The Fort New York Trial: Controversy and Reflections Here, I don't discuss the quality of the movie itself, but simply talk about the record after watching the movie and the personal thinking that arises from it. Through this film, I see more of an attitude of thinking about "controversy". A rational person should know that "there are many or most things in this world, and there is no such thing as "the only answer"". why? Just because things differ from person to person, and based on different "discrimination basis", different people will have different views on the same thing and react to it.
In this film, the director provides us, the audience, with some thought-provoking topics through a relatively complete trial process. Such as: Who is responsible for the war, and what is the meaning of the war? What is the meaning of the law itself? What is the truth of the matter? Who is responsible for the war? It is necessary to recall the statement of the German defense lawyer. "This is a trial for the whole of Germany" "My country, there is no right or wrong" (quoting a poem by an American patriotic poet) "Wendel: The responsibility is not only to be found in superficial documents, but in the essence of society The most important thing is to explore human nature" (Weimar Constitution) "Judges are not legislators, but enforce laws for the country" "Wendell, Virginia Act, we have seen social welfare more than once, seeking the highest interests , if the partial sacrifice is understandable for the sake of the overall interests, the society should deal with the inferior criminals as soon as possible.” (Intelligence quotient crime) “What exactly does the prosecutor want to prove? Should the people of all Germany be tried? Or should they all know the truth? That's nasty," dropping the text. "I am the defendant's lawyer, and it is my responsibility to defend the defendant. Although the defendant said he was guilty, there is no doubt that he felt guilty. He made mistakes in the actions of the Nazis, but the original intention was for the national interest, but if If he is convicted, then the other followers will be convicted. The accused said (we have achieved great ideals), why did we succeed? Your Honor, how are other countries doing? Don't they know about the Third Reich They didn't hear Hitler's speech? Don't they know what his intentions were for Kisuke? The whole world published it. So where is the responsibility of the Soviet Union? Sign the contract in 1939, then go to war? Russia is now guilty In 1933, Peng Digang, which signed a religious agreement with Hitler, gave Hitler a huge reputation. Where is his responsibility? Do we now say that Peng Digang is guilty? Churchill, one of the world leaders, where is his responsibility? (Published in The Times of London in 1938, Your Honour, if Britain suffers from such a catastrophe, send Adolf Hitler to the rescue.) Are we now saying Churchill was guilty? American munitions that helped Hitler make weapons? Families, benefit from this, where is their responsibility? Are we now saying that the arms dealers in the United States are guilty? No, Your Honor, not only Germany is guilty, the whole world, like Germany, needs to be held accountable to Hitler. It is easy to judge and punish a person , it can be said simply that some defects made Hitler, while ignoring the defects themselves. The United States signed the agreement, Churchill praised, and the US arms dealers benefited. The accused said he was guilty only because he felt guilty, and if he was found guilty, then his sin was the sin of the whole world! No more, no less, that's all. Through the speeches of German defense lawyers, it is not difficult to see that there are several points of controversy: First, in that era, many people were participants and promoters of the war. It seems unreasonable to only try the defendants. Secondly, Jiang Ning is just a lawyer, and a lawyer is only the executor of the law. As a lawyer, it is the main responsibility to maintain the authority of the law. It doesn't matter whether the law is good or bad. Then, Jiang Ning's behavior is for the interests of the country, and here he is American patriotic poets have argued that "the country is not right or wrong". In terms of the facts of the case, Jiang Ning's trial is also based on several precedent cases and theories in the United States. During the filming, there was nothing wrong with his speech, and it also infected me, who was just an audience. But thinking about it, there are still things that are worth questioning. Indeed, during the war years, many people were participants and tried a certain country. , certain groups of people and a certain person, it seems unreasonable. Recalling the judge's statement, we are here on trial because you are sitting in the dock. As judges of this court, we have loyalty to the law, justice, justice Keeping the oath. This may be like, "A group of people went to peep, some people were caught, and some people escaped", arresting people is not the judge's responsibility, the judge's responsibility is only to judge. If you insist, other people are also at fault , should be tried together, which is obviously unrealistic. Indeed, Jiang Ning is only a judge and an enforcer of the law. From the perspective of law enforcement, even if there is a problem with the law it is based on, what he wants to do is not to question it. Because of doubts, it is decided that he is not suitable to continue this job. However, considering morality, he should feel guilty. National interests, allowing the existence of partial sacrifices, in fact, even if people can question in theory, but , this is the truth. It has been since ancient times. So who is responsible for the war? I think there is no "result" in this question. Are the soldiers? For the duty". When we talk about the history of war now, we are not talking more about those "generals with outstanding achievements" than "people who killed many people", and when we talk about the battle, we are not talking about, "This battle, How to do it" rather than "what damage did it cause". Politicians? They are the initiators of the war, but, are they also responsible for "everything in the national interest"? In fact, when it comes to the responsibility of the war, perhaps this is the a reality , a "way, means" that will always exist in human society. Regarding the status quo, we have to admit and face it, but how to do it specifically, "Anything, no matter how beautiful the shell hides, what is right is right, what is wrong is not right, you can argue, even if you escape. Even if you are judged by others, you will not be able to escape the established facts.”
Let history verify history. If we continue to live, we must learn to forget. If our life is to be more determined, we must always "review the past, reflect on the past", and face the history, which is to grasp the future. Think about it, the kneeling of German President Warsaw does not necessarily make history no longer, but it does face up to history, and it also allows Germany to gain "respect, forgiveness, and recognition". What is the meaning of war? Let's look back at the conversation between the colonel and the commander. Ted: "Your Honor, in Europe three years after the war, there is no peace for mankind, in our country, the fear of war has reawakened, we have to look at the accused again, there is a cold war narrative, women and children died unreal. War, persecution and atrocities won't really go away, they're not helpful, but they're worth noting, but in these events, the facts of the crimes we're hearing in court must be viewed in the right light, and that's what you're facing right now Question, Your Honor, this is a time when we are in a dilemma, it is a dilemma that rests with you" General: I don't know what their intentions were for firing at the planes (according to some historical sources, the attitude of the United States towards postwar Germany was moderate at the time Dealing with it, I don’t want to arouse the hatred of Germany again. Specifically, I can understand the Versailles Treaty after World War I, which requires a relatively quiet Europe, and uses Germany to check and balance other countries in Europe,)? But I know that if you pass through Berlin, you pass through Germany, and if you pass through Germany, you pass through Europe. That's the principle. We need the support of the Germans. Now is not how to survive? Survive in the best possible way isn't it? Maybe war is like a gamble. Those who have money and those who have no money are all together, and at the end of the game, there is a stud game.
Before fighting, you can chat and laugh. During the fight, his face turned red. Officially over, duplicity. In the final analysis, it is a struggle for rights and interests. Those who lose are exploited by others, and those who win are exploited. What is the meaning of the law itself? It is necessary to review the judge's judgment statement. Fort New York trial judge submission: 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-organised system of cruelty and injustice, in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilised nations. The tribunal has carefully studied the record and found therein abundant evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against these defendants. Herr Rolfe, in his very skilful defence, has asserted that there are others who must share the ultimate responsibility for what happened here in Germany. There is truth in this. The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom is civilisation. But the tribunal does say that the men in the dock are responsible for their actions. Men who sat in black robes, in judgment on other men. Men who took part in the enactment of laws and decrees, the purpose of which was the extermination of human beings. Brutal murders and atrocities, not related to this case. It is correct to say that such crimes are the responsibility of the whole, conscious participation in a government-organized, nationwide, cruel and unjust system that violates the moral and legal principles known to all civilized nations. The court scrutinized the records and found a wealth of evidence in them that unquestionably supports the charges against the defendants. Rolfe, in his favorable defense, asserts that there are other organizations to blame, which is true. The complaining parties are tried publicly here, but the masterminds are more responsible, those who wear black robes, who judge others, who participate in the making of laws with the aim of destroying all of humanity. Men who, in executive positions, actively participated in the enforcement of these laws, illegal even under German law. The principle of criminal law in every civilised society has this in common: any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime, is guilty. Herr Rolfe further asserts that the defendant Janning was an extraordinary jurist and acted in what he thought was the best interest of his country. There is truth in this also. Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. Actively involved in an executive position Those who enforce these laws are illegal even under German law. The criminal laws of various countries share the following general principles: anyone who instigates another person to commit a crime, anyone who provides a weapon to commit a crime, and anyone who is one of the links in the crime is guilty. Mr. Rolfe further claimed that defendant Jenning was an eminent jurist (special judge) who acted in what he believed to be the best interests of his country and that he did what he believed to be allegiance to the country, indeed fact. Jenning is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forget fulness of the torture and the death of millions by the government of which he was part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. 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, We believe he hates bad things he does (we believe he hates evil). But sympathy for the present torment of his soul must not lead to forgetting the abundance of his torment and the deaths of millions in which he participated (but sympathy for his soul must not be confused with the crimes in which it participated) . Jenning's record and his fate reveal the most shocking truth about this trial (Jianning's life was reviewed in court, if he and all the other defendants were demoted as a result, if he and all the other defendants were Fallen perverts, if all the leaders of the Third Reich were tyrannical monsters and lunatics, then these events would naturally have no morals, not earthquakes, or any other natural disaster. But this trial shows that in a In a national crisis, ordinary, even capable and extraordinary people can deceive themselves into the abyss of crimes on an unimaginable scale and heinous (but the trial shows that in In such an environment, it is not surprising that everyone will commit crimes, imagine, people will not forget), men are sterilized because of political beliefs (people are twisted only because of politics), mockery of friendship and belief (betrayal of friendship and soul), Murder of children can happen easily. 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. Well, the answer to that is...survival as what?A country isn't a rock.It' In our country as well, although it is said to safeguard national interests, everything is like this. In a desperate fight, the best way is to kill with a knife, base your survival on expediency, and look the other way. Well, the answer is...survival, or something else? But a country is not a rock. It is not an extension of one's self (the state is not personal). That's what it means (it has its own interests, and nations are harder to maintain in difficult times), to the people of the world, let's keep our oath, justice, truth...and the value of human rights. Rolfe, you are particularly good at applying logic, what you imply may happen, and logically consider the times we live in, but logic alone is not right, and God is not omnipotent. For history, we can only evaluate it objectively, and let history verify the rest. "I judge you only because you are on the bench." The reason why the law needs authority is that it is used to maintain social order. Things can have many "expressions", and the law does not necessarily have to be comprehensive. It is enough to have a "principle, starting point", and the work after that is to continuously supplement and improve. What is the truth? Looking back, Jiang Ning's dialogue with the judge Ernest Jiang Ning: I am guilty, but we have achieved our ideals. It's not that we don't know, we just don't want to know and choose to go along with them. "A record, the record of the case in my memory, I want to give it to someone I can trust, someone I can trust in the trial, I know the pressure the trial puts on you, you will be criticized by public opinion, you Your decision is not wise, but if it makes sense to you, you have gained the respect of the convicted me, and in the judgment, your sentence is just." Thank you, I will keep it. Thank you "The reason I brought you here, you gotta believe, you gotta believe, I never knew that a million people would do that" You know, when you convict the first innocent . This reminds me of the man in Les Miserables who was imprisoned for decades for stealing a piece of bread. He was later redeemed by stealing the priest's silver key, and all his actions in the future. I think that what I have done will definitely not exist because of regret, but regret to some extent can make it exist in another way better. It's just that there is a difference between things. Not everything can be forgiven and redeemed, such as "injury". Don't look at the result of the trial, just look at whether it should be tried or not. The truth of the matter is that these things are indeed what you did, and you should be judged. There is no other "reason". As a judge, what he judges is exactly the same , "
View more about Judgment at Nuremberg reviews
