Talk:Hartley Shawcross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This needs to be merged with Hartley William Shawcross, Baron Shawcross of Friston --rbrwr (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2003‎

Hitler did not want war...america had a lot of german immigrants.,world wars were jews can- take that to the jewish rothschild fiat currency bank! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Strange alleged quotation[edit]

"Step by step I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. "At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleague, condemned Nazi aggression and terror. "I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the 'Americans' around Roosevelt. "We ignored Hitler's pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany; instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Union. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentlessly pursued now, only under a different label." -- British Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, Stourbridge, March 16th, 1984 (AP)--‎ Betoon ((talk) 08:27, 30 March 2006


Do you have a source for this quotation from Baron Shawcross? There is no mention of it in his obituary at the Guardian (,,995910,00.html ), and I did not find anything about it in the Historical New York Times for the dates in question--which would be reasonable to expect if it was written by the AP.Ninarosa 03:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted quotation until further corroboration of source.[edit]

I looked for the quotation by Baron Shawcross in the LexisNexis database, which keeps all news from the Associated Press. From 1980 to 1990 there are only two references to Shawcross, on March 9, 1980 and another on Ausgust 21, 1989. Neither was anywhere similar to the quotation listed in this page.

I've deleted the quotation until a more reliable source can be found.Ninarosa 03:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found some links via Google: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


The alleged quote is a forgery - see [1].--Toddy1 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that ANYTHING CRITICAL of JEWS IS CLAIMED AS A FORGERY..... OK, THEN I CLAIM THE HOLOHOAX A FORGERY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

John Bodkin Adams story[edit]

The John Bodkin Adams story ... what exactly is being suggested here? I suspect that it's not trivial! Cutler 22:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems likely that Gwynne wanted Shawcross and Goddard to use their influence in Bodkin Adams' favour. Indeed, in the trial judge Devlin's book he mentions that Goddard phoned him up to encourage him to grant bail before a second murder trial - something which was then unheard of. In a book on Adams by Surtees, it's mentioned that Gwynne tried to "bend Manningham-Buller's ear" too. MB was the prosecuting Attorney-General. Hence, this meeting was Gwynne's attempt to help his lover. After the meeting, Gwynne drove home and crashed his car. He hadn't been drinking so I'd assume it was a suicide attempt (though there's no way of proving that - other than various sources saying he was depressed at the time).Malick78 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

fair and lawful?[edit]

"Thus Shawcross's advocacy was instrumental in obtaining convictions against the remaining Nazi leadership, on grounds which were perceived as fair and lawful.[citation needed]"

Are you guys serious? On grounds that were "were perceived as fair and lawful"? You cannot word it like this. "perceived as fair" would maybe be just OK. But you cannot say "lawful": The big well established flaw of the Nuremberg trials was that the legal norm leading to the conviction of most of the Nazis was defined just during the trials. You cannot dare to name it "lawful" since there was no such law before. It is surely the only accepted trial with rules established during the trial, rules that were not known when the deeds were done. The thing what made it acceptable in a way was that immense cruelty needed to be persecuted somehow while this was in some respects a novelty in history. The term is maybe "acceptable".

PS: Even "fair" could be discussed since many interviews were done by soldiers. But that are maybe only bad persons that think that soldiers from the Soviet Union, Britain, USA or elsewhere did ever torture their detainees in Germany '45, Hungary '56, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)