Nuremburg – The Nazis Facing Their Crimes (2006) – Narrated

Nuremburg – The Nazis Facing Their Crimes (2006) – Narrated by Christopher Plummer **NOTE** - This 2-DVD offering contains a comprehensive stock footage documentary of the trials, plus the unedited versions of the films shown AT the trials by the Americans and the Soviets. Video Codec..........: XviD ISO MPEG-4 Video Bitrate........: 952kbps Duration.............: 1:30:36 Resolution...........: 512*384 Framerate............: 29.970 Audio Codec..........: 0x0055 MPEG-1 Layer 3 Audio Bitrate........: 114 kbps VBR Audio Channels.......: 2 English Subtitles for Soviet Film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889626/ http://bayimg.com/BAJFJaAcf http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932469.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 "Nuremberg: The Nazis Facing Their Crimes" is a curiously low-key condensation of the Nuremberg trial, culled almost exclusively from courtroom footage filmed under the supervision of John Ford (now digitally remastered), which fascinates with its dry avoidance of drama -- those rare moments of emotional intensity threatening to tear apart the layers of judicial dispassion in which the tribunal swathed itself. Pic's procedural emphasis first appears irrelevant to its avowed subject, yet the red tape-clogged, precedent-setting proceedings manifest a stubborn will toward clarity that feels strangely appropriate. Rewarding to patient viewers, "Nuremberg" should find a stable berth on television. Those drawn to the film by its subtitle will doubtless be disappointed by the lack of concentrated focus on the reactions, or absence of reactions, of the SS defendants in the dock. But in fact, French director Christian Delage has a hidden agenda that, in retrospect, clarifies the thrust of his 90-minute edit. As a historian, Delage is obsessed with the growing role of reproduced images in shaping history. In this light, the emphasis on the myriad cameras recording the trial as well as the documentaries-within-documentaries screened in the courtroom (showing concentration camps as well as the slaughter of civilians and POWs in Russia) begins to make structural sense. At the same time, the trial is inseparable from these projected images -- which, moved up on the docket to spark flagging interest in the slow-moving proceedings, shocked the courtroom, and sent figures filing out in silence once the lights came back on. Contrary to the depiction in Hollywood's Spencer Tracy-Judy Garland starrer "Judgment at Nuremberg," testimony by victims was surprisingly sparse, as it seemed to discomfit members of the tribunal. A female survivor, mastering her emotion as she adamantly recounts what she witnessed at Auschwitz (her account culminating with the screams of children thrown into ovens alive), is interrupted by a judge before she can move on to her experiences at Ravensbruch, on the supposition of redundancy. (The witness dryly disagrees: One was a functional death camp, the other worked people to death.) Testimony from Nazis immune from indictment proposes horror of a different stripe: One calmly remorseless SD leader responsible for killing 90,000 Russian Jews makes fine distinctions between shooting them up close or at a distance. Consummately narrated by Christopher Plummer with silky gravitas, the documentary also highlights the reaction of a stunned world to the atrocities uncovered a mere six months earlier -- judges' and prosecutors' ringing indictments echoed by citations from the packed rows of international press (a young, mustachioed Walter Cronkite in their midst). Yet in its methodical matter-of-factness, the documentary cannot but reveal the gap between the vastness of the crime and the narrowness of its punishment.

udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80
udp://open.demonii.com:1337
udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969
udp://exodus.desync.com:6969

 rambam1776 (2010-01-03)

When presented with a claim such as the one made above by ?bilderbooger?, an historian has to enter into a Devil?s Choice. Do you simply ignore it, or do you run the risk of justifying the debate by refuting it? Consider, you can easily prove a flat-earther wrong, someone who claims that something isn?t true when the evidence that it is so is absolute. By arguing with them, doesn?t that make it sound like the debate is even worth having?
This is the problem addressed by Prof. Deborah Lipstadt in her famous book DENYING THE TRUTH: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, which I would encourage everyone to read.
The purpose of these trials to begin with was to make it impossible for anyone to successfully claim that the Holocaust did not occur. Watch the films and judge for yourself if they were successful. As far ?bilderbooger? goes, his technique above is to seize on some aspects that have been embellished in urban myth to act as proof that the event is false. For example, if I were to describe in great detail a car crash involving 100 cars and multiple deaths, but to have described one car as blue when it was really green, then someone who wanted to deny all of it could say the evidence was wrong. A famous real life example of this is in American History, where people are told how the cavalry used to give infected blankets to Indians. In reality, there is only one recorded case of that ever happening, and it occurred in the 1760s when a single BRITISH officer did so ? for which he was court-martialed. That does not mean that subsequent American treatment of the Indians was pristine, simply that a famous grotesque historical image is inaccurate.
The Holocaust was the systematic destruction of around 13 million people deemed by the Third Reich to be unfit to live for a variety of reasons. Roughly 6 million of these were Jews (seen as the primary enemy), and around 7 million were other ethnic minorities, politically unacceptable Germans, foreign soldiers, sexually or religiously disliked minorities, and other assorted groups. The killing had two major methods ? murder in place by mobile squads called einsatzgruppen, or transportation and elimination in camps by various means ? ranging from gas to exposure and slave labor.
In any mass operation, especially one so evil and necessarily cruel, there were bound to be further aberrations and extremities, as well as myths and falsehoods. These are what the above poster uses to deny everything. One deeply warped person in a camp made two shrunken heads of a pair of Polish resistance fighters. One person with some tanning ability used tattooed human skin to make some leather souvenirs, not lamp shades. Soap was considered, but not carried out.
If you are reading this, and are not a history scholar or are new to this ugliness, I suggest you read Lipstadt?s book, or simply go here to gain a better understanding of the nature of Holocaust Denial:

sistromo (2010-01-03)

Bilderbooger, you are worse than ignorant.

 rambam1776 (2010-01-04)

KickassWashingMachine (2011-03-16)

Thank you!

KickassWashingMachine (2011-03-16)

@rambam1776: That is the most well-written rebuttal I've ever read (and probably every will read) on the pirate bay!
@Bilderbooger: A high number of ignorants doesn't make the ignorance go away, it just makes the problem bigger.

KickassWashingMachine (2011-03-16)

By the way, it might be interesting to know that this (I believe) is the footage as shot by the Soviets.
The American and the Soviet lawyers were working together during the Nuremburg trials, and both sides were shooting film to document everything.
The American version, however, was shortly after put on ice as the government - now embarking on their communist scare tactics - didn't want to depict this coworking of Americans with scary Soviet communists.
The American version has recently been released (actually that's how I found this torrent, as I was searching for the other one).
It's called "Nuremburg - Its Lesson for Today" and features the only known actual amateur footage (shot by an SS officer) of early testing of gas chambers on unknowing Jewish concentration camp victims.
http://www.nurembergfilm.org/

Jerkoroids (2011-06-29)

thanks