What do you think?
Rate this book
Norimberský deník
Americký vědec, který zastával funkci vězeňského psychologa při norimberském procesu, podává svědectví o charakteru a myšlení nacistických vůdců, souzených za válečné zločiny. Sleduje jejich reakce na obžalobu, která přinesla otřesné dokumenty o koncentračních táborech a nelidských zločinech na okupovaných územích, o jejich snaze svalit odpovědnost na Hitlera, Goebbelse, Himmlera a Bormanna, o jejich strachu před smrtí aj.
408 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1947
About the author
Gustave Mark Gilbert
6 books11 followersGustave Mark Gilbert was an American psychologist best known for his writings containing observations of high-ranking Nazi leaders during the Nuremberg trials. His 1950 book The Psychology of Dictatorship was an attempt to profile the Nazi German dictator Adolf Hitler using as reference the testimonials of Hitler's closest generals and commanders. Gilbert's published work is still a subject of study in many universities and colleges, especially in the field of psychology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
November 20, 2020
Nuremberg Diary is an absolutely fascinating, albeit shocking, book. Written by Dr. Gilbert, a psychologist who – mostly out of professional curiosity – interrogated the most infamous Nazi war criminals, it reveals their innermost thoughts and motivations.
Dr. Gilbert's principal duty was to maintain close daily contact with the prisoners in order to keep the prison commandant, Colonel B. C. Andrus, aware of the state of their morale, and to help in any way possible to assure their standing trial with orderly discipline. Fortunately, he was allowed free access to the prisoners at all times, so his diary has become a Nazi criminals' "testimony" – a brilliant analysis of their day-by-day reactions to the trial proceedings.
Dr. Gilbert's approach was that of a casual conversation – he never took notes in front of the defendants. Yet, he wrote everything down as soon as he left the cells, the court room, or the lunchroom, and used his records to examine the Nazi system and the men who made it.
What makes this work especially powerful is his decision to let the defendants freely talk for themselves and to present most of their words as a mass of quotations, intruding himself into the picture rarely, only to ask a question or two. This viewpoint creates the sinister but, at the same time, captivating feeling of having an actual conversation with Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, and the rest of the most notorious Nazi; (only an interrogation of Hitler or Goebbels could have proved more fascinating).
Except for the Führer, the Minister of Propaganda, and Himmler, they are all here – Herman Goering, Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe Chief, with his cynical formula ("The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused."), Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, pale like a ghost and convinced that "the indictment is directed against the wrong people", anxiously writing his defense in his cell, Chief of Sadist Number 1 Heinrich Himmler's Security Headquarters, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who didn't feel guilty "of any war crimes", and many, many others.
A good deal of the Nazis' conversation is consumed in rationalization, self-justification and recrimination, but it is still interesting to observe, through Dr. Gilbert's eyes, the gradual transformation occurring in prison. While in the beginning most of the defendants cling to Goering, the self-proclaimed ringleader of the defense, who was allegedly determined to uphold his, Hitler's and Nazi Germany's honor to the end (as if any of them had any), soon Dr. Gilbert witness the birth of a resistance against the Luftwaffe Chief, prompted by the Nazis' desire to save their own skins. For example, Reichminister of Armaments Albert Speer bewildered the prosecution with his bombshell revelation that he had attempted to assassinate Hitler in February 1945 and deliver Himmler to the enemy. Most of the others began to insist that everything was, of course, Hitler and Himmler's fault and that they knew nothing or "suspected Hitler was a madman from the very beginning." When Dr. Gilbert asked von Papen why he didn't remain out of Nazi politics if he (allegedly) realized the Führer's aggressive intentions after the Munich Pact, von Papen replied: "What could I do? Leave the country and live as a foreigner? I didn't want that. Go to the front as an officer? I was too old, and anyway shooting isn't in my line. To denounce Hitler would course simply have meant being stood against the wall and shot, and it would not have altered anything." Yeah, indeed, what could he really do? Voluntarily give up the money and the power offered to him? No chance.
Even more revealing were the defendants' different reactions to the evidence of Nazi brutalities in concentration camps. The "thick-skinned pig", Goering, wouldn't even listen, while Hans Fritzsche, Radio Propaganda Chief, cried in his cell afterwards. Dr. Gilbert listened to Admiral Doenitz of the German Navy say that nobody knew about the atrocities and to General Jodl snap that "of course, somebody knew about them." Jodl was right. If nobody had known about “these things,” they would not have happened.
While reading, I felt many different emotions rise inside myself – disgust, shock, pity. Yes, pity. I pitied those men for their cowardice, for their refusal to come to terms with the reality of the regime they'd helped to build, for their boundless craving for power, which led them to appalling crimes. And I felt that – despite his rightful indignation – Dr. Gilbert pitied them too.
This book is unimaginably hard to read – you couldn't help but think of those men as of monsters and psychopaths. But it's an important book, shocking, raw and honest, reaching to the most sinister corners of a human mind.
Dr. Gilbert's principal duty was to maintain close daily contact with the prisoners in order to keep the prison commandant, Colonel B. C. Andrus, aware of the state of their morale, and to help in any way possible to assure their standing trial with orderly discipline. Fortunately, he was allowed free access to the prisoners at all times, so his diary has become a Nazi criminals' "testimony" – a brilliant analysis of their day-by-day reactions to the trial proceedings.
Dr. Gilbert's approach was that of a casual conversation – he never took notes in front of the defendants. Yet, he wrote everything down as soon as he left the cells, the court room, or the lunchroom, and used his records to examine the Nazi system and the men who made it.
What makes this work especially powerful is his decision to let the defendants freely talk for themselves and to present most of their words as a mass of quotations, intruding himself into the picture rarely, only to ask a question or two. This viewpoint creates the sinister but, at the same time, captivating feeling of having an actual conversation with Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, and the rest of the most notorious Nazi; (only an interrogation of Hitler or Goebbels could have proved more fascinating).
Except for the Führer, the Minister of Propaganda, and Himmler, they are all here – Herman Goering, Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe Chief, with his cynical formula ("The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused."), Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, pale like a ghost and convinced that "the indictment is directed against the wrong people", anxiously writing his defense in his cell, Chief of Sadist Number 1 Heinrich Himmler's Security Headquarters, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who didn't feel guilty "of any war crimes", and many, many others.
A good deal of the Nazis' conversation is consumed in rationalization, self-justification and recrimination, but it is still interesting to observe, through Dr. Gilbert's eyes, the gradual transformation occurring in prison. While in the beginning most of the defendants cling to Goering, the self-proclaimed ringleader of the defense, who was allegedly determined to uphold his, Hitler's and Nazi Germany's honor to the end (as if any of them had any), soon Dr. Gilbert witness the birth of a resistance against the Luftwaffe Chief, prompted by the Nazis' desire to save their own skins. For example, Reichminister of Armaments Albert Speer bewildered the prosecution with his bombshell revelation that he had attempted to assassinate Hitler in February 1945 and deliver Himmler to the enemy. Most of the others began to insist that everything was, of course, Hitler and Himmler's fault and that they knew nothing or "suspected Hitler was a madman from the very beginning." When Dr. Gilbert asked von Papen why he didn't remain out of Nazi politics if he (allegedly) realized the Führer's aggressive intentions after the Munich Pact, von Papen replied: "What could I do? Leave the country and live as a foreigner? I didn't want that. Go to the front as an officer? I was too old, and anyway shooting isn't in my line. To denounce Hitler would course simply have meant being stood against the wall and shot, and it would not have altered anything." Yeah, indeed, what could he really do? Voluntarily give up the money and the power offered to him? No chance.
Even more revealing were the defendants' different reactions to the evidence of Nazi brutalities in concentration camps. The "thick-skinned pig", Goering, wouldn't even listen, while Hans Fritzsche, Radio Propaganda Chief, cried in his cell afterwards. Dr. Gilbert listened to Admiral Doenitz of the German Navy say that nobody knew about the atrocities and to General Jodl snap that "of course, somebody knew about them." Jodl was right. If nobody had known about “these things,” they would not have happened.
While reading, I felt many different emotions rise inside myself – disgust, shock, pity. Yes, pity. I pitied those men for their cowardice, for their refusal to come to terms with the reality of the regime they'd helped to build, for their boundless craving for power, which led them to appalling crimes. And I felt that – despite his rightful indignation – Dr. Gilbert pitied them too.
This book is unimaginably hard to read – you couldn't help but think of those men as of monsters and psychopaths. But it's an important book, shocking, raw and honest, reaching to the most sinister corners of a human mind.
November 7, 2017
Lo psicologo americano G.M. Gilbert seguì i 23 grandi criminali di guerra nazisti durante il processo di Norimberga.
Non erano degli stupidi. A eccezione di Streicher (che risultò avere un QI di 106) i test attitudinali rivelarono un’intelligenza superiore alla media (Schacht 143, Seyss-Inquart 141, Goering 138, Doenitz 138, ecc.). intelligenti e malvagi, verrebbe da dire.
Gilbert conversò con loro in cella, li ascoltò nei corridoi, seguì gli scambi di battute fra gli imputati, li osservò e li studiò per capire come fosse stato possibile, per questi uomini, aderire al movimento nazista e compiere i crimini di cui erano accusati. Annotò tutto in un diario a partire dal 20 ottobre 1945, giorno in cui giunse a Norimberga per occuparsi degli imputati.
Nel diario sono riportate le conversazioni confidenziali, le dichiarazioni di pentimento (reali o fittizie), le reazioni durante le udienze e dopo la sentenza. Sono omuncoli impauriti, alcuni ostili, altri cinici, altri ancora piagnucolosi, qualcuno deride e accusa altri incriminati, qualcun altro legge la Bibbia e prega.
Tutti stupiti d’essere considerati criminali. Nessuno capace di assumersi la responsabilità storica dei propri atti.
Questi miserevoli giganti del Reich, dopo aver preso parte all’indicibile, si affannano nel tentativo di salvarsi la vita. Lo fanno in modo meschino, patetico, grottesco, teatrale. Un carosello disgustoso. Goering nega qualsiasi responsabilità morale e legale per i crimini commessi dai nazisti.
Robberntrop dichiara che l’imputazione è diretta contro le persone sbagliate.
Hesse dice di non riuscire a ricordare.
Kaltenbrunner afferma di non ritenersi colpevole di alcun crimine di guerra, ma d’aver fatto soltanto il suo dovere.
Rosenberg sostiene che la natura del movimento antisemita era puramente difensiva.
Schachtnon non capisce perché lo accusano.
Streicher dichiara che il processo è un trionfo dell’ebraismo mondiale.
Keitel afferma che per un soldato, gli ordini sono ordini.
Doenitz sostiene che le accuse, che non lo toccano, sono un esempio del tipico umorismo americano.
Quattro i capi d’accusa:
1) Cospirazione allo scopo di commettere i crimini di cui agli altri capi d’accusa
2) Crimini contro la pace
3) Crimini di guerra
4) Crimini contro l’umanità
“… La storia saprà che è stata loro concessa la facoltà di dire qualsiasi cosa. Hanno subito un processo che essi, nei giorni del loro splendore, non hanno mai garantito a nessun uomo…”
12 dei principali imputati verranno condannati a morte per impiccagione, fra cui Goering che però si suiciderà prima dell’esecuzione. 7 condannati a pene detentive. 3 assolti. Ley si suiciderà prima che inizi il processo.
È un libro difficile da leggere. Fa male. Toglie il respiro. La domanda che si presenta ininterrottamente è “Perché?”.
Eppure erano “uomini” anche loro. Forse. O forse no.
Non erano degli stupidi. A eccezione di Streicher (che risultò avere un QI di 106) i test attitudinali rivelarono un’intelligenza superiore alla media (Schacht 143, Seyss-Inquart 141, Goering 138, Doenitz 138, ecc.). intelligenti e malvagi, verrebbe da dire.
Gilbert conversò con loro in cella, li ascoltò nei corridoi, seguì gli scambi di battute fra gli imputati, li osservò e li studiò per capire come fosse stato possibile, per questi uomini, aderire al movimento nazista e compiere i crimini di cui erano accusati. Annotò tutto in un diario a partire dal 20 ottobre 1945, giorno in cui giunse a Norimberga per occuparsi degli imputati.
Nel diario sono riportate le conversazioni confidenziali, le dichiarazioni di pentimento (reali o fittizie), le reazioni durante le udienze e dopo la sentenza. Sono omuncoli impauriti, alcuni ostili, altri cinici, altri ancora piagnucolosi, qualcuno deride e accusa altri incriminati, qualcun altro legge la Bibbia e prega.
Tutti stupiti d’essere considerati criminali. Nessuno capace di assumersi la responsabilità storica dei propri atti.
Questi miserevoli giganti del Reich, dopo aver preso parte all’indicibile, si affannano nel tentativo di salvarsi la vita. Lo fanno in modo meschino, patetico, grottesco, teatrale. Un carosello disgustoso. Goering nega qualsiasi responsabilità morale e legale per i crimini commessi dai nazisti.
Robberntrop dichiara che l’imputazione è diretta contro le persone sbagliate.
Hesse dice di non riuscire a ricordare.
Kaltenbrunner afferma di non ritenersi colpevole di alcun crimine di guerra, ma d’aver fatto soltanto il suo dovere.
Rosenberg sostiene che la natura del movimento antisemita era puramente difensiva.
Schachtnon non capisce perché lo accusano.
Streicher dichiara che il processo è un trionfo dell’ebraismo mondiale.
Keitel afferma che per un soldato, gli ordini sono ordini.
Doenitz sostiene che le accuse, che non lo toccano, sono un esempio del tipico umorismo americano.
Quattro i capi d’accusa:
1) Cospirazione allo scopo di commettere i crimini di cui agli altri capi d’accusa
2) Crimini contro la pace
3) Crimini di guerra
4) Crimini contro l’umanità
“… La storia saprà che è stata loro concessa la facoltà di dire qualsiasi cosa. Hanno subito un processo che essi, nei giorni del loro splendore, non hanno mai garantito a nessun uomo…”
12 dei principali imputati verranno condannati a morte per impiccagione, fra cui Goering che però si suiciderà prima dell’esecuzione. 7 condannati a pene detentive. 3 assolti. Ley si suiciderà prima che inizi il processo.
È un libro difficile da leggere. Fa male. Toglie il respiro. La domanda che si presenta ininterrottamente è “Perché?”.
Eppure erano “uomini” anche loro. Forse. O forse no.
June 17, 2013
I have read the parts of Gilbert's book having to do with Schacht. This includes the record of testimony and the comments of Schacht and other defendants about that testimony. It is a fascinating record, based on Gilbert's unique access to all of the Nuremberg defendants. It raises questions about the veracity of Schacht's protestations as reported in his own memoir, which I just read and reviewed ... Confessions of the Old Wizard: The Autobiography of Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht
One point to research further is why Schacht chose to support Hitler and go to work for him in 1933. There are hints in the comments of other defendants who disparaged Schacht's testimony that he needed the job.
I will of course read more of Gilbert's excellent report later.
One point to research further is why Schacht chose to support Hitler and go to work for him in 1933. There are hints in the comments of other defendants who disparaged Schacht's testimony that he needed the job.
I will of course read more of Gilbert's excellent report later.
May 5, 2023
از واجبترین کتابهایی که باید در این زمانه خواند...
نوبسنده کتاب، به عنوان یک روانشناس امریکایی با درجه افسر اطلاعات نظامی، در رمانی که ۲۳ نفر از سران نازی اسیر هستند و محاکمهشان در جریان است، با آنها گفتگو میکند که گاهی چالش برانگیز هم میشود.
شرح محاکمه و دفاعیات تک تک متهمان هم آمده است. از واکنش اولیه آنها به کیفرخواست تا جلسات دادگاه. اکتبر ۱۹۴۵ تا فوریه ۱۹۴۶.
استدلال این جانیها در دفاع از خود و مالهکشی هواداریشان از نسلکشی و جنایتهای نازیها عجیب بود.
این استدلالها که قریب به ۸۰ سال پیش در عصری بسیار متفاوت بیان شده، شاید برای ما در این زمانهی هزاره سوم آشنا باشد.
اشترایخر روزنامهنویس افراطی که همه جانبه از ریشهکنی یهودیها و حمایت میکرد و نفرتپراکنی و توهین و تهمتهای شاخدار خود را هرگز متوقف نمیکرد. هرگز از سمت هیتلر به شکل علنی حمایت نشد ولی به هیچ وجه هم کوچکترین تشری به او زده نشد ...
فرماندهان ورماخت و نیروی دریایی رایش، که شرافت نظامی پروسی داشتند ولی کورکورانه از پیشوا پیروی کردند و جنایت کردند و ...
رودولف هوئس فرمانده آشویتس:
««...شش اتاق گاز آنجا بود. دو اتاق بزرگ که در هرکدام تا دو هزار نفر جا میگرفت و چهار اتاق کوچکتر که هر یک ظرفیت ۱۵۰۰ نفر داشت، به این ترتیب ظرفیت کلشان در روز ۱۰ هزار نفر بود. ... طی نیم ساعت میشد دو هزار نفر را کشت، اما سوزاندشان بود که بیشتر وقت میگرفت. کشتنشان آسان بود؛ حتی نیازی نبود که نگهبانها وادارشان کنند بروند توی اتاقها؛ خودشان وارد میشدند چون خیال میکردند قرار است دوش بگیرند، و به جای شیر آب شیر گاز را باز میکردیم. کل قضیه خیلی سریع اتفاق میافتاد.»
دو و نیم میلیون نفر از تابستان ۱۹۴۱ تا زمستان ۱۹۴۳...
نوبسنده کتاب، به عنوان یک روانشناس امریکایی با درجه افسر اطلاعات نظامی، در رمانی که ۲۳ نفر از سران نازی اسیر هستند و محاکمهشان در جریان است، با آنها گفتگو میکند که گاهی چالش برانگیز هم میشود.
شرح محاکمه و دفاعیات تک تک متهمان هم آمده است. از واکنش اولیه آنها به کیفرخواست تا جلسات دادگاه. اکتبر ۱۹۴۵ تا فوریه ۱۹۴۶.
استدلال این جانیها در دفاع از خود و مالهکشی هواداریشان از نسلکشی و جنایتهای نازیها عجیب بود.
این استدلالها که قریب به ۸۰ سال پیش در عصری بسیار متفاوت بیان شده، شاید برای ما در این زمانهی هزاره سوم آشنا باشد.
اشترایخر روزنامهنویس افراطی که همه جانبه از ریشهکنی یهودیها و حمایت میکرد و نفرتپراکنی و توهین و تهمتهای شاخدار خود را هرگز متوقف نمیکرد. هرگز از سمت هیتلر به شکل علنی حمایت نشد ولی به هیچ وجه هم کوچکترین تشری به او زده نشد ...
فرماندهان ورماخت و نیروی دریایی رایش، که شرافت نظامی پروسی داشتند ولی کورکورانه از پیشوا پیروی کردند و جنایت کردند و ...
رودولف هوئس فرمانده آشویتس:
««...شش اتاق گاز آنجا بود. دو اتاق بزرگ که در هرکدام تا دو هزار نفر جا میگرفت و چهار اتاق کوچکتر که هر یک ظرفیت ۱۵۰۰ نفر داشت، به این ترتیب ظرفیت کلشان در روز ۱۰ هزار نفر بود. ... طی نیم ساعت میشد دو هزار نفر را کشت، اما سوزاندشان بود که بیشتر وقت میگرفت. کشتنشان آسان بود؛ حتی نیازی نبود که نگهبانها وادارشان کنند بروند توی اتاقها؛ خودشان وارد میشدند چون خیال میکردند قرار است دوش بگیرند، و به جای شیر آب شیر گاز را باز میکردیم. کل قضیه خیلی سریع اتفاق میافتاد.»
دو و نیم میلیون نفر از تابستان ۱۹۴۱ تا زمستان ۱۹۴۳...
April 1, 2021
Norimbersky Dennik je dalsi diel zo serie naucnej literatury zaoberajucej sa nacistickym Nemeckom, ktory som precital v snahe porozumiet tomu co, ako a preco sa stalo v Europe v prvej polovici 20. storocia. Nebolo to jednoduche citanie, co najlepsie vystihuje vyrok sudcu Jacksona z jeho otvaracej reci na norimberskom procese, kde zastupoval americky lud: "Nase dokazy vas naplnia odporom, a vy poviete, ze som vam vzal spanok".
Pred samotnym zacatim citania tejto knihy som si nastudoval zivotopisy jednotlivych obzalovanych na Wikipedii, aby som mal lepsi prehlad o tom, s kym mam docinenia. Isiel som v poradi, v akom bola na zaciatku knihy uvedena ich odpoved na obzalobu. Nakoniec sa to ukazalo mimoriadne uzitocne, pretoze som mal ovela hlbsi kontext ako ponuka autor knihy (ked napr Goering hned od zaciatku utoci na Streichera a ja viem, ze to je preto, lebo Streicher kedysi o Goeringovi vyhlasoval ze je impotent). Zo zaciatku bolo citanie zivotopisov celkom zabavne. Napr Goering mal velmi zaujimavy zivot, bol taky typicky archetyp antihrdinu. Kym v prvej svetovej vojne bol najvacsie letecke eso, namysleny a ludmi milovany vojnovy hrdina, tak sa postupne vplyvom okolnosti prepracoval na narkomana, psychopata a jedneho z najvacsich gangsterov druhej svetovej vojny. Tragikomicky vtipny bol zivotopis Ribbentropa, ktory napr vrieskal na tureckych diplomatov, pretoze si myslel, ze su zaostali a ze musi kricat aby mu rozumeli. Alebo taky Hess je kapitola sama o sebe. Potom prisli taki trochu "nudnejsi" nacisti a ja som sa musel velmi premahat aby som pokracoval. Po Speerovi som nakoniec zmenil taktiku, zacal som citat knihu a zivotopisy som si studoval podla toho, ako sa vyskytovali postavy v knihe, cim som sa udrzal motivovany pokracovat. Nakoniec som prestudoval 19 zivotopisov. Vynechal som iba mena ako von Neurath, Seyss-Inquart a Doenitz, ktorym sa autor v knihe beztak velmi nevenoval. Bol som z toho uz unaveny, ale mozno si ich dostudujem dodatocne. Vynechal som aj Bormanna, ktory bol sudeny v nepritomnosti, teda nebol pre mna zaujimavy.
Americka a ruska obzaloba na procese premietala dokumentacne zabery z koncentracnych taborov. Pozrel som si tieto filmy na YouTube, pretoze autor dennika o niektorych scenach vedie s obzalovanymi rozhovory. Ludom slabsej povahy toto neodporucam robit.
Gustav M Gilbert, americky psycholog, v knihe opisuje rozhovory s obzalovanymi, obcasne cituje aj z prejavov sudcov, obzaloby, obhajcov alebo svedkov. Vo svojej knihe hodnoti aj z psychologickeho aj z ludskeho pohladu charaktery nacistickych vodcov a vsetkych navyse podrobil aj IQ testu. Nadpriemerna inteligencia niektorych obvinenych neprekvapuje. Clovek musi byt inteligentny aby sa presadil v zlozitej spleti nacistickych lzi a intrig a dokazal vysplhat po chrbtoch ostatnych do cela strany. Zaroven je to dalsim dokazom, ze inteligencia nezarucuje charakter.
Na druhu stranu, podpriemerne IQ Streichera prilis neprekvapuje. Jeho oplzle a zlomyselne prejavy v jeho propagandistickom platku Der Sturmer boli tak za hranou, ze sa ho pocas norimberskeho procesu rozhodli preskumat medzinarodnym timom psychologov. Psychologovia sice neobjavili ziadnu psychycku vadu, ale ak by nejaku odhalili, tak by Streicher zrejme nemohol dostat povraz, takze objektivita je otazna. Streicher bol tak divny clovek, ze ostatni obzalovani sa citili urazeni, ze s nim musia byt v jednej miestnosti. Fascinujuce tiez bolo ako velmi sa tento clovek vyznal do zidovskych muzskych zadkov a ako kvetnato vedel opisat, ze na zaklade zadku dokaze rozpoznat, ci je muz zid.
Goering sa snazil ostatnych obzalovanych strhnut na cestu mucenikov, aby nespolupracovali s obzalobou a hlavne aby nerozpravali ako kradol umelecke diela po celej Europe. Dokonca zasiel tak daleko, ze sa cez svojho obhajcu vyhrazal Schachtovi, aby nekladol svedkovi otazky. Celkovo mi to prisiel ako dost nestandardny proces, kedze obzalovani sa mohli spolu stretavat a navzajom sa ovplyvnovat. Zaroven aj sam autor, vazensky psycholog, ovplyvnuje obzalovanych a snazi sa obmedzit Goeringov toxicky vplyv na ostatnych. Alebo dost nestandardtne bolo, ze Gilbert instruoval vazensku straz, aby odpocuvala rozhovory nacistickych vodcov. Gilbert bol dokonca navstivit Goeringovu zenu, ktora mu povedala, ze dostavala tisice listov od ludi, ze v koncentracnych taboroch sa deje nieco nekale. Ked sa do jedneho chcela ist pozriet, Himmler jej to zakazal. Ani postoj vlastnej zeny Goeringa neobmakcil a nakoniec zomrel tak ako zil - ako psychopat, ktory sa vysmieval vsetkym ludskym hodnotam a chcel svoju vinu maskovat dramatickym gestom.
O vyvrazdovani zidov v koncentracnych taboroch pocul aj Schacht, a to este predtym, ako ho do jedneho zavreli. Dufal, ze tento bude patrit k inym. Schacht bol velmi zaujimava postava. Najviac ho vystihuje slovo pragmatik. Podporoval Hitlera iba z vypocitavosti, aby sa dostal na celo risskej banky a mohol implementovat systemove opatrenia na zachranu Nemeckej ekonomiky, co sa mu aj podarilo. Ked spoznal co je Hitler zac, pridal sa k nemeckej rezistencii, spolupodielal sa na planoch atentatu na Hitlera, ktory mal byt vykonany v pripade, ze Hitler napadne CeskoSlovensko vojensky. Vraj spravil pre dobru vec viac ako ktorykolvek iny clen rezistencie a norimbersky sud ho napokon oslobodil. "[Hitler] chcel sustredovat financne prostriedky a ziadal, aby som stale daval tlacit nove peniaze. To je naprosto nemoralne, odmietol som to robit", rozprava Schacht o moralnych dovodoch opustenia svojho postu z nacistickeho vedenia v 1941. Juraj Karpis by sa z takehoto prezidenta narodnej banky urcite tesil ;) Po neuspesnom atentate na Hitlera 20 jula 1944 (projekt Valkyra) skoncil Schacht v koncentracnom tabore Dachau. Schacht mimochodom skoncil v IQ testoch zo vsetkych obzalovanych najlepsie a zvazujem si precitat jeho autobiografiu Confessions of The Old Wizard.
Speer bol najslizskejsi had zo vsetkych obzalovanych. Taky Goering aspon svoju vinu prilis nepopieral. Zato Speer sa tvaril ako svatec a vraj planoval atentat na Hitlera, potom odrazu uz aj na Himmlera. Ale bohuzial nenasiel nikoho kto by mu s tym pomohol. Speer pocas procesu najviac vycital Hitlerovi to, ze Nemecko bojovalo az do uplneho znicujuceho konca. Pritom to bol prave Speer kto Hitlerovi radil takuto taktiku, aby vraj Nemecko vyjednalo so spojencami lepsiu poziciu ako bezpodmienecnu kapitulaciu. Okrem toho mal aj vedomosti o vyhladzovacich planoch v koncentracnych taboroch, o com sa nasiel dokaz az v roku 2007. Speer tak nedostatkom dokazov o chlp unikol trestu smrti, kedy traja z osmych sudcov pozadovali prave takyto trest. Vo vazeni sa udrziaval aj fyzicky aj mentalne, tajne (kedze to mali zakazane) spisal svoje memoare (Inside Third Reich), k comu ho inspiroval prave Gilbert, autor Norimberskeho dennika. Speer sa vo svojich memoaroch idealizuje, prekruca historiu a snazi sa vytvorit mytus dobreho nacistu, ktory dalej zivi aj po prepusteni z vezenia v 1966. Dostatok dokazov sa o nom naslo az po jeho smrti v 1981 a verejna mienka sa zacala napravat az na prelome tisicroci, pretoze dovtedy bol za medialnu hviezdu a uspesneho spisovatela.
O najvtipnejsie momenty procesu sa postaral mentalne zubozeny Hess. Jedna historka za vsetky:
-- Hess sa pri vypocuvani svedkov Ribbentropa zrazu prebral k mentalnemu vedomiu a vyhlasil: "To je hanebne! To by som nikdy nepodstupil!". Zrejme si pametal, ze sam este nevypovedal, ale nevedel preco. Dr Seidl mu vysvetloval, ze nevypovedal preto, ze stratil pamet a ze sudu podal riadne vysvetlenie, ze nebude vypovedat pre svoj postoj voci sudu. "Ach ano... kvoli akemu postoju?" Dr Seidl mu povedal, ze sa vyjadril, ze neuznava sud. "Tak, to som povedal?" Hess mykol plecom a islo sa dalej. --
Walter Funk, jeden z obzalovanych, vyhlasil: "Blaznov, opilcov a deti chrani Boh", neobjasnil ale, ku ktorej skupine pocita Hessa. Ked sa obzalovani dobre bavili na Hessov ucet, dodal: "Ale vazne, to nie je na smiech. Je to hanba aki nezodpovedni ludia vladli Nemecku. Je hranica kde veci prestavaju byt vtipne a stavaju sa hanebnymi". Hess to zaklincoval tym, ked si uz po par minutach po vyneseni rozsudku ani nepametal aky trest ho vlastne caka.
Bola to velmi zaujimava kniha v kontexte pochopenia vztahov a myslenia vybranych nacistickych vodcov. V tomto mi kniha dala presne to, co som od nej ocakaval. Pre mna trochu prekvapivo autor z dennika vynechal popravy a posledne slova odsudenych. S prizmurenim oka davam 5 hvizediciek.
Pred samotnym zacatim citania tejto knihy som si nastudoval zivotopisy jednotlivych obzalovanych na Wikipedii, aby som mal lepsi prehlad o tom, s kym mam docinenia. Isiel som v poradi, v akom bola na zaciatku knihy uvedena ich odpoved na obzalobu. Nakoniec sa to ukazalo mimoriadne uzitocne, pretoze som mal ovela hlbsi kontext ako ponuka autor knihy (ked napr Goering hned od zaciatku utoci na Streichera a ja viem, ze to je preto, lebo Streicher kedysi o Goeringovi vyhlasoval ze je impotent). Zo zaciatku bolo citanie zivotopisov celkom zabavne. Napr Goering mal velmi zaujimavy zivot, bol taky typicky archetyp antihrdinu. Kym v prvej svetovej vojne bol najvacsie letecke eso, namysleny a ludmi milovany vojnovy hrdina, tak sa postupne vplyvom okolnosti prepracoval na narkomana, psychopata a jedneho z najvacsich gangsterov druhej svetovej vojny. Tragikomicky vtipny bol zivotopis Ribbentropa, ktory napr vrieskal na tureckych diplomatov, pretoze si myslel, ze su zaostali a ze musi kricat aby mu rozumeli. Alebo taky Hess je kapitola sama o sebe. Potom prisli taki trochu "nudnejsi" nacisti a ja som sa musel velmi premahat aby som pokracoval. Po Speerovi som nakoniec zmenil taktiku, zacal som citat knihu a zivotopisy som si studoval podla toho, ako sa vyskytovali postavy v knihe, cim som sa udrzal motivovany pokracovat. Nakoniec som prestudoval 19 zivotopisov. Vynechal som iba mena ako von Neurath, Seyss-Inquart a Doenitz, ktorym sa autor v knihe beztak velmi nevenoval. Bol som z toho uz unaveny, ale mozno si ich dostudujem dodatocne. Vynechal som aj Bormanna, ktory bol sudeny v nepritomnosti, teda nebol pre mna zaujimavy.
Americka a ruska obzaloba na procese premietala dokumentacne zabery z koncentracnych taborov. Pozrel som si tieto filmy na YouTube, pretoze autor dennika o niektorych scenach vedie s obzalovanymi rozhovory. Ludom slabsej povahy toto neodporucam robit.
Gustav M Gilbert, americky psycholog, v knihe opisuje rozhovory s obzalovanymi, obcasne cituje aj z prejavov sudcov, obzaloby, obhajcov alebo svedkov. Vo svojej knihe hodnoti aj z psychologickeho aj z ludskeho pohladu charaktery nacistickych vodcov a vsetkych navyse podrobil aj IQ testu. Nadpriemerna inteligencia niektorych obvinenych neprekvapuje. Clovek musi byt inteligentny aby sa presadil v zlozitej spleti nacistickych lzi a intrig a dokazal vysplhat po chrbtoch ostatnych do cela strany. Zaroven je to dalsim dokazom, ze inteligencia nezarucuje charakter.
Na druhu stranu, podpriemerne IQ Streichera prilis neprekvapuje. Jeho oplzle a zlomyselne prejavy v jeho propagandistickom platku Der Sturmer boli tak za hranou, ze sa ho pocas norimberskeho procesu rozhodli preskumat medzinarodnym timom psychologov. Psychologovia sice neobjavili ziadnu psychycku vadu, ale ak by nejaku odhalili, tak by Streicher zrejme nemohol dostat povraz, takze objektivita je otazna. Streicher bol tak divny clovek, ze ostatni obzalovani sa citili urazeni, ze s nim musia byt v jednej miestnosti. Fascinujuce tiez bolo ako velmi sa tento clovek vyznal do zidovskych muzskych zadkov a ako kvetnato vedel opisat, ze na zaklade zadku dokaze rozpoznat, ci je muz zid.
Goering sa snazil ostatnych obzalovanych strhnut na cestu mucenikov, aby nespolupracovali s obzalobou a hlavne aby nerozpravali ako kradol umelecke diela po celej Europe. Dokonca zasiel tak daleko, ze sa cez svojho obhajcu vyhrazal Schachtovi, aby nekladol svedkovi otazky. Celkovo mi to prisiel ako dost nestandardny proces, kedze obzalovani sa mohli spolu stretavat a navzajom sa ovplyvnovat. Zaroven aj sam autor, vazensky psycholog, ovplyvnuje obzalovanych a snazi sa obmedzit Goeringov toxicky vplyv na ostatnych. Alebo dost nestandardtne bolo, ze Gilbert instruoval vazensku straz, aby odpocuvala rozhovory nacistickych vodcov. Gilbert bol dokonca navstivit Goeringovu zenu, ktora mu povedala, ze dostavala tisice listov od ludi, ze v koncentracnych taboroch sa deje nieco nekale. Ked sa do jedneho chcela ist pozriet, Himmler jej to zakazal. Ani postoj vlastnej zeny Goeringa neobmakcil a nakoniec zomrel tak ako zil - ako psychopat, ktory sa vysmieval vsetkym ludskym hodnotam a chcel svoju vinu maskovat dramatickym gestom.
O vyvrazdovani zidov v koncentracnych taboroch pocul aj Schacht, a to este predtym, ako ho do jedneho zavreli. Dufal, ze tento bude patrit k inym. Schacht bol velmi zaujimava postava. Najviac ho vystihuje slovo pragmatik. Podporoval Hitlera iba z vypocitavosti, aby sa dostal na celo risskej banky a mohol implementovat systemove opatrenia na zachranu Nemeckej ekonomiky, co sa mu aj podarilo. Ked spoznal co je Hitler zac, pridal sa k nemeckej rezistencii, spolupodielal sa na planoch atentatu na Hitlera, ktory mal byt vykonany v pripade, ze Hitler napadne CeskoSlovensko vojensky. Vraj spravil pre dobru vec viac ako ktorykolvek iny clen rezistencie a norimbersky sud ho napokon oslobodil. "[Hitler] chcel sustredovat financne prostriedky a ziadal, aby som stale daval tlacit nove peniaze. To je naprosto nemoralne, odmietol som to robit", rozprava Schacht o moralnych dovodoch opustenia svojho postu z nacistickeho vedenia v 1941. Juraj Karpis by sa z takehoto prezidenta narodnej banky urcite tesil ;) Po neuspesnom atentate na Hitlera 20 jula 1944 (projekt Valkyra) skoncil Schacht v koncentracnom tabore Dachau. Schacht mimochodom skoncil v IQ testoch zo vsetkych obzalovanych najlepsie a zvazujem si precitat jeho autobiografiu Confessions of The Old Wizard.
Speer bol najslizskejsi had zo vsetkych obzalovanych. Taky Goering aspon svoju vinu prilis nepopieral. Zato Speer sa tvaril ako svatec a vraj planoval atentat na Hitlera, potom odrazu uz aj na Himmlera. Ale bohuzial nenasiel nikoho kto by mu s tym pomohol. Speer pocas procesu najviac vycital Hitlerovi to, ze Nemecko bojovalo az do uplneho znicujuceho konca. Pritom to bol prave Speer kto Hitlerovi radil takuto taktiku, aby vraj Nemecko vyjednalo so spojencami lepsiu poziciu ako bezpodmienecnu kapitulaciu. Okrem toho mal aj vedomosti o vyhladzovacich planoch v koncentracnych taboroch, o com sa nasiel dokaz az v roku 2007. Speer tak nedostatkom dokazov o chlp unikol trestu smrti, kedy traja z osmych sudcov pozadovali prave takyto trest. Vo vazeni sa udrziaval aj fyzicky aj mentalne, tajne (kedze to mali zakazane) spisal svoje memoare (Inside Third Reich), k comu ho inspiroval prave Gilbert, autor Norimberskeho dennika. Speer sa vo svojich memoaroch idealizuje, prekruca historiu a snazi sa vytvorit mytus dobreho nacistu, ktory dalej zivi aj po prepusteni z vezenia v 1966. Dostatok dokazov sa o nom naslo az po jeho smrti v 1981 a verejna mienka sa zacala napravat az na prelome tisicroci, pretoze dovtedy bol za medialnu hviezdu a uspesneho spisovatela.
O najvtipnejsie momenty procesu sa postaral mentalne zubozeny Hess. Jedna historka za vsetky:
-- Hess sa pri vypocuvani svedkov Ribbentropa zrazu prebral k mentalnemu vedomiu a vyhlasil: "To je hanebne! To by som nikdy nepodstupil!". Zrejme si pametal, ze sam este nevypovedal, ale nevedel preco. Dr Seidl mu vysvetloval, ze nevypovedal preto, ze stratil pamet a ze sudu podal riadne vysvetlenie, ze nebude vypovedat pre svoj postoj voci sudu. "Ach ano... kvoli akemu postoju?" Dr Seidl mu povedal, ze sa vyjadril, ze neuznava sud. "Tak, to som povedal?" Hess mykol plecom a islo sa dalej. --
Walter Funk, jeden z obzalovanych, vyhlasil: "Blaznov, opilcov a deti chrani Boh", neobjasnil ale, ku ktorej skupine pocita Hessa. Ked sa obzalovani dobre bavili na Hessov ucet, dodal: "Ale vazne, to nie je na smiech. Je to hanba aki nezodpovedni ludia vladli Nemecku. Je hranica kde veci prestavaju byt vtipne a stavaju sa hanebnymi". Hess to zaklincoval tym, ked si uz po par minutach po vyneseni rozsudku ani nepametal aky trest ho vlastne caka.
Bola to velmi zaujimava kniha v kontexte pochopenia vztahov a myslenia vybranych nacistickych vodcov. V tomto mi kniha dala presne to, co som od nej ocakaval. Pre mna trochu prekvapivo autor z dennika vynechal popravy a posledne slova odsudenych. S prizmurenim oka davam 5 hvizediciek.
April 10, 2017
Before laying my thoughts on the importance of this book, this recorded History by Dr. Gilbert it is in my view important to understand what the basis of not only the trial meant at the end of the war but for the innocent victims of the Concentration Camps. Nothing in this diary work hit me harder than the details of words that Dr. Gilbert used in the recording of the interview he held with Colonel Rudolf Hoess; the Commandant of Auschwitz on 9 April 1946. Hoess commanded the camp from May of 1940 to December of 1943 – “efficiency” never had a more diabolical meaning and existence, yet matter-of-fact employment of the term. It is extremely difficult to fathom and believe today in 2017 that “efficiency” would ever have had this sort of application to the destruction of people, classes of people, people that deserved protection from the most hideous and disgusting purpose to the existence of mankind; I also doubt that never in the history of mankind had that this hatred ever existed on an “efficient” scale of this magnitude. Herein lay the facts, the terms, the reality of the truth to the demented henchmen that ran a machine for purposes that today I still cannot fully comprehend – I am not alone. Many good people who aren’t perfect people feel the same way. Having lost a Belgian uncle to a concentration camp during this war it is in my mind an equation whereby I cannot internally equate any reason that would support any belief that this was “necessary”. Gold teeth melted and sent to the financial institutions, hair for pillows, confiscated property, the removal of civil rights of citizens and some of which that had in fact fought for this same nation during the First World War. (See my review please on “Somme – Into the Breach” on one Lieutenant F.L. Cassel.)
Dr. Gilbert had provided a psychological blot test to all the defendants following the Indictment Phase of this court proceeding. During discussions in the cell of Hoess that followed the test, Dr. Gilbert proceeded to discuss the Auschwitz Camp. Hoess provided the information that roughly 2.5 million Jews were exterminated (as opposed to “killed”) during his tenure. Dr. Gilbert had asked how this was technically possible – Hoess quickly replied in return with a question “Technically?” then went on to state that he (Dr. Gilbert) was thinking of this all wrong. Hoess referenced in conversation that one had to break the system up to 24 hours; and, in 24 hours 10,000 people were “killed” (he used the word “exterminated” again and I cannot bring myself to think in of innocence in this manner). Hoess went on to explain that there were 6 chambers total; 2 large ones and 4 smaller ones. The 2 larger could accommodate 2,000 persons, the 4 smaller ones 1,500 all within a 24 hour period – Hoess stated so matter of fact with another correction “…no you don’t figure it right – the killing took the least amount of time – killing 2,000 would take a half an hour…” Hoess went on to state that “…It was the burning that took the most amount of time…” Herein lay the suggestion that many more could have been killed had they only found a more "efficient” manner to dispose of the bodies more quickly. Hoess then went into the logistics of moving the bodies from the chambers to the crematorium and the work that followed. This had to have stunned Dr. Gilbert – he hid his feelings well; however, the few words that follow within this passage made me feel as though I was sitting next to him, looking at Hoess.
The author was the Psychologist at the Nuremberg Trials and had unfettered access to all the accused. Dr. Gilbert begins the first chapter by introducing each of the defendants though not in chronological order – this is based more on IQ tests that were administered to each and with each, Dr. Gilbert had brief discussions. This added an interest point for me, though I admit for no particular reason. His perception of Albert Speer I thought was most interesting in this early chapter and covered a mere couple of paragraphs. Having read “Spandau” and “Inside the Third Reich” the internal thoughts I had of Speer were somewhat confirmed in this early part of the book. The IQ tests and discussions began before the trial began but directly after the indictments had been handed to each of the defendants. As the writings of Dr. Gilbert would show based on his direct interactions with all of the accused – Albert Speer was the one constant throughout the whole process of this trial. That is to say – he never wavered from his conviction of the waste the Nazi Party brought to the world nor of the destruction it brought to the nation of Germany as a result of the same. He was truly sorry for his support of Hitler in the early years, this came to a head in the latter years – his testimony to the Nuremburg trial only made one mad man Goering more crazy than he was. Even after a near year of trials and imprisonment, both Dr. Goldensohn and Dr. Gilbert’s analysis conveyed the professional opinion that Herr Goering was still a drug addict though he had not had any form of access to the heroine or amphetamines he had during the final days of the Third Reich.
Death toll for the nations that fought during the Second World War – this as a reminder why the Nuremberg Trial was a necessary component to the war, atrocities, and the willingness of breaking of international agreements to sovereign nations across the globe – as an American, I am equally reminded that it was the Imperial Forces of Japan that brought our own entry into this war; additionally, it was Germany that declared war upon the United States and not the other way around.
Casualties listed by caused upon by armed belligerent forces:
Allied: 14,276,800 (estimate – 10 million listed as Soviet Soldiers)
Axis: 6,582,000 (estimate – German numbers have never been officially verified during the World War II and nor for World War I)
Civilian Casualties:
Allied: 25,986,500 (estimate – 10 million listed as Soviet Civilians)
Axis: 1,686,000 (estimate – German numbers have never been officially verified)
A refresher for the results of the Nuremburg Trials are posted here for the arm chair historian and the otherwise curious. There were four counts provided against the defendants within the indictment:
1. Conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts;
2. Crimes against peace;
3. War crimes;
4. Crimes against humanity.
1. Herman Goering: Guilty on all 4 counts; Death by Hanging; committed suicide before judgement had been rendered; the Lutheran Chaplain refused to provide last rites as Goering never admitted anything of wrong doing and his pompous style was indicative of the drug addict he was and remained to the very end.
2. Rudolf Hess: Guilty on counts 1 and 2; Life in Prison.
3. Joachim von Ribbentrop: Guilty on all 4 counts; Death by Hanging.
4. Robert Ley: Committed suicide in Prison Cell 25 October 1945
5. Wilhelm Keitel: Guilty on all 4 counts; Death by Hanging
6. Ernst Kaltenbrunner: Guilty on counts 3 and 4; Death by Hanging
7. Alfred Rosenberg: Guilty on all 4 counts; Death by Hanging
8. Hans Frank: Guilty on counts 3 and 4; Death by Hanging
9. Wilhelm Frick: Guilty on counts 3 and 4; Death by Hanging
10. Julius Streicher: Guilty on count 4; Death by Hanging
11. Walter Funk: Guilty on counts 2, 3, and 4; Life in Prison
12. Hjalmer Schacht: Not Guilty
13. Karl Doenitz: Guilty on counts 2 and 3; 10 years in Prison
14. Erich Raeder: Guilty on counts 1, 2, and 3; Life in Prison
15. Baldur von Schirach: Guilty on count 4; 20 years in Prison
16. Fritz Sauckel: Guilty on counts 3 and 4; Death by Hanging
17. Alfred Jodl: Guilty on all 4 counts; Death by Hanging
18. Martin Bormann: In Absentia – Guilty on counts 3 and 4; Death by Hanging – long story as to whether he survived the war or not.
19. Franz von Papen: Not Guilty
20. Arthur Seyss-Inquart: Guilty on counts 2, 3, and 4; Death by Hanging
21. Albert Speer: Guilty on counts 2 and 3; 20 years in Prison
22. Constantin von Neurath: Guilty on all 4 counts; 15 years in Prison
23. Hans Frizsche: Not Guilty
24. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach: Following the Allied victory, plans to prosecute Gustav Krupp as a war criminal at the 1945 Nuremberg Trials was dropped as he was bedridden and senile. Krupp remained technically still under indictment and liable to prosecution in subsequent proceedings
As with the “Rape of Nanking” I proudly purchased this book at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. in August of 2016 – the bookstore there is a treasure trove of the saddest stories to history; important people be reminded of what occurred and is a most somber and dignified museum. I will leave this review now; the Holocaust deniers then as now are simply people I do not, nor will ever understand.
Dr. Gilbert had provided a psychological blot test to all the defendants following the Indictment Phase of this court proceeding. During discussions in the cell of Hoess that followed the test, Dr. Gilbert proceeded to discuss the Auschwitz Camp. Hoess provided the information that roughly 2.5 million Jews were exterminated (as opposed to “killed”) during his tenure. Dr. Gilbert had asked how this was technically possible – Hoess quickly replied in return with a question “Technically?” then went on to state that he (Dr. Gilbert) was thinking of this all wrong. Hoess referenced in conversation that one had to break the system up to 24 hours; and, in 24 hours 10,000 people were “killed” (he used the word “exterminated” again and I cannot bring myself to think in of innocence in this manner). Hoess went on to explain that there were 6 chambers total; 2 large ones and 4 smaller ones. The 2 larger could accommodate 2,000 persons, the 4 smaller ones 1,500 all within a 24 hour period – Hoess stated so matter of fact with another correction “…no you don’t figure it right – the killing took the least amount of time – killing 2,000 would take a half an hour…” Hoess went on to state that “…It was the burning that took the most amount of time…” Herein lay the suggestion that many more could have been killed had they only found a more "efficient” manner to dispose of the bodies more quickly. Hoess then went into the logistics of moving the bodies from the chambers to the crematorium and the work that followed. This had to have stunned Dr. Gilbert – he hid his feelings well; however, the few words that follow within this passage made me feel as though I was sitting next to him, looking at Hoess.
The author was the Psychologist at the Nuremberg Trials and had unfettered access to all the accused. Dr. Gilbert begins the first chapter by introducing each of the defendants though not in chronological order – this is based more on IQ tests that were administered to each and with each, Dr. Gilbert had brief discussions. This added an interest point for me, though I admit for no particular reason. His perception of Albert Speer I thought was most interesting in this early chapter and covered a mere couple of paragraphs. Having read “Spandau” and “Inside the Third Reich” the internal thoughts I had of Speer were somewhat confirmed in this early part of the book. The IQ tests and discussions began before the trial began but directly after the indictments had been handed to each of the defendants. As the writings of Dr. Gilbert would show based on his direct interactions with all of the accused – Albert Speer was the one constant throughout the whole process of this trial. That is to say – he never wavered from his conviction of the waste the Nazi Party brought to the world nor of the destruction it brought to the nation of Germany as a result of the same. He was truly sorry for his support of Hitler in the early years, this came to a head in the latter years – his testimony to the Nuremburg trial only made one mad man Goering more crazy than he was. Even after a near year of trials and imprisonment, both Dr. Goldensohn and Dr. Gilbert’s analysis conveyed the professional opinion that Herr Goering was still a drug addict though he had not had any form of access to the heroine or amphetamines he had during the final days of the Third Reich.
Death toll for the nations that fought during the Second World War – this as a reminder why the Nuremberg Trial was a necessary component to the war, atrocities, and the willingness of breaking of international agreements to sovereign nations across the globe – as an American, I am equally reminded that it was the Imperial Forces of Japan that brought our own entry into this war; additionally, it was Germany that declared war upon the United States and not the other way around.
Casualties listed by caused upon by armed belligerent forces:
Allied: 14,276,800 (estimate – 10 million listed as Soviet Soldiers)
Axis: 6,582,000 (estimate – German numbers have never been officially verified during the World War II and nor for World War I)
Civilian Casualties:
Allied: 25,986,500 (estimate – 10 million listed as Soviet Civilians)
Axis: 1,686,000 (estimate – German numbers have never been officially verified)
A refresher for the results of the Nuremburg Trials are posted here for the arm chair historian and the otherwise curious. There were four counts provided against the defendants within the indictment:
1. Conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts;
2. Crimes against peace;
3. War crimes;
4. Crimes against humanity.
1. Herman Goering: Guilty on all 4 counts; Death by Hanging; committed suicide before judgement had been rendered; the Lutheran Chaplain refused to provide last rites as Goering never admitted anything of wrong doing and his pompous style was indicative of the drug addict he was and remained to the very end.
2. Rudolf Hess: Guilty on counts 1 and 2; Life in Prison.
3. Joachim von Ribbentrop: Guilty on all 4 counts; Death by Hanging.
4. Robert Ley: Committed suicide in Prison Cell 25 October 1945
5. Wilhelm Keitel: Guilty on all 4 counts; Death by Hanging
6. Ernst Kaltenbrunner: Guilty on counts 3 and 4; Death by Hanging
7. Alfred Rosenberg: Guilty on all 4 counts; Death by Hanging
8. Hans Frank: Guilty on counts 3 and 4; Death by Hanging
9. Wilhelm Frick: Guilty on counts 3 and 4; Death by Hanging
10. Julius Streicher: Guilty on count 4; Death by Hanging
11. Walter Funk: Guilty on counts 2, 3, and 4; Life in Prison
12. Hjalmer Schacht: Not Guilty
13. Karl Doenitz: Guilty on counts 2 and 3; 10 years in Prison
14. Erich Raeder: Guilty on counts 1, 2, and 3; Life in Prison
15. Baldur von Schirach: Guilty on count 4; 20 years in Prison
16. Fritz Sauckel: Guilty on counts 3 and 4; Death by Hanging
17. Alfred Jodl: Guilty on all 4 counts; Death by Hanging
18. Martin Bormann: In Absentia – Guilty on counts 3 and 4; Death by Hanging – long story as to whether he survived the war or not.
19. Franz von Papen: Not Guilty
20. Arthur Seyss-Inquart: Guilty on counts 2, 3, and 4; Death by Hanging
21. Albert Speer: Guilty on counts 2 and 3; 20 years in Prison
22. Constantin von Neurath: Guilty on all 4 counts; 15 years in Prison
23. Hans Frizsche: Not Guilty
24. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach: Following the Allied victory, plans to prosecute Gustav Krupp as a war criminal at the 1945 Nuremberg Trials was dropped as he was bedridden and senile. Krupp remained technically still under indictment and liable to prosecution in subsequent proceedings
As with the “Rape of Nanking” I proudly purchased this book at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. in August of 2016 – the bookstore there is a treasure trove of the saddest stories to history; important people be reminded of what occurred and is a most somber and dignified museum. I will leave this review now; the Holocaust deniers then as now are simply people I do not, nor will ever understand.
January 10, 2013
This book consists of a series of psycho-biographies of the major Nazi leaders tried in Nuremberg after WWII conducted by Captain G.M. Gilbert, a US psychologist assigned to interview, test and study them. Transcripts of interviews, essays by the prisoners and intelligence test results are included. It is well-written and, by contemporary standards, charmingly innocent given the fact that the primary offense the prisoners were accused of was that of unprovoked aggression, a war crime conducted repeatedly by the leadership of the USA and other great powers.
January 28, 2023
Addig írok, amíg még bennem vannak az olvasottak által keltett gondolatok, érzések. Nehéz szülés volt, hogy így mondjam. Tömény volt a szöveg és talán egy kicsit száraz, de hát mit vártam egy pszichológus naplójától, amit egy tárgyalásról és a vádlottairól írt? De azt kell mondanom, hogy hálás vagyok érte, mert így közelebb hozta hozzám ezt az egészet, amit nürnbergi pernek hívnak. Ott járkáltam vele a börtön folyosóin, együtt beszélgettünk a vádlottakkal, egykori nácikkal. A legundorítóbbnak Julius Streicher és Alfred Rosenberg védekezését, próbálkozásait tartottam. De imádtam, ahogy a többiek is vergődtek és aztán, ahogy közeledett a tárgyalás vége, sorban hullt le róluk az álarc… Bár már a megöltek milliói nem jönnek vissza, hozzájuk képest ez a pár ember elítélése majdhogynem semminek hat, mégis megérdemelten kapták azt. amit kiszabtak nekik.
February 16, 2018
This was an incredibly powerful work and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone who is interested in the second World War. It serves as a poignant full-stop to the lives of the Nazi leaders and their sentences. What follow are some of my favourite excerpts:
"He went on to say that one can carry on propaganda with all kinds of means; one can even lie with the truth, merely by stating facts out of context and robbing people of the proper concept of the whole truth." (the 'he' in question is Hans Fritzsche, Radio Propaganda Chief in Joseph Goebbel's Propaganda Ministry.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare war."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
"That's just the trouble," said Speer. "Like many people who have a smattering of reading in many fields, he thought he was an expert in all fields. Speaking for architecture and armaments, the two things that I know something about, he thought that he was an expert in these fields because he accepted everything he read as authoritative. Such self-taught people have an unholy awe for what they see in print. Unlike scientists, they don't understand that authorities become revised in time and science progresses and the printed word is far from absolute. But he considered his opinion absolutely authoritative on all subjects because he too had once read a book" - Albert Speer, talking about Adolf Hitler.
"We discussed racial politics. He said that it had been made clear for all time that advocating racial bigotry was intellectual conspiracy in murder; anybody who still advocated it was a spiritual father of a new wave of mass murder." Hans Fritzsche.
"He went on to say that one can carry on propaganda with all kinds of means; one can even lie with the truth, merely by stating facts out of context and robbing people of the proper concept of the whole truth." (the 'he' in question is Hans Fritzsche, Radio Propaganda Chief in Joseph Goebbel's Propaganda Ministry.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare war."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
"That's just the trouble," said Speer. "Like many people who have a smattering of reading in many fields, he thought he was an expert in all fields. Speaking for architecture and armaments, the two things that I know something about, he thought that he was an expert in these fields because he accepted everything he read as authoritative. Such self-taught people have an unholy awe for what they see in print. Unlike scientists, they don't understand that authorities become revised in time and science progresses and the printed word is far from absolute. But he considered his opinion absolutely authoritative on all subjects because he too had once read a book" - Albert Speer, talking about Adolf Hitler.
"We discussed racial politics. He said that it had been made clear for all time that advocating racial bigotry was intellectual conspiracy in murder; anybody who still advocated it was a spiritual father of a new wave of mass murder." Hans Fritzsche.
September 21, 2018
Full five! This is one of the few books that gives you candid conversations with the top Nazis tried at Nuremberg. I was born the year after WWII ended. The personalities of these men are shrouded in history for me with much of my impressions gleamed from TV and movies, both documentary and fiction. Books like this shed much needed light on the subject. The author ( a US Army phychologist) interviewed the defendants after each court session and each night. He also interviewed them after sentencing. It is engrossing to read their excuses and rationalizations. A few of them owned up to their guilt and accepted their death sentences. There is a TV documentary series that utilizes much of the material contained here. I think the title is Trial at Nuremeberg and it does a good job of bringing the trial to life (of course and as usual, the book is better.) Some of the acting is a little hammy but overall it's worth watching if you're so inclined. I saw this book's title in the credits and decided to get the book.
September 24, 2010
This book is extremely interesting and was written by American psychologist GM Gilbert who was assigned as prison psychologist for the first Nuremberg trials - the Nazi leaders.
One of the most interesting parts is the transcript of the reactions of the prisoners on first watching the atrocity films. Gilbert and his colleague sat opposite the prisoners and recorded their gestures and reactions in words, and provided the transcript within the diary.
The account of the psychological state of all prisoners is very detailed and constant all the way through, though I must say at times, he does not try to conceal his dislike of Goering. Well, I am quite sure Goering was not the nicest of men, but after reading the book, and following it up with some other reading (and films) on the same subject I have come to this conclusion: these trials were seeking justice for all that was committed by the Nazis during WWII. I do believe that some of these trials were merely intended for the Allies to get back at the Nazis and humiliate them. Death sentences were read and carried out. Well, the millions of deaths and the prolonged suffering of WWII was still a presence in 1946 when these trials took place.
I strongly oppose capital punishment...and I believe life imprisonment in a cold, bare cell would have been much more difficult for someone like Goering to endure, he ended up taking his own life anyway...
One of the most interesting parts is the transcript of the reactions of the prisoners on first watching the atrocity films. Gilbert and his colleague sat opposite the prisoners and recorded their gestures and reactions in words, and provided the transcript within the diary.
The account of the psychological state of all prisoners is very detailed and constant all the way through, though I must say at times, he does not try to conceal his dislike of Goering. Well, I am quite sure Goering was not the nicest of men, but after reading the book, and following it up with some other reading (and films) on the same subject I have come to this conclusion: these trials were seeking justice for all that was committed by the Nazis during WWII. I do believe that some of these trials were merely intended for the Allies to get back at the Nazis and humiliate them. Death sentences were read and carried out. Well, the millions of deaths and the prolonged suffering of WWII was still a presence in 1946 when these trials took place.
I strongly oppose capital punishment...and I believe life imprisonment in a cold, bare cell would have been much more difficult for someone like Goering to endure, he ended up taking his own life anyway...
July 2, 2007
This was the first book I've read about Nurenberg, and I must say that it was really interesting to see a personal account of the defendants - Goering, Hess, von Ribbentrop, etc. Gilbert, the author, was a psychiatrist in the Army and had access to the prisoners at any time. He got to see their strengths and weaknesses as human beings, how they reacted to stress and peer pressure (Goering's pompous attitude and desire to be the center of attention was described really well), and gave insight into how each man felt about their role in the Nazi Party and WWII.
Anyone interested in psychology or WWII should read this book.
Anyone interested in psychology or WWII should read this book.
December 13, 2014
Gilbert makes no overt judgement or analysis on the defendants throughout the book yet makes his opinions amply clear to anyone who has eyes for it.
October 2, 2022
So my grandmother and the queen (whom I've never met, but is basically family) both passed away this year, cutting the last links I had with the War. It made me suddenly realise that the event that always seemed so close and tangible to me will no longer merit a capital letter to the new generation, and will seem just as dusty and academic as the Boer war or whatever seems to mine. So naturally rather than moving on and getting on with my life, I took it as a cue to dig right back in to it, and finally pull the Nuremberg Diary from the proverbial shelf.
The book is written by Gustave Gilbert, who was a psychologist assigned to the defendants at Nuremberg for whatever reason, most famous perhaps for taking those IQ tests of leading Nazis you see floating around the internet. The book consists of his conversations with the defendants as the court progresses. The author mostly limits himself to reporting what was said, rather than trying to analyse it from a psychologist's point of view, so most of the book is the ranting of pathetic, condemned men.
That doesn't stop the book from being fascinating. Perhaps because of how pathetic the architects of the Third Reich are. Of all the leading actors perhaps only Goering and Streicher come across "well" (not in any moral sense, but in the what-you'd-expect-from-a-genocidal-regime sense). Much of the rest is just a chorus of "I was just following orders", "I'm not racist, but", "We were terrified of Poland I swear", and so on. Perhaps the strangest bit is how reluctant the defendants were to blame Hitler for anything, even when confessing in private that he had destroyed Germany.
I guess the main takeaway is that it does not take great men to do great evil. As I'm sure we've all realised this year anyway.
The book is written by Gustave Gilbert, who was a psychologist assigned to the defendants at Nuremberg for whatever reason, most famous perhaps for taking those IQ tests of leading Nazis you see floating around the internet. The book consists of his conversations with the defendants as the court progresses. The author mostly limits himself to reporting what was said, rather than trying to analyse it from a psychologist's point of view, so most of the book is the ranting of pathetic, condemned men.
That doesn't stop the book from being fascinating. Perhaps because of how pathetic the architects of the Third Reich are. Of all the leading actors perhaps only Goering and Streicher come across "well" (not in any moral sense, but in the what-you'd-expect-from-a-genocidal-regime sense). Much of the rest is just a chorus of "I was just following orders", "I'm not racist, but", "We were terrified of Poland I swear", and so on. Perhaps the strangest bit is how reluctant the defendants were to blame Hitler for anything, even when confessing in private that he had destroyed Germany.
I guess the main takeaway is that it does not take great men to do great evil. As I'm sure we've all realised this year anyway.
December 26, 2021
Mir fehl(t)en die Worte.
Der Gerichtspsychologe Gilbert hatte von November 1945 bis Oktober 1946 jederzeit Zugang zu den 20 Angeklagten der Nürnberger Prozesse. Er beschäftigte sich dabei insbesondere mit der Frage, inwiefern die Angeklagten die Tat (in Hinblick auf früher und aktuell) beurteilten und inwiefern sie sich als schuldig bekannten.
Beeindruckend an Gilberts Arbeit ist, dass er sich während seiner Gespräche nichts aufgeschrieben hatte (um den Angeklagten eine ungezwungene Atmosphäre zu gewährleisten). Stattdessen führte er ein Gedankenprotokoll- und das knapp ein Jahr lang. Durch den Wechsel zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede wurden die Gedanken und emotionalen Ausbrüche der Angeklagten sehr eindrucksvoll geschildert. Gilbert forschte bei anderen Insassen nach, stellte Rückfragen und bildete sich schließlich ein Urteil. Auch die Gerichtsverhandlungen wurden in diesem Buch beschrieben- insbesondere die Reaktionen der Angeklagten gegenüber ihren Anschuldigungen. Besonders einprägsam war das sogenannte „Höß-Dokument“ zum Schluss, welches die Vernichtung in Birkenau beschrieb. Auch der Einblick in die originalen Gerichtsurteile war sehr aufschlussreich, auch wenn ich einige der Urteile nicht zu 100% nachvollziehen konnte.
Alles in allem bot Gilbert mit seinem Tagebuch einen großen Einblick in die Gedankenwelt der Verurteilten.
Meiner Meinung nach sollte man zeitgenössische und eindrucksvolle Werke wie LTI sowie das Nürnberger Tagebuch unbedingt in der Schule (zumindest auszugsweise) oder im Studium lesen!
Der Gerichtspsychologe Gilbert hatte von November 1945 bis Oktober 1946 jederzeit Zugang zu den 20 Angeklagten der Nürnberger Prozesse. Er beschäftigte sich dabei insbesondere mit der Frage, inwiefern die Angeklagten die Tat (in Hinblick auf früher und aktuell) beurteilten und inwiefern sie sich als schuldig bekannten.
Beeindruckend an Gilberts Arbeit ist, dass er sich während seiner Gespräche nichts aufgeschrieben hatte (um den Angeklagten eine ungezwungene Atmosphäre zu gewährleisten). Stattdessen führte er ein Gedankenprotokoll- und das knapp ein Jahr lang. Durch den Wechsel zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede wurden die Gedanken und emotionalen Ausbrüche der Angeklagten sehr eindrucksvoll geschildert. Gilbert forschte bei anderen Insassen nach, stellte Rückfragen und bildete sich schließlich ein Urteil. Auch die Gerichtsverhandlungen wurden in diesem Buch beschrieben- insbesondere die Reaktionen der Angeklagten gegenüber ihren Anschuldigungen. Besonders einprägsam war das sogenannte „Höß-Dokument“ zum Schluss, welches die Vernichtung in Birkenau beschrieb. Auch der Einblick in die originalen Gerichtsurteile war sehr aufschlussreich, auch wenn ich einige der Urteile nicht zu 100% nachvollziehen konnte.
Alles in allem bot Gilbert mit seinem Tagebuch einen großen Einblick in die Gedankenwelt der Verurteilten.
Meiner Meinung nach sollte man zeitgenössische und eindrucksvolle Werke wie LTI sowie das Nürnberger Tagebuch unbedingt in der Schule (zumindest auszugsweise) oder im Studium lesen!
May 17, 2023
یه کتاب دیگه از شرح سقوط و افول انسانیت در درهٔ بینهایتِ جهل و تعصب! جایی که آدم محدودیتی برای بروز خوی وحشی و بیرحم خودش قائل نیست و بیپروا همهی مرزهای اخلاقی رو درمینورده. روایت محکومیت افرادی که موجب شکلگیری یک لکهٔ ننگ بر لوحهی تاریخ یک کشور و حتی بشریت شدن.
.
تکلیف کتاب تا حد زیادی از روی جلدش روشنه. «یادداشتهای روزانهٔ روانشناس زندان از ملاقات با محکومان» جنا��ات سران نازی طی حکومت پیشوای کبیر! هیتلر در رابطه با جنگ جهانی دوم و یهودیتستیزی. کتاب از بخشهای متعدد و کوتاه از ملاقات روانشناس با محکومین و مشاهداتش از جلسات محاکمهی این اشخاص در دادگاه نورنبرگ آلمانه. دادگاه نورنبرگ هم اگه نمیدانید به مجموعه دادرسیهای نظامی گفته میشه که بعد از جنگ جهانی دوم توسط متفقین (آمریکا، انگلیس، شوروی و فرانسه) و تحت قوانین بینالمللی و قوانین جنگ برگزار شد. حالا این شخص روانشناس آمده و از حالات روحی و روانی این اشخاص و دفاعیات و توجیهاتشان در رابطه با جنایاتی که مرتکب شدن چنین کتابی درآورده.
.
بخش جذاب کتاب جاییه که این افراد با واقعیت سیاه و کریهی که موجبش شدن مواجه میشن و متناسب با انسانیتی که هنوز در عمق وجودشان زندهست، بهش واکنش نشان میدن. غالباً دو دسته میشن: اطاعتکنندگان از دستور مافوق و افرادی که ابراز عدم آگاهی و قدرت در رابطه با فجایع میکردن. و فقط چند شخص معدود مسئولیت گناهی که مرتکب شدن رو میپذیرن و در جهت آگاهی مردم از مقصرین این فاجعه نلاش میکنن. جذابیت دیگهی ماجرا تنش و اختلافات این افراد با هم طی دادرسیه. وقتی که دو جبههی مدافعین هیتلر و مخالفینش با هم درگیر میشن و واقعیت دلیل این اختلافه.
.
کتابی نیست که به همه توصیه کنم. حوصلهٔ زیادی میطلبه. ولی درسهای زیادی برای آموختن داره که اگه به تاریخ و روانشناسی علاقه داشته باشید و نسبت به هیتلر و دارودستهاش کنجکاوید میتانه شما رو شگفتزده کنه.
.
تکلیف کتاب تا حد زیادی از روی جلدش روشنه. «یادداشتهای روزانهٔ روانشناس زندان از ملاقات با محکومان» جنا��ات سران نازی طی حکومت پیشوای کبیر! هیتلر در رابطه با جنگ جهانی دوم و یهودیتستیزی. کتاب از بخشهای متعدد و کوتاه از ملاقات روانشناس با محکومین و مشاهداتش از جلسات محاکمهی این اشخاص در دادگاه نورنبرگ آلمانه. دادگاه نورنبرگ هم اگه نمیدانید به مجموعه دادرسیهای نظامی گفته میشه که بعد از جنگ جهانی دوم توسط متفقین (آمریکا، انگلیس، شوروی و فرانسه) و تحت قوانین بینالمللی و قوانین جنگ برگزار شد. حالا این شخص روانشناس آمده و از حالات روحی و روانی این اشخاص و دفاعیات و توجیهاتشان در رابطه با جنایاتی که مرتکب شدن چنین کتابی درآورده.
.
بخش جذاب کتاب جاییه که این افراد با واقعیت سیاه و کریهی که موجبش شدن مواجه میشن و متناسب با انسانیتی که هنوز در عمق وجودشان زندهست، بهش واکنش نشان میدن. غالباً دو دسته میشن: اطاعتکنندگان از دستور مافوق و افرادی که ابراز عدم آگاهی و قدرت در رابطه با فجایع میکردن. و فقط چند شخص معدود مسئولیت گناهی که مرتکب شدن رو میپذیرن و در جهت آگاهی مردم از مقصرین این فاجعه نلاش میکنن. جذابیت دیگهی ماجرا تنش و اختلافات این افراد با هم طی دادرسیه. وقتی که دو جبههی مدافعین هیتلر و مخالفینش با هم درگیر میشن و واقعیت دلیل این اختلافه.
.
کتابی نیست که به همه توصیه کنم. حوصلهٔ زیادی میطلبه. ولی درسهای زیادی برای آموختن داره که اگه به تاریخ و روانشناسی علاقه داشته باشید و نسبت به هیتلر و دارودستهاش کنجکاوید میتانه شما رو شگفتزده کنه.
April 6, 2023
This is truly a must-read. An insight, by a psychologist, into the minds of Nazi leaders while on trial in Nuremberg, gained from direct and informal daily encounters. Helps to understand the Russian leadership’s reasoning for the Ukraine war, among other things.
January 7, 2022
While reading this book, I had to remind myself that these people are not caricatures. They are so absolutely ridiculous, hateful, mistaken, and nearly entirely inhuman, that it’s sometimes difficult to remember that they actually existed, and that they truly believed the horrific things that they said. Their arguments and justifications for their actions imitate in form only, rational versions of these things. They are both willfully, and accidentally blind to the truth of the matter—a truth that is so glaringly obvious to everyone. These monsters lie through their teeth about their having knowledge of the atrocities that were committed by them and for them, yet they maintain that they are honorable, for nothing more than being good patriots! If they weren’t Nazis, and if MILLIONS of people hadn’t been killed by their hands, or through their orders, because of their ideology and pathological psychopathy, their behaviors would be comedic, a foolish bumbling—but they are in fact, murderers. They are grotesque, vile and twisted versions of beings that merely resemble humans in their outward appearances. It is impossible to understand how persons who are, with the exception of Julius Streicher, of above average intelligence (as measured by Dr. Gilbert on the American Wechsler-Bellevue Adult Intelligence Test) can be so willfully blind to the many glaring truths about the wrongness of their actions. Reading this book put me into a novel space, one where I recognize that I have no way to understand another person, and that impossibility is one that I celebrate. That part is new, the happiness that I just can't relate to them on any level--I cannot imagine living in the heads of any of these monsters.
On the evening of April 2 following Ribbentrop’s defense, Dr. Gilbert pressed Ribbentrop’s on his blind loyalty to Hitler, especially since it has no been laid bare to the court that Hitler had every intention of aggressive war that had at its core, deeply anti-semitic, murderous commitments. Ribbentrop, surprised that Gilbert can’t understand his loyalty to Hitler, and Germany, has the following exchange with Gilbert:
“Can you understand my loyalty to Hitler?—I suppose some people cannot understand that.—Tell me frankly, what do you think of my case?”
“I think that as a result of your blind loyalty to Hitler you have gotten yourself into a situation from which you cannot extricate yourself.—But I especially cannot understand why you cannot renounce him now, when all the world knows he was a murderer.”
“Can’t you?—No Americans don’t seem able to understand that. We Germans are peculiar people; we are so loyal. People don’t seem to understand that.”
“No, nobody can understand it.”
“Well, I don’t know. What would I have done if I had known all about those terrible Jewish murders—“
“You did know about it when the whole world learned of the Maidanek extermination camp.”
“Oh, yes—but then it was too late anyway.—I wonder what I would have done if I had known in the beginning. I mean—I don’t know. I could not have opposed him. I would have had to commit suicide.—That would have been the only way. Can you understand that?”
“No, I would certainly have denounced him as a murderer, and if that was impossible, I would have felt it my solemn duty, as a last resort, to kill him myself.”
“Oh, no! I simply could never have thought of that. I could never have brought myself to do it.”
“Why? Would it have been like killing your own father?”
“Yes, something like that.—And because he became for me the symbol of Germany.—I told you, after we saw the Nazi film in court, if he came to me now, I simply could not renounce him,—I might not follow him any more, but repudiate him—no, I just could not do it. I don’t know why.” (235-6)
It was obvious by this point that Hitler had inextricably bound the German people’s fate with the success of the war. Reports that Hitler had made statements about such things were mentioned and confirmed regularly throughout the trial, and in a letter to Albert Speer, he makes his position clear. He writes: “If the war is to be lost the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people would need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it would be wiser to destroy even these things ourselves, because then our people have proved to be the weaker and the future belongs solely to the stronger easter nation.Besides, those who remain after the battle are only the inferior ones; for the good ones have fallen” (396).
Gilbert’s observations are profound and provide an incredible insight into the mind of an expert who is in the midst of monsters. He draws important connections for the reader, but he lets the Nazis fill out their own horrific profiles by providing relevant, powerful dialogue. It is through this lens, that of an expert, that the reader comes to observe these terrible creatures. I would absolutely recommend reading this book to anyone who is interested in WWII, or in abnormal psychology in general.
On the evening of April 2 following Ribbentrop’s defense, Dr. Gilbert pressed Ribbentrop’s on his blind loyalty to Hitler, especially since it has no been laid bare to the court that Hitler had every intention of aggressive war that had at its core, deeply anti-semitic, murderous commitments. Ribbentrop, surprised that Gilbert can’t understand his loyalty to Hitler, and Germany, has the following exchange with Gilbert:
“Can you understand my loyalty to Hitler?—I suppose some people cannot understand that.—Tell me frankly, what do you think of my case?”
“I think that as a result of your blind loyalty to Hitler you have gotten yourself into a situation from which you cannot extricate yourself.—But I especially cannot understand why you cannot renounce him now, when all the world knows he was a murderer.”
“Can’t you?—No Americans don’t seem able to understand that. We Germans are peculiar people; we are so loyal. People don’t seem to understand that.”
“No, nobody can understand it.”
“Well, I don’t know. What would I have done if I had known all about those terrible Jewish murders—“
“You did know about it when the whole world learned of the Maidanek extermination camp.”
“Oh, yes—but then it was too late anyway.—I wonder what I would have done if I had known in the beginning. I mean—I don’t know. I could not have opposed him. I would have had to commit suicide.—That would have been the only way. Can you understand that?”
“No, I would certainly have denounced him as a murderer, and if that was impossible, I would have felt it my solemn duty, as a last resort, to kill him myself.”
“Oh, no! I simply could never have thought of that. I could never have brought myself to do it.”
“Why? Would it have been like killing your own father?”
“Yes, something like that.—And because he became for me the symbol of Germany.—I told you, after we saw the Nazi film in court, if he came to me now, I simply could not renounce him,—I might not follow him any more, but repudiate him—no, I just could not do it. I don’t know why.” (235-6)
It was obvious by this point that Hitler had inextricably bound the German people’s fate with the success of the war. Reports that Hitler had made statements about such things were mentioned and confirmed regularly throughout the trial, and in a letter to Albert Speer, he makes his position clear. He writes: “If the war is to be lost the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people would need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it would be wiser to destroy even these things ourselves, because then our people have proved to be the weaker and the future belongs solely to the stronger easter nation.Besides, those who remain after the battle are only the inferior ones; for the good ones have fallen” (396).
Gilbert’s observations are profound and provide an incredible insight into the mind of an expert who is in the midst of monsters. He draws important connections for the reader, but he lets the Nazis fill out their own horrific profiles by providing relevant, powerful dialogue. It is through this lens, that of an expert, that the reader comes to observe these terrible creatures. I would absolutely recommend reading this book to anyone who is interested in WWII, or in abnormal psychology in general.
April 14, 2022
На мой вкус, слегка перетянуто, особенно под конец
И всё же книга будто помогает углубить понимание отдельных политических процессов, и, в большей степени, человеческой натуры, особенно неприятных и жалких её частей. То, как нацистских преступников бросает то в браваду и защиту, то в вину и стыд, не может не напоминать текущего состояния, и то, как непереносимость обеих крайностей делает непереносимым долгое нахождение в каждой из них, тоже заставляет узнавать себя и ужасаться.
История о том, как слабохарактерность или самоуверенность ослепляют, как у власти сидят такие же смертные, как те, кто выше, хотят делать вид, что не осведомлены о том, что происходит ниже – и как они на самом деле преступно в курсе происходящего.
И всё же книга будто помогает углубить понимание отдельных политических процессов, и, в большей степени, человеческой натуры, особенно неприятных и жалких её частей. То, как нацистских преступников бросает то в браваду и защиту, то в вину и стыд, не может не напоминать текущего состояния, и то, как непереносимость обеих крайностей делает непереносимым долгое нахождение в каждой из них, тоже заставляет узнавать себя и ужасаться.
История о том, как слабохарактерность или самоуверенность ослепляют, как у власти сидят такие же смертные, как те, кто выше, хотят делать вид, что не осведомлены о том, что происходит ниже – и как они на самом деле преступно в курсе происходящего.
November 27, 2018
The Nuremberg Diary is a collection of interviews Dr. Gustave Gilbert conducted during the Nuremberg Trials and also serves as a platform for Dr. Gilbert's own thoughts on the prisoners and the proceedings of the court. As such, we get to read comments made by some of the most famous Nazis; Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Albert Speer, etc. While the prisoners' comments themselves were interesting, Dr. Gilbert's analysis and comments on the situation is extremely distracting. While it's obvious why Dr. Gilbert has a strong hatred (there's really no other word for it) for the men he is dealing with, it became distracting after awhile and made the work less enjoyable. I would have much preferred if Dr. Gilbert merely presented the comments and actions done by the prisoners and let the reader make their own decision about that particularly prisoner. If anything, after awhile, I began to skip over Dr. Gilbert's own comments and just read the comments made by the prisoners. In short, I much preferred Dr. Gilbert's colleague, Leon Goldensohn, and his interviews he did with the prisoners. Dr. Goldensohn did a much better job of merely presenting the information and moving on.
March 17, 2015
This book details the conversations held between the author and high ranking Nazis at the Nuremberg trials in 1945-46.He was a psychologist, fluent in German, assigned to assess and support the accused during their trials.
He visited them daily, sat with them in court and made extensive notes after each encounter, documenting them in chronological order as the trials progressed.He also provides a summary of the charges and of the verdicts.
The patterns of denial, self-justifications, manipulation, selfishness and sense of entitlement become evident as each of the 21 accused go through the legal proceedings. Two out of 21 express some remorse at what they have done. The others all find ways to blame others and pretend they did not know about the worst horrors.
Sadly, this type of evil is still with us in so many parts of the world. Will we ever learn to live in peace?
He visited them daily, sat with them in court and made extensive notes after each encounter, documenting them in chronological order as the trials progressed.He also provides a summary of the charges and of the verdicts.
The patterns of denial, self-justifications, manipulation, selfishness and sense of entitlement become evident as each of the 21 accused go through the legal proceedings. Two out of 21 express some remorse at what they have done. The others all find ways to blame others and pretend they did not know about the worst horrors.
Sadly, this type of evil is still with us in so many parts of the world. Will we ever learn to live in peace?
August 10, 2016
Written with admirable restraint by a psychologist who gives us limited insights into the minds of Goerring, Hess, von Ribbentrop, and the others high in the Nazi hierarchy, this book is in essence a collection of case histories written as the Nuremberg trials progressed, and ending with final interviews of the criminals right before their executions. Its use is as primary material, not as sociological, theological, moral, or psychoanalytic analysis, which the author largely avoids.
July 20, 2012
An interesting look at the Nuremberg defendants outside the trial. Although Gilbert lays on some psychoanalysis (that is his job after all), I think the words of the Germans speak for themselves.
June 10, 2018
„Dziennik norymberski” to praca G. M. Gilberta, który pełnił funkcję psychologa więziennego podczas pierwszego procesu norymberskiego. Dzięki temu miał praktycznie nieograniczony dostęp do oskarżonych zarówno na sali rozpraw, stołówkach, gdzie spożywali posiłki oraz w prywatnych celach. Co więcej psycholog wszedł w układ ze strażnikami, którzy donosili mu co oskarżeni mówili między sobą, gdy nie było go w pobliżu. Książka powstała na podstawie dziennika, który prowadził na bieżąco podczas procesu, i w którym skrzętnie notował swoje codzienne, wieczorne rozmowy z liderami hitlerowskich Niemiec. Notatki zostały potem zredagowane w ponad pięćset stronnicową książkę, która jest świetną charakterystyką najważniejszych osób w III Rzeszy.
Bardzo porusza bezpośredniość i swoboda z jaką zbrodniarze rozmawiali z psychologiem. Co prawda część z nich próbowała go rozgrywać licząc na jego wstawiennictwo, ale zupełnie nie da się odczuć, żeby mimo różnicy pozycji traktowali go jako gorszego niż oni sami. Dzięki zapisom rozmów oraz notatkom streszczającym co aktualnie działo się na sali sądowej, można świetnie „odczytać” poszczególne osoby. Ich spontaniczne reakcje na wydarzenia przed trybunałem, wręcz poszczególne zeznania pozwalają doskonale poznać oskarżonych. Żadna biografia pisana z pespektywy nie byłaby w stanie oddać tych ludzi w sposób tak bezpośredni, wręcz naoczny.
To co mnie najbardziej zaskoczyło to różnorodność osób zasiadających na ławie oskarżonych. Obok siebie siedzą ludzie o bardzo wysokim IQ i ćwierćinteligenci. Partyjni aparatczycy razem z wojskowymi generałami, a między nimi ekonomiści i nazistowski ideolog. Co więcej w obliczu nieuchronnego sądu wśród oskarżonych wytworzyły się frakcje, które zaczęły się między sobą ścierać i próbowały wywrzeć wpływ na resztę podsądnych jak np. Goering, który zastraszał innych oskarżonych, żeby nie składali zeznań obciążających go i Rzeszę.
Poruszające są również zupełnie różne reakcje na ujawnienie zbrodni III Rzeszy. Od wypierania się Goeringa, pochwalanie działań reżimu przez Streichera i Rosenberga i zupełnej krytyki dokonanej przez Franka i von Schiracha. Pasjonująco zostało przedstawione także indywidualne nastawienie oskarżonych oraz zmiany jakie w nich zachodziły podczas procesu. Od nagłego ozdrowienia Hessa, który na zmianę tracił i odzyskiwał pamięć oraz sprawność umysłu, przez nawrócenie religijne Franka, aż do desperacji Ribbentropa w obliczu zbliżającego się ogłoszenia wyroku. Swoją drogą zaskakujące jest to, że tak mierna osoba jak Ribbentropa zarządzała polityką zagraniczną niemieckiego hegemona. Inni podsądni nie patyczkowali się krytykując go, a często wręcz wyśmiewając jego głupotę i asekuranctwo.
Kolejna sprawą, która mną wstrząsnęła była logika wojskowych Wermachtu, według której uważali się za niewinnych. Ich podejście do siebie jako posłusznych wykonawców rozkazów polityków oraz nieugięta lojalność zrobiły na mnie duże wrażenie. Zdecydowanie da się odczuć, że stali na zupełni innym poziomie niż reszta oskarżonych. Odbierając ich tylko przez pryzmat „Dziennika norymberskiego” naprawdę nie sposób nie zacząć się zastanawiać czy osoby jak Jodl, Keitel, Raeder i Donitz powinny znaleźć się w jednej ławie oskarżonych z takimi obmierzłymi typami jak Goering i Streicher. Oczywiście to czy wojskowy ma prawo odmówić rozkazu, który uważa za niemoralny i nieskończenie zły jest zupełnie inną kwestią, która też był omawiana podczas posiedzeń. Według wysokich rangą oficerów, zgodnie z ich pruskim kodeksem honorowym – nie.
Ciekawą sprawą są też komentarze oskarżonych dotyczące ataku na Polskę oraz samej Polski jak na przykład stwierdzenie, że Polacy nie umieją się sami rządzić. Różni się również podejście wojskowych i polityków do przystąpienia do wojny z Polską. Według zezna��, wojskowi mieli negatywny stosunek do ataku na Polskę. Co więcej uważali go za szaleństwo w obliczu faktu, że zachodnia granica Niemiec została na ten czas praktycznie bez żadnej ochrony.
Inną interesującą kwestią jest to, że ogół zeznać przedstawiał III Rzeszę jako praktycznie prywatne państwo Hitlera, gdzie on odgórnie o wszystkim decydował bez żadnych konsultacji np. z oskarżonymi. Zdecydowana większość z oskarżonych próbowała się bronić twierdząc, że nie mieli pojęciach o żadnych zbrodniach, nie podejmowali żadnych decyzji, a ich głównym zadaniem było podawanie rozkazów w dół łańcucha dowodzenia. Jako głównych i praktycznie jedynych odpowiedzialnych za zbrodnie przedstawiano Hitlera i Himmlera.
W książce można znaleźć też wiele innych smaczków z czasów trwania procesu. Moją uwagę najbardziej przykuło zadowolenie Niemców z rosnących z dnia na dzień napięć amerykańsko-sowieckich oraz ich pewność co do tego, że w ciągu kilku lat dotychczasowi sojusznicy staną się zaciekłymi wrogami.
Jeżeli dodać jeszcze, że cały dziennik jest okraszony ironicznymi komentarzami i ripostami autora to nie sposób nie polecić „Dziennika norymberskiego” nie tylko fanom historii i psychologii, ale praktycznie każdemu kto lubi dobrze opowiedziane, ciekawe i przejmujące historie. Mi się bardzo podobało.
Bardzo porusza bezpośredniość i swoboda z jaką zbrodniarze rozmawiali z psychologiem. Co prawda część z nich próbowała go rozgrywać licząc na jego wstawiennictwo, ale zupełnie nie da się odczuć, żeby mimo różnicy pozycji traktowali go jako gorszego niż oni sami. Dzięki zapisom rozmów oraz notatkom streszczającym co aktualnie działo się na sali sądowej, można świetnie „odczytać” poszczególne osoby. Ich spontaniczne reakcje na wydarzenia przed trybunałem, wręcz poszczególne zeznania pozwalają doskonale poznać oskarżonych. Żadna biografia pisana z pespektywy nie byłaby w stanie oddać tych ludzi w sposób tak bezpośredni, wręcz naoczny.
To co mnie najbardziej zaskoczyło to różnorodność osób zasiadających na ławie oskarżonych. Obok siebie siedzą ludzie o bardzo wysokim IQ i ćwierćinteligenci. Partyjni aparatczycy razem z wojskowymi generałami, a między nimi ekonomiści i nazistowski ideolog. Co więcej w obliczu nieuchronnego sądu wśród oskarżonych wytworzyły się frakcje, które zaczęły się między sobą ścierać i próbowały wywrzeć wpływ na resztę podsądnych jak np. Goering, który zastraszał innych oskarżonych, żeby nie składali zeznań obciążających go i Rzeszę.
Poruszające są również zupełnie różne reakcje na ujawnienie zbrodni III Rzeszy. Od wypierania się Goeringa, pochwalanie działań reżimu przez Streichera i Rosenberga i zupełnej krytyki dokonanej przez Franka i von Schiracha. Pasjonująco zostało przedstawione także indywidualne nastawienie oskarżonych oraz zmiany jakie w nich zachodziły podczas procesu. Od nagłego ozdrowienia Hessa, który na zmianę tracił i odzyskiwał pamięć oraz sprawność umysłu, przez nawrócenie religijne Franka, aż do desperacji Ribbentropa w obliczu zbliżającego się ogłoszenia wyroku. Swoją drogą zaskakujące jest to, że tak mierna osoba jak Ribbentropa zarządzała polityką zagraniczną niemieckiego hegemona. Inni podsądni nie patyczkowali się krytykując go, a często wręcz wyśmiewając jego głupotę i asekuranctwo.
Kolejna sprawą, która mną wstrząsnęła była logika wojskowych Wermachtu, według której uważali się za niewinnych. Ich podejście do siebie jako posłusznych wykonawców rozkazów polityków oraz nieugięta lojalność zrobiły na mnie duże wrażenie. Zdecydowanie da się odczuć, że stali na zupełni innym poziomie niż reszta oskarżonych. Odbierając ich tylko przez pryzmat „Dziennika norymberskiego” naprawdę nie sposób nie zacząć się zastanawiać czy osoby jak Jodl, Keitel, Raeder i Donitz powinny znaleźć się w jednej ławie oskarżonych z takimi obmierzłymi typami jak Goering i Streicher. Oczywiście to czy wojskowy ma prawo odmówić rozkazu, który uważa za niemoralny i nieskończenie zły jest zupełnie inną kwestią, która też był omawiana podczas posiedzeń. Według wysokich rangą oficerów, zgodnie z ich pruskim kodeksem honorowym – nie.
Ciekawą sprawą są też komentarze oskarżonych dotyczące ataku na Polskę oraz samej Polski jak na przykład stwierdzenie, że Polacy nie umieją się sami rządzić. Różni się również podejście wojskowych i polityków do przystąpienia do wojny z Polską. Według zezna��, wojskowi mieli negatywny stosunek do ataku na Polskę. Co więcej uważali go za szaleństwo w obliczu faktu, że zachodnia granica Niemiec została na ten czas praktycznie bez żadnej ochrony.
Inną interesującą kwestią jest to, że ogół zeznać przedstawiał III Rzeszę jako praktycznie prywatne państwo Hitlera, gdzie on odgórnie o wszystkim decydował bez żadnych konsultacji np. z oskarżonymi. Zdecydowana większość z oskarżonych próbowała się bronić twierdząc, że nie mieli pojęciach o żadnych zbrodniach, nie podejmowali żadnych decyzji, a ich głównym zadaniem było podawanie rozkazów w dół łańcucha dowodzenia. Jako głównych i praktycznie jedynych odpowiedzialnych za zbrodnie przedstawiano Hitlera i Himmlera.
W książce można znaleźć też wiele innych smaczków z czasów trwania procesu. Moją uwagę najbardziej przykuło zadowolenie Niemców z rosnących z dnia na dzień napięć amerykańsko-sowieckich oraz ich pewność co do tego, że w ciągu kilku lat dotychczasowi sojusznicy staną się zaciekłymi wrogami.
Jeżeli dodać jeszcze, że cały dziennik jest okraszony ironicznymi komentarzami i ripostami autora to nie sposób nie polecić „Dziennika norymberskiego” nie tylko fanom historii i psychologii, ale praktycznie każdemu kto lubi dobrze opowiedziane, ciekawe i przejmujące historie. Mi się bardzo podobało.
September 26, 2019
This was a difficult book to read and enjoy. Written and compiled by G M Gilbert, who was the prison psychologist before and during the Nuremberg trial, it gives an almost daily record of conversations, observations and events surrounding the 21 Nazi leaders who were on trial for their lives. Each defendant was described and his reactions, thoughts and conversations were recorded as their defense proceeded. 11 were sentenced to death by hanging, three were found not guilty and the rest were given varying prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life.
It was a chilling read to get to know these monsters, most of whom showed little remorse for the atrocities of the Nazi regime. They almost universally spouted their patriotism and tried to convince the court they didn't know what was going on in the camps and the rest of Europe. Even when confronted with proof of their involvement and duplicity, their denial was hard to fathom. Several were almost catatonic and had severe mental issues...lost memory, depression, suicidal urges, mania etc. Others were defiant or silent. This trial was only 6 months after German capitulation, and wounds and grief was still very palpable. There were other tribunals also, but Nuremberg was more of a world wide court of justice.
After World War II there was a global exhaustion with death and the revenge motive of making the German monsters responsible for the war and all its atrocities was conflicted. Thousands of German Nazis were helped relocate to South America by Sweden and other networks. Hitler, Himmler and many more of the most culpable were already dead. It was difficult to garner much enthusiasm for more killing and reliving of atrocity.....no matter how strong the need for some degree of justice and finality to the scourge of Hitler's Germany. The death toll world wide was over 90,000,000 and Europe/Asia were devastated.
The book is gripping history and if you like that, or want to see into the psychology of the twisted and sick mind of brainwashed, antisemitic monsters, then it's as well documented and accurate a record as you will find. It made me very sad. I couldn't stop reading it once i got to 'know' the 21 defendants and how they were different. The ways they reacted and behaved was occasionally predictable, but more often surprising. What was clear, was that they ALL had lost any sense of moral purpose or humanitarian empathy. They were also all narcissistic and self serving right to the end. They were terribly misguided and hateful people, made and exaggerated into the Aryan myth of a super race. IN the end they were tiny and weak and pathetic and sad.
It was a chilling read to get to know these monsters, most of whom showed little remorse for the atrocities of the Nazi regime. They almost universally spouted their patriotism and tried to convince the court they didn't know what was going on in the camps and the rest of Europe. Even when confronted with proof of their involvement and duplicity, their denial was hard to fathom. Several were almost catatonic and had severe mental issues...lost memory, depression, suicidal urges, mania etc. Others were defiant or silent. This trial was only 6 months after German capitulation, and wounds and grief was still very palpable. There were other tribunals also, but Nuremberg was more of a world wide court of justice.
After World War II there was a global exhaustion with death and the revenge motive of making the German monsters responsible for the war and all its atrocities was conflicted. Thousands of German Nazis were helped relocate to South America by Sweden and other networks. Hitler, Himmler and many more of the most culpable were already dead. It was difficult to garner much enthusiasm for more killing and reliving of atrocity.....no matter how strong the need for some degree of justice and finality to the scourge of Hitler's Germany. The death toll world wide was over 90,000,000 and Europe/Asia were devastated.
The book is gripping history and if you like that, or want to see into the psychology of the twisted and sick mind of brainwashed, antisemitic monsters, then it's as well documented and accurate a record as you will find. It made me very sad. I couldn't stop reading it once i got to 'know' the 21 defendants and how they were different. The ways they reacted and behaved was occasionally predictable, but more often surprising. What was clear, was that they ALL had lost any sense of moral purpose or humanitarian empathy. They were also all narcissistic and self serving right to the end. They were terribly misguided and hateful people, made and exaggerated into the Aryan myth of a super race. IN the end they were tiny and weak and pathetic and sad.
December 17, 2021
The Nuremberg Diary was at times a bit tedious to read, because there’s essentially nothing new for 400 pages. All defendants rationalized their crimes to a varying degree, showing little to no real remorse. That left the book with just the same shameless rationalizations over and over again. This didn’t surprise me at all, but it nevertheless made it a bit tiring.
In order to save their faces, the defendants mainly used the old basic tactics of scapegoating and playing the victim, sometimes in combination with the attempt to mythologize themselves as heroes in a noble struggle against an overly powerful enemy. The latter tactic was used especially by those who remained most ignorant, like Goering, Rosenberg and Streicher. The mighty enemy was of course World Jewry.
Another version of the noble struggle was created by demonizing Hitler. If you see him as a demon with supernatural powers, you clearly can’t bear any guilt, right? He just possessed you and you couldn’t do anything about it.
Perhaps the most common version of playing the victim (of an unfair trial) is the face-saver “I didn’t know of it”. This was especially used when it came to the atrocities in the concentration camps.
However outrageous this denial might be, it’s probably the only thing the neurotic ego can do. I guess it’s impossible to really sit down and honestly reflect upon what you have done and come to the conclusion that you have actively taken part in a system that bestially murdered millions of innocent people. The self-hate arising from that realization would be so insanely crushing that the ego just completely bans self-awareness.
This becomes clear once again at the end of the trial when the criminals hear the summation of the prosecution:
„The reaction of most of the defendants was one of hurt surprise that the prosecution still considered them criminals.“
Another classic attempt to get rid of the guilt was to tell that you were just following orders and you didn’t have a chance to disobey. In some cases this seems to be true, considering that you could get shot for treason, but this still doesn’t make your crimes undone. So regardless of the consequences or the rules in the murderous system of the Third Reich, everyone was in the end accountable for his/her own actions. And this is not a thing of the past, it’s still true. Evil actions don’t cease to be evil just because they are justified by the state and seen as normal by the majority of the people.
All in all an important book and part of history, even if it’s at times a bit tedious to read.
In order to save their faces, the defendants mainly used the old basic tactics of scapegoating and playing the victim, sometimes in combination with the attempt to mythologize themselves as heroes in a noble struggle against an overly powerful enemy. The latter tactic was used especially by those who remained most ignorant, like Goering, Rosenberg and Streicher. The mighty enemy was of course World Jewry.
Another version of the noble struggle was created by demonizing Hitler. If you see him as a demon with supernatural powers, you clearly can’t bear any guilt, right? He just possessed you and you couldn’t do anything about it.
Perhaps the most common version of playing the victim (of an unfair trial) is the face-saver “I didn’t know of it”. This was especially used when it came to the atrocities in the concentration camps.
However outrageous this denial might be, it’s probably the only thing the neurotic ego can do. I guess it’s impossible to really sit down and honestly reflect upon what you have done and come to the conclusion that you have actively taken part in a system that bestially murdered millions of innocent people. The self-hate arising from that realization would be so insanely crushing that the ego just completely bans self-awareness.
This becomes clear once again at the end of the trial when the criminals hear the summation of the prosecution:
„The reaction of most of the defendants was one of hurt surprise that the prosecution still considered them criminals.“
Another classic attempt to get rid of the guilt was to tell that you were just following orders and you didn’t have a chance to disobey. In some cases this seems to be true, considering that you could get shot for treason, but this still doesn’t make your crimes undone. So regardless of the consequences or the rules in the murderous system of the Third Reich, everyone was in the end accountable for his/her own actions. And this is not a thing of the past, it’s still true. Evil actions don’t cease to be evil just because they are justified by the state and seen as normal by the majority of the people.
All in all an important book and part of history, even if it’s at times a bit tedious to read.
February 6, 2023
I read this as a companion book to “The Nuremberg Trial” by Ann and John Tusa. Reading Gilbert’s day to-day notes and observations brings the events that the Tusas described more to life and provides a view of what was happening behind the scenes. Gilbert’s cold and unsparing observations allow you to see the defendants as human beings (though still not deserving much sympathy). As one American was quoted in the Tusa book ‘Who'd have thought that we were fighting this war against a bunch of jerks?'. Indeed they were, at the end of the day, ‘a bunch of jerks’.
“But Goering could no longer laugh. He lay on his cot completely worn out and deflated. In our conversations he still toyed feebly with the heroic legend idea, Like a child holding the torn remnants of a balloon that had burst in its hand. A few days after the verdict he asked me again what those psychological tests had shown about his personality — especially that ink-blot test — as if it had been bothering him all the time. This time I told him. "Frankly, they showed that while you have an active, aggressive mind, you lack the guts to really face responsibility. You betrayed yourself with a little gesture on the ink-blot test." Goering glared apprehensively. "Do you remember the card with the red spot? Well, morbid neurotics often hesitate over that card and then say there's blood on it. You hesitated, but you didn't call it blood. You tried to flick it off with your finger, as though you thought you could wipe away the blood with a little gesture. You've been doing the same thing all through the trial — taking off your earphones in the courtroom, whenever the evidence of your guilt became too unbearable. And you did the same thing during the war too, drugging the atrocities out of your mind. You didn't have the courage to face it. That is your guilt. I agree with Speer. You are a moral coward.
The night before the executions Goering asked the chaplain for the rites of the Last Supper and the blessing of the Lutheran Church. Chaplain Gerecke, sensing another theatrical gesture, declined to administer the rites, telling Goering that since he had never shown the slightest sign of repentance, he would not put on a show for someone who did not usually mean it. The next night, when Goering showed that he had intended to make a mockery of the Last Supper by committing suicide right after it, the chaplain realized how right he was about Goering.”
“But Goering could no longer laugh. He lay on his cot completely worn out and deflated. In our conversations he still toyed feebly with the heroic legend idea, Like a child holding the torn remnants of a balloon that had burst in its hand. A few days after the verdict he asked me again what those psychological tests had shown about his personality — especially that ink-blot test — as if it had been bothering him all the time. This time I told him. "Frankly, they showed that while you have an active, aggressive mind, you lack the guts to really face responsibility. You betrayed yourself with a little gesture on the ink-blot test." Goering glared apprehensively. "Do you remember the card with the red spot? Well, morbid neurotics often hesitate over that card and then say there's blood on it. You hesitated, but you didn't call it blood. You tried to flick it off with your finger, as though you thought you could wipe away the blood with a little gesture. You've been doing the same thing all through the trial — taking off your earphones in the courtroom, whenever the evidence of your guilt became too unbearable. And you did the same thing during the war too, drugging the atrocities out of your mind. You didn't have the courage to face it. That is your guilt. I agree with Speer. You are a moral coward.
The night before the executions Goering asked the chaplain for the rites of the Last Supper and the blessing of the Lutheran Church. Chaplain Gerecke, sensing another theatrical gesture, declined to administer the rites, telling Goering that since he had never shown the slightest sign of repentance, he would not put on a show for someone who did not usually mean it. The next night, when Goering showed that he had intended to make a mockery of the Last Supper by committing suicide right after it, the chaplain realized how right he was about Goering.”
August 24, 2023
I decided to read this volume after reading My Friend Anne Frank by Hannah Pick-Goslar. I wanted to read it while the horrors described in that book were still fresh in my mind. Pick-Goslar's book has done the much needed service of once again reminding us of the almost unbelievable cruelty of the holocaust. Because if we forget, it is more likely to happen again.
Reading the diary kept by G.M. Gilbert, the prison psychologist during the Nuremberg trials, gives incredible insight into the 21 defendants. Most of these men engaged in cruel and vicious acts which brought untold suffering onto millions of people. And it was not just the Jews who were the targets of these acts, it was anyone deemed to be a less worthy human being by these butchers. And those that did not engage in these acts silently stood by and allowed them to happen. But to hear them rationalize away their actions allows us to understand how the holocaust could have happened.
We occasionally hear some say "How could the Germans have followed someone as evil as Hitler so blindly?".This book shows clearly how it happened. According to most of these men they were in no way responsible for what happened, they were just following their leader. Their ability and willingness to ignore the hatred displayed by Hitler is mind-numbing. They went out of their way to invent excuses for the increasingly horrid event that were being ordered by their beloved leader.
It was only the Jews and maybe the Slavs, and the gypsies and other undesirables being targeted. What did it matter? No need to look for any truth in these rumors of mass murder. Hitler was their beloved leader. And when, at the trials, they were presented with irrefutable evidence of the tragic truth, most still did not blame Hitler. It was Himmler and Goebbels who were at fault and the few defendants who did blame Hitler were scorned by the rest.
This book is exhibit number one of why our history must be taught truthfully. This could only happen again if we ignore the fact that it happened before.
Reading the diary kept by G.M. Gilbert, the prison psychologist during the Nuremberg trials, gives incredible insight into the 21 defendants. Most of these men engaged in cruel and vicious acts which brought untold suffering onto millions of people. And it was not just the Jews who were the targets of these acts, it was anyone deemed to be a less worthy human being by these butchers. And those that did not engage in these acts silently stood by and allowed them to happen. But to hear them rationalize away their actions allows us to understand how the holocaust could have happened.
We occasionally hear some say "How could the Germans have followed someone as evil as Hitler so blindly?".This book shows clearly how it happened. According to most of these men they were in no way responsible for what happened, they were just following their leader. Their ability and willingness to ignore the hatred displayed by Hitler is mind-numbing. They went out of their way to invent excuses for the increasingly horrid event that were being ordered by their beloved leader.
It was only the Jews and maybe the Slavs, and the gypsies and other undesirables being targeted. What did it matter? No need to look for any truth in these rumors of mass murder. Hitler was their beloved leader. And when, at the trials, they were presented with irrefutable evidence of the tragic truth, most still did not blame Hitler. It was Himmler and Goebbels who were at fault and the few defendants who did blame Hitler were scorned by the rest.
This book is exhibit number one of why our history must be taught truthfully. This could only happen again if we ignore the fact that it happened before.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 15, 2020
For the record... that's what "Nuremberg Diary" details... a documented record of the Nuremberg War Trials as witnessed and told by Gilbert in this 'diary'
21 Nazi War Criminals went on trial in October of 1945 before a world court. The defendants included some of the top Nazi brass...Goering, Hess, Speer, Ribbentrop.
Gilbert provides an almost daily account or summary of the trial along with reactions of the defendants during the trial itself and later on in their cells. This provides an excellent look into each man's character and situation.
As the evidence piles up... moods change... tempers flare...then judgments are rendered.
11 received the Death sentence, 3 received life sentences, 4 served 10-20 year terms and 3 were acquitted.
By now we all know what happened but in "Nuremberg Diary" we get to understand the people and the process. There are chilling parts when certain evidence is introduced.
I think the best part of this work is you really get to understand the state of mind of the "21" during the trial as well as their perceptions of their actions during the war itself.
21 Nazi War Criminals went on trial in October of 1945 before a world court. The defendants included some of the top Nazi brass...Goering, Hess, Speer, Ribbentrop.
Gilbert provides an almost daily account or summary of the trial along with reactions of the defendants during the trial itself and later on in their cells. This provides an excellent look into each man's character and situation.
As the evidence piles up... moods change... tempers flare...then judgments are rendered.
11 received the Death sentence, 3 received life sentences, 4 served 10-20 year terms and 3 were acquitted.
By now we all know what happened but in "Nuremberg Diary" we get to understand the people and the process. There are chilling parts when certain evidence is introduced.
I think the best part of this work is you really get to understand the state of mind of the "21" during the trial as well as their perceptions of their actions during the war itself.
January 7, 2024
If I could give this more than 5 stars, I would.
Dr. Gilbert's approach was fantastic, casual conversation with those on trial for the heinous WWII crimes. He rarely interrupted, letting the defendants speak freely and truly. It was fascinating to watch the psych of each defendant change throughout the trial. Who stayed with ringleader Goering, and who attempted to distance themselves from the atrocities they committed.
What I found incredible, yet unsurprising, was the denial they all stood by - how could 'none of them' have known what was going on? Would have been great if Hitler and Himmler themselves could respond to these accusations, because while they were certainly the top of the chain and the worst, I'm sure they would throw the rest who agreed under the bus to 'share the blame'.
If you liked this book - you should also watch the Netflix documentary on Hitler's Inner Circle. The show describes Hitler's rise to power including many of these men on trial, and how they supported and helped Hitler get there.
Dr. Gilbert's approach was fantastic, casual conversation with those on trial for the heinous WWII crimes. He rarely interrupted, letting the defendants speak freely and truly. It was fascinating to watch the psych of each defendant change throughout the trial. Who stayed with ringleader Goering, and who attempted to distance themselves from the atrocities they committed.
What I found incredible, yet unsurprising, was the denial they all stood by - how could 'none of them' have known what was going on? Would have been great if Hitler and Himmler themselves could respond to these accusations, because while they were certainly the top of the chain and the worst, I'm sure they would throw the rest who agreed under the bus to 'share the blame'.
If you liked this book - you should also watch the Netflix documentary on Hitler's Inner Circle. The show describes Hitler's rise to power including many of these men on trial, and how they supported and helped Hitler get there.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews