What We Can Learn From ‘Judgment at Nuremberg’ — Stanley Kramer’s Masterpiece
This courtroom drama teaches us a lot about remaining silent in the face of injustice.
--
Judgment at Nuremberg explores many themes. The film contemplates the definition of ‘justice.’ It asks who is to blame in the rise of injustice and observes the many ways well-intentioned people who want the best for their country could fall in line behind the Nazi Party whether it be being willfully ignorant to the Nazi Party’s actions, or witnessing the atrocities and standing by in silence. But the main theme Judgment at Nuremberg explores is whether silence is compliance.
The film elaborates at great detail on the meaning of justice. Is it justice if you’re just following orders? Is it justice to uphold the rule of law in your country’s established laws even if they conflict with your personal morals? Is it justice to maintain a position in an administration you know to be morally unjust in fear someone worse could take your spot? And ultimately the film asks, do you bear responsibility for remaining silent while witnessing the atrocities?
The 1961 film by acclaimed director Stanley Kramer and written by Abby Mann follows Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracey, who would get nominated for an Oscar) who tries four Nazis for war crimes in 1948 American occupied Germany.
The courtroom drama focuses on four philosophies. These philosophies are represented through several characters. The prosecution is Col.Tad Lawson (Richard Widmark), a go-getting American Colonel who liberated several concentration camps and is hellbent on prosecuting anyone and everyone involved in Nazi Germany for their atrocities. Mrs. Betholt (Marlene Dietrich) is the widow of a Nazi General who claims she nor the German people knew of the party’s actions. Dr. Ernst Yanning (Burt Lancaster), a lifetime physician credited with great contributions to many medical and historical textbooks who gets swept up into the Nazi Party but remains silent about his concerns of the party’s actions. And the fourth philosophy is represented by Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell, who would win on Oscar for this performance) who represents Yanning and argues that the Nuremberg trials are not only a trial of the entire Germanic people, but the whole world.
These philosophies are showcased inside and outside the courtroom. Judge Haywood spends his time outside the courtroom getting acquainted with Germany. He befriends Mrs. Bertholt who shows him around town and gives him a different insight into the Germans. She claims they love to sing and often sing sad songs. This coincides with a speech from Yanning (linked later on) about the state of Germany before Hitler’s rise to power — about how the German people were desperate to hold their heads up high and be proud to be German. “There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace…”
Mrs. Bertholt takes Judge Haywood to dinner after witnessing real footage of the concentration camps and attempts to persuade Haywood that no one — even her lifelong military husband — knew of these atrocities. She asks him “is that what you think we are? Do you think we knew of those things?” in one of my favorite scenes of all time:
Lawson gets annoyed at the notion that Germans didn’t know of the concentration camps and Hitler’s genocidal policies. At a dinner, a drunk Lawson sarcastically tells Judge Haywood “there are no Nazis in Germany, don’t you know that, Judge? The Eskimos invaded Germany and took over. That’s how all these terrible things happened.” Lawson makes the audience horrified at the events of the Holocaust and represents those blinded by a quest for justice. But those blinded weren’t assessing the nuance or damage that could be caused to a nation’s people in the face of hell-bent punishment. It was almost as easy for Lawson to fall into the blind hate and finger-pointing that he was accusing Germans of.
Later in the courtroom, Rolfe is viciously questioning Irene Hoffman (Judy Garland, returning to acting after seven years) an Aryan woman accused of having relations with an elderly Jewish man (a fictionalized version of the Katzenberger trial.) Janning interrupts Rolfe, asking him “are we going to do this again?” Janning stops his counsel’s line of questioning because of the inner conflict and burden he’s been carrying since he got involved with the Nazi Party — remaining silent. He is no longer silent as he witnesses another injustice. Janning takes the stand and delivers a powerful speech asking “What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country.” Janning speaks of how well-intentioned people got swept up into the Nazi Party for “love of country:”
And the fourth philosophy, masterfully encapsulated in an amazing performance by Maximilian Schell as Hans Rolfe. One of the most intriguing parts of this film is that Rolfe makes good arguments. Not only in the way of a good lawyer that knows the rules enough to fog the definitions of justice, but philosophically makes the case of it being easy to remain silent in the face of injustice when it isn’t directly affecting you. He equates the silence of Yanning to the silence of the world and gives examples of those just as guilty. Rolfe claims he wants to restore dignity to the German people and that if they are on trial, so is the entire world. “Ernst Yanning’s guilt is the world’s guilt:”
Not only is this film a masterpiece in every sense of the word on a technical and artistic level, but an even better compliment to give it is also its ability to stand the test of time. At nearly 60 years old it’s still relevant today and still exhilarating to watch. These questions are questions we need to be asking ourselves now.
How many of us are remaining silent in the face of injustices? If these injustices do not affect you, are you willfully being ignorant of the pleas from other people? Are you, like Yanning, thinking these injustices are just a passing phase and keep telling yourself the grass is greener because of ‘love of country?’ and nebulous hopeful visions of the future.
Well-intentioned people can get radicalized and swept up into something they don’t intrinsically agree with — and this movie teaches us that though it doesn’t absolve them from guilt, it’s easier than we’d think. Being cognizant of these injustices isn’t enough. Silently questioning these injustices isn’t enough. Like Rolfe says “it’s easy to condemn one man in the dark” and it is easy to speak of the basic flaw in the character of those who allowed injustices to rise. But if we are to do that, we must ask if those who remain silent are to also be condemned.
We can’t tell ourselves these injustices are just a passing phase. We don’t want to one day look around and as Yanning said, be “in an even more terrible danger.” We can’t be content with tending to our roses. For it to be enough we must not make the same mistake Yanning did. We must make a statement. We must not remain silent in the face of injustice and we must not ignore those who remain silent.
Judgment at Nuremberg reminds us silence is compliance.
