European International Military Tribunal The military, political and economic leaders of the European Axis have conducted dozens of military trials. Since the trial is mainly conducted in Nuremberg, Germany, it is collectively called the Nuremberg Trial. There were 22 defendants in this trial, all of whom were military and political leaders of Nazi Germany. In addition, six organizations, including the German cabinet, were also investigated and sentenced. Among them, three were sentenced to criminal organizations and the other three were not guilty.
The above is taken from Wikipedia.
And this film very interestingly selected part of a very special trial: the judge's trial. From the judge to the judge, the 180-degree inversion of identity, this most basic setting is enough to arouse many imaginations and thoughts. Although the film is based on 8 court scenes, it is interspersed with outdoor scenes after each adjournment to make up for the court scenes with many small details left behind, enriching the trial from different sides and angles, and also broadens it. I will give a brief and concise review of the room for thinking about watching movies.
1. The judge arrives in Nuremberg → the first court session, the prosecution and the defendant make a statement
2. The judge visits Nuremberg, the defendant's lawyer rolfe talks with Ernst Janning → the second court session, Ernst Janning's teacher appears as a witness
3. The judge meets Mrs. Bertholt for the first time, Talk to two German waiters → 3 court sessions, witness Rudolph Petererson appearing
4. At the dinner, the judge, Mrs. Berholt’s second meeting was interrupted by the prosecutor Colonel; Ernst Janning had a dispute with three other judges; the judge was watching the drama After that, Mrs. Berholt was sent home; Colonel asked Irene hoffman wallner to testify → Irene hoffman wallner, the witness in the 4th trial, appeared on the stage, and Colonel himself appeared as a witness and played the video
5. The judge and Mrs. Berholt met four times → 5 times the defendant lawyer rolfe interrogated Irene hoffman wallner
. 6. The defendant lawyer rolfe talked with ernst janning, and general matt was interviewed → 6 court sessions, ernst janning appeared as a witness, and the defendant lawyer issued a strong cross-examination (This is the most powerful court scene in the whole play. It is really deafening.)
7. The general matt talks with Colonel → 7 court sessions and the defendant makes the final statement
8. The three judges have disputes over the verdict of guilt and innocence → 8 court sessions In the final judgment, the judge made a guilty and life imprisonment sentence.
9. Before the judge left Nuremberg, he called Mrs. Berholt but did not respond; the defendant's lawyer rolfe visited; the judge went to prison to visit Ernst Janning.
2. Image analysis of Germans
In addition to the main defendant and defendant's lawyers, the film actually arranged different types of Germans from witnesses to passers-by.
1. Those who perpetrate evil but firmly believe in the innocence: except the three judges of ernst janning, namely emil hahn, friedrich hoffstetter and werner lammpe; and with an indifferent analysis of how to technically kill a million people in a concentration camp within half an hour Manager pohl. Their common feature is to dispense with guilt on the grounds of patriotism, and repeatedly emphasize the individual's absolute obedience and sacrifice to the state and the collective concept of "Germans". This mentality is fully demonstrated in Friedrich’s last few innocence statements: "To sacrifice one's own sense of justice to the authoritative legal order. To ask only what the law is and not to ask whether or not it is also justice. As a judge , the I could do NO other.I by Will believe Your Honors and the Find Me Me Millions of Germans like the wHO believed They were doing Their Duty to Their Country to BE not guilty. "
2. not bad but firmly believe that Shi innocent (and the interests of the accused Related): the defendant's lawyer herr rolfe, the general's widow, Mrs. Berholt.
Maximilian Schell has dedicated his superb acting skills in the film. The lawyer's eyes are like eagles and hooks, and the questions he throws are pressing harder and harder. When eloquent, his eyes are blazed by the fire of patriotic enthusiasm. At the wonderful place of the debate, he was so proud that he was almost defiant, and when the witnesses asked questions, his aggression was hard to conceal. The closeness of logic and the aggressiveness of the momentum were performed by Schell. And he also raised a similar question during the first hearing: "Should Ernst Janning have carried out the laws of his country? Or should he have refused to carry them out and become a traitor? This is the crux of the issue at the bottom of this trial.” So although his eloquence is shocking and his debating skills are admiringly superb, the core of his debate is in the final analysis that patriotism is above everything else, the ignorant is not guilty, and the core of the sixth trial: Responsibilities are shared equally.
And Mrs. Berholt came to the judge with the purpose of "To convince you that we are not all monsters". She was elegant and loved art, and tried her best to impress the German people in the judges' hearts. She told him that her husband was born when she died. Trained into soldiers, telling that they also hated Hitler, telling that they knew nothing about the crimes of concentration camps, albeit with little success.
3. Perpetrators but found guilty: Minister of Justice ernst janning. Janning stands out among a group of Germans struggling to plead not guilty. Apart from the heart-wrenching confession and defense of 6 court trials, he sat in the dock from start to finish, his face was solemn and quiet, and he didn't say a word. The restless face is like a dish. His answer to the innocence of the unknown is: "But if we didn't know, it was because we didn't want to know." He deeply understands and sympathizes with the embarrassed Germans, but he is not hesitant to be quick and quick for the Germans. His mentality and short-sighted eyes were fiercely criticized, and his loud screams have wiped out the results of the defendant’s lawyers’ previous debates.
4. Those who did not commit evil but firmly believe in innocence (have no interest related to the defendant): waiter and wife. The couple trembled throughout the reception of the judge for fear of offending the judge. After repeated questioning by the judge, he repeated with horror: "We were not political." He firmly drew a line with all the crimes of Hitler's Third Reich. They are typical representatives of the vast majority of ordinary Germans. Before the war, they were grateful for the miracle that Hitler had brought to this country. They had their children taken away during the war, and they lingered like frightened birds after the war.
5. Those who did not commit evil but firmly believe in guilt: witnesses Dr wieck and Dr geuter. And they are also facing accusations that they are guilty of watching on the sidelines.
6. Victims: Witnesses Rudolph Peterson, Irene Hoffman Wallner and Mr. Feldenstein. Their lives were ruined by a single sentence. They wanted to forget them day after day but they couldn’t sleep at night, but they were still shrouded in collectivist accusations that “Germans should not sue Germans”. Hitler’s harm to them will always be. Hard to erase.
7. Germans after the war: passers-by girls who call the judges grandfather and general harry's girlfriend elsa scheffler. The existence of these two seem to be idle pens, but they both have a more intimate connection with Americans. In fact, they have caused us to think that since the relationship between people can cross borders, then they are the first to be regarded as one person. To be treated or to be treated as a national person? Is the person himself more important or the country he belongs to? This is obviously a reflection on the innocent people who use collectivism as a shield.
In addition, the film also shows the life of the Germans after the war. They have unique food and wine. The theater is full of seats. At night, people linger on the streets in twos and threes humming sad folk songs, and the guests in the bar beat with glasses. Sing together at the table. Therefore, it is not difficult to find that the film contains the abbreviation of the German group portrait. The value of this abbreviation lies in its face up to individual differences and dailyness, but it does not avoid the criticism of the group. Some people may ask, why did such a nation that gave birth to Hegel, Goethe, Nietzsche, and Beethoven surrender to Hitler's Third Reich so sincerely? As Hafner said in "Interpretation of Hitler": "When we were boys, we had a Nazi character." This Nazi character is not acquired through education, but is born like a maggot. You will find their fanaticism, greed, cruelty and blood, their ignorance, indifference, irresponsibility, their fear, pain, self-denial, their weakness, panic, and powerlessness, which are almost incompatible with all people in countries that have experienced collective disturbances. The faces were exactly the same. When the constant questioning held their throats tightly, they shook their heads like rattles to express ignorance. Faced with the horrific and tragic scene of the concentration camp, they would be sincerely surprised from the bottom of their hearts. So that question is not difficult to answer. When they, or us, exist as a bound collective, the vast majority of people are easy to lose their senses and lose human relations. We are addicted to a comfortable unconsciousness of collectivism, not in Screaming long live to Hitler, we are letting the ugly fermentation in our own human nature be ignited, destroying a few kind and sober people, and destroying ourselves. What Hitler focused on was the eternal inferiority of man, Hitler never died, Hitler is us.
3. Lines and Thoughts
As a court film, one of the characteristics of this film is that the lines are dense, and there are many memorable, which is the reason why I have done it many times. Here are a few sentences.
1. "A judge does not make the laws, he carries out the laws of his country." This is the reason put forward by the defendant's lawyer rolfe in his defense. But I personally think it is a kind of sophistry. It is especially a paradox in the context of unfair law, because it seems that the judge is only enforcing the law, but the essence behind this appearance lies not in the enforcement of the law itself, but in the implementation of justice. When the law has violated the most basic starting point of justice, then the enforcement of the law also violates the most fundamental professional spirit of judges. But the question also arises. Why do you prove that the law is unfair? It is relatively easy to distinguish in extreme contexts such as under Nazi rule. But what about being in a daily environment, such as when the rationality of the law conflicts with the reasonableness of life? Is the law fair at this time? Obviously it cannot be distinguished in a few words. Even if it is really unfair, is it implemented or not? Every step of this requires rational thinking and human choices.
2. "The trouble with you, Colonel, is you'd like to indict the whole country. That might be emotionally satisfying to you, but it wouldn't be exactly practical, and hardly fair." What Colonel said. Is the collective criticism correct? The deputy judge said that this was impractical because too many evildoers, conscious and unconscious, could not be confronted by the court one by one; he also said it was unfair, because even though it was because of the collective work of the majority of people Fanaticism and complacency created the Hitler Empire, but the minority was directly included in the name of the majority. In the final analysis, there is no essential difference from the Germans using collectivism as a reason for innocence. Moreover, even a part of the guilty in the strict sense, while exercising the evil of mediocrity, is also responsible for the sin of mediocrity. For example, the two doctors and nurses who performed castration operations for Rudolph Peterson kept saying sorry, this It was wrong, but surgery was still performed. Labeling a group of people, wearing hats, and using the majority to speak for the minority, this kind of brainlessness couldn't be easier, but it hurts individualism, and it is even more unfair to people who exist as individuals. This kind of binding appears many times throughout the movie, especially the dialogue between another judge and ernst janning: "You have something in common. You were part of that same regime. You stood by that regime, the same as the rest of us. And there's something else you have in common. You are a German." As the great Comrade Ma said: "A person is the sum of social relations." Facing the system, society, and country you come from, It is almost desperate to discover that such a bondage will never be eradicated, it is almost fatalistic.
3. "We have to forget, if we are to go on living." This is Mrs. Berholt's advice to the judge. Similarly, the defendant lawyer rolfe also said to Ernst Janning: "We have to look at the future. We can't look back now." This is always a self-deception. Because if the past is allowed to pass like this, the past will never really pass. I think this is also the reason Irene Hoffman Wallner is finally willing to return to the court to testify: only when facing the past will the past pass.
4. "And if we did know, what could we do?" In the chat between the judge and the waiter couple, the waiter couldn't help asking at last. As the judge said: "As far as I can make out, no one in this country knew." But the male waiter pierced this layer of window paper, knowing whether it was intentional or unintentional. This actually raises a meaningful question: are the bystanders guilty? The confused question of the male waiter represents the powerlessness of the entire civilian class: there is no time to take care of anything other than struggling to survive. They took Hitler to the supremacy of power, and then panicked under Hitler's war rule. They are one of countless unconscious perpetrators, but they also overlap with the faces of many victims. Watching "Our Fathers" a year ago, I advocated that everything about war should be kept out of the civilian class because they could not afford the cost of war. But I missed one point. It was the civilian class that made Hitler. The non-civilian elite, such as the witness teacher, who chose to resign during Hitler’s administration. He knew all this was unreasonable, but he did not further advocate for justice and human rights. This was the argument of lawyer rolfe. Ask again and again. Imagine if the elite with a conscience chooses not to be silent, will it turn the tide? Another possibility of history is now hard to imagine. Bystanders are of course guilty, because silence is equivalent to acquiescence to evil, but this is different from the guilt of doing evil directly. It is unconscious or powerless. This guilt should be considered instead of being held in court. Because they have paid the price for their sins, they are indeed unable to bear the further price, which is too unjust for the evil itself.
5. "What was the war all about?" Colone asked General Matt at the end of the film. In "1984", the war is to consume material and maintain the rule. Hitler's war was to conquer and destroy the race to strengthen Germany. But for ordinary people, what exactly is war? Why does the war repeat itself again and again? This proposition is so grand that I am at a loss for words. As a disaster deliberately initiated by humans to humans, the only significance of war is probably to make us re-examine our existence as human beings.
6."The issue of the actions of the defendants who believed they were acting in the best interests of their country is an issue that cannot be decided in a courtroom alone.It can only be decided objectively in years to come,in the true perspective of history.”” It is logical in view of the times in which we live, but to be logical is not to be right. And nothing on God's earth could ever make it right.” The former is a statement made by the deputy judge after the final trial , The latter is the chief judge’s answer to lawyer rolfe’s presence. I think the best Chinese translation of these two sentences is probably the well-known sentence "Justice is in the hearts of the people."
4. The Nuremberg Trial itself
must say what are the flaws in this film, probably when choosing this subject matter, it means choosing the victor's trial. Therefore, despite showing different images of the Germans, it is inevitable that they will fall into the water after all. And this kind of condescending justice has always been criticized by critics in the Nuremberg Trial. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fisk Stone called the Nuremberg trial a scam. "(U.S. Attorney General) Jackson is holding a high-level mob lynching convention in Nuremberg." He wrote, "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis. I just don't want to see him pass the presiding court in the name of the law. Forms (trials on them). My thinking is outdated and I can’t accept this kind of hypocritical scam.” However, it is gratifying that this trial was conducted strictly in accordance with the requirements of the court trial, based on conclusive physical and personal evidence. A fairly fair judgment came out.
The unfairness of the Nuremberg trial is not the unfairness of the trial result itself, but that it only made a fair judgment on the loser, but did not make a fair judgment on the winner. This point was shocked by the cross-examination of lawyer Rolfe in the 6 court trials. This is the most shocking passage in the whole film: "But if he is to be found guilty, there are others who also went along, who also must be found guilty.Ernst Janning said:We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."Why did we succeed,
In this impromptu accusation, the lawyer rolfe tore off the hypocritical and decent masks of the victors, and every one of his questions left the audience speechless. In fact, his questioning has been very polite. He just exposed the acquiescence of these victors to the Nazis' evil deeds. The historical truth is far from that simple: France's treatment of prisoners of war is a serious violation of the Geneva Convention. The Soviet Union invaded Poland during the war and forced Poland to seek help from Nazi Germany. After the war, it annexed the three small Baltic countries and retaliated against the three countries for supporting Germany during World War II. The secret agreement of the "Soviet-German Non-Aggression Treaty" of August 23, 1939 proposed that the German and Soviet Union partition Poland (subsequently implemented in September 1939). Britain and the Soviet Union were not tried for preparing for and conducting the British-Soviet invasion of Iran and the Winter War. The Soviet army partitioned Poland in 1939 and invaded Finland three months later. The Soviet secret police killed thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk, which is called the Katyn tragedy. The Allied forces forced German civilians to work in the occupied areas and the Soviet Union deliberately created famine among the civilians. It is not only Germany that committed crimes. Germans were dragged to the court and guillotine for no other reason: it was just a loser. History belongs to the victors. There are still many unknown truths in the entire history of World War II. It is impossible to know that the pen and ink is less than one ten thousandth of the truth. The truth can only be infinitely close, and it can never be truly reached.
But even though the Germans on trial felt unfair, the trial must continue. Because if you choose to give up the trial of the loser just because you can't judge the winner, it will undoubtedly fall into another kind of injustice. The trial of World War II faced such a dilemma: should we choose this unfair or the other unfair? The former means injustice to the world, and the latter means injustice to the Germans. Although the public media has lost interest in this trial, even though domestic political forces have repeatedly advocated the supremacy of interests, even though they know that a judgment may be nothing but empty words. The prosecutors and judges who participated in this trial still chose to be closer to justice within the limits of their ability: the guilty should be punished, and there is no irrelevant reason to justify it, even if it is a fact; we choose to try the Germans , Does not mean that we ignore the crimes of the victorious nation. This is not absolutely fair, but relatively fair. To put it bluntly, it is a helpless compromise. And even this compromise is difficult to maintain, because the defendants left the prison only a few years later. So is this trial meaningless? I think there are, at least, some people try their best to make the right choice. Finally, return to the Nuremberg court and conclude with what the judge said when he made the verdict.
Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen of the charges in this indictment. Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation in a nationwide, government organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilized nations. If he and all of the other defendants had been degraded perverts, if all of the leaders of the Third Reich had been sadistic monsters and maniacs, then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake, or any other natural catastrophe. But this trial has shown that under a national crisis ordinary, even able and extraordinary men can delude themselves into the commission of crimes so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination.There are those in our own country,too,who today speak of the protection of country of survival.A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat.Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy to rest survival upon what is expedient ,to look the other way.The answer to that is:Survival as what?A country isn't a rock.It's not an extension of one's self.It's what it stands for.Its' what it stands for something is the most difficult .That here in our decision, this is what we stand for: Justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.It's not an extension of one's self.It's what it stands for.Its' what it stands for something is the most difficult.That here in our decision,this is what we stand for:Justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.It's not an extension of one's self.It's what it stands for.Its' what it stands for something is the most difficult.That here in our decision,this is what we stand for:Justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.
Repeat that sentence. War makes us re-examine our existence as human beings.
View more about Judgment at Nuremberg reviews
