Nuremberg: Tyranny on Trial

Producing a two and a half hour documentary on the Nuremberg Trial is like producing a feature length movie based on a twenty-thousand page novel. It merely skims the surface. It does not provide much in-depth analysis of the issues relating to the trial but does succeed in calling attention to the main themes of the trial and explains how it was conducted. To its credit, the documentary includes segments of the atrocity films that were introduced as evidence of Nazi barbarity and even today these news reels convey the horror of the concentrations camps. One can only be amazed at the appalling condition of Europe immediately after the war and how the whole world was forced to confront a whole range of issues raised by the existence of the concentration camps. If anyone doubts that the Holocaust occurred, this documentary will put such doubts to rest. And if doubts still persist, then there are other issues at play that would require their own documentary.

I have watched several treatments of the Nuremberg Trials -- including documentaries, re-enactments, and a semi-fictionalized movie -- and this is the most informative.

The list of experts interviewed is not long, and the production values are not slick, but Nuremberg: Tyranny on Trial provides a good historical framework of the complex subject, plus analysis from the commentators that helps interpret the facts and put them into perspective.

The BBC's "Nuremberg: Nazis on Trial" lacked these elements, though it did do an excellent job of bringing the defendants, as well as the participants on the Allied side, to life. There did seem to be an odd bias against Justice Robert Jackson, with the repeated playing of a scene where Goering gets the better of him, and he loses his temper.

While cross examination did not seem to Jackson's strong suit, at least at this point in his career, there was a side to this incident that was not explained in the BBC documentary, but was in Tyranny on Trial. The British justices had insisted that the defendants be given an unlimited amount of time on the stand to say whatever they wanted in rebuttal to the charges. They wanted to make it impossible for anyone to say they were denied a fair trial.

It turned out the famous scene of Justice Jackson losing his temper occurred when the court had given Goering more than two days to say whatever he wanted to during Jackson's cross examination, and Goering had scored some points Jackson could have rebutted better. This was not mentioned in any of the other treatments.

The toughest issue when covering Nuremberg is handling the interpretation of Albert Speer. How guilty was he, and was he truly repentant, or just playing on the sympathies of the court? This account glosses over these questions. With the benefit of greater historical information now, it is apparent that Speer played a more active role in the Holocaust and in the abuse of slave labor than was realized at the time. But, even so, the verdict of the court to let him live, with a 20 year prison sentence, appears to have been the right one because he has proved invaluable in providing first hand insight into the Nazi regime. "Nazis on Trial" provides more depth on Speer.

Obviously, the lengthy Nuremberg trials are an exceedingly complex subject, and the English, Americans, French, Russians and Germans would all tend to have different perspectives. But a documentary should try to be objective, and not take sides. "Tyranny on Trial" seems to do a good job at staying objective and factual, while still helping the viewer understand the complex subject with expert analysis.

I can't help wondering if the best documentary on Nuremberg has yet to be made. It is a little late to interview the participants. But it would be interesting to hear from modern Germans on what they thought of the way it was handled. And modern historians may be able to provide more perspective on this episode of history.

This is a difficult video to review since some readers will confuse a condemnation of the Nuremberg Trials as an endorsement of Naziism. I will say at the outset that my bonafides in anti-Naziism are as good as any decent American's, so there! Let me now say that my reason for giving this documentary a bad rating is because it slavishly follows the standard line about how these trials were some kind of marker post towards ushering in a more just world--kind of like the United Nations and other post-war Utopian endeavors. But consider the following: 1) the Soviet main judge, Iona Niktchenko, presided over some of the most infamous Stalinist show trials during the 1930's. 2) The Soviet Union (as must have been known by many high ranking Americans and British) was guilty of at least as great atrocities (the charge of crimes against humanity) as the Nazis--including persecution of Jews. 3) The charge that Germany embarked on a "war of aggression" was true also of the Soviet Union who shared with the Nazis the spoils of the invasion of Poland in 1939 and who attacked Finland--an act of pure conquest. The Bolshevik regime also gobbled up many surrounding countries including the Baltic States. 4) A number of important Americans--including Francis Biddle--considered the trial as little more than "victor's justice". Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone considered the conduct of the trials to be a mere pretense for a court of common law and was skeptical of Robert Jackson's sanctimonious bloviations; which, by the way, almost resulted in the undoing of the Allies case as it was clear that in detailed questioning Jackson was no match for Goering. 5) It has led to the continuing mischief of the accusation of war crimes which is being applied by some to such as former President Bush. The pertinence of these points to this documentary is that it did not raise a single one of them; yet they have been part of the debate surrounding the trials since they ended. It is yet another example of the lazy journalism that is so characteristic of the modern era.