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.
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.
