Nuremberg Movie: Göring, Psychology & the Ethics of Justice
The new film Nuremberg, starring Russell Crowe as Hermann Göring, arrives at a moment when historical memory feels particularly fragile. The movie, dramatizing the 1946 trials of Nazi leaders, isn’t simply a retelling of well-known events. it’s an attempt to grapple with the psychological complexities of evil and responsibility, and the challenges of achieving justice in the wake of unimaginable atrocities. The film’s focus on key figures – Göring, Justice Robert Jackson, and psychiatrist Dr. Douglas Kelley – offers a lens through which to examine not just the legal proceedings, but the human dimensions of a pivotal moment in history.
The Nuremberg trials themselves were unprecedented. As the Psychology Today article notes, prosecutors faced the daunting task of establishing a legal framework after the crimes had been committed, a reversal of the usual order. This inherent risk – the potential for failure to convict and the scrutiny of a watching world – underscores the weight of the undertaking. The film, similarly, carries its own risk: the potential to shape, or even distort, our collective understanding of the Holocaust and the events that led to it.
The Illusion of Individual Action
What makes Nuremberg particularly compelling, according to the analysis, is its exploration of Göring not as a monstrous aberration, but as a man embedded within a complex system of evil. This insight, drawn from the observations of Dr. Douglas Kelley (played by Rami Malek in the film), is central to understanding the banality of evil – the idea that horrific acts can be committed not by exceptional monsters, but by ordinary people operating within a destructive framework. Kelley’s assessment of Göring led him to believe that anyone, placed in similar circumstances, might have acted in the same way. This is a profoundly unsettling thought, one that forces us to confront our own potential for complicity.
The article highlights the importance of understanding the Holocaust as a “massive undertaking of industrial destruction,” driven by economic, sociological, political, and bureaucratic forces. While these systemic factors are crucial, they don’t easily translate into compelling cinematic narratives. Movies, the author argues, require a focus on individual characters – figures You can relate to, even if we abhor their actions. This tension between systemic analysis and individual portrayal is a key challenge for any historical drama dealing with such weighty subject matter.
The Burden of Knowledge and the Price of Justice
The film portrays the dynamic between Justice Jackson, initially critical of the defendants, and Sir Maxwell-Fyfe, the British Assistant Prosecutor, who ultimately proves more adept at dismantling Göring’s defenses. But it’s Dr. Kelley who emerges as a particularly tragic figure. His deep understanding of Göring’s psychology, gained through his assessments, seems to have taken a heavy toll. The article draws a chilling parallel between Göring’s suicide by cyanide – a desperate attempt to escape accountability – and Dr. Kelley’s own death a decade later, too by cyanide. This suggests a shared burden of knowledge, a profound disillusionment with the human capacity for evil, and the psychological cost of confronting it.
The question of responsibility is central to the narrative. The author asserts that punishment is only justifiable in the wake of responsibility, and that Göring was responsible because he could have stopped the Holocaust but chose not to. This aligns with the concept of free will, the idea that individuals have agency and are accountable for their choices. However, the article also acknowledges the opposing view – determinism – the belief that all events are causally determined and that free will is an illusion.
Determinism and the Compatibility of Responsibility
The debate between free will and determinism has significant implications for our understanding of justice, and punishment. If free will is an illusion, does it still make sense to hold individuals accountable for their actions? Some argue that the concept of responsibility will become obsolete, but the author proposes a different perspective. They suggest that determinism is compatible with responsibility, arguing that Göring’s actions, shaped by his personal history and circumstances, still enabled the Holocaust, and therefore he was accountable for the consequences. This perspective allows for punishment without necessarily asserting that Göring was “free” to be someone else. The analogy of shooting a coyote that threatens a child illustrates this point – the action is justified not based on the coyote’s free will, but on the need to protect human life.
This nuanced view of responsibility is particularly relevant in the context of the Holocaust, a crime of such immense scale and complexity that it challenges our conventional notions of individual agency. The article emphasizes that Göring’s punishment acknowledges his responsibility without denying the deterministic forces that shaped his character and actions.
The Enduring Relevance of Historical Inquiry
The success of Nuremberg, the author contends, lies in its ability to portray the humanity of individuals even in the face of horrific behavior. This echoes the work of generations of social psychologists who have sought to understand the psychological factors that contribute to evil. The film serves as a reminder that the work of understanding and confronting evil is never finished. As the Ethics of our Fathers states, we are not obligated to complete the task, but neither are we free to abandon it.
The film’s release comes at a time when historical revisionism and denialism are on the rise, making its exploration of the Nuremberg trials and the Holocaust particularly timely. The film, and the psychological insights it draws upon, offer a powerful counterpoint to these dangerous trends. Further research into the psychological factors that contribute to mass atrocities, and a continued commitment to historical accuracy, are essential to preventing future tragedies. The ongoing work of institutions like The National WWII Museum is vital in preserving the memory of this period and educating future generations.
The film’s exploration of the internal conflicts of figures like Dr. Kelley also highlights the importance of acknowledging the psychological toll of confronting evil. His tragic fate serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us that the pursuit of justice can come at a significant personal cost.