MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379742188 · doi:10.1353/flm.2020.0020

Nuremberg: A Definitive Survey of the Evidentiary Films

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

Bibliographic record

VenueFilm & history · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalLawPrisonNazismWar crimeNuremberg trialsGermanThe HolocaustPolitical scienceArchivistSociologyHistoryInternational lawPoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from 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...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0140.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFilm & historySame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207