Talk:Hartley Shawcross

message: "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
=== Source? ===
Do you have a source for this quotation from Baron Shawcross? There is no mention of it in his obituary at the Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,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)
thread_title: Strange alleged quotation

message: Do you have a source for this quotation from Baron Shawcross? There is no mention of it in his obituary at the Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,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)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deleted quotation until further corroboration of source. 

message: The alleged quote is a forgery - see .--Toddy1 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Forgery

message: 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)
thread_title:  John Bodkin Adams story 

message: "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 77.64.181.113 (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair and lawful?