Judgment at Nuremberg

7 out of 7

I watched this film as an extra credit assignment for my Intro to Ethics class at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. What follows below are the questions I had to answer for the extra credit and my answers. The questions and answers, I feel, provide plenty of information...at least enough to suffice as a review. The film stars Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland and a young William Shatner.

1. What sort of competing pressures does the tribunal judge, Judge Hayward, face as he tries to make the right decision?

Judgment at Nuremberg does a great job of never allowing the viewer an objective stance on the dilemma at hand, that is to say that the viewer is constantly (if he or she is watching carefully) wrestling personally/emotionally along with Judge Hayward, as the film’s narrative perspective is through him. With that said, the pressures on Judge Hayward are many and change throughout the development of the plot. This question, however, probably necessitates a more concise answer, thus the predominant pressures on Judge Hayward are to “…find a code of justice that the whole world will be responsible to” and to define what it means to be an accessory to a crime. These pressures are intensified by his personal relationship with Mrs. Bertholt, the widow of a former Nazi General, by his experiences in war-weary Germany and by the Russian invasion of Berlin and the impending “Cold War.”

2. How do the defendants, their defense attorneys, and Judge Hayward each see the ethical responsibilities of the judges during the Nazi regime? What do they each see as justice, and whose view seems most correct to you and why?

The defense attorney, Hans Rolfe, sees the ethical responsibility of the judges of Nazi Germany to uphold the laws of the State. His opening comments includes an old American adage “my country, right or wrong.” For Rolfe, ethics ends where the State’s rules begin (not exclusively, that is, but potentially). By and large, three of Rolfe’s clients (Emil Hahn, Werner Lampe, and Friedrich Hofstetter) all agree with such a claim to the point that Hahn even says, upon his guilty conviction, “Today you call me guilty, tomorrow the Bolshevik’s call you guilty.” The fourth, and most credible of the judges on trial, Dr. Ernst Janning, believes that the judges had an ethical responsibility to stop the Nazi regime, but says they did not do so out of a desire for a better life, that they had accepted what they thought was a “passing phase” for “a way of life.” Judge Hayward would most likely agree with Janning (indeed, his ruling suggests as much) and says that “The principle of criminal law is that if any person who sways another to commit murder… …is an accessory to the crime” and “is guilty.” Within each character’s view is a sense of justice, with Rolfe being much more Utilitarian in his approach (he supports the removal of a few for the benefit of many, if not in his own personal action, then as a historical fact in Germany’s actions. More so, he sees the purpose of the trial as not a means to bringing about justice, but as a means of leaving the German people a shred of dignity. This very sentiment, once articulated, puts him on a different ideological playing field than the client he represents), while Janning and Hayward see justice much more as a pursuit of a virtue, in which every action either moves one closer to the virtue or further away from it and there can be no short-cutting the long road to justice. I would certain fall in line with Janning and Hayward (and Aristotle, for that matter) and say that the law, even as it is pragmatically practiced, must be in pursuit of a higher order, namely Justice. It is just as Judge Hayward says, “A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult!” These are words of virtue ethic, without which, I do not believe society can order itself most effectively. These words, if believed and pursued by the populous promote personal responsibility for everyone, which, by its very nature, starves off any and all forms of dictatorships and the potential deontological and utilitarian problems that can result from a bad dictator. More so, virtue allows a certain degree of individualism that the Bible shows is essential to humanity. Just as God did not create will-less replicas of Himself to worship Him, neither should the citizen be a will-less replica of the leader, meant to follow the leader without thought or concern. Finally, I believe that the very existence of the notion that we aren’t meant just to follow will-lessly the leadership of another is a by-product of our created order, but now I have breached metaphysics in my ethical pursuits.

3. From you own perspectice and the readings you've done, what role do you think the church in that time and place could most usefully have in helping the country go forward? What attitudes would the church need to challenge?

Janning ends his statement on the stand with the following line: “It is not easy to tell the truth; but if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it... whatever the pain and humiliation.” The church can easily recognize these sentiments when it looks upon its own infidelity to God. And like Germany, if there is to be any salvation for the church, “we who know our guilt must admit it…whatever the pain and humiliation.” Thankfully, though, the church has a loving and redemptive God to see us through the pain and humiliation and back into a right place. As this metaphor continues, then, it is possible for Germany to also admit their guilt and move forward. The church should be there, in that process, exposing as many as possible to the healing relationship found in Christ. Verhey’s article about the different ethics in the Bible, particularly his section on the New Testament, affirms such a stance. And, while Verhey may be writing to or about the individual, his words may yet have meaning for a community of people, even a community as large as a country. It is interesting to note, however, that the film tries to demonstrate (particularly through Mrs. Brecht) how each German must come to terms with this guilt on an individual basis. As such, the church would have much work in doing personal ministry to each person as he or she comes to terms, in their own time, to the atrocity perpetuate by their state and for their benefit. Those, of course, who were closest to it are most likely to have to deal with this guilt first, but as demonstrated by the Feldenstein case (and Irene Wallner), even those who had no authority, but rather were under it, also must process their pain and humiliation. As the church helps in the healing of one individual after another, it is possible that this healing will spread until it is a cultural phenomena, with each individual having a unique story, but sharing in a common experience.

This ends the Q&A section, but something else I noticed and left as a note for my professor at the end of the assignment was the way sexuality permeates the film, though hardly in a steamy or sexy way. Below is my note.

A quick note to the professor: I feel that the film had an underlying sexual strain. Each of the cases dealt with sexuality in some capacity (i.e. sterilization, “racial pollution” via sexual conduct, etc…). More so, Judge Hayward’s relationship with Mrs. Brecht almost threatened the integrity of the case and ruling. Add to that the ambiguous ending with him trying to reach her and I do not know what to make of this sexual tension throughout the film. It is not so much titillating, as it is subtly meaningful. I’d hardly want you to think I found this film arousing in any capacity, but was wondering just what to make of the continued underlying sexual issues. If you have any thoughts, please let me know.