Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Page 8 sur 8 Précédent  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  eddy marz le Ven 22 Mar 2013, 11:11 am

abatjour a écrit:il a été présenté au proces un témoignage "Mémorandum Hossbach " dont certains ont pensé que le contenu etait passablement foireux, j'ai lu ça il y a longtemps et je ne me rappelle plus dans quel volume du proces cela intervient.

Der Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militargerichtshof Nurnberg 14 November 1945- 1 Oktober 1946.
avatar
eddy marz
Membre légendaire
Membre légendaire

Nombre de messages : 3953
Age : 61
Localisation : England/France/Italia
Date d'inscription : 24/03/2008

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  ours blanc le Ven 22 Mar 2013, 2:50 pm

Jules a écrit:Voilà ce que je pense être les 5 moments-clés des procès des grands criminels de guerre, à Nuremberg :

1) La projection du film sur les camps de la mort (E. R. Kellogg, certifié par John Ford)
2) Le témoignage de Friedrich Paulus,
3) Le contre-interrogatoire de Goering par David Maxwell Fyfe,
4) Speer qui avoue son plan de tuer Hitler,
5) Le témoignage de Rudolf Hoess.


Je suis d'accord avec Jules.
avatar
ours blanc
Sergent-chef
Sergent-chef

Nombre de messages : 58
Age : 43
Localisation : Canada
Date d'inscription : 25/11/2012

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  Jules le Ven 22 Mar 2013, 8:03 pm

abatjour a écrit:il a été présenté au proces un témoignage "Mémorandum Hossbach " dont certains ont pensé que le contenu etait passablement foireux, j'ai lu ça il y a longtemps et je ne me rappelle plus dans quel volume du proces cela intervient.

Ce serait bien de développer un peu quand même...
avatar
Jules
Général de Division
Général de Division

Nombre de messages : 2062
Age : 37
Localisation : ici
Date d'inscription : 04/01/2009

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  abatjour le Sam 23 Mar 2013, 9:17 am

"Hossbach Memorandum
Memorandum
BERLIN, November 10, 1937.
Minutes of a Conference in the Reich Chancellery, Berlin, November 5, 1937, FROM 4:15 to 8:30 P.M.
Present:
The Fuehrer and Chancellor, Field Marshal von Blomberg, War Minister,
Colonel General Baron von Fritsch, Commander in Chief, Army,
Admiral Dr. h. c. Raeder, Commander in Chief, Navy,
Colonel General Goring, Commander in Chief, Luftwaffe,
Baron von Neurath, Foreign Minister,
Colonel Hossbach.
The Fuehrer began by stating that the subject of the present conference was of such importance that its discussion would, in other countries, certainly be a matter for a full Cabinet meeting, but he -the Fuehrer- had rejected the idea of making it a subject of discussion before the wider circle of the Reich Cabinet just because of the importance of the matter. His exposition to follow was the fruit of thorough deliberation and the experiences of his 41/2 years of power. He wished to explain to the gentlemen present his basic ideas concerning the opportunities for the development of our position in the field of foreign affairs and its requirements, and he asked, in the interests of a long-term German policy, that his exposition be regarded, in the event of his death, as his last will and testament
. "



voici le début de la note restituée "de mémoire" par le colonel hossbach quelques jours après cette réunion au sommet. cette pièce a été utilisée a nuremberg, je ne me rappelle plus quel jour du procès ni la référence mais la lecture est édifiante.

vous devez peut être trouver le texte sur internet,

en fait a la fin du wiki de langue anglaise il y a un lien pour le texte complet.


Dernière édition par abatjour le Sam 23 Mar 2013, 9:27 am, édité 1 fois

abatjour
Major
Major

Nombre de messages : 122
Age : 65
Localisation : france
Date d'inscription : 04/08/2010

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  eddy marz le Sam 23 Mar 2013, 9:25 am

Document 386-PS [translation]", in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression. Volume III, US Government Printing Office, Washington (DC): 1947.



Berlin, 11/10/1937

NOTES on the Conference in the Reichskanzlei on 11/5/1937 from 1615-2030 hours

Present: The Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor, The Reichsminister for War, Generalfeldmarschall v. BLOMBERG, The C-in-C Army, Generaloberst Freiherr von FRITSCH, The C-in-C Navy, Generaladmiral Dr. h. c. RAEDER, The C-in-C Luftwaffe, Generaloberst GOERING, The Reichsminister for Foreign Affairs Freiherr v. NEURATH, Oberst HOSSBACH

The Fuehrer stated initially that the subject matter of today's conference was of such high importance, that its further detailed discussion would probably take place in Cabinet sessions. However, he, the Fuehrer, had decided NOT to discuss this matter in the larger circle of the Reich Cabinet, because of its importance. His subsequent statements were the result of detailed deliberations and of the experiences of his 4 1/2 years in Government; he desired to explain to those present his fundamental ideas on the possibilities and necessities of expanding our foreign policy and in the interests of a far-sighted policy he requested that his statements be looked upon in the case of his death as his last will and testament.

The Fuehrer then stated:

The aim of German policy is the security and the preservation of the nation, and its propagation. This is, consequently, a problem of space.

The German nation is composed of 85 million people, which, because of the number of individuals and the compactness of habitation, form a homogeneous European racial body which cannot be found in any other country. On the other hand, it justifies the demand for larger living space more than for any other nation. If no political body exists in space, corresponding to the German racial body, then that is the consequence of several centuries of historical development, and should this political condition continue to exist, it will represent the greatest danger to the preservation of the German nation [Volkstum] at its present high level. An arrest of the deterioration of the German element in Austria and Czechoslovakia is just as little possible as the preservation of the present state in Germany itself. Instead of growth, sterility will be introduced, and as a consequence, tensions of a social nature will appear after a number of years, because political and philosophical ideas are of a permanent nature only as long as they are able to produce the basis for the realization of the actual claim of existence of a nation. The German future is therefore dependent exclusively on the solution of the need for living space. Such a solution can be sought naturally only for a limited period, about 1-3 generations.

Before touching upon the question of solving the need for living space, it must be decided whether a solution of the German position with a good future can be attained, either by way of an autarchy or by way of an increased share in universal commerce and industry.

Autarchy: Execution will be possible only with strict National-Socialist State policy, which is the basis; assuming this can be achieved the results are as follows:

A. In the sphere of raw materials, only limited, but NOT total autarchy can be attained:

1. Wherever coal can be used for the extraction of raw materials autarchy is feasible.

2. In the case of ores the position is much more difficult. Requirements in iron and light metals can be covered by ourselves. Copper and tin, however, can NOT.

3. Cellular materials can be covered by ourselves as long as sufficient wood supplies exist. A permanent solution is not possible.

4. Edible fats possible.

B. In the case of foods, the question of an autarchy must be answered with a definite "NO".

The general increase of living standards, compared with 30-40 years ago, brought about a simultaneous increase of the demand for an increase of personal consumption even among the producers, the farmers, themselves. The proceeds from the production increase in agriculture have been used or covering the increase in demands, therefore they represent no absolute increase in production. A further increase in production by making greater demands on the soil is not possible because it already shows signs of deterioration due to the use of artificial fertilizers, and it is therefore certain that, even with the greatest possible increase in production, participation in the world market could NOT be avoided.

The considerable expenditure of foreign currency to secure food by import, even in periods when harvests are good, increases catastrophically when the harvest is really poor. The possibility of this catastrophe increases correspondingly to the increase in population, and the annual 560000 excess in births would bring about an increased consumption in bread, because the child is a greater bread eater than the adult.

Permanently to counter the difficulties of food supplies by lowering the standard of living and by rationalization is impossible in a continent which had developed an approximately equivalent standard of living. As the solving of the unemployment problem has brought into effect the complete power of consumption, some small corrections in our agricultural home production will be possible, but NOT a wholesale alteration of the standard of food consumption. Consequently autarchy becomes impossible, specifically in the sphere of food supplies as well as generally.

Participation in World Economy. There are limits to this which we are unable to transgress. The market fluctuations would be an obstacle to a secure foundation of the German position; international commercial agreements do NOT offer any guarantee for practical execution. It must be considered on principle that since the World War (1914-18) an industrialization has taken place in countries which formerly exported food. We live in a period of economic empires, in which the tendency to colonize again approaches the condition which originally motivated colonization; in Japan and Italy economic motives are the basis of their will to expand, the economic need will also drive Germany to it. Countries outside the great economic empires have special difficulties in expanding economically.

The upward tendency, which has been caused in world economy, due to armament competition, can never form a permanent basis for an economic settlement, and this latter is also hampered by the economic disruption caused by Bolshevism. It is a pronounced military weakness of those States who base their existence on export. As our exports and imports are carried out over those sea lanes which are ruled by Britain, it is more a question of security of transport rather than one of foreign currency, and this explains the great weakness in our food situation in wartime. The only way out, and one which may appear imaginary, is the securing of greater living space, an endeavor which at all times has been the cause of the formation of states and of movements of nations. It is explicable that this tendency finds no interest in Geneva and in satisfied States.

Should the security of our food position be our foremost thought, then the space required for this can only be sought in Europe, but we will not copy liberal capitalist policies which rely on exploiting colonies. It is NOT a case of conquering people, but of conquering agriculturally useful space. It would also be more to the purpose to seek raw material producing territory in Europe directly adjoining the Reich and not overseas, and this solution would have to be brought into effect in one or two generations.

What would be required at a later date over and above this must be left to subsequent generations. The development of great world-wide national bodies is naturally a slow process and the German people, with its strong racial root, has for this purpose the most favorable foundations in the heart of the European Continent. The history of all times Roman Empire, British Empire has proved that every space expansion can only be effected by breaking resistance and taking risks. Even setbacks are unavoidable; neither formerly nor today has space been found without an owner; the attacker always comes up against the proprietor.

The question for Germany is where the greatest possible conquest could be made at lowest cost.

German politics must reckon with its two hateful enemies, England and France, to whom a strong German colossus in the center of Europe would be intolerable. Both these states would oppose a further reinforcement of Germany, both in Europe and overseas, and in this opposition they would have the support of all parties. Both countries would view the building of German military strong points overseas as a threat to their overseas communications, as a security measure for German commerce, and retrospectively a strengthening of the German position in Europe.

England is NOT in a position to cede any of her colonial possessions to us owing to the resistance which she experiences in the Dominions. After the loss of prestige which England has suffered owing to the transfer of Abyssinia to Italian ownership, return of East Africa can no longer be expected. Any resistance on England's part would at best consist in the readiness to satisfy our colonial claims by taking away colonies which at the present moment are NOT in British hands, e.g. Angola. French favors would probably be of the same nature.

A serious discussion regarding the return of colonies to us could be considered only at a time when England is in a state of emergency and the German Reich is strong and well-armed. The Fuehrer does not share the opinion that the Empire is unshakable. Resistance against the Empire is to be found less in conquered territories than amongst its competitors. The British Empire and the Roman Empire cannot be compared with one another in regard to durability; since the Punic Wars the latter did not have a serious political enemy. Only the dissolving effects which originated in Christendom, and the signs of age which creep into all states, made it possible for the Ancient Germans to subjugate Ancient Rome.

Alongside the British Empire today a number of States exist which are stronger than it. The British Mother Country is able to defend its colonial possessions only allied with other States and NOT by its own power. How could England alone, for example, defend Canada against an attack by America or its Far Eastern interests against an attack by Japan.

The singling out of the British Crown as the bearer of Empire unity is in itself an admission that the universal empire cannot be maintained permanently by power politics. The following are significant pointers in this respect.

a. Ireland's tendency for independence.

b. Constitutional disputes in India where England, by her half-measures, left the door open for Indians at a later date to utilize the nonfulfillment of constitutional promises as a weapon against Britain.

c. The weakening of the British position in the Far East by Japan.

d. The opposition in the Mediterranean to Italy which by virtue of its history, driven by necessity and led by a genius expands its power position and must consequently infringe British interests to an increasing extent. The outcome of the Abyssinian War is a loss of prestige for Britain which Italy is endeavoring to increase by stirring up discontent in the Mohammedan world.

It must be established in conclusion that the Empire cannot be held permanently by power politics by 45 million Britons, in spite of all the solidity of her ideals. The proportion of the populations in the Empire, compared with that of the Motherland is 9:1, and it should act as a warning to us that if we expand in space, we must NOT allow the level of our population to become too low.

France's position is more favorable than that of England. The French Empire is better placed geographically, the population of its colonial possessions represents a potential military increase. But France is faced with difficulties of internal politics. At the present time only 10% approximately of the nations have parliamentary governments whereas 90% of them have totalitarian governments. Nevertheless we have to take the following into our political considerations as power factors:

Britain, France, Russia and the adjoining smaller States. The German question can be solved only by way of force, and this is never without risk. The battles of Frederick the Great for Silesia, and Bismarck's wars against Austria and France had been a tremendous risk and the speed of Prussian action in 1870 had prevented Austria from participating in the war. If we place the decision to apply force with risk at the head of the following expositions, then we are left to reply to the questions "when" and "how". In this regard we have to decide upon three different cases.

Case 1. Period 1943-45. After this we can only expect a change for the worse. The re-arming of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, as well as the formation of the Officers' Corps, are practically concluded. Our material equipment and armaments are modern, with further delay the danger of their becoming out-of-date will increase. In particular the secrecy of "special weapons" cannot always be safeguarded. Enlistment of reserves would be limited to the current recruiting age groups and an addition from older untrained groups would be no longer available.

In comparison with the re-armament, which will have been carried out at that time by the other nations, we shall decrease in relative power. Should we not act until 1943/45, then, dependent on the absence of reserves, any year could bring about the food crisis, for the countering of which we do NOT possess the necessary foreign currency. This must be considered as a "point of weakness in the regime". Over and above that, the world will anticipate our action and will increase counter-measures yearly.

Whilst other nations isolate themselves we should be forced on the offensive.

What the actual position would be in the years 1943-1945 no one knows today. It is certain, however, that we can wait no longer.

On the one side the large armed forces, with the necessity for securing their upkeep, the aging of the Nazi movement and of its leaders, and on the other side the prospect of a lowering of the standard of living and a drop in the birth rate, leaves us no other choice than to act. If the Fuehrer is still living, then it will be his irrevocable decision to solve the German space problem no later than 1943-45. The necessity for action before 1943-45 will come under consideration in cases 2 and 3.

Case 2. Should the social tensions in France lead to an internal political crisis of such dimensions that it absorbs the French Army and thus renders it incapable for employment in war against Germany, then the time for action against Czechoslovakia has come.

Case 3. It would be equally possible to act against Czechoslovakia if France should be so tied up by a war against another State, that it cannot "proceed" against Germany.

For the improvement of our military political position it must be our first aim, in every case of entanglement by war, to conquer Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously, in order to remove any threat from the flanks in case of a possible advance Westwards. In the case of a conflict with France it would hardly be necessary to assume that Czechoslovakia would declare war on the same day as France. However, Czechoslovakia's desire to participate in the war will increase proportionally to the degree to which we are being weakened. Its actual participation could make itself felt by an attack on Silesia, either towards the North or the West.

Once Czechoslovakia is conquered and a mutual frontier, Germany-Hungary is obtained then a neutral attitude by Poland in a German-French conflict could more easily be relied upon. Our agreements with Poland remain valid only as long as Germany's strength remains unshakeable; should Germany have any setbacks then an attack by Poland against East Prussia, perhaps also against Pomerania, and Silesia, must be taken into account.

Assuming a development of the situation, which would lead to a planned attack on our part in the years 1943-45, then the behavior of France, Poland and Russia would probably have to be judged in the following manner:

The Fuehrer believes personally that in all probability England and perhaps also France have already silently written off Czechoslovakia, and that they have got used to the idea that this question would one day be cleaned up by Germany. The difficulties in the British Empire and the prospect of being entangled in another long-drawn-out European War, were decisive factors in the non-participation of England in a war against Germany. The British attitude would certainly NOT remain without influence on France's attitude. An attack by France without British support is hardly probable assuming that its offensive would stagnate along our Western fortifications. Without England's support, it would also NOT be necessary to take into consideration a march by France through Belgium and Holland, and this would also not have to be reckoned with by us in case of a conflict with France, as in every case it would have as consequence the enmity of Great Britain. Naturally, we should in every case have to bar our frontier during the operation of our attacks against Czechoslovakia and Austria. It must be taken into consideration here that Czechoslovakia's defence measures will increase in strength from year to year, and that a consolidation of the inside values of the Austrian army will also be effected in the course of years. Although the population of Czechoslovakia in the first place is not a thin one, the embodiment of Czechoslovakia and Austria would nevertheless constitute the conquest of food for 5-6 million people, on the basis that a compulsory emigration of 2 million from Czechoslovakia and of 1 million from Austria could be carried out. The annexation of the two States to Germany militarily and politically would constitute a considerable relief, owing to shorter and better frontiers, the freeing of fighting personnel for other purposes and the possibility of re-constituting new armies up to a strength of about 12 Divisions, representing a new division per 1 million population.

No opposition to the removal of Czechoslovakia is expected on the part of Italy; however, it cannot be judged today what would be her attitude in the Austrian question since it would depend largely on whether the Duce were alive at the time or not.

The measure and speed of our action would decide Poland's attitude. Poland will have little inclination to enter the war against a victorious Germany, with Russia in its rear.

Military participation by Russia must be countered by the speed of our operations; it is a question whether this need be taken into consideration at all in view of Japan's attitude.

Should Case 2 occur - paralyzation of France by a Civil War - then the situation should be utilized at any time for operations against Czechoslovakia, as Germany's most dangerous enemy would be eliminated.

The Fuehrer sees Case 3 looming nearer; it could develop from the existing tensions in the Mediterranean, and should it occur he has firmly decided to make use of it any time, perhaps even as early as 1938.

Following recent experiences in the course of the events of the war in Spain, the Fuehrer does NOT see an early end to hostilities there. Taking into consideration the time required for past offensives by Franco, a further three years duration of war is , within the bounds of possibility. On the other hand, from the German point of view a 100% victory by Franco is not desirable; we are more interested in a continuation of the war and preservation of the tensions in the Mediterranean. Should Franco be in sole possession of the Spanish Peninsula it would mean the end of Italian intervention and the presence of Italy on the Balearic Isles. As our interests are directed towards continuing the war in Spain, it must be the task of our future policy to strengthen Italy in her fight to hold on to the Balearic Isles. However, a solidification of Italian positions on the Balearic Isles can NOT be tolerated either by France or by England and could lead to a war by France and England against Italy, in which case Spain, if entirely in white (i.e. Franco's) hands, could participate on the side of Italy's enemies. A subjugation of Italy in such a war appears very unlikely. Additional raw materials could be brought to Italy via Germany. The Fuehrer believes that Italy's military strategy would be to remain on the defensive against France on the Western frontier and carry out operations against a France from Libya against North African French colonial possessions.

As a landing of French-British troops on the Italian coast can be discounted, and as a French offensive via the Alps to Upper Italy would be extremely difficult and would probably stagnate before the strong Italian fortifications, French lines of communication by the Italian fleet will to a great extent paralyze the transport of fighting personnel from North Africa to France, so that at its frontiers with Italy and Germany France will have at its disposal solely the metropolitan fighting forces.

If Germany profits from this war by disposing of the Czechoslovakian and the Austrian questions, the probability must be assumed that England being at war with Italy would not decide to commence operations against Germany. Without British support a warlike action by France against Germany is not to be anticipated.

The date of our attack on Czechoslovakia and Austria must be made dependent on the course of the Italian-English-French war and would not be simultaneous with the commencement of military agreements with Italy, but of full independence and, by exploiting this unique favorable opportunity he wishes to begin to carry out operations against Czechoslovakia. The attack on Czechoslovakia would have to take place with the "speed of lightning" [blitzartig schnell].

Feldmarschall von Blomberg and Generaloberst von Fritsch in giving their estimate on the situation, repeatedly pointed out that England and France must not appear as our enemies, and they stated that the war with Italy would NOT bind the French army to such an extent that it would NOT be in a position to commence operations on our Western frontier with superior forces. Generaloberst von Fritsch estimated the French forces which would presumably be employed on the Alpine frontier against Italy to be in the region of 20 divisions, so that a strong French superiority would still remain on our Western frontier. The French would according to German reasoning, attempt to advance into the Rhineland. We should consider the lead which France has got in mobilization, and quite apart from the very small value of our then existing fortifications which was pointed cut particularly by Generalfeldmarschall von Blomberg the four motorized divisions which had been laid down for the West would be more or less incapable of movement. With regard to our offensive in a South-Easterly direction, Feldmarschall von Blomberg draws special attention to the strength of the Czechoslovakian fortifications, the building of which had assumed the character of a Maginot line and which would present extreme difficulties to our attack.

Generaloberst von Fritsch mentioned that it was the purpose of a study which he had laid on for this winter to investigate the possibilities of carrying out operations against Czechoslovakia with special consideration of the conquest of the Czechoslovakian system of fortifications; the Generaloberst also stated that owing to the prevailing conditions he would have to relinquish his leave abroad, which was to begin on 10 November.

This intention was countermanded by the Fuehrer who gave as a reason that the possibility of the conflict was not to be regarded as being so imminent. In reply to the remark by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that an Italian-English-French conflict be not as near as the Fuehrer appeared to assume, the Fuehrer stated that the date which appeared to him to be a possibility was summer 1938. In reply to statements by Generalfeldmarschall von Blomberg and Generaloberst von Fritsch regarding England and France's attitude, the Fuehrer repeated his previous statements and said that he was convinced of Britain's non-participation and that consequently he did not believe in military action by France against Germany. Should the Mediterranean conflict already mentioned lead to a general mobilization in Europe, then we should have to commence operations against Czechoslovakia immediately. If, however, the powers who are not participating in the war should declare their disinterestedness, then Germany would, for the time being, have to side with this attitude. In view of the information given by the Fuehrer, Generaloberst Goering considered it imperative to think of a reduction or abandonment of our military undertaking in Spain. The Fuehrer agreed to this in so far as he believed this decision should be postponed for a suitable date. The second part of the discussion concerned material armament questions.

(Signed) HOSSBACH.
avatar
eddy marz
Membre légendaire
Membre légendaire

Nombre de messages : 3953
Age : 61
Localisation : England/France/Italia
Date d'inscription : 24/03/2008

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  Phil642 le Sam 23 Mar 2013, 11:46 am

eddy marz a écrit:
ketchoupi a écrit:
avec le crime contre l'humanité on rappel qu'il n'y a qu'une seule race, les humains

Légère précision - il n'y a pas qu'une seule race; il y en a plein (et vive la différence pour toutes leurs richesses!); mais une seule espèce : le genre humain. Sinon, cela équivaudrait à dire que tous les poissons sont des poissons rouges... clin doeil gri

Désolé Eddy, d'un point de vue scientifique il n'y a qu'une seule race humaine.

Dans la définition zoologique le mot race détermine la limite à partir de laquelle deux individus d'une même espèce donnent naissance à un enfant stérile.

Comme par exemple, la mule qui vient du croisement entre un cheval et un âne est stérile, idem pour les tigrons issus du croisement entre le lion et tigre.

Comme il n'y a pas cette stérilité héritée lors d'une naissance entre deux humains d'apparence différente, il ne s'agit pas de race.

Ca c'est la définition scientifique, cependant dans la langue anglaise, le mot race intervient afin de montrer les différences ethniques.
avatar
Phil642
Général (Administrateur)
Général (Administrateur)

Nombre de messages : 7665
Age : 51
Localisation : La vie est Belge
Date d'inscription : 09/05/2006

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  Jules le Sam 23 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Jules a écrit:Voilà ce que je pense être les 5 moments-clés des procès des grands criminels de guerre, à Nuremberg :

1) La projection du film sur les camps de la mort (E. R. Kellogg, certifié par John Ford)
2) Le témoignage de Friedrich Paulus,
3) Le contre-interrogatoire de Goering par David Maxwell Fyfe,
4) Speer qui avoue son plan de tuer Hitler,
5) Le témoignage de Rudolf Hoess.

Le Mémorandum est intéressant mais il n'a aucune incidence sur les verdicts.
Des points cités plus haut, on retient :
1) Tout le monde s'emmerdait avant que la projection ait lieu ; Jackson endormait même les juges, le procès tournait à la catastrophe...
2) Un nazi de haut rang qui témoigne contre d'autres nazis, c'était du jamais vu (zic) et les Russes ont bien fait de "présenter" un repenti...
3) Goering était brillant dans sa défense (Jackson se fait ridiculiser) mais Fyfe arrive à le déstabiliser en parlant d'une part du sort ces pilotes anglais capturés et exécutés (il était au courant) et d'autre part du sort des juifs dans les camps de concentration,
4) Speer qui ne prend que 20 ans de prison, alors qu'il aurait dû être pendu,
5) Le témoignage de Hoess ouvre la voie vers d'autres procès dont ceux des commandants de camps et des Einsatzgruppen.
avatar
Jules
Général de Division
Général de Division

Nombre de messages : 2062
Age : 37
Localisation : ici
Date d'inscription : 04/01/2009

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  ours blanc le Sam 23 Mar 2013, 5:59 pm

Ce que l'on nous cache :
http://liberation-44.forumactif.org/f70-le-proces-de-nuremberg


Dernière édition par ours blanc le Sam 04 Mai 2013, 3:44 pm, édité 1 fois
avatar
ours blanc
Sergent-chef
Sergent-chef

Nombre de messages : 58
Age : 43
Localisation : Canada
Date d'inscription : 25/11/2012

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  abatjour le Jeu 28 Mar 2013, 10:08 am

le memorandum, si on y croit, prouve juste la préméditation, ce qui n'est pas rien en droit.

abatjour
Major
Major

Nombre de messages : 122
Age : 65
Localisation : france
Date d'inscription : 04/08/2010

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  Tokugawa Iemitsu le Ven 10 Avr 2015, 2:34 pm

Bonjour,

Je voudrais, avant de relancer le topic, saluer l'excellent précis de Phil en présentation du topic du procès. beret

L'hommage rendu, passons aux choses sérieuses.

Maintenant, je voudrais répondre à invité et le fait que Schacht méritait la potence. Soit, mais alors que penser de Papen (j'omets volontairement le Von, il ne le mérite pas ce pauvre type intriguant) ? Il me semble que la responsabilité de ce type quand à l'arrivée au pouvoir de Herr Hitler et de ses sbires est énorme. Nazis dont le Maréchal Hindenburg se méfiait plus que tout (avait-il perçu le danger ?).

Ce mec méritait certainement la potence, ou à défaut, la prison à vie. Son acquittement est une aberration historique. enérvé N'a t-on pas voulu à travers-lui condamner la responsabilité des régimes démocratiques qu'il incarnait ? N'oublions pas que les Nazis lui avaient donné des responsabilités (Ambassadeur à Wien puis Ankara).

Par ailleurs, si les Nazis ont certes executé ses collaborateurs proches, ils ne l'ont pas visé directement. Et le fameux discours que Papen a finalement prononcé, déclenchant l'ire des Nazis, il était plus que réticent à le prononcer. Non, pas possible, mais Papen aurait du déguster sévère, pour l'Histoire.

Pour moi, si la décision rendue quand à Alber Speer est discutable, l'ancien ministre des finances du reich ne méritait aucunement la peine suprême. En quoi était-il responsable des crimes et délits du régime ? D'ailleurs il ne fut plus ministre durant les années de guerre, là où la plupart des crimes ont été commis.

A contrario, pour moi Donitz ne méritait pas une peine aussi sévère. Il a été établi que les alliés, dans le Pacifique, procédaient de même, et ne se souciaent guère plus des équipages des navires ennemis coulés.

Cordialement.

Tokugawa Iemitsu
Soldat 1ère classe
Soldat 1ère classe

Nombre de messages : 3
Age : 32
Localisation : Reims, Zone Occupée en France
Date d'inscription : 10/04/2015

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Débats du procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  Vinniem2000 le Lun 31 Oct 2016, 2:25 pm

A tous,

j'ai acquis il y a seulement quelques mois la collection entière "the blue set" des transcriptions des débats de ce procès, en français.

Ce document est disponible en ligne en anglais sur quelques sites américains.

Si certains d'entre vous ont besoin d'un scan de quelques pages, je me ferais un plaisir de vous l'envoyer.

Cordialement

Vinniem2000
Caporal
Caporal

Nombre de messages : 12
Age : 38
Localisation : France
Date d'inscription : 10/10/2016

Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Re: Nuremberg: le procès des grands criminels de guerre

Message  Contenu sponsorisé


Contenu sponsorisé


Revenir en haut Aller en bas

Page 8 sur 8 Précédent  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Revenir en haut

- Sujets similaires

 
Permission de ce forum:
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum