It's hard to reflect on yourself.

Rating: 7/10 (6 May 2020)

First of all, the plot of the movie is interesting: it is the judge of the victorious country who tries the judge of the defeated country.
The reason of the victors was that the judges of the defeated countries had not only failed to uphold justice and violated the dignity of the law when the nazis were in politics, but also helped the nazis to implement many inhuman ACTS.
Of the four judges on trial, the best was janine, not only in attitude, but also in reflection:
After the defeat of Germany, the national economy was in a state of great depression because of the huge reparations. However, the rise of Hitler not only improved people's livelihood, promoted economic development, solved the problem of employment, increased national strength, but also greatly cultivated national self-confidence and pride. Can such a man be unpopular with the people? He took the germans out of the shadow of the first world war and inferiority, gave Germany strength and hope, he hoped to lead all the people in Europe can develop like Germany, so he did not stop using force to achieve his grand goal. As far as Hitler's rhetoric is concerned, it would be good news for europeans if his dream came true. Under the efforts of Hitler and the Nazi party, the iron fact made people believe that everything Hitler did was for the happiness of the whole nation, and there was no reason not to support him. The servants in the film also said that Hitler did a lot of good things for the germans, such as building roads.
In such a situation, even the judge has lost his judgment, let alone ordinary people? And he didn't like Hitler himself.
Mrs Berhalter defends her husband: he does not like the nazis, he does not like Hitler, but as a soldier it is his duty to obey orders. But in the end her husband was executed;
At the same time, many people did not know about the camp because it was carried out by the ss, the stormtroopers and the secret police.
In this trial, the defense of janine's lawyer was brilliant, asking the right questions:
Janine said, 'our achievements are based on our lofty ideals.' why are we successful? What about the rest of the world? Don't they know the intentions of the third Reich? Didn't they hear what Hitler was saying around the world? Did they publish in all the countries of the world what mayne canaveri had to say about his intentions? What was the role of the Soviet union, which had signed an agreement with Hitler in 1939 to encourage him to wage war? Can we convict the soviets? What is the Vatican's responsibility for reaching the height of Hitler's prestige by signing an agreement with him in 1933? Can we convict the Vatican? Is the world leader Winston Churchill to blame? 1938! 1938! In an open letter in The Times of London, he said that when England had suffered a national catastrophe, I should pray to god to send a wise and resolute Hitler. Can we convict Churchill? Where is the responsibility of those American industrialists? Can we convict these American industrialists of helping Hitler make weapons and profit from them? No, Sir, no, only the germans are innocent, and the whole world is responsible for Hitler and Germany. It is easy to convict a man on the bench, it is easy to say that the German system and people were at fault for Hitler's rise to power, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the institutional and national errors with which the soviets had signed the agreement with him, and Churchill praised him and the americans for helping him.
Janin said he was wrong, and if so, janin's sin was the sin of the world.

If they are all guilty, the russians, the British, and the americans are also guilty, why are the others/countries not tried, and why should the americans judge only them?
But the story of a winner and a loser.
If the americans had lost the war and the germans had won, perhaps there would have been a change in the dock and the bench, and in this trial the American judge who had won the war said that the German judge who had lost the war had not presided over the execution of the law. In this sense, the trial of these judges is a political game, because the law in such cases is not neutral, but victorious. The law here is not the representative of justice, but the puppet of politics. As the movie says, the men were sentenced, but they were eventually released for political reasons.
It is conceivable that if the United States fought Iraq, and the United States lost, and Iraq occupied the United States, instead of saddam hussein being tried and hanged, bush being tried and hanged. Consider judge Hahn's closing statement: germans fight for their lives and must take specific measures to ensure it is not invaded by foreign enemies. How similar this is to the rhetoric of the United States in the war on terror.
Through this film, it is very good for the so-called victors to reflect on what role we played in the tragedy of the world. We have always said that justice will prevail, is the story of the world are eulogizing the victory of justice, but saw this film, but I felt the victory are just. That is to say, not to say that justice will prevail, but victory will be justice. Which reminds me of another sentence: evil is to win, because just stand by.
I wonder if that's what the Chinese government means when they keep saying that most Japanese are innocent? Are ordinary good people victims of a system, an idea, a propaganda voice and a machine?
It is easy to condemn others, but difficult to reflect on oneself