Brief
reflections on “Nuremberg” (2025)
and
lessons that may be learned from it.
“Nuremberg” recounts its
tale through a number of characters who elucidate events, issues, motivations
and reactions surrounding the Nuremberg Trials which took place between 1945 and
1949.
Although we are given a
broad outline of these events, the film focuses on the relationship between Nazi
second-in-command Hermann G
ring and Douglas Kelley,
the young American psychiatrist assigned to assess and monitor the mental
health of the assembled accused. Kelley was also invited to pass on information
and insights the prosecutors might find helpful in making their case against
Nazi officials.
There are, of course, moments
of high drama, revelations and historical clarification but audience
involvement turns on how Kelley rather arrogantly thinks he will be able to manipulate
Gring who, instead, subtly
and discreetly manipulates Kelley, and it is largely through the development
and ultimate disintegration of Kelley’s relationship with Gring that our interest is
engaged and maintained. Their association is irrevocably damaged, and the tone
of the film is markedly darkened, with the “gloves off” disclosure of the
horrific treatment of inmates in the concentration camps after which
pleasantries and the veneer of friendship are abandoned, and the pursuit of
justice is emphasised.
It seems to me that “Nuremberg”
has two purposes – firstly, to elucidate the historic events surrounding the
Trials and explore the motivations of and effects on the people involved (this
was the first such trial and new processes and procedures had to be created and
developed for them), and secondly and perhaps more importantly, to serve as a
timely warning of potential consequences for the present-day world as some
countries teeter toward authoritarianism or even fascism.
The film invites
reflection upon why and how authoritarian leaders may be elected through the
democratic process, and the conclusions apply not just to Germany in the period
following the First World War and as a result of the Versailles Agreement that
was imposed on the nation, but may equally apply to present-day nations
undergoing a period of political difficulty.
A sense of pointlessness,
disillusion, resentment and even disenfranchisement among sections of the
electorate mean that they may turn to charismatic, manipulative or eloquent
figures who focus on the apparent failures of their opponents, prey on a lack
of a sense of purpose or advancement among the electorate, and national pride. These
political figures may not offer viable or considered alternatives but persuade the
public of the failure of their political opponents and of the righteousness and
value of their cause through rationalisation, single-minded or blinkered
insistence on viewpoints and emotional manoeuvring while appealing to
patriotism, selective or false newsfeeds and fearmongering.
Such political figures may
go on to display a disregard for complex objective and universal laws (which
they may blame for any political or social malaise), replacing them with
measures that entrench government-backed positions, favour those happy or
willing to support their government, and weaken or eradicate any and all bodies
ready to challenge or oppose their government policies.
Although the result of
the democratic process, this state of affairs can hardly be said to uphold
democratic values and this film is a reminder of the essential importance of
the principles and values of democracy (which is a far broader concept than
fair elections). It may not always be easy to apply the principles of democracy
but it is essential that we should try to do so.
The foundation of a fair,
free and just society is the establishment and upholding of a system of rules,
regulations and laws which aims to objectively protect and defend the rights of
all men and women and to pursue all those who seek to abuse or who are willing
to attack or otherwise mistreat or disrespect others. Protections afforded by
such a system, and pursuit of wrongdoers, should be applicable to all without
favour, bias or selectivity of any sort.
Only by insisting on
equality and respect for all members of society will laws and their application
be seen as fair and acceptable. Deviation due to bias, preference, favour or
fraud may lead to disquiet and rejection of societal norms.
It is essential to note
that governmental authority in a democracy is accepted and tolerated by common
consent and to maintain that state of affairs, citizens must feel respected and
that their circumstances and views are considered.
Toward the end of the
film, Kelley gives an interview in which he makes points that are relevant not
just to today but to any point in the future at which the principles of
democracy are being undermined.
He points out that evil or
political opportunism allied to personal gain will not declare itself as such
and will not necessarily wear a uniform. Hitler and his associates came to be
seen as the embodiment of evil (displaying cruel and inhuman indifference to
the destinies of millions) only in retrospect. Their policies, actions and
motivations were rationalised and appealed to many, at least initially, for the
reasons indicated above.
Kelley’s point, and
indeed one of the main points of the film, is that this should not be allowed
to happen again. Our film is a timely warning of the potential consequences of
failing to recognise signs of democratic dismantlement and a failure to appreciate
and protect the values, laws and principles of democratic society built up and
applied over the centuries. We must be willing to defend the values and
institutions we hold dear by applying critical thinking and upholding respect
for objective truth, compassion and humanity.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment