History Film / JudgmentAtNuremberg

* HeadInTheSandManagement: Rolfe's thesis in his closing statement, in which he said that Germany and the Germans aren't the only ones to blame. The American industrialists who sold arms to Hitler, the pope (Pius XI) who signed an agreement with him in 1933 the diplomats who made an agreement with him at Munich and Churchill's pre-war praise of Hitler, both in 1938 and the Soviets' signing their Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" in pre-war August 1939 all share the blame.

* {{Hypocrite}}: The defendants' lawyer Rolfe repeatedly accuses the American authorities of this, explicitly and otherwise. In the case of a man supposedly sterilized for being a Communist, Rolfe shows that he probably is mentally disabled (the Nazis passed a law to sterilize them), although political retaliation likely played a role too. He had earlier noted their sterilization law was based on the American one, subtly asking "How do you condemn something which your country does too?" These laws were still on the books in the US, too, when the film was released. After the film on the Holocaust, he also claims it's hypocritical that Americans condemned this when talking with Janning in relation to the war ending atomic bombings of Japan.

* HeadInTheSandManagement: Rolfe's thesis in his closing statement, in which he said that Germany and the Germans aren't the only ones to blame. The industrialists who sold arms to Hitler, the diplomats who made an agreement with him at Munich, the pope (Pius XI) who signed an agreement with him in 1933, Churchill's pre-war praise of Hitler in 1938 and the Soviets' signing their so called "Non Agression Pact" in pre-war August 1939 all share the blame.

* HeadInTheSandManagement: Rolfe's thesis in his closing statement, in which he said that Germany and the Germans aren't the only ones to blame. The industrialists who sold arms to Hitler, the diplomats who made an agreement with him at Munich, the pope who signed an agreement with him, all share the blame.

* {{Hypocrite}}: The defendants' lawyer Rolfe repeatedly accuses the American authorities of this, explicitly and otherwise. In the case of a man supposedly sterilized for being a Communist, Rolfe shows that he probably is mentally disabled (the Nazis passed a law to sterilize them), although political retaliation likely played a role too. He had earlier noted their sterilization law was based on the American one, subtly asking "How do you condemn something which your country does too?" These laws were still on the books in the US, too, when the film was released. After the film on the Holocaust, he also claims it's hypocritical that Americans condemned this when talking with Janning in relation to the atomic bombings of Japan.

** Janning is the only defendant who voices remorse, or admits his guilt. Only his final conversation with Judge Heywood seemed to really make this sink in. Even then, Janning maintains he didn't know it would come to that, before Heywood says they had the moment he sentenced to death a man who he'd known was really innocent.

-->'''Col. Lawson:''' There are no Nazis in Germany, didn't you know that Judge? The Eskimos invaded Germany and took over, that's how all those terrible things happened. It wasn't the fault of the Germans, it was the fault of those damn Eskimos.

* VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory: Well, there ''was'' a judges' trial, but every character and every detail of the trial process is fictional. Ernst Janning is a [[CompositeCharacter composite]] of three different judges who were tried. Also, the real Judges' Trial took place in 1947, but the film moves it to 1948 so that it can happen against the backdrop of the communist coup in Czechoslovakia and the Berlin Blockade, to explain why US authorities will go easy on the defendants — support from the Germans is needed.

In the fictional trial presented in the film, a panel of three U.S. judges, led by Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Tracy), must decide the fate of four German judges--including Ernst Janning (Lancaster)--who are merely accused of "collaborating with the Nazis". Historian Robert G. Moeller has [[https://academic.oup.com/gh/article-abstract/31/4/497/673756?redirectedFrom=fulltext argued]] that the film's characters and story were crafted to draw the greatest possible parallel with the racially-oppressive "Jim Crow" policies of the USA itself at the time of its release (1961) by comparing and contrasting Nazi German and American policies and values; the message, of course, being that the USA's own espoused values were being betrayed by similar policies.

In the fictional trial presented in the film, a panel of three U.S. judges, led by Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Tracy), must decide the fate of four German judges--including Ernst Janning (Lancaster)--who are merely accused of "collaborating with the Nazis". Historian Robert G. Moeller has [[https://academic.oup.com/gh/article-abstract/31/4/497/673756?redirectedFrom=fulltext argued]] that the film's characters and story were crafted to draw the greatest possible parallel with the racially-oppressive "Jim Crow" policies of the USA itself at the time of its release (1961) by comparing and contrasting Nazi-German and American policies and values; the message, of course, being that the USA's own espoused values were being betrayed by similar policies.

In the fictional trial presented in the film, a panel of three U.S. judges, led by Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Tracy), must decide the fate of four German judges--including Ernst Janning (Lancaster)--who are merely accused of "collaborating with the Nazis". Historian Robert G. Moeller has [[https://academic.oup.com/gh/article-abstract/31/4/497/673756?redirectedFrom=fulltext argued]] that the film's characters and story were crafted to draw the greatest possible parallel with the racially-oppressive "Jim Crow" policies of the USA itself at the time of the its release (1961) by comparing and contrasting Nazi-German and American policies and values; the message, of course, being that the USA's own espoused values were being betrayed by similar policies.

Nominated for eleven UsefulNotes/{{Academy Award}}s, winning for Best Actor (Schell) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Mann). A pre-stardom Creator/WilliamShatner, still five years away from getting a gig on ''[[Series/StarTrekTheOriginalSeries Star Trek]]'', appears as an American officer who is a liaison with Judge Haywood.

A pre-stardom Creator/WilliamShatner, still five years away from getting a gig on ''[[Series/StarTrekTheOriginalSeries Star Trek]]'', appears as an American officer who is a liaison with Judge Haywood.

In the fictional trial presented in the film, a panel of three U.S. judges, led by Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Tracy), must decide the fate of four German judges--including Ernst Janning (Lancaster)--who are merely accused of "collaborating with the Nazis". Historian Robert G. Moeller has argued that the film's characters and story were crafted to draw the greatest possible parallel with the racially-oppressive "Jim Crow" policies of the USA itself at the time of the its release (1961) by comparing and contrasting Nazi-German and American policies and values; the message, of course, being that the USA's own espoused values were being betrayed by similar policies.

* AllGermansAreNazis: Aside from the Jews, naturally, the film implies that (if not outright Nazis themselves) most German people at least went along with them. The defendants and others unconvincingly try to claim differently, though a couple notable exceptions are presented in Rudolph Peterson (a man from a Communist family who's likely mentally disabled who was forcibly sterilized — he says for their political beliefs) and Irene Hoffmann-Wallner (whose Jewish friend was accused of "racial defilement" as a result of supposedly having sex with her — she'd then been sent to prison for perjury over testifying that he did no such thing) as victims of defendants. Irene's husband is also portrayed as sympathetic towards her desire to testify (although worried that it will bring about repercussions against them). Also a judge and a lawyer that testify against Janning and the Nazi legal system; the judge even having resigned before being forced to sentence people in the name of the Third Reich.

In the fictional version presented in the film, a panel of three U.S. judges, led by Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Tracy), must decide the fate of four German judges — among them Ernst Janning (Lancaster) — who are merely accused of "collaborating with the Nazis". Robert G. Moeller has recently (2013) argued that the characters and story were crafted to draw the greatest possible attention to the racially-divided, oppressive 'Jim Crow' policies of the USA itself at the time of its release (1961) by comparing and contrasting Nazi-German and American policies and values. The message is of course that the USA's value-differences are being betrayed by similar policies.

''Judgment at Nuremberg'' is a 1961 LawProcedural which claims to be BasedOnATrueStory, directed by Creator/StanleyKramer, written (originally as an episode of ''Series/Playhouse90'') by Abby Mann, and featuring an AllStarCast including Creator/SpencerTracy, Creator/BurtLancaster, Creator/RichardWidmark, Creator/MarleneDietrich, Creator/JudyGarland, Creator/MaximilianSchell, and Creator/MontgomeryClift.

[[quoteright:305:https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/58e664c73c3790d8c4fbf7af6d68f630.jpg]]

''Judgment at Nuremberg'' is a 1961 LawProcedural which claims to be BasedOnATrueStory, directed by Creator/StanleyKramer, written (originally as an episode of ''Series/Playhouse90'') by Abby Mann, and featuring an AllStarCast including Creator/SpencerTracy, Creator/BurtLancaster, Creator/RichardWidmark, Creator/MarleneDietrich, Creator/MaximilianSchell, Creator/JudyGarland, and Creator/MontgomeryClift.

The movie presents a fictionalized version of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials the "Judges' Trial" from the Anglo-American-Franco-Soviet International Military Tribunal (IMT) trials]] that took place at the German city of Nürnberg/Nuremberg in 1947. In this trial, the IMT tried the fourteen defendants on charges of:

* Membership in a Criminal Organization, whether the Nazi Party or SS.

* CrusadingLawyer: The Prosecutor, Colonel Lawson is described as a "young radical" who is dead set on seeking the highest sentence possible for the defendants and clearly fights for the case with all his might. The fact that he was one of the soldiers liberating the concentration camps might have something to do with his attitude.

** Other judge then turns to another prisoner, one of Eichmann's deputies, and asks how such things could be possible. The prisoner delivers a totally emotionless and detached lecture on the technical and logistical requirements for mass killings.

** On the flipside, the defence counsel Rolf is this as well. Though he is not fighting to protect any of the defendants in particular but rather as he says to Janning, to preserve the dignity of the German people so that they may have a future.

** Arfter being shown a film on the Holocaust, Lampe is unable to believe that things like that happened, even if he admits at least hundreds of people were murdered by the Third Reich. So he aks another inmate how could that be possible, clearly looking for reassurance... and the other inmate, who worked with Eichmann, not only tells him that it was possible but [[BrutalHonesty explains him how they did it]]. It could be reason why Lampe seems to feel regret at the end.

* HeadInTheSandManagement: Rolfe's thesis in his closing statement, in which he said that Germany and the Germans aren't the only ones to blame. The industrialists who sold arms to Hitler, the diplomats who made an agreement with him at Munich, the pope who signed an agreement with him, all share blame.

** Arfter being shown a film on the Holocaust, Lampe is unable to believe that things like that happened, even if he admits at least hundreds of people were murdered by the Third Reich, so he aks another inmate how could that be possible, clearly looking for reassurance... and the other inmate, who worked with Eichmann, not only tells him that it was possible but [[BrutalHonesty explains him how they did it]]. It could be reason why Lampe seems to feel regret at the end.

** The judge then turns to another prisoner, one of Eichmann's deputies, and asks how such things could be possible. The prisoner delivers a totally emotionless and detached lecture on the technical and logistical requirements for mass killings.

* AllGermansAreNazis: Aside from the Jews, naturally, the film implies that (if not outright Nazis themselves) most German people at least went along with them. The defendants and others unconvincingly try to claim differently, though a couple notable exceptions are presented in Rudolph Peterson (a man from a Communist family who's likely mentally disabled who was forcibly sterilized — he says for their political beliefs) and Irene Hoffmann-Wallner (whose Jewish friend was accused of "racial defilement" as a result of supposedly having sex with her — she'd then been sent to prison for perjury over testifying that he did no such thing) as victims of defendants. Irene's husband is also portrayed as sympathetic towards her desire to testify (although worried that it will bring about repercussions against them).

''Judgment at Nuremberg'' is a 1961 LawProcedural which claims to be BasedOnATrueStory, directed by Creator/StanleyKramer, written (originally as an episode of ''Series/Playhouse90'') by Abby Mann, and featuring an AllStarCast including Creator/SpencerTracy, Creator/BurtLancaster, Creator/RichardWidmark, Creator/MarleneDietrich, Creator/MaximilianSchell, Creator/MontgomeryClift, and Creator/JudyGarland.

* MyCountryRightOrWrong: Leads to a NotSoDifferent argument, and Janning's HeelRealization.

* NotSoDifferent:

** There is a point about the "My country, right or wrong" doctrine which is proclaimed by nationalists, both German and American.
** When Lawson testifies about hangings of children in concentration camps, the camera cuts to a close up of a stone-faced African-American MP, drawing an implicit parallel with lynchings.

[[quoteright:299:https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/58e664c73c3790d8c4fbf7af6d68f630.jpg]]

''Judgment at Nuremberg'' is a 1961 LawProcedural which claims to be BasedOnATrueStory, directed by Creator/StanleyKramer, written (originally as an episode of ''Series/Playhouse90'') by Abby Mann, and with an AllStarCast featuring Creator/SpencerTracy, Creator/BurtLancaster, Richard Widmark, Creator/MarleneDietrich, Creator/MaximilianSchell, Creator/MontgomeryClift, and Creator/JudyGarland.

* MatchCut: A cut from Mrs. Bertholt pouring Dan a cup of coffee to Col. Lawson doing the same in his office.

--> '''Janning:''' Those people, those millions of people. I never knew it would come to that. You ''must'' believe it.\\

** When an American reporter talks about how people don't care about the war anymore and see it as old news, Haywood says that the war was only two years ago, to which the reporter [[ApatheticCitizens unabashedly says "that's right.]]

* AllGermansAreNazis: Aside from the Jews, naturally, the film implies that (if not outright Nazis themselves) most German people at least went along with them. The defendants and others unconvincingly try to claim differently, though a couple notable exceptions are presented in Rudolph Peterson (a man from a Communist family who's likely mentally disabled who was forcibly sterilized — he says for their political beliefs) and Irene Hoffmann-Wallner (whose Jewish friend was accused of "racial defilement" as a result of supposedly having sex with her — she'd then been sent to prison for perjury over testifying that he did no such thing) as victims of defendants.
* AmoralAttorney: Rolfe.

In the fictional version presented in the film, a panel of three U.S. judges, led by Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Tracy), must decide the fate of three German judges — among them Ernst Janning (Lancaster) — who are merely accused of "collaborating with the Nazis". Robert G. Moeller has recently (2013) argued that the characters and story were crafted to draw the greatest possible attention to the racially-divided, oppressive 'Jim Crow' policies of the USA itself at the time of its release (1961) by comparing and contrasting Nazi-German and American policies and values. The message is of course that the USA's value-differences are being betrayed by similar policies.

''Judgment at Nuremberg'' is a 1961 LawProcedural which claims to be BasedOnATrueStory, directed by Creator/StanleyKramer, written (originally as an episode of ''Series/Playhouse90'') by Abby Mann, and with an AllStarCast featuring Creator/SpencerTracy, Creator/BurtLancaster, Richard Widmark, Creator/MarleneDietrich, Maximilian Schell, Creator/MontgomeryClift, and Creator/JudyGarland.

* HangingJudge: Janning plays with this. Initially, he was regarded as fair-minded, thus a Jewish defendant in a trial he presided felt hope at him being the judge. However, Janning convicted and sentenced the defendant to death — he was executed. Later, he admits that he'd become this by then, and would have convicted the Jewish man no matter what evidence there was.