Emil Hahn will be there?
Yes. In the dock.
Ernst Janning?
Yes.
You saw the store downstairs.
It's not much, but it's a new start for us.
They will come if I go to Nuremberg.
They will come and break the windows of the store.
I'll place a guard in front of the store 24 hours a day.
- You do not have to go, Irene... - Irene, you do have to go.
You have to go for all the people who can't get on the stand themselves.
- You do not owe it to anybody, Irene. - Yes, you do!
You owe it to one person at least.
(sobs)
In the night...
every night...
we've known somehow it would come to this.
(Radnitz) Dr Geuter, do you recognise that headline?
Yes, sir.
Would you read it to the tribunal?
"Death to the race defiler."
- In what newspaper did it appear? - Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer.
What was it in connection with?
The Feldenstein case.
What was the Feldenstein case?
Your Honour! The defence objects to introduction of the Feldenstein case.
It is a notorious case, perhaps the most notorious of the period.
It has overtones and appeals to emotion that would perhaps be best not raised.
There are no issues or overtones that may not be raised in this courtroom.
The tribunal is interested in everything that is relevant. Objection is overruled.
It's all right. I'll take it.
- May it please the tribunal? - You may continue.
Thank you.
Now, what was the Feldenstein case?
The case of a man accused of racial pollution.
Will you explain what is meant by "racial pollution"?
This is the charge that is referred to in the Nuremberg laws.
Any non-Aryan having sexual relations with an Aryan may be punished by death.
When did you first become acquainted with the Feldenstein case?
In September 1935 I was contacted by the police.
They said that Mr Feldenstein was being held
and that he requested that I serve as his counsellor.
What position did he hold in the community?
He was a very well-known merchant.
He was one of the heads of the Jewish Congregation in Nuremberg.
What was the nature of the charge against him?
He was accused of having intimate relations
with a 16-year-old girl, Irene Hoffman.
(Lawson) I see.
And what did he say to you about the case?
He said it was false.
He said he knew the girl and her family a long time.
He'd gone to visit her since they died.
But there had never been anything of the kind charged between them.
Doctor, would you please tell the tribunal what happened then?
He was indicted before the special court at Nuremberg.
(Lawson) Where was this special court?
It was right here. This building. This very courtroom.
Dr Geuter, what were the circumstances surrounding the trial?
It was used as a showplace for National Socialism.
It was the time of the September celebrations, the Nuremberg rallies.
The courtroom was crowded.
Back there, people were standing up.
Julius Streicher was sitting in one of the front seats.
And high officials of the Nazi party were all over.
Doctor, would you please tell us
what were your expectations for the trial in this climate?
I expected the worst
when I saw that Emil Hahn was the public prosecutor.
He was a fanatic.
His trials were always marked by extreme brutality.
But I had one hope for the outcome,
because sitting on the judge's bench was Ernst Janning.
His reputation was known throughout Germany.
He was known to have dedicated his life to justice,
to the concept of justice.
Thank you. That's all.
(Haywood) Any questions?
Thank you. No questions.
(Haywood) The witness is excused.
The prosecution calls to the stand Irene Hoffman Wallner.
Will you raise your right hand?
I swear by God the Almighty and Omniscient
that I will speak the pure truth and withhold and add nothing.
I do.
Will you please state your name to the tribunal?
Irene Hoffman Wallner.
Mrs Wallner, did you know Lehman Feldenstein?
Yes.
When did you first meet him?
It was 1925 or 1926. I am not sure exactly.
- How old was he at this time? - He was in his fifties.
And how old was he at the time of his arrest?
- He was 65. - I see.
What was the nature of your relationship?
We were friends.
Did you continue to see him after your parents died?
- Yes. - Why?
We were friends. He owned the building that I lived in.
His business took him there quite often.
Now, what did you say to the police
when they questioned you about having intimate relations with him?
I told them it was a lie.
Could you tell me who the public prosecutor was?
Emil Hahn.
- Did Emil Hahn question you? - Yes.
What did he say to you?
He... took me into a separate room
where we were alone.
He told me that it was no use to repeat my story
because no one would believe me.
That there had been race defilement,
and the only pardon for this was to kill the violator.
He told me that if I protected Mr Feldenstein,
that I would be held under arrest for perjury.
What did you reply to him?
I told him what I had said, again and again.
I told him that I could not say anything else,
I could not lie about someone who had been so kind to me.
Were you held under arrest?
Yes.
Mrs Wallner, tell us,
what was the manner in which Emil Hahn conducted the prosecution?
He made a mockery
of everything Mr Feldenstein tried to say in his own defence.
He held him up to ridicule whenever possible.
What was the reaction of the audience?
They laughed again and again.
How long did the trial last?
Mrs Wallner?
How long did the trial last?
Two days.
Was the verdict passed at the end of the second day?
Yes.
- What was the verdict? - Guilty.
And what was the sentence?
Mr Feldenstein was sentenced to be executed.
I was sentenced to be in prison for two years for perjury.
Who was the presiding judge?
Ernst Janning.
Were the sentences carried out?
Thank you very much, Mrs Wallner. That's all.
Any questions?
Your Honour, I would like to request that the witness be kept available.
We will present further evidence on the Feldenstein matter
when it comes time for the defence to present its case.
The witness will please hold herself so available.
You may go. You're excused now.
(Haywood) Colonel Lawson.
Your Honours, I offer in evidence a decree, signed by Adolf Hitler,
directing that all persons accused or suspected of disloyalty
or resistance of any sort
might be arrested secretly,
with no notice to friends or relatives, without any trial whatsoever,
and put into concentration camps.
I also offer a group of orders issued under that decree,
each one signed by one of the defendants,
by which hundreds of persons were arrested
and placed in concentration camps.
Signed by Friedrich Hofstetter,
Werner Lampe,
Emil Hahn,
Ernst Janning.
Your Honours, the defendants on trial here today
did not personally administer the concentration camps.
They never had to beat victims,
or pull the lever that released gas into the chambers.
But as the documents we have introduced into this case have shown,
these defendants fashioned and executed laws,
and rendered judgments
which sent millions of victims to their destinations.
Major Radnitz.
Your Honours, I would like to request that Colonel Lawson be sworn in as a witness.
- Granted. - Thank you.
Will you raise your right hand?
I swear by God the Almighty and Omniscient
that I will speak the pure truth and withhold and add nothing.
I do.
Were you active in the United States army in 1945 at the close of the war?
Yes, I was.
Were you in command of troops liberating concentration camps?
I was.
- Were you in Dachau and Belsen? - Yes.
Were you present when the films we are about to see were taken?
Yes, I was.
OK.
The map shows the number of and location of concentration camps
under the Third Reich.
Buchenwald concentration camp was founded in 1933.
Its inmates numbered about 80,000.
There was a motto at Buchenwald:
"Break the body,
break the spirit,
break the heart."
The ovens at Buchenwald,
evidence of last-minute efforts to dispose of bodies.
The stoves were manufactured by a well-known company
which also specialised in baking ovens.
The name of the firm is clearly inscribed.
An exhibit of by-products of Buchenwald,
displayed for the local townspeople by an Allied officer.
Brushes of every description.
Shoes - adults' and children's.
Spectacles.
Gold from teeth, melted down,
sent once a month to the medical department of the Waffen SS.
A lampshade made from human skin.
Skin being used for paintings,
many having an obscene nature.
The heads of two Polish labourers,
shrunken to one-fifth their normal size.
A human pelvis used as an ashtray.
Children who had been tattooed to mark them for eventual extermination.
Sometimes mercy was shown to the children.
They were injected with morphia
so they'd be unconscious when hanged.
One of the doctors described how they'd then place ropes around their necks,
and in the doctor's own words:
"Like pictures, they were then hanged by hooks on the walls."
The bodies of those who had come in boxcars,
without food and without air,
who hadn't survived the journey to Dachau.
Hundreds of inmates were used as human guinea pigs
for atrocious medical experiments.
A witness at an execution at Dachau gave the following description:
"Inmates were made to leave their clothing on a rack."
"They were told they were going to take baths."
"Then the doors were locked."
"Tins of Zyklon B were released through the specially constructed apertures."
"You could hear the groaning and the whimpering inside."
"After two or three minutes, all was quiet."
Death transports that had arrived included 90,000 from Slovakia,
65,000 from Greece,
11,000 from France,
90,000 from Holland,
400,000 from Hungary,
250,000 from Poland and Upper Silesia,
and 100,000 from Germany.
And this is what was filmed
when British troops liberated Belsen concentration camp.
For sanitary reasons a British bulldozer had to bury the bodies
as quickly as possible.
Who were the bodies?
Members of every occupied country of Europe.
Two-thirds of the Jews of Europe... exterminated.
More than six million,
according to reports from the Nazis' own figures.
But the real figure...
no one knows.
How dare they show us those films? How dare they?
We are not executioners! We are judges.
You do not think it was like that, do you?
There were executions, yes, but nothing like that.
Nothing at all!
Pohl!
You ran those concentration camps, you and Eichmann.
They say we killed millions of people.
Millions of people!
How could it be possible?
Tell them! How could it be possible?
It's possible.
How?
You mean technically?
It all depends on your facilities.
Say you have two chambers that accommodate 2,000 people apiece.
Figure it out.
It's possible to get rid of 10,000 in a half hour.
You don't even need guards to do it.
You can tell them they are going to take a shower,
and then instead of the water, you turn on the gas.
It's not the killing that is the problem. It's disposing of the bodies.
That's the problem.
Das ist schön
Wunderschön
Das tut gut
Was man alles im Liebesrausch tut
Und zur Nacht fliegt ein flüsterndes Fleh'n
"ach verweile, du bist ja so schön"
Doch die Liebe bleibt nur, wo sie ist
Wenn man immer aufs neue sich küsst
Und so lebt...
- I'm sorry I'm late. - That's all right.
I was doing some work for the rebuilding committee.
I brought you some folders so we can decide what you should see next.
There's the Albrecht Dürer house. And the museum.
- When do you think you could make it? - Any time.
- Would you like to order now? - Can I help you with the menu?
I don't think I'll have anything, thank you.
A glass of Moselle, please.
Moselle.
What is the matter?
Nothing. I'm just not hungry, that's all.
You know...
the last few days have meant a great deal to me.
How?
I don't think you realise what a provincial man I really am.
I've been abroad just exactly once before this.
That was when I was a doughboy in World War I.
I used to pass places like this and wonder what they were like.
- They've meant a great deal to me, too. - How?
They gave me back the feeling I had of the Americans.
The feeling I used to have when I was in your country.
It's too bad this isn't a magazine story.
Why?
If it were, two people like us, the rapidly ageing jurist...
Oh, no.
The rapidly ageing jurist and the beautiful widow
would transcend their difficulties and travel places either by land or by sea.
I saw Mr Perkins today.
He told me they showed those pictures in the courtroom,
Colonel Lawson's favourite pictures.
He drags them out at any pretext, doesn't he?
Colonel Lawson's private chamber of horrors.
Is that what you think we are? Do you think we knew of those things?
Do you think we wanted to murder women and children?
Do you believe that? Do you?
Mrs Bertholt, I don't know what to believe.
Good God. We're sitting here drinking.
How could you think that we knew?
We did not know.
We did not know!
As far as I can make out, no one in this country knew.
Mrs Bertholt, your husband was one of the heads of the army.
And he did not know. I tell you, he did not know.
It was Himmler. It was Goebbels. The SS knew what happened.
We did not know.
Listen to me. There are things that happened on both sides.
My husband was a military man all his life.
He was entitled to a soldier's death. He asked for that.
I tried to get that for him. Just that, that he would die with some honour.
I went from official to official. I begged for that!
That he should be permitted the dignity of a firing squad.
You know what happened.
He was hanged with the others. And after that, I knew what it was to hate.
I never left the house. I never left the room. I drank.
I hated with every fibre of my being. I hated every American I've ever known.
But one can't live with hate. I know that.
Dan,
we have to forget if we are to go on living.
(crowd singing "Liebeslied")
Du darfst auf mich bauen
Weißt ja, wie gut ich dir bin
Ja, ja, ja, ja
Weisst doch, wie gut ich dir bin.
Und, und, wenn in der Ferne
Dir, dir, mein Bild erscheint
Dann, dann, wünscht' ich so gerne
Dass uns die Liebe vereint
Herr Rolfe.
May it please the tribunal.
Yesterday the tribunal witnessed some films.
They were... shocking films.
Devastating films.
As a German,
I feel ashamed that such things could have taken place in my country.
There can never be a justification for them,
not in generations, not in centuries.
But...
I do think it was wrong,
indecent
and terribly unfair of the prosecution
to show such films in this case, in this court, at this time
against these defendants!
And I cannot protest too strongly against such tactics.
What is the prosecution trying to prove?
That the German people as a whole were responsible for these events?
Or that they were even aware of them?
Because, if he is,
he's not stating facts
and he knows he's not.
The secrecy of the operations,
the geographical location of the camps,
the breakdown of communications in the last days of the war
when the exterminations rose into the millions,
show only too clearly that he is not telling the truth.
The truth is that these brutalities were brought about by the few extremists.
The criminals.
Very few Germans knew what was going on.
Very few.
None of us knew what was happening in the places shown on these films.
None of us.
But the most ironic part of it
is that the prosecution showed these films against these defendants,
men who stayed in power for one reason only:
To prevent worse things from happening.
Who is the braver man?
The man who escapes or resigns in times of peril?
Or the man who stays on his post at the risk of his own personal safety?
The defence will present witnesses and letters and documents
from religious and political refugees all over the world
telling how Ernst Janning saved them from execution.
The defence will show the many times
Ernst Janning was able to effect mitigation of sentences,
when without his influence the results would have been much worse.
The defence will show
that Ernst Janning's personal physician was a non-Aryan.
A Jewish man who he kept in attendance, much to his own peril.
The defence presents affidavits
from legal authorities and famed jurists the world over,
pleading that special consideration must be made in this case,
saying that the entire work of Ernst Janning was inspired by one motive only:
The endeavour to preserve justice and the concept of justice.
Now, what has the prosecution to offer against this?
The prosecution, in fact, has presented in the case of Ernst Janning
only one tangible piece of evidence.
The Feldenstein case. A notorious case, as the defence said.
A case which never should have been reopened.
A case which the defence is obliged to review now.
The defence calls Mrs Elsa Lindnow.
Will you raise your right hand?
I swear by God the Almighty and Omniscient
that I will speak the pure truth and withhold and add nothing.
I do.
Mrs Lindnow.
What is your occupation?
I am a cleaning woman.
Where are you employed?
4... 345 Grosseplatz.
- Did you know Lehman Feldenstein? - Yes, I knew him.
- In what capacity? - He was my employer in 1935.
Do you know Mrs Irene Hoffman Wallner?
Yes.
- In what capacity? - She was a tenant in the building.
Did you ever see Miss Hoffman and Mr Feldenstein together?
- Yes. - How did this happen?
Mr Feldenstein came to see Miss Hoffman at her apartment.
- Often? - Quite often.
Were there any occasions in which you noticed anything unusual?
Yes.
I saw Miss Hoffman kissing Mr Feldenstein at the door of her apartment.
- Was there any other occasion? - Yes. There was one.
- What was it? - I came to Miss Hoffman's apartment.
I wanted to clean up. I thought it was empty.
I saw Miss Hoffman sitting on Mr Feldenstein's lap.
Thank you, Mrs Lindnow. That's all.
Colonel Lawson?
Earphones, please.
Mrs Lindnow, what are your political affiliations?
Political?
Objection, Your Honour.
This witness' political affiliations have nothing to do with the testimony.
Colonel Lawson is again trying to appeal to the emotion of the court.
Objection overruled.
Now would you answer the question, please?
Were you a member of the National Socialist party?
Yes, I was.
We were forced to be.
"We were forced to be."
When did you become a member of the Nazi party?
1933.
Were all German nationals forced to become Nazi party members in 1933?
Please answer me, Mrs Lindnow!
Were you forced to become a member of the Nazi party?
That's all.
Witness is excused.
Defence may continue.
The defence calls Irene Hoffman Wallner to the stand.
(Haywood) Mrs Wallner,
you are still under oath.
Mrs Wallner, did you come here voluntarily?
Did you report voluntarily to speak as a witness?
Yes.
Is it not true that the prosecution asked you to come here?
That it was very disagreeable for you to come here?
It is always very disagreeable to live over those times.
That would be in agreement with the information I have,
that you did not want to come. Thank you, Mrs Wallner.
Mrs Wallner,
the Nuremberg laws were stated September 15th, 1935.
- Where were you at that time? - In Nuremberg.
Did you know these laws?
That a physical relationship with Jews was against the law?
Yes.
Were you aware that in Nuremberg, and in Nuremberg in particular,
not only a physical relationship with Jews was disdained, but every social contact?
Yes.
Were you aware that it might have some danger for you personally?
Yes, I was aware of it.
But how can you discard a friendship from day to day because of some...
That is another question, Mrs Wallner. I did not ask you that question.
- Were you aware of it? - Yes, I was aware.
Yet you still continued to see each other?
Yes.
It was brought out that Mr Feldenstein bought you candy and cigarettes.
Yes.
Remember that sometimes he bought you flowers?
Yes, he bought me many things.
That was because he was kind.
He was the kindest man I ever knew.
Do you know the witness, Mrs Elsa Lindnow?
Yes, I know her.
- Was she a cleaner at your apartment? - Yes.
Did Mr Feldenstein come to see you at your apartment?
- Yes. - How many times?
I don't remember.
- Several times? - Yes.
- Many times? - Many times.
- Did you kiss him? - Yes, I kissed him.
Was there more than one kiss?
Yes.
But it was not in the way you are trying to make it sound.
He was like a father to me. He was more than a father.
More than a father?! Did you sit on his lap?
Objection! Counsel is persecuting the witness
in the pretext of gaining testimony.
Objection overruled.
The defence is re-enacting what was a travesty of justice in the first place.
Colonel Lawson, the tribunal makes the rulings in this case, not the prosecution.
- You may proceed. - Did you sit on his lap?
Yes. But there was nothing wrong or ugly about it.
Did you sit on his lap?
Yes. But...
You sat on his lap! What else did you do?
There was nothing that you are trying to say, nothing like that.
What else did you do, Mrs Wallner?
What are you trying to do?
Are you trying to...
Why do you not let me speak the truth?
That's what we want, Mrs Wallner, the truth. The truth!
You admitted that you continued to see him.
You admitted that he came to your apartment.
You admitted you kissed him. You admitted you sat on his lap.
What else do you admit to? What else?
Nothing! There was nothing like you're trying to make it sound.
- What else? - There was nothing! Nothing.
Stop it!
- (stamps feet) - Stop it!
What else do you admit to, Mrs Wallner?
Herr Rolfe!
Are we going to do this again?
Your Honour, the defendant has been under such stress that he is not aware...
I am aware. I am aware.
Your Honour, the defendant wishes to make a statement.
- I believe the defence has a right to... - Order, order.
- Order! - (bangs gavel)
Does the defendant wish to make a statement?
I wish to make a statement, yes.
Your Honour, the defence has the right to request...
The defendant has the right to make his statement now.
- I have to speak with my client. - He has the right to make it now!
(sobbing)
Tribunal is adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow morning.
(Rolfe) What are you doing?
What do you think you're trying to do?
They've had Göring, Frank, Streicher... That's over.
Do you think I have enjoyed being defence counsel during this trial?
There were things I had to do in that courtroom that made me cringe.
Why did I do them?
Because I want to leave the German people something.
I want to leave them a shred of dignity.
I want to call a halt to these proceedings.
If we allow them to discredit every German like you,
we lose the right to rule ourselves forever!
We have to look at the future. We can't look back now.
Do you want the Americans to stay here forever?
I could show you a picture of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Thousands and thousands of burnt bodies.
Women and children.
Is that their superior morality?
Where do you think they take us? Do they know?
Do you think they have any concept of our problems?
What can I say to you?
What can I say to you to make you see?
There is nothing you can say.
Nothing.
(radio) Nothing has happened to alleviate the crisis.
The crisis reached a head this afternoon
when all rail travel between western zones and Berlin was stopped.
The blockade by land is now complete.
(music starts)
What do you think we're going to do, General? Withdraw?
We can't. If we withdraw under pressure,
our prestige all over the world is threatened.
The Communists will move in on every front.
What about these trials, General? How do you feel about them now?
We're committed to the trials,
but I think it would be realistic to accelerate them as much as possible.
What would happen if they fired on one of our planes, General?
We'll have to face that when it happens. There is no other answer to that now.
You should try the strudel. It's excellent here.
No, thanks.
Dan, I've just come back from Berlin, as you know.
I don't think this is going to be it. A lot of people do, but I don't.
But it is going to be a fight for survival - for the next ten years, maybe the next 20.
Germany is the key to that survival.
Any high-school student in geography can tell you that.
Just what are you trying to say, Senator?
What I'm trying to say is this:
While nobody's trying to influence your decision,
it's important that you realise this because it's a fact of life.
Let's face it, gentlemen, the handwriting is on the wall.
We're going to need all the help we can get.
We're going to need the support of the German people.
More strudel, gentlemen?
Herr Janning, you may proceed.
I wish to testify about the Feldenstein case
because it was the most significant trial of the period.
It is important not only for the tribunal to understand it,
but for the whole German people.
But in order to understand it,
one must understand the period in which it happened.
There was a fever over the land.
A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger.
We had a democracy, yes,
but it was torn by elements within.
Above all, there was fear.
Fear of today, fear of tomorrow,
fear of our neighbours,
and fear of ourselves.
Only when you understand that
can you understand what Hitler meant to us.
Because he said to us:
"Lift your heads. Be proud to be German."
"There are devils among us - communists, liberals, Jews, Gypsies."
"Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed."
It was the old, old story of the sacrificial lamb.
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.
What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights?
What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights?
It is only a passing phase.
It is only a stage we are going through.
It will be discarded sooner or later.
Hitler himself will be discarded sooner or later.
"The country is in danger! We will march out of the shadows."
"We will go forward." "Forward" is the great password.
And history tells how well we succeeded, Your Honour.
We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
The very elements of hate and power about Hitler that mesmerised Germany,
mesmerised the world!
We found ourselves with sudden powerful allies.
Things that had been denied to us as a democracy were open to us now.
The world said "Go ahead. Take it. Take it!"
"Take Sudetenland. Take the Rhineland. Remilitarise it."
"Take all of Austria! Take it."
And then one day we looked around
and found that we were in an even more terrible danger.
The ritual began in this courtroom,
swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease!
What was going to be a passing phase
had become the way of life.
Your Honour,
I was content to sit silent during this trial.
I was content to tend my roses.
I was even content to let counsel try to save my name...
until I realised that in order to save it
he would have to raise the spectre again.
You have seen him do it.
He has done it here in this courtroom.
He has suggested that the Third Reich worked for the benefit of people.
He has suggested that we sterilised men for the welfare of the country.
He suggested that perhaps the old Jew did sleep with the 16-year-old girl after all.
Once more, it is being done for love of country.
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.
I had reached my verdict on the Feldenstein case
before I ever came into the courtroom.
I would have found him guilty whatever the evidence. It was not a trial at all.
It was a sacrificial ritual, and Feldenstein the Jew was the helpless victim.
Your Honour, the defendant is not aware of what he is saying.
He is not aware of the implications.
I am aware. I am aware!
My counsel would have you believe
we were not aware of the concentration camps.
Not aware.
Where were we?
Where were we when Hitler began shrieking his hate in the Reichstag?
When our neighbours were dragged out in the middle of the night to Dachau?
Where were we when every village in Germany has a railroad terminal
where cattle cars were filled with children being carried off to their extermination?
Where were we when they cried out in the night to us?
Were we deaf? Dumb? Blind?
Your Honour, I must protest.
My counsel says we were not aware of the extermination of the millions.
He would give you the excuse
we were only aware of the extermination of the hundreds.
Does that make us any the less guilty?
Maybe we didn't know the details,
but if we didn't know, it was because we didn't want to know.
- Traitor! Traitor! - Order. Order.
Order!
Put that man back in his seat and keep him there.
I am going to tell them the truth.
I am going to tell them the truth if the whole world conspires against it.
I am going to tell them the truth about their Ministry of Justice.
Werner Lampe, an old man who cries into his Bible now.
An old man who profited by the property expropriation
of every man he sent to a concentration camp.
Friedrich Hofstetter, the good German, who knew how to take orders,
who sent men before him to be sterilised, like so many digits.
Emil Hahn,
the decayed, corrupt bigot,
obsessed by the evil within himself.
And Ernst Janning,
worse than any of them...
because he knew what they were,
and he went along with them.
Ernst Janning, who made his life...
excrement...
because he walked with them.
Your Honour,
it is my duty to defend Ernst Janning,
and yet Ernst Janning has said he is guilty.
There is no doubt he feels his guilt.
He made a great error in going along with the Nazi movement,
hoping it would be good for his country.
But, if he is to be found guilty,
there are others who also went along,
who also must be found guilty.
Ernst Janning said "We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams".
Why did we succeed, Your Honour?
What about the rest of the world?
Did it not know the intentions of the Third Reich?
Did it not hear the words of Hitler broadcast all over the world?
Did it not read his intentions in Mein Kampf,
published in every corner of the world?
Where is the responsibility of the Soviet Union,
who signed in 1939 the pact with Hitler that enabled him to make war?
Are we now to find Russia guilty?
Where is the responsibility of the Vatican,
who signed in 1933 the concordat with Hitler,
giving him his first tremendous prestige?
Are we now to find the Vatican guilty?
Where is the responsibility of the world leader Winston Churchill,
who said in an open letter to the London Times in 1938 -
1938, Your Honour -
"Were England to suffer national disaster, I should pray to God
to send a man of the strength of mind and will of an Adolf Hitler."
Are we now to find Winston Churchill guilty?
Where is the responsibility of those American industrialists
who helped Hitler to rebuild his armaments,
and profited by that rebuilding?
Are we now to find the American industrialists guilty?
No, Your Honour. No.
Germany alone is not guilty.
The whole world is as responsible for Hitler as Germany.
It is an easy thing to condemn one man in the dock.
It is easy to speak of the "basic flaw" in the German character
that allowed Hitler to rise to power,
and at the same time ignore the "basic flaw" of character
that made the Russians sign pacts with him, Winston Churchill praise him,
American industrialists profit by him!
Ernst Janning said he is guilty.
If he is, Ernst Janning's guilt is the world's guilt.
No more and no less.
Major, we have to give the military governor every help we can give him.
We have to get 700 tons in the air a day.
700 tons.
This is some operation.
Did you ever think we'd be flying coal and tomatoes in these crates?
Tad, you and I have been friends a long time.
That's why I called you here.
What are you going to do in court tomorrow?
You know damn well what I'm going to do.
I know what you want to do - put them behind bars and throw away the key.
You know what's going on here now?
Yeah, I know what's going on.
You're an army man. You know what we're up against.
The others may not, but you do. I'll tell you the truth.
I don't know what's going to happen if they fire on one of those planes.
I don't know what's going to happen.
But if I do know this: If Berlin goes, Germany goes.
If Germany goes, Europe goes.
That's the way things stand. That's the way they stand.
Look, Matt. I'm going to go the limit.
And not you, not the Pentagon, not God on his throne is...
Who do you think you're talking to?
Who the hell do you think you're talking to?
When you were marching into Dachau, I was there too.
You think I'll ever forget it?
I'm not your commanding officer. I can't and won't influence your decision.
But I want to give this to you, and I want to give it to you straight.
We need the help of the German people.
You don't get their help by sentencing their leaders to stiff prison sentences.
Tad, the thing to do is survive, isn't it?
Survive as best we can, but survive.
Just for laughs, Matt.
What was the war all about?
What was it about?
That concludes presentation of documentary evidence
against these defendants.
Your Honours,
during the three years that have passed since the end of the war in Europe,
mankind has not crossed over into Jordan.
In our own country, fear of war has been revived
and we must look once more to our defences.
There's talk of cold war while men and women die in real wars,
and the echoes of persecution and atrocities will not be stilled.
These events cannot help but colour what happens in this courtroom.
But somewhere in the midst of these events,
the responsibility for the crimes that we brought forward during this trial
must be placed in true perspective.
And this is the decision that faces Your Honours.
It is the dilemma of our times.
It is a dilemma that rests with you.
The prosecution rests.
The defendants may now make their final statements.
Defendant Emil Hahn may address the tribunal.
Your Honours, I do not evade the responsibility for my actions.
On the contrary, I stand by them before the entire world.
But I will not follow the policy of others.
I will not say of our policy today that it was wrong
when yesterday I say it was right.
Germany was fighting for its life.
Certain measures were needed to protect it from its enemies.
I cannot say that I am sorry we applied those measures.
We were a bulwark against Bolshevism.
We were a pillar of Western culture.
A bulwark and a pillar the West may yet wish to retain.
The defendant Friedrich Hofstetter may address the tribunal.
I have served my country throughout my life,
and in whatever position I was assigned to,
in faithfulness, with a pure heart and without malice.
I followed the concept that I believed to be the highest in my profession,
the concept that says:
To sacrifice one's own sense of justice to the authoritative legal order,
to ask only what the law is,
and not to ask whether or not it is also justice.
As a judge, I could do no other.
I believe Your Honours will find me, and millions of Germans like me,
who believed they were doing their duty to their country,
to be not guilty.
The defendant Werner Lampe may address the tribunal.
Your Honours...
The defendant Ernst Janning may address the tribunal.
I have nothing to add to what I have said.
Testimony has been received, final arguments have been heard.
There remains nothing now but the task of the tribunal to render its decision.
The tribunal will recess until further notification.
I've collected precedents and arguments
that have a bearing on the basis of the case,
which is the conflict between allegiance to international law
and to the laws of one's own country.
Dan, we have a mountain of material to go over here.
- What are you looking at, Dan? - Mm?
I was looking at some of these pictures attached to the warrants for arrest.
What pictures?
There's Petersen before they operated on him.
Here's Irene Hoffman.
She really was 16 once, wasn't she?
Feldenstein.
And here's a boy - he certainly couldn't have been more than 14 -
executed for saying things against the Third Reich.
"By order of Justice Friedrich Hofstetter."
If I may say so, more pertinent to the legal basis of the case,
I have the address of the French prosecutor
before the international military tribunal.
"It is obvious that, in the state organised along modern lines,
responsibility is confined to those who act directly for the state."
"Since they alone are in a position to judge the legitimacy of the given orders,
they alone can be prosecuted."
I have another from Professor Jahreiss -
"Legal aspects: Trial of the major war criminals".
On the basis of these, I don't see where the prosecution
has put forth a really clear-cut case against the defence
pertaining to the charges in the indictment.
Regardless of the acts committed, we cannot make the interpretation
that these defendants are really responsible for crimes against humanity.
- What do you think, Dan? - We've been going over this all day!
If it isn't clear now...
Aren't you going to look at these precedents?
Aren't you interested at all?
I'm interested, Curtiss. You were speaking of crimes against humanity,
saying the defendants were not responsible for their acts.
I'd like you to explain that to me.
- I've just been explaining it. - Maybe.
But all I've heard is a lot of legalistic double talk and rationalisation.
You know, when I first became a judge
I knew there were certain people in town I wasn't supposed to touch.
I knew that if I was to remain a judge, this was so.
But how in God's name do you expect me to look the other way
at the murder of six million people?
- I'm sure he didn't mean... - I'm not asking you to look the other way.
I'm asking you what good is it going to do to pursue this policy?
Curtiss, you were saying that the men are not responsible for their acts.
You're going to have to explain that to me.
You're going to have to explain it very carefully.
The tribunal is now in session.
God bless the United States of America and this honourable tribunal.
The trial conducted before this tribunal began over eight months ago.
The record of evidence is more than 10,000 pages long,
and final arguments of counsel have been concluded.
Simple murders and atrocities
do not constitute the gravamen of the charges in this indictment.
Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation
in a nationwide, government-organised system of cruelty and injustice,
in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilised nations.
The tribunal has carefully studied the record
and found therein abundant evidence
to support beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against these defendants.
(murmuring)
Herr Rolfe, in his very skilful defence,
has asserted that there are others
who must share the ultimate responsibility
for what happened here in Germany.
There is truth in this.
The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom is civilisation.
But the tribunal does say that the men in the dock
are responsible for their actions.
Men who sat in black robes,
in judgment on other men.
Men who took part in the enactment of laws and decrees,
the purpose of which was the extermination of human beings.
Men who, in executive positions,
actively participated in the enforcement of these laws,
illegal even under German law.
The principle of criminal law in every civilised society
has this in common:
Any person who sways another to commit murder,
any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime,
any person who is an accessory to the crime,
is guilty.
Herr Rolfe further asserts that the defendant Janning
was an extraordinary jurist
and acted in what he thought was the best interest of his country.
There is truth in this also.
Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure.
We believe he loathed the evil he did.
But compassion for the present torture of his soul
must not beget forgetfulness
of the torture and the death of millions by the government of which he was part.
Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth
that has emerged from this trial.
If he, and all of the other defendants, had been degraded perverts,
if all of the leaders of the Third Reich had been sadistic monsters and maniacs,
then these events would have no more moral significance
than an earthquake, or any other natural catastrophe.
But this trial has shown that under a national crisis
ordinary, even able and extraordinary men,
can delude themselves into the commission of crimes
so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination.
No one who has sat through the trial can ever forget them.
Men sterilised because of political belief.
A mockery made of friendship and faith.
The murder of children.
How easily it can happen.
There are those in our own country too
who today speak of the protection of country, of survival.
A decision must be made in the life of every nation.
At the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat,
then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy,
to rest survival upon what is expedient,
to look the other way.
Well, the answer to that is... survival as what?
A country isn't a rock.
It's not an extension of one's self.
It's what it stands for.
It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult.
Before the people of the world,
let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for:
Justice, truth...
and the value of a single human being.
The marshal will produce before the tribunal the defendant Hahn.
Emil Hahn,
the tribunal finds you guilty and sentences you to life imprisonment.
Today you sentence me. Tomorrow the Bolsheviks sentence you!
The marshal will produce the defendant Hofstetter before the tribunal.
Friedrich Hofstetter,
the tribunal finds you guilty and sentences you to life imprisonment.
The marshal will produce the defendant Lampe before the tribunal.
Werner Lampe,
the tribunal finds you guilty and sentences you to life imprisonment.
(murmuring)
(strikes gavel)
The marshal will produce the defendant Ernst Janning before the tribunal.
Ernst Janning,
the tribunal finds you guilty and sentences you to life imprisonment.
He doesn't understand.
He just doesn't understand.
He understands.
(strikes gavel)
Justice Ives dissenting.
I wish to point out strongly my dissenting vote from the decision of this tribunal
as stated by Justice Haywood, and in which Justice Norris concurred.
The issue of the actions of the defendants,
who believed they were acting in the best interests of their country,
is an issue that cannot be decided in a courtroom alone.
It can only be decided objectively,
in years to come, in the true perspective of history.
Where shall I put these books, Your Honour?
Put them in the trunk, Mr Halbestadt.
Your Honour, here's something for you to have on the plane.
Oh, no. If you give me any more food, I won't have any room for anything else.
But it's strudel, the way you like it.
- Thank you. Thank you for everything. - Ja, ja.
- I'll put it in the car. - Thanks.
Tickets, passport, immunisation. I'll have your boarding pass at the airport.
See you there no later than three o'clock.
Oh, and give my regards to Miss... what was her name?
Scheffler. Elsa.
- That's one you owe me. - What do you mean?
Americans aren't very popular in Nuremberg this morning.
(dials number)
(phone rings)
(ringing continues)
- Good afternoon, Your Honour. - Good afternoon.
I came here at the request of my client, Ernst Janning.
He wishes to see you.
I'm just leaving for the airport.
He says it would mean a great deal to him.
Have you heard about the verdict in the IG Farben case?
Most of them were acquitted. The others received light sentences.
- The verdict came in today. - No, I hadn't heard.
I will make you a wager.
I don't make wagers.
A gentlemen's wager.
In five years, the men you sentenced to life imprisonment will be free.
Herr Rolfe, I have admired your work in the courtroom for many months.
You are particularly brilliant in your use of logic.
So, what you suggest may very well happen.
It is logical, in view of the times in which we live.
But to be logical is not to be right.
And nothing on God's earth could ever make it right.
Someone to see you.
Herr Janning.
Judge Haywood.
Please, sit down.
Thank you. You wanted to see me.
Yes. There is something I want to give you.
A record.
A record of my cases, the ones I remember.
I want to give them to someone I can trust,
someone I felt I got to know during the trial.
Thank you.
I'll take good care of them.
I know the pressures that had been brought upon you.
You will be criticised greatly.
Your decision will not be a popular one.
But, if it means anything to you,
you have the respect of at least one of the men you convicted.
By all that is right in this world, your verdict was a just one.
Thank you.
What you said in the courtroom, it needed to be said.
Judge Haywood...
The reason I asked you to come...
Those people, those millions of people,
I never knew it would come to that.
You must believe it. You must believe it.
Herr Janning, it came to that
the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.
(Wenn wir marschieren)
("Schwarzbraun ist die Haselnuss")
("Westerwald-Lied")
("Wenn die Soldaten")
Visiontext Subtitles: Julie Clayton
ENHOH