and the testimony that i will talk about, this was a late in the game decision, so one of the things i looked at was putting together a list of witnesses and then the two other witnesses that are brought in from poland, so i will talk a little bit about that now and then maybe we will have time to talk about it some more but yes, that is extremely important. Its late february, 1946 and the soviet prosecution is presenting its part of the case. Hes presenting on crimes against humanity and is about to call him to the witness box. They joined a group of partisans and later in march of 1944 the soviet leaders staged a rescue operation and pushing them out of the territory where he worked with others to compile evidence and initially they are thinking of including this evidence and theres no talk at the beginning of sending so theyve been screening the witnesses for the case since november but all the while theyve been on the fence about sending the witnesses. Having the prosecution building its case on documentary evidence alone. They made the final decision to send witnesses in late january after the french prosecution called witnesses to testify about the concentration camps. It brought meaning to the numbers giving voice to individuals suffering. They ultimately send ten witnesses and he was the latest addition to that list so this is from chapter eight. He spent a couple of days and sleepless nights nervously waiting to testify. The responsibility of representing the jewish people weighed on him heavily. Well i passed the exam, will i fulfill my mission properly for history, for my people. Unlike the other witnesses, he remained standing in the witness box as if it had been a matter of reciting the jewish prayer for the dead. He also spoke in july 1941 and before they were organized that august half of the population had been murdered. Before the occupation at the end of the war there were only 602 left. They asked for a clarification. 79,400 were exterminated. The most harrowing part of the testimony was the recounting in december 1941 why the german 19n soldiers in the ghetto hospital and that part is too disturbing to read so i will go on. He testified for almost 40 minutes and he was spent but also strengthened by the knowledge that they had surviv survived. He considered it a matter of jewish destiny that he had survived and threw them all that had adhered to their ideology. He had indeed done well speaking to the jewish people and also testifying on behalf of the soviet people. They all congratulated him afterwards for doing his part. He served in Important Role at this point during the trial during his testimony they were able to innovate the narrative of the crimes against humanity and war time suffering of the entire soviet people in the occupied east. Let me add two things for my research i wrote my biography there and they met for the first time and became Close Friends and wrote a portrait that took up almost a full page in april of 1944 that stunned many and highlights the fate and suffering. Later when asked to testify they got wind of the fact. The american guards would have to shoot him. The testimony was covered in the press. I believe so, i hadnt followed it in the press. He was also of jewish background and he wrote a book about it and later on they were hesitant to acknowledge but there were moments during the war where they were happy to acknowledge. And also the writer and the huge amount of correspondence and the number of journalist to have dual roles and on the one hand for the soviet that tried to get the writing publishing they are doing that as well but as many members of the soviet delegation and talking about that in the book that there is a dual so it is the idea that in nuremberg among the soviet delegation everyone was informing on everyone else. And those Police Agents that are writing back reports of the trials and then nightlife and telling with each other. And that is part of it. And the journalist they write some of the most interesting letters home talking about what is going on and as an editor with a six page treatise after the first month of the trial reporting on all of the problems and the difficulties of the soviet delegation is having so talking about the question of translators and interpreters so this comes up again they dont have good enough translators and interpreters and this is dangerous. And writes about there are no books about soviet law and the library and this is a problem and americans was some good soviet movies to. And a heartbreaking part of it was soviet women in the delegation and how they are made fun of by the british and americans because of their shabby clothing and you feel so bad for them. And then to learn how to do this to have those translators and interpreters but it also involved addressing people. So those letters are great. I have a final question. You concluded the nuremberg trial the opening chapter of th