Judgment at Nuremberg (1961), a work of Stanley Kramer is set at a time when the Allies defeated Germany and are now holding trials of numerous Nazi officials who aided in the Holocaust in military tribunals set up at Nuremberg. The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military trials held after World War II to indict several former Nazi leaders and officials.
This film, ‘Judgment at Nuremberg,’ is a dramatization of the Nuremberg trials of four fictionalized judges, who were shown to be responsible for putting Nazi law and practices into effect through their various orders and judgments.
While the Nuremberg Trials indicted almost all those who were accused, the main question that has been discussed even after almost eighty years since the Holocaust happened, is who actually was to blame for the genocide. Was it Hitler for spearheading the movement, the numerous players who worked behind the scenes giving effect to his orders or those Germans who said nothing and accepted what was happening? Or was it the Western powers that saw what was happening but refused to take appropriate action until it was too late?
For example, more than 300 Jewish organizations attempted to appeal to American President Franklin Roosevelt concerning the persecution of the Jews but because they didn’t have much political clout, no one paid them any attention. This movie interposes these themes along with the blatant brutality of Nazi Germany. It attempts to juxtapose law, morality and justice and explores the need to ascribe responsibility.
Plot of Judgment at Nuremberg
The movie begins in 1948, in war-torn Nuremberg, Germany when American Justice Haywood arrives to adjudicate and preside over the trial of four judges. The trial’s location in Nuremberg is significant because the city was once the centre of Nazi power and hosted the majority of Hitler’s rallies. The trials were held in the Palace of Justice.
Emil Hahn, Fredrich Hofstetter, Warner Lampe, and Ernst Janning were the four judges charged with crimes against humanity. While all four were on trial, the film and trial focused on Janning, who was revealed to be a
highly educated and well-respected international jurist.
The trial commences from the very beginning of the movie and the Prosecution, led by Col. Tad Lawson, and the defence attorney, Hans Rolfe, present equally compelling cases. Haywood attempts to identify how the
Germans could have turned a blind eye to the atrocities happening right under their noses.
In the course of his informal inquiries, he speaks to his servants and Mrs Berthold, a war widow, all of whom say that they were never aware of what was happening and the genocide was being conducted with utmost secrecy. However, Haywood is not convinced.
Meanwhile, in the trial, the Prosecution had to prove the crime beyond any reasonable doubt. Through its arguments, it draws to light the fact that the judges knowingly allowed people to be sent to concentration camps. They had perverted justice in the name of the law and were responsible for crimes against humanity.
The judges were mature enough to understand Hitler’s brainwashing and were not caught up in the frenzy that overtook the rest of the German youth. They gave judgments out of their own free will and conscience. The Prosecution also appealed to the emotion of the courtroom by showing gruesome pictures of bodies and skeletons being recovered from concentration camps to bolster their case.
The defence, on the other hand, skillfully rebutted the Prosecution’s arguments. Rolfe spoke about the judges on trial’s impeccable character, their reputation as true patriots, and their responsibility to carry the law, not make it.
The two main weapons of the Prosecution against Janning were the sterilization drive of the Nazis and the Feldstein-Hoffman affair. The sterilization drive of the Nazis began in the 1930s when large groups of people were forcefully sterilized based on eugenics and racial categorization.
Further, people who, politically and ideologically, opposed the National Socialist Party were also sterilized. Janning was held responsible for giving orders that put in effect those sterilizations. A witness was brought
in who had been sterilized on the order of Janning in the name of mental incompetency.
The Prosecution claimed that the person was sterilized because he belongs to the Communist Party, a political rival to Hitler. However, the defence was able to show that the person was mentally incompetent which was an internationally approved reason to sterilize.
The Feldstein-Hoffman affair was an embodiment of the notorious Nazi law which prevented relations between Aryans and non-Aryans. In this case, there were allegations of intimate relations between Irene Hoffman, a young Aryan woman and an elder Jew man, Feldstein.
The man was later convicted on charges of “blood defilement” and given a death sentence. The Prosecution, in the present trial, brought in Irene Hoffman as a witness who categorically testified that there were no intimate relations between her and Feldstein and that she was forced to keep quiet during that trial.
The defence attorney attempted to demonstrate that the two had intimate relations and that Janning, who rendered the final verdict in that case, was simply following the law. In an unexpected turn of events, Janning stood up in court, spoke up, and stopped the defence attorney from bothering Irene Hoffman while she was in the witness box.
Also Read: Movie Review: OMG: Oh My God!
Judge Haywood allowed Janning to make his statement the next day, and through what is one of the most powerful speeches in the movie, Janning admits to being biased on the day of the trial of the Feldstein case. He states that the case was a sacrificial ritual and that he allowed it to happen because of his love for his country, The Versailles Treaty had humiliated Germany and they were starved for respect in the world, something they got through Hitler.
Janning confessed that he truly believed that if it meant the good of his country, Hitler could be allowed to bend the rules a bit. He expected Hitler to slowly fade away, leaving behind Germany at great heights. However, the situation spun out of control and yet they went along with it out of patriotism.
Judge Haywood attempts to make a decision despite the arguments and confession. The Judgment was to be issued during the 1948 Czech Revolt when the Americans desperately needed German support. As a result, numerous attempts were made to influence Haywood’s decision in the trial.
In the end, all four judges were convicted with life imprisonment. Throughout the trial, it was apparent why all four judges supported Nazism. One was afraid, one was following orders, one actually believed in Nazism
and one was a patriot. Yet, it was held that these could not be justifications for their crimes. The title card at the end of the movie informs the audience that out of the 99 convicts of the actual Nuremberg trials, none remained in prison when the movie was released in 1961.
Thematic Analysis
1. Law and Justice
The interaction between law and justice was the film’s most significant subject. While the prosecution argued that justice should have been the judges’ first priority, the defence argued that law should take precedence. In technical terms, it is critical to understand the concepts of law and justice.
In essence, laws codify ideals of justice. Laws are rules that govern how people behave in society. Even though there are no fully systematized laws in place, today people recognize what is right and wrong. As a result, the principal role of the law is to punish those who transgress it authoritatively.
While laws are generally in consonance with justice, in some situations they go against it. A major example of this is the laws of Nazi Germany. The laws that targeted the Jews were not only unjust and discriminatory but there were also brutal to the extent that they paved the way for killing millions. In these instances, the law cannot be allowed to take supremacy and the shared sense of justice should prevail.
It is important to note that unjust laws get validated by the people that govern them. This is because the people in power get that power because of popular support. Thus, the Nazi laws were successful because the Aryan population of Germany believed that killing Jews is justified for the benefit of the country.
While German propaganda solidified this belief to a great extent, the more educated and mature people who worked for Hitler could not claim the defence of being brainwashed. Further, Janning stated that he did what he did for the benefit of his country, even when he knew they were wrong. This kind of mentality is dangerous as it can justify anything and everything, leading to consequences like the Holocaust.
However, the main question is whether the Nuremberg Trials were successful in acquiring justice for the Jews. The main proponents of the genocide had all committed suicide. As Judge Haywood observes at the beginning of the movie, “Hitler is gone, Goebbels is gone, and Goering is gone – committed suicide before they could hang him…now we’re down to the business of judging the doctors, businessmen and judges. Some people think they shouldn’t be judged at all.”
2. Patriotism v. Nationalism
Janning states that everything he did was for the love of his country and that he was a patriot. Even Hans Rolfe in his defence arguments showcases his love for his country. Every argument he makes is driven by the need to ensure that Germany came out of the trials with some dignity. This begs the question-what is patriotism?
Patriotism is understood as devotion to one’s country but unconditional devotion such that you ignore or refuse to accept your country’s flaws, as was seen for Janning, is not patriotism. Patriotism involves being proud of your country’s virtues while being eager to rectify its deficiencies. In the case of Janning who claimed to be a patriot, while he absolutely adored his country, it cannot be denied he ignored its deficiencies.
This crucial line of demarcation made him a nationalist, like the rest of his fellow countrymen. Nationalism is an ideology that believes that one’s love for one’s country should come above everything else. It justifies harm done in the name of the country and refuses to acknowledge the country’s shortcomings.
Therefore, nationalism is again a tricky concept as more often than not it tries to overpower goodness and rationality, as was seen in the case of Nazi Germany. The reason that Hitler came to power was that he promised to make Germany regain a powerful stature in the global landscape.
People were driven by a sense of nationalism and they refused to see and respond to the atrocities occurring in front of their eyes. As Janning says in his confession speech, “…we didn’t know because we didn’t want to know”. Every German was aware of what was happening to the Jews, yet they refused to speak up about it, making them no less guilty than Hitler himself.
3. Morality and Politics
In a conversation with Janning, defence attorney Han Rolfe stated that it remains to be seen how Americans are qualified to sit in Judgment of a man like him. Only Emil Hahn, one of the four defendants on trial, fundamentally believed what Hitler said. Except for him, none of the other characters was black and white, with Janning being the most grey.
He was a brilliant legal mind whose textbooks were once taught in law schools. As a result, he was the most qualified person in that courtroom in terms of law and justice. This made judging a person like him based on his actions even more difficult.
Furthermore, were the Americans really qualified to sit in judgment of the accused? Rolfe presents a compelling case against this saying the Americans could not claim a moral high ground, especially after they dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan that ended the war. While the Holocaust was one of the most heinous crimes to happen in the history of the world that targeted innocent victims, was the American attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki so different?
Both events ended up terminating millions of people as the effects of the atomic bombs were felt for generations. It is a common saying that ‘history is written by the winners’. The narrative that Germans are to blame for the killing of the Jews and the Japanese themselves are to blame for being killed is thus the widely accepted narrative, despite it being blatantly one-sided. This movie forces its audience to ponder these issues.
Another instance through which American morality has been deliberately questioned by the movie makers was when military brass attempted to influence Judge Haywood’s decision. The original Nuremberg trials were held in 1947 but in this dramatization, the trial has been shown to take place in 1948.
This shift in date was done to show the conduction of the trials against the backdrop of the Czech Revolt of 1948 and the start of the Cold War. High-ranking officials of the American army were shown to implore Haywood to take a decision that would not upset the Germans because Germany was the tussle point between America and the Soviets. It would benefit the US more if they had strong German support.
This case demonstrates not only America’s lack of genuine devotion to justice but also how justice and morals are routinely sacrificed for political benefit. The political gain was what pushed Hitler to power, what kept Roosevelt from intervening, and what facilitated the release of all those convicted in the actual Nuremberg trials.
Therefore, considering all these points, I would say the movie, in all, is a must-watch to anyone interested in exploring the nitigrities involved in law and justice. Kramer has adequately displayed the same along with showing that morality is not so black and white.‘Judgment at Nuremberg’ presents a detailed description of the issues that occurred during the Nuremberg trials in assessing the accountability of major individuals in the Holocaust and serving justice in the face of political influences.
As a result, the film’s portrayal of these issues in a landmark case created a precedent for today’s international legal organizations. The film does not deny the trials’ intrinsic flaws, which have already been discussed. Rather, it embraces them in all of their complexity to show that international justice, while chaotic, complex, and often contradictory, is important to sustain a standard of human rights and essential to ensuring long-term peace.
Thank you for taking the time to read this! Please share this article if you enjoyed it. Also, you can follow us on Instagram, Facebook, and Pinterest to get more interesting articles.