Nuremberg: Will Justice be Served?

 Nuremberg, Movie, Narcissism, Psychopathy, Psychoanalysis, Psychology, Goring, Russell Crowe, Rami Malek, Evil, Good, Ambivalence

If you haven’t seen this movie – go see it, or, by the time you read this, stream it.  And tell your friends to see it.  This film is not a great movie, but it is a pretty good one and it is an important one.  It describes a particular kind of toxic narcissism, but one that is, at least to my mind, more noble than the current narcissism that we are seeing in the White House.  Yes, I am maintaining that Trump’s narcissism is more toxic than Hermann Göring’s (Russell Crowe) and, for that matter, than Hitler’s.

That said, if you are reading this review and you have or intend to view the movie, you are unlikely to change your mind about the current political situation.  Like Conclave last year, I think those who are opposed to the current regime will see the value in art that warns us about it, but those who are in favor of the regime will likely see neither the review nor the movie.  When Casablanca had an impact on our engagement in the Second World War, movies were the dominant form of national entertainment.  Movies’ role in determining our national identity has been declining since the advent of television, then the internet, and I don’t think they have recovered from the little sway they had left after COVID and our fear of being in public spaces with others emerged.  And if you show this at a family gathering, be prepared for those who disagree to leave long before the credits.

As depicted in this film, Goring was a self-involved, grandiose individual who had essentially no regard for the negative impact of his actions on others and whose fealty to Hitler was central to his official functioning.  (By the way, Russell Crowe’s depiction of Goring is masterful – the movie could have been great, but Malik’s depiction of Kelley is not at that level).  That said, Goring’s grandiosity was tied to recreating the grandness of his country (OK, because it is available, Make Germany Great Again) – and he saw Hitler as the best vehicle for making this happen.  He would appear to be the political equivalent of Russell Vought or Stephen Miller.  Each of them appears to be loyal to Trump and each suggests that their vision will Make America Great Again.

I have no idea what the family life of the Voughts and Millers are like, but the Goring’s family life, as depicted in this film and apparently, at least to some extent, in reality – is positive.  Goring was a loving, perhaps even doting husband and father.  If we are going to see him as a psychopath, which I think we will, he is what was once known as a type II psychopath.  That is, he treats those not in his family or his tribe as objects towards whom he has no feelings, but is empathically connected to those he cares about.  The type I psychopath cares about no one, including his family members, except in so far as they can help him achieve his own ends. 

My concern is that Trump, unlike Hitler, is so focused on enriching himself and his family (though not, I don’t think, loving them – he is disdainful towards them and thus falls more into the Type I category of psychopath) and enjoying the perks of the office, including attacking those he believes have wrongly attacked him, that he is a pawn being manipulated by the likes of Vought and Miller, whose ends are murkier.  Pete Hegseth’s ends are clearly in line with the Christian Nationalists.  Vought and Miller’s vision of a better America is, at least to me, unknown.  Hitler, for all his faults (and Nuremberg clarifies, as if we need it, that they are unforgivable), at least genuinely shared his personal narcissism with his love of country, as did Goring.  And, according to the film, Goring was genuinely attached to Hitler – something that I wonder about in terms of Vought and Miller.

But the drama in this film involves two additional characters.  One is the United States Supreme Court Justice,  Robert H. Jackson (Michael Shannon), who believes that American style Justice – where no man is above the law (could the message be heavier handed in today’s world?) – should be implemented on a global stage.  The Nazi leadership should be executed, not because they had been vanquished by a superior power, but as the result of being found guilty of crimes against humanity by an impartial court with a fair defense; something never before attempted in the history of the world.  This was not to be a show trial of enemies, but a genuine objective evaluation of the motivations and punishable guilt of members of a political regime (this, too, seems to be a warning – that if the Supreme Court is not going to hold a president accountable, some other body may, at some point…).

One point of drama in the film, then, is whether Jackson, having convinced the world that a fair trial is needed and who then becomes the lead prosecutor, can win the case.  It would seem to be a straightforward prosecution, but Goring turns out to be a worthy adversary.  He did not become the number two man in the Reich by being a dummy.  He is a very smart man who knows a thing or two about the law and about justice.  Serving as his own defense attorney he proves to be a match for one of the best legal minds the United States can produce.

Jackson makes the case that crimes against humanity have been committed.  We see the films that were shown in the Nuremberg trials – the brutality that was committed against Jews and others considered undesirable, and, when we recover from being sickened, we are convinced that those who are responsible for this genocide should be held accountable.  Jackson clarifies that a crime has been committed and everyone in the courtroom, and everyone in the theater is convinced of this.

The other character?  A psychiatrist named Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek) tasked with keeping Goring and the other Nazi high command members on trial alive.  In his first interview with Goring, Goring peeps Kelley out as an ambitious guy, one who is going to make his name by writing about being the psychiatrist who worked with Goring.  This leads Goring to suggest that he and Kelley are not that different – in fact they are same: ambitious men who will do what it takes to promote themselves into positions of power.

The second point of drama, then, is whether Kelley is, indeed, simply a reflection of Goring – and then whether we – the audience, the United States, people in general, are vulnerable to the influence of a strong man like Hitler because of our wish to narcissistically share in his vision of unlimited power – and our desire to ride his coattails – worse than that, to be part of the apparatus that propels him to power through any means possible – and maintaining him in power despite our knowledge that he is orchestrating evil actions, because we, on some level are both on his side and also enamored of him.

The fatal flaw of Jackson is that he is scrupulous.  He believes in the law.  He believes that the Second World War itself and the Holocaust are crimes and the perpetrators of these atrocities should be brought to justice.  He is blind sided by Goring’s legalistic reading of the orders that Goring has signed – they are written euphemistically and never, for instance, refer to a final solution, but instead to exploration – which turns into the final solution, but is not traceable directly to orders from Goring.  The trial teeters for a moment as Jackson realizes his error and is dumbfounded about how to hold this monster accountable.  It is Jackson’s British co-counsel who supports him and gets Goring to implicate himself on the stand using information that is provided by Kelley.

That Kelley has informed Jackson and his co-counsel of the material that Goring has told him as his patient is an ethical violation – a violation of the Hippocratic oath.  As a psychologist, I wonder about the ways in which Kelley’s training as a physician mirrors the kinds of training that Goring had as an administrator, but I want to be clear that psychologist’s, too, make ethical – and legal – violations – see my notes on psychology’s role in committing torture, something that the United States and Psychology as a science and a humanistic service profession are opposed to here, here and here.  But I think that the training of physicians – they are taught to be in charge in life and death situations, and they are selected as the best students in the most difficult science classes to become members of a highly compensated profession – leads to a certain kind of selection and training that mirrors that of a Government official of Goring’s stature – and that can lead to resonating with Goring – and recoiling at the similarities – having chosen to go into a profession aimed at saving lives, not ending them – leading him to choose to compromise himself and his professional credentials in order to save a sense of his personal integrity.

But the violation of the Hippocratic Oath is but one indication of Kelley’s putting himself above the law.  He also secretly takes notes to Goring’s wife and daughter and offers them comfort.  Again, I think this is partly an attempt to reassure himself that he is a healer – a concerned and caring physician, not an unscrupulous, power hungry and needy individual who will exploit his relationship with Goring for personal gain.  He is reaching out to Goring and demonstrating his concern.  But he is also earning Goring’s trust.  He recognizes something that won’t enter the research literature for another fifty years – to get a good outcome in a treatment – which in this case means keeping Goring alive so that he can be executed by the state – it is important to build an alliance with the patient.  But, in order to do this, he must disobey orders and the law and act as a go between with Goring’s family.

Kelley becomes enmeshed here in an existential quagmire.  He uses his alliance with Goring not to help him, but to harm him (The first and greatest rule of the Hippocratic Oath is: First, do no harm.).  This is his charge.  When he fails to prevent the suicide of one of the other prisoners, an officious psychologist is brought in to “assist” him – but he recognizes that he has been displaced for failing to do his duty.  His “friendship” with Goring is both real, but also not – it is a professional relationship and, like all such relationships, it inhabits an ambiguous space based firmly in the human connections and bonds of family and friendship and yet is something other – a generalized concern for the patient borne out of professional, not personal, concern.  And he is engaged in a political reality – Goring has been responsible for a government that has committed atrocities.

It is unclear how historically accurate the violation of the Hippocratic oath is.  I think the courtroom scenes are pretty consistent with the actual trial – there are both transcripts of the testimonies and there are films of the proceedings, but Kelley’s role is not part of those transcripts.  The film is based on a book that seems to be more focused on Kelley’s experiences after the war.  Kelley became increasingly dissolute as he used his experience of interacting with Goring to try to warn the American people that we are (as he assumed that we are a narcissistic extension of himself) vulnerable to the kind of madness that had gripped the German people.

Kelley’s failed attempt to convince us that American Exceptionalism would not save us from the German fate was an extension of the existential quagmire.  He was trading on his relationship with Goring, just as Goring promised that he would.  He was trying to do that selflessly – to sound an unpopular reverse siren call – to keep people from going aground on the rocks of totalitarianism and fascism – but his selflessness, he knew, was, at best, partial.  He was acting as a leader – an unpopular leader trying to convince the world of something that it didn’t want to hear.  He, like Goring, needed a Hitler – someone with the ability to communicate clearly and get people enthused about his ideas – someone who was not ambivalent.

If we are to get anything accomplished in this world – at least in the western hemisphere – we need to create a structure – whether it is a hospital, a corporation, or a University – that will carry out a mission – and we need to get people on board to do that.  If we create a hospital, we need to triage – to figure out who gets treated most quickly, who gets to use which resources and who does not – ultimately, who gets to live and who must die.  We need an administration or a profession – defined by principles that we ascribe to – both as employees and also as consumers – and we need to trust that those principles are being applied by people we trust.  And yet those people, whether they are administrators, managers, or employees, are human and will inevitably be biased in their application of the principles, however well conceived those are. 

Part of Kelley’s dilemma is that he cannot trust others because he cannot trust himself.  He does not experience himself as a reliable leader.  In his failure to trust, he may be more honest than those of us who do trust ourselves – and our peers. He may also be less able to manage ambivalence and ambiguity.  We are both loving and hating of those we are close to and those whom we experience as others.  Figuring out how to manage this ambivalence is important as we enter into ambiguous situations.  If we don't trust ourselves to embrace others while holding in reserve the tools we will need to protect ourselves and/or attack them if that proves necessary, we can reductionistically simplify our evaluation of situations.  Psychopaths simplify all social situations by classifying all others as enemies who need to be defeated lest they defeat me.  Of course, Goring and Kelley mirror each other – they are both human – and they both have a narcissistic streak – a self-protective streak – that they use to navigate the world.

There is not a little irony that fascists use the tool of blaming others to motivate a populace to take responsibility for themselves.  The alternative, I suppose, would be to acknowledge our humility but to recognize that, by forging relationships with others, we become stronger.  At our best, we use this latter strategy.  That strategy is part of the traditional version of American Exceptionalism.  Perhaps we will be able to find leaders who can help us imagine ourselves, once again, as being able to operate with strength from a position of humility.  If we can actually do this, even if only partially, we could begin, once again, to move towards living in an exceptional world.

 

 

To access a narrative description of other posts on this site, link here.  For a subject based index, link here.

To subscribe to posts (which occur 2-3 times per month), just enter your email in the subscribe by email box to the right of the text.