Nuremberg After Viewing Activity
The film Nuremberg was based upon a book by Joseph Persico called
Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial. The author and the movie’s scriptwriters had
access to both trial records and the research notes of Army psychologist
Capt. Gustav Gilbert in the writing of their works.
The film and the trials centered around four themes: justice, individual
responsibility, evil, and the power of propaganda. Choose one of these
themes, read the information provided and answer the questions
regarding it on a separate sheet of paper.
Justice:
“The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter
how it is hedged about with the forms of law.” – Senator Robert Taft
“Mr. Justice Jackson has said repeatedly that the trial will be no cut-anddried affair…no mere formality to permit the winner to kill off the loser. The
guilt of the defendants must be proved, for, as under our legal system, the
defendants will be considered innocent until proven guilty.” - Corporal Sy
Bernhard, broadcast on American Forces Network, November 10, 1945.
The Nuremberg Trials are unique international tribunals. The four Allied
nations had to agree on how to achieve a just outcome. Some critics of
the trials claimed that there was no way the German defendants could
receive a fair trial. Others believed differently.
1. How did the tribunal define “justice?” Whose idea of justice was
followed most closely?
2. How did the ideas of what was “just” differ among the Allied nations
– Great Britain, France, USSR, and US?
3. How did the defendants view the possibility, then the later reality, of
a trial for war crimes?
4. Were the actions of the defendants crimes if there was no law
against them prior to their committing them?
5. Would a trial that attempted to achieve fairness offer a more just
solution than no trial at all?
6. Should the defendants have been considered “innocent until
proven guilty”? Why or why not?
7. Referring the quotes above, do you believe justice was served in
this situation? Why or why not?
Individual Responsibility:
Many of the defendants, especially the military leaders, used what might
be called the “just following orders” defense. These men claimed to be
innocent of any crime because they were merely following the orders of
their superiors. One of the goals of the trials was to determine when this
defense ended and individual responsibility for atrocities began.
1. Are there certain circumstances where a person could feel free
from guilt, even after committing a crime? Provide examples and
explain your reasoning.
2. At what point does personal responsibility outweigh an oath to
follow orders?
3. Should individual soldiers (and others) who committed the actions in
the camps and elsewhere be charged with the same crimes as the
Nazi leaders? Why or why not?
4. Should a German citizen who lived near the camps and knew what
was going on yet did nothing to stop it, be held accountable? Why
or why not?
5. What about members of the various Nazi organizations, such as the
SS and the Gestapo? Could they be found guilty by association?
Evil:
“I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I’ve
come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic
that connects all the defendants. A genuine incapacity to feel with their
fellow man. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.” - Capt. Gustav
Gilbert in Nuremberg
“Most evil is not by design, it’s by default.” - Hermann Goering in
Nuremberg
1. If evil can be defined, how would you define it?
2. Is the Holocaust, in your opinion, evidence of evil?
3. If so, how could so many people have fallen prey to evil of this
magnitude?
4. Do you consider Goering evil? What about Speer?
5. Do you think the defendants were evil, or were there other reasons
for their behavior? Explain your reasoning.
Power of Propaganda:
Recall the following conversation between Capt. Gilbert and Albert Speer
during the trial:
Captain Gilbert: Help me understand what I witnessed today…Goering’s
ability to dominate and intimidate without possessing a shred of real
power…How do you explain it?
Speer: Habit. Instinct. Something in the German character that responds
to authority, real or imagined…
Gilbert: That’s all it is? What about the ideas he expressed? The words,
the thoughts, they had no impact?
Speer: What ideas? What thoughts? There were only platitudes. Nazi
Germany was built on empty platitudes.
Gilbert: A man like you, you were seduced by empty platitudes?
Speer: Of course – because you can hear in them any meaning you
want.
1. What did Speer mean when he said, “Nazi Germany was built on
empty platitudes.”?
2. What is the “culture of obedience” that Capt. Gilbert discovered
among Germans?
3. What role did this culture play in the German public’s susceptibility
to Hitler’s propaganda?
4. How do the experiences of the Holocaust help us today to
understand the results of a propaganda campaign, especially
when combined with hate?
Answer the following and turn in for 25 points.
1. What was the primary goal of the Nuremberg trials? Was it
achieved?
2. Which characters were the most interesting and why?
3. Do you think this subject would have been portrayed differently if
this film had been made in 1971 as opposed to 2001?
4. What do you think the filmmakers wanted you to take away from
their movie? How did they influence your thinking?
5. What did you understand differently after viewing the movie than
beforehand?
Nuremburg
The Defendants:
Martin Bormann: secretary to Hitler; indicted but not found by the time of
the trial; tried in absentia
Karl Donitz: grand admiral; commander of the German U-boat fleet
Hans Frank: governor-general of Nazi-occupied Poland
Wilhelm Frick: Nazi minister of the interior
Hans Fritzsche: chief of radio operations in the Nazi propaganda ministry
Walther Funk: president of the Reichsbank
Hermann Goering: Reichsmarschall; chief of the Luftwaffe (German Air
Force); Hitler’s second-in-command
Rudolf Hess: deputy fuhrer; fled to Scotland in 1941; prior to that he was
the third-ranking Nazi
Alfred Jodl: colonel general; operations chief of the German armed
forces
Ernst Kaltenbrunner: head of the Nazi division of security
Wilhelm Keitel: field marshal; chief of staff of the German armed forces
Konstantin von Neurath: Nazi foreign minister before Joachim von
Ribbentrop
Franz von Papen: German chancellor before Hitler; vice chancellor under
Hitler
Erich Raeder: grand admiral; commander-in-chief of the German navy
Joachim von Ribbentrop: Nazi foreign minister
Alfred Rosenberg: Nazi minister of the Occupied Eastern Territories
Fritz Sauckel: head of the German conscript labor organization
Hjalmar Schacht: president of the Reichsbank prior to Funk
Baldur von Schirach: head of the Hitler Youth
Arthur Seyss-Inquart: Nazi commissioner of occupied Holland
Albert Speer: Reich minister for armaments and war production
Julius Streicher: publisher of Der Sturmer, a Nazi propaganda newspaper
The Indictments:
First Count: Conspiracy – the defendant is accused of taking part in a
conspiracy to commit crimes.
Second Count: Crimes against Peace – the defendant is accused of
planning and waging wars of aggression in violation of international
treaties
Third Count: War Crimes – the defendant is accused of committing crimes
during the conduct of war, such as the destruction of towns not justified
by military necessity.
Fourth Count: Crimes against Humanity – the defendant is accused of
committing crimes in violation of fundamental human rights, including
extermination, enslavement, and deportation of people on political,
racial and religious grounds.
Non-Defendant Characters in Nuremberg
Justice Robert Jackson – Lead American prosecutor, takes a leave of
absence from Supreme Court to lead the case
Elsie Douglas – Jackson’s secretary (and love interest)
David Maxwell-Fythe – Lead British prosecutor
Sir Geoffrey Lawrence – British judge
Francis Biddle – American judge
Comrade General Nuriev – Soviet judge
Capt. Gustav Gilbert – American military psychologist (his memoirs are
what this movie is based on)
Col. Burton C. Andrus – American military jailer
Lt. Lloyd Wheelis (Tex) – personal guard of Goering
Herr and Frau Hossel – servants in Jackson’s quarters
Nuremberg
The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were unique international tribunals
conducted by the Allied powers following World War II. These trials were
designed to give Axis leaders and prisoners a fair trial and convict them
using the law, instead of simply executing them.
The film Nuremberg was based on a book by Joseph Persico called
Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial. The author and the movie’s scriptwriters had
access to both actual trial records and the research notes of Army
psychologist Capt. Gustav Gilbert (who you’ll see in the movie) in the
writing of their works.
The film and trials centered around four themes: justice (what is it and is it
possible), individual responsibility (instead of just following orders), the
nature of evil, and the power of propaganda.
You will be asked to keep track of the characters and defendants and to
participate in discussion about the film at the end.
The Indictments:
Indictments are provided to the accused to let them know why they are
on trial. The Nazis on trial at Nuremberg were accused of the following:
First Count: Conspiracy - the defendant is accused of taking part in a
conspiracy (a plan) to commit crimes.
Second Count: Crimes against Peace – the defendant is accused of
planning and waging wars of aggression in violation of international
treaties.
Third Count: War Crimes – the defendant is accused of committing crimes
during the conduct of war, such as the destruction of towns not justified
by military necessity.
Fourth Count: Crimes against Humanity – the defendant is accused of
committing crimes in violation of fundamental human rights, including
extermination, enslavement, and deportation of people on political,
racial and religious grounds.
Grading Rubric for Film Review
Criteria
Advanced
Proficient
Needs
Attention
Not Meet
Standard
Summary
Clear and concise,
outlines the
premise of the film
with a beginning
and conclusion
5
States premise of
film with a
beginning and
conclusion
States basic idea of
film with no
beginning or
conclusion
Does not clearly
state the idea of
the film
4
3
1-2
Thorough
explanation of at
least three reasons
like and two
reasons dislike;
explanation of
historical value of
film; well-written
and thoughtful
10
Use of quotations
excellent; reviews
were relevant and
chose both good
and bad reviews
Explanation of
why read is
adequate but not
thorough, gives
only two reasons
to like and dislike
the book
Explanation of why
read is basic, at
best; gives only 1-2
reasons
(inconsistent) to
like or dislike the
book
Little explanation
of why read; gives
only one reason
for like and/or
dislike the book
8-9
Use of quotations
good; reviews
used only agreed
or disagreed with
their own opinion
6-7
Use of quotations
sketchy, if at all;
reviews chosen
haphazardly; little
relevance or
connection to their
own opinion 6-7
10
Conclusion is
engaging and
relates to final
recommendation
8-9
Conclusion is
adequate and
somewhat relates
to final
recommendation
4
10 points
Review of Film
(What I Liked,
What I Disliked,
and historical
value)
10 points
Other Reviews
5 or less
10 points
Conclusion
5 points
5
Conclusion is weak
and has little
relation to final
recommendation
Reviews not
quoted; not
relevant to their
own views at all
5 or less
Conclusion is not
clearly stated
1-2
3
Works Cited Page
Excellent usage of
MLA format with
no errors
Generally good
usage of MLA
format with
almost no errors
Adequate usage of
MLA format with
some errors
evident
Inadequate usage
of MLA format
with many errors
5 points
Recommendation
5
Strong and
thorough
recommendation;
convincing
explanation
4
Strong
recommendation
but not as
compelling
3
Weak
recommendation;
with little
reasoning
1-2
Extremely weak or
no
recommendation
with no
explanation
10 points
10
8-9
6-7
1-2
Total
Score