Speaking of which, this is not a film review. The reason why it appears here is purely because I have too many words and exceeded the word limit for short reviews.
The following is just my humble opinion on Ernest Jiangning and his controversies.
In this controversial trial, Ernest Jiang Ning is undoubtedly the most controversial defendant, and he is the biggest focus of contradictions in this trial. An argument about Ernest Jiang Ning's guilt and innocence was staged in turn. In addition to the indictment against him by the inspection team, he himself made a large confession to analyze his guilt, but obviously his defense lawyer did not. Thought: "Ernest Jiang Ning said he was guilty, if he was, then Ernest Jiang Ning's sin was the sin of the whole world, no more, no less, that's all".
His defense attorney suggested to the world that his client's claim of guilt was due to his guilt. In his brilliant debate logic, if his client is guilty, then the Soviet Union, which signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939, the Vatican, which signed a religious agreement with Hitler in 1933, the British leader Churchill, who had a subtle attitude towards Hitler, and the World War II period. U.S. arms dealers who sell arms to Germany are not immune to the blame. Yes, where is their responsibility? At first, the whole world heard Hitler's speech and caught a glimpse of his ambitions. In the end, it had nothing to do with itself, until the situation became uncontrollable and hurt vital interests... In the budding stage of "evil", every one was indifferent. We are all accomplices, yes, "not only Germany is guilty, but the whole world, like Germany, needs to be held accountable to Hitler". What a beautiful total sinking, one speech made everyone present at the scene speechless.
Now let's go back to the trial of the judiciary of Nazi Germany under Hitler, represented by Ernest Jiang Ning. Are the law enforcers accountable to the Nazis in power and the legislators? At the root, all their rules of conduct are only loyal to their country, based on the law itself. But, apart from obedience, apart from compromising, do they really have nothing else to do? They claim to know nothing about the atrocities of the Nazis, and they are forced to choose to enforce the existence of evil laws. Do they really not see it, or do they not want to see it? Is there no other choice, or has a choice been made?
If a thing is wrong in itself, no matter how lofty the ideal may be, it cannot be used as an excuse to justify the perpetrator of this wrong event, who is "guilty" simply because he has done "wrong things", although he is equally Hate this "mistake". "The Feldster Case" - a case that should not have been tried but had to be tried, the stain of Jiang Ning's life, when he for the first time abandoned "ego justice" and chose "national interests", he It should be expected that the tragedy of millions of people in Nazi concentration camps will be staged.
He may be innocent, but he is by no means innocent. Of course, these Third Reich judiciaries were not hunters who started slaughtering. They personally participated in the slaughter, but they forged swords and guns and handed them into the hands of hunters. It is undeniable, as Judge Dan Heywood said, that Ernest Jiangning was a tragic figure, and we have compassion for his soul and abhorrence for his actions, and there is no conflict.
What I have to mention so far is that the biggest irony of this trial is that in the context of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, the US-led trial against Germany has long been unjust, and it cannot escape political considerations. They need the support of the German people more than to seek so-called justice, so we have seen pressure on judges and prosecutors time and time again, and they are more looking forward to a politically favorable verdict. Going back to the title, war is the behavior of the state, and individuals should be held responsible for it. This issue may not be settled in another 100 years. As for the ending given in the movie, I think I accept it. I agree with Dan Hai Judge Wood's decision, although it was shaken in the middle. However, wearing that robe does not mean that he will swear to the death to defend justice all his life?
Fortunately, some succumbed to politics, and some stood by justice.
View more about Judgment at Nuremberg reviews
