Kelsey O.

Mendoza Human Rights Law

11283874 G03 – Atty. Calleja

A Reaction to the Film ‘Judgment in Nuremburg’

Ernst Janning: Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would
come to that. You must believe it, you must believe it!
Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it "came to that" the first time you
sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.

The movie was based on actual events which transpired after the Third Reich -- the
time of Hitler and the Nazi Party’s reign in Germany. Four German judges were being tried
for their involvement in the commission of crimes against humanity and were later found
guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Ultimately, their claim was that their actions were
in furtherance of the goal to make Germany great, again. They claim that they did the things
accused of them because they loved their country. However, do the ends really justify the
means? Can people in power act in the guise of, in the pretense that, what they are doing will
eventually be good for their people and for the country?

Evil begets evil. No ends will ever justify a means which is unjust, cruel or inhumane.
Here, the judges on trial were claiming that they could not be blamed for the fate of the
millions of people who were killed. They were saying that they knew nothing about the
goings-on in the concentration camps, or the sexual sterilization of political enemies and the
other crimes committed under Hitler’s direction. But how can they assert innocence or
ignorance when some of these acts were carried out with their approval? Though some
operations were done in secrecy, though information about the killings weren’t of public
knowledge, they were judges, ministers, and executioners of the law. Ernst Janning in his
testimony stated: “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.” They may have chosen to turn a blind eye to
the atrocities because they saw tem necessary to achieve what the extremists wanted to
achieve. They believed that to be ‘great’, they needed to exterminate everything including
everyone that would keep them from being a great people. However, this is not novel. This
has been the case for many countries throughout history and up to present day. Who should
be held liable though? Who should be responsible for the expenses brought about by the
desire to be powerful, to be independent, and to be great? Should it be as was pointed out by
Hans Rolfe, the defense counsel, that the blame should be put on not just one person but on
everyone? Should the whole of Germany be blamed for what happened, even when some had
acted outside of their free will?

I understand the difficulty that lies with the responsibility of judges to execute laws and
judgments upon people. As part of the judiciary, they are expected to uphold the law and to
carry out justice through the law. However, what if the very law is the source of injustice? Do
they become traitors of their country and do what is right? Or do they remain loyal to their
country and do what is just under the law?

Certain classes or groups of people are deprived of their basic human rights because the elite,
the people in power find that they are burdensome, that they are of no use. They are
eliminated in the guise of “eradicating crimes”. Some are eliminated so that others can live
lives which aren’t necessarily “safer” or “better” or even “good”. Who will we turn to, to
protect us and our rights if the very same people who are expected to do so are the ones who
violate them? How do make the means and the ends, meet?

The movie showed several aspects of a power struggle but ultimately, it showed the most
important part: the aftermath. It showed the devastation of the people both victims and by-
standers to the horrific crimes. It showed how one’s leadership can make or break a nation. It
showed the reality of the frailty of human judgment.