MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4379742188 · doi:10.1353/flm.2020.0020

Nuremberg: A Definitive Survey of the Evidentiary Films

2020· article· en· W4379742188 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
William T. Murphy

Notice bibliographique

RevueFilm & history · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLaw in Society and Culture
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTribunalLawPrisonNazismWar crimeNuremberg trialsGermanThe HolocaustPolitical scienceArchivistSociologyHistoryInternational lawPoliticsArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Nuremberg:A Definitive Survey of the Evidentiary Films William T. Murphy Introduction In the aftermath of World War II, legal counsels from Allied countries prosecuted the major German war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg, Germany, November 14, 1945, to October 1, 1946. The Office of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality carried out this responsibility for the United States. This article surveys and briefly analyzes each of the films submitted during the trial proceedings that confronted the defendants. The films themselves supplemented other overwhelming evidence against them, but, as a corpus, the films require a definitive survey for scholarly cataloguing. The Counsel produced two original documentaries for the IMT: The Nazi Plan and Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps. As it happened, the Counsel's most powerful film, the Camps documentary, appeared in another historic court case some forty years later. A Canadian court called upon me, then a National Archives and Record Service (NARA) archivist, to testify on the prosecution's behalf to support the film's admissibility in a Holocaust-denier trial. Not unexpectedly, the defense attorney challenged the testimony, a move that offers a striking contrast between the two trials in terms of how the courts judged the film. The article therefore contains a discussion of both trials. Finally, the exhibit films formally submitted to the tribunal by Allied consuls are described in a substantial appendix. This article contains, to date, the most accurate and complete description of these evidentiary films. The monumental transcript of the IMT proceedings contains most of the historical sources for this article.1 Nazi Concentration and Prisoner Camps, Exhibit USA-79 Arguably, the most powerful film shown during the proceedings was Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps.2 Screened in the courtroom on November 29, 1945, it represented a fundamental part of the documentary evidence that Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief U.S. Counsel, wanted to use in place of testimony from eyewitnesses. "The motion pictures were made of the camps as the Allies found them," Jackson said. "Our proof will be disgusting, and you will say I robbed you of your sleep. But these are things that have turned the stomach of the world and set every civilized hand against Nazi Germany."3 Lt. Col. George Stevens, a renowned movie director, and Lt. Cmdr. Ray Kellogg, another Hollywood filmmaker, made the film compiled from combat footage of the camps' liberation. Affidavits signed [End Page 3] by Stevens and Kellogg reproduced in the beginning of the film attested to the origin of the horrifying scenes. However, neither Stevens nor Kellogg was present in the courtroom during the IMT screening. Stevens had general responsibility for filming the camps as the Allies liberated them, and in this capacity, he wrote, "They (the scenes) constitute a true representation of the individuals and scenes photographed." Kellogg affirmed that images had not been "retouched, distorted, or altered in any respect since the exposures were made." It is worth noting that personal production credits were not assigned to government films of this era. Officially, no one received a personal credit. In the military rank has its privileges, a fact of life that often determined the form and content of documentaries. Informal credits attributed to military productions only approximate filmmaking roles; such credits are usually intended for the interests of film historians and movie buffs. All military documentaries were effectively group endeavors. Any signs of "auteur" ownership, as a few film historians have written, challenge credulity. As a well-known example of the privileges of rank, Army Capt. John Huston initially turned in a 50-minute production of his classic wartime documentary San Pietro. The chain-of-command, however, ordered it shortened, first to 40 minutes and, with the assistance of Col. Frank Capra, eventually to 30 minutes in the final version that went on to win an Oscar. In his courtroom introduction to the film Thomas Dodd, Executive Counsel for the United States, said that the documentary would explain in an unforgettable form what the words "concentration camps" imply. "We intend," Dodd continued, "to prove that each and every one of these defendants knew of the existence of these concentration camps."4 Dodd handed over...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,920
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,073
Tête enseignante GPT0,271
Écart entre enseignants0,198 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFilm & historyMême sujetLaw in Society and CultureTravaux en français237 207