Das Urteil von Nürnberg 16/18

Setting

Excerpt from a tense, post‑war Nuremberg‑style courtroom drama during the final statements phase of the trials. Defendants defend their wartime actions as duty; the prosecution presses international precedent and documentary evidence. The session mixes legal argument with sharp, emotional exchanges and small human details that undercut purely legalistic defenses.

Defendants’ final statements

• One defendant insists Germany fought for survival and to stop communism:

  “We were the bulwark against communism.” He says he does not regret the measures taken.

• Friedrich Hoffstetter (also referred to as Judge Friedrich Hoffstetter) argues that a judge must follow state authority rather than personal conscience and asks to be found not guilty as someone who:

  “fulfilled my duty.”

• The proceedings include bitter, angry interjections:

  “Who the hell do you think I am?” and a challenge to the meaning of survival: “But survival—isn’t that a joke? What did we even fight war for?”

Tribunal evidence and legal argument

• The tribunal scrambles through precedents, memoranda and photographs as part of its deliberations.
• The prosecution relies on international precedent to argue responsibility for crimes against humanity, citing:
  • a French prosecutor’s opening
  • an expert opinion by Professor Jareis
• The record includes small human details — photographs and medical notes — used to counter legalistic defenses.

Human details and victims

Small, specific items presented in the trial dramatize the human cost and undermine abstract defenses:

• Peters (pictured before surgery)
• Anna Hoffmann (16 years old)
• “Mr. Feldenin”
• A boy of about 14 executed for speaking against the Reich

Moral and legal turning point

A pivotal moment occurs when a judge rejects “legalistic hairsplitting.” He contrasts tolerating petty corruption with the impossibility of ignoring mass murder:

He could turn a blind eye to petty corruption to stay a judge, but he could not do so when faced with “the murderers of six million people.”

This statement marks the tribunal’s moral pivot from technical legal argument toward responsibility for atrocities.

Key personalities (from subtitles)

• Emil Hahn — defendant
• Friedrich Hoffstetter / Judge Friedrich Hoffstetter — speaker and signer
• Werner Lampe — defendant
• Ernst Janning — defendant
• Presiding judge / “Your Honor”
• Prosecutor (and reference to a French prosecutor)
• Professor Jareis — expert witness
• Victims mentioned: Peters, Anna Hoffmann, “Mr. Feldenin”, and an unnamed executed boy

Outcome

The court closes with the verdict still to be announced. The moral and legal dilemma—duty versus responsibility for crimes against humanity—remains unresolved in this excerpt.