‘Nuremberg’ may be more timely than ever
The Civil Society Film Series is presenting Stanley Kramer’s 1961 classic “Judgment at Nuremberg,” and it is a movie everyone should see if they want a bald look at how a country becomes a lawful atrocity.
Based on the real-life Judges’ Trial, the third of the 12 trials American officials held for war crimes in their occupation zone after the end of World War II, and set two years after the end of the war, the film follows American judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) as he oversees the tribunal of four German judges who aided Hitler in the Third Reich.
At the heart of the matter is Nazi Germany’s fear of “genetic pollutants” and miscegenation, which led to such policies as forced sterilization. The defense counsel, Hans Rolfe (Maximilian Schell), puts forward a novel legal theory. He sees the entirety of the German people being on trial and therefore partially responsible for the actions of the accused jurists.
It’s a movie that was undeniably social-justice oriented even as the Cold War raged. Many of the big-name actors, such as Tracy and Burt Lancaster, appeared for a fraction of their normal fee as a sign of faith in the project, and it was unflinching in how it handled moral ambiguity. It was rare in film at this time to see the American military portrayed in a less than glowing light, not to mention how it highlights political pressure to treat the lesser-known Nazis more leniently in order to secure Germany’s aid in the growing Cold War. Add to the fact that Schell was himself part of a family that fled Hitler’s rule, and you have a very potent mixture of ideas that would be notable today, let alone in the 1960s.
“Judgment at Nuremberg” has many lessons it might do for modern audiences to learn, particularly in America, as we struggle with people being held in facilities that have been characterized as concentration camps. What the film is most critical of is how good, lawabiding people compromise to the point of genocide.
Take the notable scene featuring John Wengraf as Dr. Wieck, a former law professor and mentor to one of the accused. At first he is an almost cartoonish paragon of legal virtue. His answers to how one should have responded to rising anti-Semitism are short, brutal and unquestionable. He has no pity for his protégé and the horrors of sterilization he helped wrought. Wisdom and righteousness are embodied in his every line. One bit is worth quoting verbatim.
Chief Judge Dan Haywood: Did the judiciary protest these laws abridging their independence?
Dr. Karl Wieck: A few of them did. Those who did resigned or were forced to resign. Others … adapted themselves to the new situation.
Wieck also highlights the increasing use of the death penalty for crimes, something with a chilling echo right now as the Trump administration reinstitutes the death penalty in federal cases.
Yet, after all his bluster, Rolfe takes Wieck down quite a few pegs. He compares the Nazi sterilization practices to those approved of by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck v. Bell, and gets Wieck to admit he personally swore a loyalty oath to Hitler because “it was mandatory.” Conclusion: Wieck may not have been a Nazi, but he was not innocent of the compromises that led to the Holocaust. Nor are the Americans who are sitting in judgment at the tribunal. It’s worth remembering how inspired Hitler was by Andrew Jackson’s policies towards the Native Americans when he was plotting his version of the concentration camp.
When “Judgment at Nuremberg” is spoken of, it’s largely in the context of the courtroom drama genre as well as its exemplary script and cast (these include a very young William Shatner and Judy Garland, who would be nominated for an Oscar for her performance).
Yet, beyond just being a great example of film, it is an almostprescient piece of art that should be a blueprint against the slow spread of racist dictatorship. I suspect that’s one of the reasons the Holocaust Museum is screening this fine film for a public perhaps in need of a reminder.