Las entrevistas de Núremberg

by Leon Goldensohn, Robert Gellately

Una obra imprescindible para comprender la mentalidad y la misión de una ideología enloquecida.

En 1946, con los juicios de Núremberg en marcha, el psiquiatra del ejército estadounidense Leon Goldensohn recibió el encargo de entrevistar a dos docenas de líderes alemanes encausados, así como a numerosos testigos de la defensa y de la acusación. El contenido de estas conversaciones no se ha desvelado hasta ahora, más de cincuenta años después. Robert Gellately -uno de los principales historiadores de la Alemania nazi- nos ofrece en este libro treinta y tres de estas entrevistas (cuidadosamente transcritas, editadas y anotadas) con soldados y algunos de los oficiales nazis de mayor graduación encarcelados en Núremberg, entre los que se encuentran Hans Frank, Hermann Göring, Ernest Kaltenbrunner y Joachim von Ribbentrop.

Como entrevistador, Goldensohn era especialmente astuto y, en cada una las conversaciones, logró extraer las motivaciones y la desviación moral que llevó a estos hombres a planear y cometer tan diabólicos crímenes. Nos presenta a unos soldados y oficiales que se debaten entre la admisión y la negación de los hechos, bien acusando a sus superiores o considerando que actuaron correctamente en todo momento.

Gracias a la información biográfica y las notas con las que Gellately ha completado cada entrevista, esta obra aporta información imprescindible para comprender la mentalidad y la misión de una ideología enloquecida.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Holocaust, World War II, Germany, War, Psychology

592 pages, Paperback

First published October 5, 2004

About the author

Leon Goldensohn was an American psychiatrist who monitored the mental health of the twenty-one Nazi defendants awaiting trial at Nuremberg in 1946.

Born on October 19, 1911, in New York City, Goldensohn was the son of Jews who had emigrated from Lithuania. He joined the United States Army in 1943 and was posted to France and Germany, where he served as a psychiatrist for the 63rd Division. He replaced another psychiatrist in January 1946, about six weeks into the trials, and spent more than six months visiting the prisoners nearly every day. He interviewed most of the defendants, including Hermann Göring, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, Rudolf Höss, the first commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp, and Joachim von Ribbentrop, the Foreign Minister of Germany from 1938 until 1945. Goldensohn conducted most his interviews in English with the aid of a translator to have the defendants and witnesses express themselves fully in their own language. Some of his subjects, notably foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, were partially or fully fluent in English, and conducted their interviews in that language.

Goldensohn served as prison psychiatrist until July 26, 1946. He had resolved to write a book about the experience but later contracted tuberculosis and died from a coronary heart attack in 1961. The detailed notes he took were later researched and collated by his brother Eli, a retired neurologist. Robert Gellately, a World War II scholar, edited and annotated the interviews in the book "The Nuremberg Interviews: An American Psychiatrist's Conversations with the Defendants and Witnesses."

Reviews

[Philip Yancey]

Chilling. So few Nazi criminals admitted guilt. Their denials sounded like Adam and Eve: "She made me do it...no, he ate first..." A psychiatrist's interviews with some of the worst mass murderers of history--all respectable, cultured Germans.

[KOMET · Rating 4 out of 5]

The chief value in "The Nuremberg Interviews" comes from the views, perspectives, and at times, candid reflections offered by the 33 defendants and witnesses whom Dr. Goldensohn (then a U.S. Army psychiatrist) interviewed during 1946. In reading this book, I felt as if I were in company with Dr. Goldensohn and his interpreter as he carried our his enquiries of each person. Hermann Goering, nominally the Number 2 man in the Third Reich, didn't strike me as a person given to much introspection or regret. Rather, he came across as a man who enjoyed wielding power and showed no contrition about the Holocaust and several of the other crimes committed by Hitler, whom he regarded largely as a genius.

On the other hand, Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, showed no evasiveness when speaking about his responsibility for the extermination of 5 million people. He fully accepted his guilt and the likelihood he would be hanged for his crimes (which took place in Poland in 1947).

For any reader interested in understanding the mindsets and philosophies of individuals who served a totalitarian state, I strongly recommend this book.

[Philippe · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started to read this book quite casually, but then was hooked and couldn't put it aside. It's an exceptional collection of informal conversations - hovering somewhere in the 'terrain vague' between cross-examination and clinical assessment - with Nazi figureheads awaiting their trial at Nuremberg in the spring of 1946. Many would be hanged in the month of October of that same year. Apart from offering a wealth of personal details the exchanges provide a layered picture of the rationale underpinning the defendants' cases.

There's an observation of an organisational nature that I found most intriguing. On the one hand the Nazis were inveterate bureaucrats. There are an awful lot of references to the institutional rigidity and compartmentalisation of the Nazi bureaucracy. Probably this emerged from a combination of legacy Prussian command structures and Hitler's deliberate strategy to silo the functional units of his administrative apparatus. However, perhaps inevitably this intricate managerial structure was traversed and unhinged by power games, contingencies and inconsistencies of all kinds, lending it a truly labyrinthine quality. Which makes the classic, cursed alibi of those involved in diabolical Nazi operations - "Wir haben es nicht gewusst" - in a way very understandable.

[Szplug · Rating 4 out of 5]

What Goldensohn was able to pry from the collection of Nazi defendants at Nuremberg—after considerable coaxing and between-the-lines analysis in some cases, simply directing and recording the logorrheic flow in others—is ofttimes banal, occasionally insightful, frequently delusional, haltingly confessional, and invariably self-serving: that is, it's very real and immediate and readable. Through their own words, each interviewed internee reveals a culpability ranged across a spectrum whose upper bands radiate monstrousness: and not a single one—however they protest, plead, or prevaricate—comes off clean.

One of the more interesting things about this book was the discovery, in the introduction, that the US and British were in unity upon a policy of summary executions for the Nazi leadership—the idea of pursuing convictions through trials having first been raised by Molotov in the Soviet camp. After Stalin [allegedly in jest] announced that wiping out 50,000 Nazi officials and military officers should do the trick—and to which Roosevelt [surely in jest] suggested 49,000 as a more copacetic tally in the face of an appalled Churchill's protestations—all sides were moved, with US Secretary of War Stimson's voice the foremost, to effect a tribunal that would try the main leadership, and, in so-doing, establish an important precedent in the realm of international criminal law.

[Jo · Rating 4 out of 5]

What were they like? Manipulative to the extreme - playing their peers, their interviewer(s), themselves - not, generally, a nice bunch of people. Some were intellectually far ahead of others, and drew conclusions about the course of history which panned out that lets them appear terribly convincing, yet cynical and coldly calculating beyond belief. Others were merely cruel and narrow minded and yes, why not, a bit dim. Not a pleasant read but an eye opener about the human condition. Don't be fooled, people like that are out there.

[Regina Lindsey · Rating 3 out of 5]

On November 19, 1945 The International Military Tribunal opened at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, Germany to hear the cases of twenty-two Nazis within seven organizations indicted on four charges – conspiracy to commit crimes, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Of the twenty-two individuals standing trial three were acquitted, twelve were sentenced to death, three were given life sentences, and four were given sentences ranging from 10-20 years. During the trial Dr. Eli Golensohn, a psychiatrist for the U.S. Army, interviewed both defendants and witnesses. The Nuremberg Interviews is a compilation of Dr. Golensohn’s copious notes from interviews with nineteen defendants and fourteen witnesses.

While the prospect of a peek into the mind of high profile Nazi war criminals like Hermann Goering and Albert Speer is tantalizing, the most interesting aspect of the book in my opinion is the debate between Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin on how to go about seeking justice. All three at one time favored summary execution. The concept of a trial was actually first suggested by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov as far back as October 14, 1942 and was vociferously advocated by U.S. Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who insisted on the need to avoid the impression that the Allies were seeking vengeance. Ironically, it was Stalin who was the first of the leaders to embrace the trial concept and had FDR not died paving the way for Harry Truman to ascend to the presidency execution very well may have ruled the day. It was during this read that it dawned on me just how difficult it was for these three countries to forge a path forward deciding on the procedures that would ultimately govern the trial. After all, the three countries have vastly different judicial systems and compromise ruled the day. For instance, defendants were not granted anything resembling 5th Amendment protection and were required to answer all questions posed, a concept which is anathema to the US justice system. The other item I learned was that it was the organizations (the Reich cabinet, SS, SA, SD, and Gestapo) that were charged under the indictments rather than specific individuals.

Unfortunately, the interviews themselves were not that enlightening. The reading became redundant, as each defendant used similar defense strategies – the government was disorganized and I didn’t know anything; I don’t hate Jews, I have friends that are Jews; and it was someone else’s fault. The most delusional was Herman Goering who had the audacity to state, “But always my intention was to contribute these art treasures, paintings, pieces of sculpture, altarpieces, jewels, et cetera, to a state museum after I had died, for the greater glory of German culture. Looking at it from that standpoint I can’t see that is was ethically wrong. IT was not as if I accumulated art treasures in order to sell them or to become a rich man. I love art for art’s sake and as I said, my personality demanded that I be surrounded with the best specimens of the world’s art.” (pg. 163) I suppose the most interesting part of the interviews was how clearly evident the ramifications of the Versailles Treaty were on the psyche of individual Germans. Historians have correctly pointed to this has a precursor to the rise of Nazism and Hitler but hearing it these defendants words makes the case even stronger.

I would only recommend this book to those who have a prior understanding of the individual subjects of the book. The author doesn’t provide enough background to give good context for the conversation or the verdict and it could be confusing for those without a good basis of knowledge of the characters.

[Mac · Rating 5 out of 5]

Possibly my favourite WWII book. I have read this a number of times and the more you know about WWII and the Nazi figures involved the better.

I would recommend this only to advanced readers who already have a large understanding of the figures involved and thereby know when the prisoners are lying and the context of their viewpoint.

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leon Goldensohn fue el psiquiatra que entrevistó a los acusados y a los testigos del bando nazi antes, durante y después de los juicios de Nuremberg. El libro es largo, de hojas bíblicas. Cada entrevista es diferente, con una edición distinta y un enfoque adaptado al humor del entrevistado (y del entrevistador). Todos niegan saber lo que ocurría. Y si aceptan saberlo, estaban siguiendo órdenes. Y si se les reprocha su falta de valentía por no detener algo que les causaba "repulsión", la guerra es la guerra y no se puede hacer nada. Pero hay algo más inquietante. No se trata de las justificaciones ni de la paranoia del gigante ruso que quiere invadir el mundo, sino del comportamiento infantil de acusados y testigos. Todos son como niños que ignoran a su conciencia simplemente porque se saben impunes. Por eso sus excusas son tan pobres. El mal es el mal.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought i had read everything about this era. not so. this was interesting in that the doctor who did the interviews asked questions which i had not thought would be of interest but they were. A very easy read and well edited. I guess i learned that even the most evil doers in the world are also human beings.

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fascinating read, offering an insight into Nazism using a psychiatric angle.

We often perceive the high ranking members of the Nazi regime as embodying Evil absolute, the puppets of an ideology whose animal brutality could only be inhuman. It's an easy way to deal with the issue: it allows us all to distance ourselves from such fanatic criminals, and, therefore, from their ideas and deeds, as if we, ourselves, wouldn't have been capable of doing what they did. Here, though, the approach is different. Leon Goldensohn, by interviewing such people (most of whom have, at this point, absolutely nothing to lose anymore and they know it) makes them more relatable, by letting them exposing their own humanity too often conveniently denied and negated. Of course, it's not about offering a naïve view of what remained atrocious individuals, nearly all of them self-righteous criminals! It's about sitting down with them, in their cells, to listen and learn about what Nazism was all about, as told by staunch Nazis themselves.

Our a priori are blown apart right from the start. They might be interviewed by a psychiatrist indeed, yet, out of the 33 individuals concerned (accused and witnesses) only two had serious mental issues -Rudolf Hess, of course, and Julius Streicher. The others-and it may come as a surprise- were in fact highly intelligent, even disturbingly pleasant to 'listen to' (Donitz and Speer, for example, which I found remarkable for their intelligence and clear ways to articulate their views). In fact, out of 22 people standing here accused, 7 had an IQ above 130... Those were not psychopathic beasts, after all -those were people like you and me.

The chapters here read like biographical snippets, where each person interviewed retells his journey, interspersed by Leon Goldensohn's comments about their psychology. Everything isn't here -it's been edited, which surely makes for a reasonable and practical approach (it certainly would have been too long otherwise, without everything to be particularly relevant!) but it also means that readers cannot judge of the choices made as to what ought to be included. Nevertheless,
here's a necessary read for anyone interested in Nazism, not least because it goes beyond the repulsive aspects of such a vile ideology to focus on the human side (disconcerting at times) of those who implemented it, in all its horror. It's disturbing, but engrossing.

[Leonidas Moumouris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Προσωπικά μου προκάλεσε τρομερό ενδιαφέρον το να μπω στα κελιά αυτών των ανθρώπων και να παρακολουθήσω τις συνομιλίες τους με τον Goldensohn. Ο ίδιος κράτησε σημειώσεις τόσο των λόγων όσο και των εκφράσεων και των διαθέσεων τους.
Πρόκειται για ανθρώπους που είτε λίγο είτε πολύ διαδραμάτισαν σημαντικό ρόλο σε μια από τις πιο αιματηρές περιόδους της σύγχρονης ιστορίας.
Αν και οι περισσότεροι αν όχι όλοι αρνήθηκαν ότι γνώριζαν όσα γίνονταν στα στρατόπεδα συγκέντρωσης, υπάρχουν αποκαλυπτικές μαρτυρίες και λεπτομέρειες εκείνης της εποχής τόσο για πριν όσο και κατά τη διάρκεια του Β Παγκοσμίου πολέμου.

[David Parker · Rating 5 out of 5]

On May 7, 1945, Germany officially surrendered, as authorized by the then current Flensburg president Karl Donitz. Between the months of May to October the Allied Forces apprehended and interned various major war criminals of the Third Reich, from the likes of the hedonistic Goering to the abysmal Ernst Kaltenbrunner. Initially all the defendants spare Gustav Krupp and Martin Bormann were detained at a health spa in Bad Mondorf to avoid international scrutiny. On October 1945, Airey Neave, a British officer served upon the 22 remaining defendants a copy of the indictment. Robert Ley, head of the German Labour Front, committed suicide, as he expressed his indignation at being considered a war criminal. Leon Goldensohn, an American military psychiatrist, was acquisitioned with the task of interviewing these men of the 21 present only 19 granted him access to personal discussions, Erich Raeder, former admiral of the German Navy declined on the basis that he was already tended to by another health professional and Arthur Seyss-Inquart denied him for reasons unknown, presumably because Goldensohn was Jewish.

What’s most irritating about the developments and machinations of these men’s psychology is that their catharsis is hampered by cheap, philosophical detachment and endless rationalizations, spare perhaps Albert Speer and Rudolf Hess, as the former had come to terms with his wartime activities and the latter to delusional behaviour which is worthy of its own story, however I digress. The interviews are categorized alphabetically, Karl Donitz’ interviews are the first in a series that the reader is subjected to. Donitz who then stood as the highest ranked Nazi (in conjunction with Hitler’s will) offers an evasive, but partially honest perspective on WWII and the Third Reich. Donitz was not a part of the final solution or civil persecution as he was Admiral of the Kriegsmarine (navy) and thus wasn’t privy to the exploits of the SS. Donitz (as espoused by almost every other defendant) shifts the blame constantly, one moment Hitler’s culpable, the next moment Himmler and Bormann. He does however offer an eerie prediction about Russia’s insatiable lust for total power, opining that America’s security will be at stake and its liberty jeopardized. Donitz received ten years imprisonment.

Another defendant who demands intrigue is the truly reprehensible Ernst Kaltenbrunner. Kaltenbrunner is described as a gaunt lumbering giant of a man whose, thin, razor smile conveys an inescapable evil, often quelled by Kaltenbrunner’s incessant need to place his lower lip over his top. Kaltenbrunner was chief of the RSHA, Intelligence and Interpol, in his capacity crimes of mass murder, kidnapping, thievery and torture was ascribed to him. Kaltenbrunner proves the most banal and fruitless, expounding upon America’s OSS and international security, negating the dreadful acts he committed as Himmler’s number two man. Kaltenbrunner was sentenced to death by hanging, thus bringing the reader to a vital moral and ethical question: capital punishment. Interestingly, several men on the prosecution opposed the death penalty, notably chief prosecutor Robert Jackson. However, the reader has to come to the realization that the death penalty as constituted in the IMT’s legal charter, is less concerned with matters of redundant justice than it is with the fact that so many of these men were beyond redemption. It is true that Julius Streicher, publisher of an anti-Semitic newspaper, received a disproportionate sentence to his crimes and was condemned to death, whereas Hjalmar Schacht, former president of the economy, funded Hitler’s government by international loans and reduced the German economy to near financial disaster by poor fiscal mismanagement is acquitted of all charges.

What I have covered thus far is brief, but that only serves as a testament to how densely rich and academically satisfying this book is. The book akin to the defendants and witnesses is horrifying, tedious, intriguing, surreal and shameful.

[Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book could easily have been titled "I had nothing to do with THAT."

"The Nuremberg Interviews" is an intense read with complex dynamics. On the one hand, there are psychiatrist Leon Goldensohn's efforts to understand his Nazi subjects who are either standing trial or serving as witnesses. Goldensohn asks probing questions to both establish psychological profiles and to also try to understand how they rationalized an aggressive war coupled with genocide. He doesn't seem like a passive 'pipe in the mouth' type of psychologist - instead, he confrontationally pushes his subjects like a surrogate prosecuting attorney. On the other hand, there are the incarcerated 'patients' who are eager to speak to Goldensohn, but often less eager to take responsibility for their crimes. Given an opportunity to expound their cases, the Nazis frequently sound rational and, to some degree, innocent. But Goldensohn doesn't let them off the hook quite so easily when he can see right through their lies and BS.

At about 450 pages, "The Nuremberg Interviews" is often tedious and repetitive. Most of the Nazis who were on the militaristic side claim to have little or no knowledge nor responsibility concerning of the events of the Holocaust. Without a counter argument, it's hard to dispute their claims. Most of the defendants charged with crimes against humanity state that they were just following orders or had no choice. Or, if they were more closely associated with atrocities, they would cite all of their other job responsibilities that prevented them from taking part in murder, torture and other reprehensible acts. In the end, their meandering logical leaps, callousness, and denial of culpability is enough to turn your stomach.

They conveniently blame the dead or missing Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich and Bormann for the mass murders and put a cherry on top by saying how reprehensible these activities were. Goldensohn challenges these statements while readers can draw their own conclusions. This is a scholarly study at times, and in its tedium it's often difficult to recall the Q&A of each subject. That said, Rudolph Hoess (commandant at Auschwitz) and Julius Streicher (publisher of Der Sturmer) provided the most disturbing and harrowing personal reflections of their ideologies and actions. Fortunately for us, they were both executed shortly after the interviews.

Note that Goldensohn had no hand in the publication of this book. He died in 1961, many years before the publication of the book. His widow and scholars assembled the book based on his notes from the interviews. So, other than being a Jewish American in Nuremberg, Goldensohn had no ulterior motives for fame or riches. Which is something that gives the book a level of purity.

[Rachel Heil · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have always been interested in World War Two and the aftermath that followed. One of the most significant events to occur immediately following the war was the Nuremberg Trials in which “top” (I only use air quotes because some of them, quite honestly, were far from being at the top of the party) Nazi officials were tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This book is a collection of interviews taken by Dr. Leon Goldshon, a psychiatrist in the American Army, given the task of finding out what makes these top men tick.

I found the interviews to be very insightful and I overall liked Dr. Goldshon’s work. Around this time I also read Gustave Gilbert’s diary entries about his time with the prisoners and, quite honestly, his was awful to read. While there’s no denying that the crimes done by the Nazis were horrendous, Gilbert seemed to be coming from a non-neutral place and thus had already judged them based on that. I tend to find that authors who are neutral present much better insight and understanding than those who take a side. Dr. Goldshon is one such person. He never seems to stress his own thoughts during the interviews and instead let’s the person speak for themselves, allowing the reader to determine what they think.

The interviews I found the most interesting were the ones involving Hermann Goering, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the Army generals, and Walter Schellenberg. I also liked that Dr. Goldshon included interviews he did with those providing evidence at the trial since they seem to be fairly gotten during this event. Overall, I found this book worth the time and should be read by anyone wishing to have a better insight on those men put on trial.

[Dori · Rating 1 out of 5]

"I love my wife, but I cheat on her. Hilter was bad. 6 million were killed? I had no idea." Repeat 41 times. Now you've read the book.

[Jurjen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A super interesting read, and although it's a reread, when I first read it 9-10 years ago I didn't read every interview. I will say that you can tell that the book is constructed by someone other than Leon Goldensohn himself based on his notes. It's largely descriptive, and often lacks the psychological analysis you'd expect of a psychologist.

Most defendants and witnesses can be put into three categories:

1. The outrageously cynical, able but unwilling to do introspection, and intuitively evil ones: (think Himmler and Goebbels). The best examples are Ohlendorf (kommando einsatzgruppe D) and Streicher (head of the infamous anti-semitic newspaper Der Stürmer). The types you'd recognise to be evil people the first time you spoke with them.

2. The utterly pathetic shells of human beings, complete worms. Not just unwilling to do introspection, literally being psychologically unable to do so: not a really famous analogy, as these types were generally not as well known. Funk (minister of economics) and Frank (hitler’s lawyer, governor of Poland) are good examples of this.

3. The boring, dull but intelligent and generally competent yes-men. This is a category that falls in line with Arendt's writing on Eichmann. I have my issues with her characterisation of Eichmann and that study's approach (she was only at his trial for like 5 days)--eichmann absolutely *was* ideologically driven and an emotionally passionate anti-semite through and through. This category describes most of the army high command–careerist wehrmacht generals and field marshals–but also many ministers like Frick (minister of interior), Sauckel (minister of labour) as well as Hoess (kommandant of Auschwitz). This class was probably more instrumental to the atrocities than the more obviously evil ones.

There's outliers. Mannstein was laser focused on creating the clean wehrmacht myth as soon as he was captured, employing half the field marshals of the reich to do so. Göring is your archetypical melodramatic, charismatic, larger than life charlatan strong man. Speer was a conniving rat (and not interested at all in talking with the psychologists, which is curious considering how “guilty” he felt). Hess, I still can't tell how much of his amnesia he was faking (it started and stopped 3 or 4 times lol), and Ribbentrop was probably Hitler's biggest dickrider of all of them. Schacht was aggravating to read because of how indignant he was about being charged. I'm not convinced he should have been declared not guilty. Oswald Pohl might have been the most delusional man in human history (“labourers in Auschwitz enjoyed the same working standards as German workers”). Alternatively, he might have been lying. He was probably the biggest liar of the lot. Hearing him describe the idyllic working environment in concentration camps and factories was infuriating, especially as my own grandpa was kidnapped by the SS, and made a slave labourer in Lübeck for 2 years before he was able to escape in 1944.

Fritzsche is funny, because literally no one else at the trial knew who the fuck he was, and they were all wondering why they selected him for Nuremberg (he was chosen as a stand-in for Goebbels). All of these men were deeply evil, though if I was forced to pick one to be the least evil, it'd be Ewald von Kleist (panzer general taken out of retirement, later field marshal)

*Every* single defendant repeated the same refrain: 1) I didn't know of what was going on in the camps. No one knew what other departments were doing, as per Hitler's directives. 2) I share zero responsibility for the atrocities I directly ordered, because I myself was ordered by Hitler (and Germans simply must obey orders, didn't you know that?). 3) I am not an anti-semite, nor evil. The real evil ones were Himmler, Goebbels, Heydrich, Bormann and Hitler (incidentally, the 5 big names not at the trials… what a coincidence). I was fooled like everyone else. Also, jews didn't *really* face persecution until 1942 (“the pogroms of 1938? What are those? Never heard of them. Also the Nuremberg laws were good and fair”). Cowards, all of them.

A very good, but often aggravating read. Fuck Nuremberg (2025) starring Rami Malek, you are a trash movie. Fucked up how you slandered Leon Goldensohn in it.

[Yaroslav Moroz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Inicialmente achei o livro muito interessante e até misterioso de certa forma, mas quanto mais lia mais o interesse se ia perdendo. O livro divide-se em 2 partes, os acusados e os testemunhas. Depois de ler sobre as entrevistas que mais me despertaram curiosidade como Walther Funk, Hermann Goering, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg... fiquei com sensação que o livro podia estar finalizado nessa parte. Entretanto, quando me deparei com a parte dos Testemunhas, basicamente só nomes como Rudolf Hoess e Otto Ohlendorf, é que de certa forma tiveram algo de diferente, talvez seja pela gravidade dos crimes que cometeram.

É um livro que se torna bastante repetitivo e por vezes cansativo porque as entrevistas no fundo são muito superficiais e os arguidos não procuram falar verdade mas sim defender-se (Apesar das entrevistas não serem registadas para os seus processos). Aconselho este livro para quem se interessa pela 2ª Guerra Mundial e especialmente pela Alemanha Nazi. As personalidades na sua maioria são interessantes e de certa forma o livro ajuda o leitor a entender o percurso do Nacional-Socialismo e a evolução das políticas Nazi antes e no decorrer da 2ª Guerra Mundial.

Antes de se ler este livro, apelo a alguma leitura sobre o Tratado de Versalhes, os 14 pontos de Wilson, as leis de Nuremberga, os 'Pogroms' de 1938 e a própria 2ª Guerra Mundial.

Numa apreciação geral, é bom livro, especialmente para nos lembrarmos das atrocidades que aconteceram para que não se voltem a repetir.

[Megan · Rating 3 out of 5]

FINALLY!!!

I started this like 2 months ago, and have been slowly making my way through it with less and less determination.

Parts of the book I liked:
- learned a lot about internal workings of the Nazi regime
- interesting to hear the complicated and deeply confused internal rhetoric
- interesting to hear what complacency sounds like from the mouths of supposedly good people at the top of one of the worst regimes of all time
- interesting to hear the way that people can explain away deep complicity in extreme violence
- confirms a lot of what I learned in History of the Holocaust (great UNL class) about the thought processes and conspiracies of Nazi Germany

Parts of the book I have more complicated feelings about:
- a LOT of the book is devoted to these individuals talking about their upbringing, family, and entire career history in details and manners that make them deeply boring
- no explanations of any events or concepts (must have a pretty deep working knowledge of WWII and the Holocaust from the start)
- does nothing to correct, counter, or add additional information to the terrible, pernicious, and subtly horrible rhetoric of some of the more “convincing” Nazis since it is all from their mouths

Definitely a book that is fit for a specific type of reader (a student of Holocaust studies and the history of WWII) and not for others (any casual readers)

[Relstuart · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a book contains interview records by a psychologist in care of Germans either on trial or witnesses at the post-WWII Nuremberg trials. Today, patient privileges probably would have prevented these interview records from being taken. The author was considering turning his notes into a book but never did. Fortunately, these notes were discovered years later, preserved, and published.

A couple things that stood out from the input the author collected:

Several Germans on trial decried the holocaust and claimed they didn't know about the concentration camps. When asked about their reaction to the prejudice against Jews that prevented Jews from working specific types of jobs or marrying outside their race, multiple people cited percentages of Jewish people working in certain lines of work (law and banking) and that those percentages were unfair and that it wasn't wrong for the government to intervene to manage the issue even if those efforts went overboard. Interesting how this issue may have different wording around it modernly (social justice, diversity, versus genetics and racial hygiene) but people citing percentages of racial makeups in jobs or sectors of society is still used as a reason the government should interfere with society somehow to make things more fair.

The commander of a concentration camps talked about how he met the trains and was present as selection took place and some people went right to the gas chambers. He said he was usually there for the gas chambers being used and he believed his camp was responsible for several million deaths. However, he also tried to minimize his responsibility by pointing out that he never personally hurt anyone.

[Luke Shannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such an interesting ‘book.’ Really more a collection of interview manuscripts. The mental gymnastics these big dog Nazis put themselves through to absolve themselves of guilt while attempting to maintain that they had been very powerful men in the regime is fascinating.

The psychiatrist interviewing them does his job perfectly. Calls out obvious BS without overly inserting himself or preaching. Lets the Nazis contradict and tell on themselves. A Good Read!

[Bartek · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Before 1933 there is some blame to be attached to the Jews themselves. They used rather impolite words against me personally, for example” - Hermann Goering.

"For myself I feel quite free of responsibility for the mass murders. Certainly as second man in the state under Hitler, I heard rumors about mass killings of Jews, but I could do nothing about it and I knew that it was useless to investigate these rumors and to find out about them accurately, which would not have been too hard, but I was busy with other things, and if I had found out what was going on regarding the mass murders, it would simply have made me feel bad and I could do very little to prevent it anyway” - tenże.

"It is true, though, and some of my Jewish friends agreed, that there was too high a percentage of Jews in the law, in the theater, and in the economic and cultural life of our Reich. Jewish influence in art and music were not true to German culture” - Walther Funk.

"Hitler merely said at the beginning that Jewish influence was too great, that of all the lawyers in Berlin, eighty percent were Jewish” - Franz von Papen .

“In 1940 after the outbreak of the war I sent two Foreign Office representatives to America to contact several large Jewish banking houses, to try to get them to use their influence to keep America out of the war and influence England to make peace with Germany. Unfortunately, my representatives received a very cool reception. The American Jews and others obviously distrusted and hated the Nazi regime” - Joachim von Ribbentrop.

"I know that the Bolsheviks have never exterminated 5 million people, but aside from that single incidence, the Red idea is immoral because of its contempt for private enterprise” - Hjalmar Schacht.

"Besides, by exterminating 4 million Jews — they say 5 or 6 million at this trial, but that is all propaganda, I am sure it wasn’t more than 4.5 million — they have made martyrs out of those Jews. For example, because of the extermination of these Jews, anti-Semitism has been set back many years in certain foreign countries where it had been making good progress” - Julius Streicher.

“I know many Jewish mixed marriages. Many of these people were friends of mine. My wife, prior to our marriage, worked for the famous Berlin banking house Jacob Goldschmidt, a Jewish firm. Some of my present wife’s best friends were Jewish. That is proof enough of how I feel. In fact, my wife’s best friend is either half or fully Jewish. I believe she is now living in England” - Oswald Pohl.

Wyszło po polsku. “Rozmowy norymberskie”.

[Bri · Rating 3 out of 5]

A posthumous filling-out of notes left by the psychologist, and the sketchiness shows through in places. Some interesting interviews -Frank, the banality and denial of some of the slightly smaller fish - but the people one would most like to hear a psychologist discuss (Hess, Goering) are barely touched on. The interesting meat of the book is mostly front-loaded, and becomes more and more dull and Goldensohn moves onto the smaller fish. Nevertheless the frantic scrabbling denial and self-exculpation still has the power to shock.

[Jenny Cook · Rating 3 out of 5]

A disappointing read. The biographical summary of each defendant and witness is short and readily available in greater depth in other historical sources. Nothing new or interesting here. The most disappointing aspect for me personally, is the fact that the psychiatrist conducting the interviews had a remarkable opportunity to interview and critically analyse some of the most interesting characters in history, their motivation and continued support or involvement in the Nazi regime. To narrate their biographical details and personal conduct without any analysis seems a wasted opportunity.

[Omri · Rating 4 out of 5]

I admit to sin in reading history about WWI and WWII. I'm intrigued by those two periods, especially by the latter. This book collects psychiatric interviews with the defendants and witnesses that stood in those trials on 1946, and is aimed at getting to the bottom line of their personalities. Very interesting, very different, fascinating to see the lies people would tell to save their lives, the way they act, everything - simply fascinating.

[Larmie Fahrendorff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but not overly enlightening

Perhaps I was hoping for some insight that was not forthcoming. It was obvious from the early stages that the defendants had agreed on more or less a mutual defense strategy, and that strategy was repeated throughout the interviews. Still, the book did proffer some insight into the personalities behind the Nazi regime.

[Luis Cardenas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ya a la septima entrevista es muy monótono y no da espacio a ninguna novedad, son como las entrevistas que mas me gustaron, pero en lineas generales no aporto nada nuevo a todo lo que yo ya se sobre el tema. Un grupo de derrotados no queriendo tener responsabilidad en nada.

[fliss heywood · Rating 3 out of 5]

'there is a fate that brings people to a road without their actually wanting it'

'the greatest catastrophe of humanity was the creation of hatred and the belief which man that he is right and his opponent is wrong'

[Bryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'd take a pass on this one. There is better Nuremberg related material out there.

[Abdul Mumeet Akhter]

Nice book, Interesting material recommended to those who wants to know about Nazis Commanding officers.

[KathleenW · Rating 3 out of 5]

Started this book 2 years ago and was eventually bored by the interviews. Picked it back up since I'm working on reducing my book shelves - so I finished it so I can trade it in.

Skimmed through some parts of interviews after a bit. Came a point I really didn't care about what these guys thought about the war or what their education marriage or upbringing was. The guys that were in the SS or Gestapo etc. who oversaw the camps explain exactly what they were doing not exactly but some detail -as we've seen and read before it was well planned and they ran death factories.

Many outside the walls of those places claim that they really didn't know what was going on with "liquidation of Jews" and those who did said it was all due to Himmler and Hitler and if they didn't follow the orders they too would be killed and just replaced by others.
This - is why we must guard against sick leaders who begin pitting citizens against each other. It gains momentum and groupthink starts and logical thinking shuts down-and before you know it you're so far down the road there's no turning back.

Sociopaths (hitler et al) bring out the worst in humans - appeal to their violent and hateful sides- and that's what Hitler and his henchmen did.

One of the guys said there were 3500 local Germans who were assisting at just auschwitz- so how could these local citizens of germany not know? 3500 people -some of them will surely talk.
I can't remember which of these fellows said this but it's stuck with me how he said "yeah, Killing of children- I definitely saw that as unsportsmanlike"
Unsportsmanlike!? Ok. Wow.

It is so dark an unbelievable but it's also so plausible to see it happen again because we have all seen the weakness of the human and the ability of humans to be swayed and brainwashed into maniacal thinking and actions. And really in fact it is happening in places around the world as we speak in Africa and other Middle East etc. Humans really aren't all that great all the time

Many of these guys said they really had no anti-Jewish feelings beforehand…nor did Hitler they claim ! but Himmler allegedly was very rascist. And he had Hitlers ear. It seems they realized it helped market their cause and build momentum.
Yes, it's emotionally compelling to hate on others and vent anger and point fingers versus normal (boring ?) voting for policy and economic reasons.
Like I say there are some very dangerous parallels that some in the west are trying to emulate it seems. I keep an eye open and a passport up-to-date.
Call me paranoid but whatever- I think we learn from history and when things begin signaling danger well -I trust my intuition.

One or two guys in this book describe how they tried to save people they knew /or entire towns in Denmark. But it was a real mess. There really didn't seem to be too many choices for able-bodied german/austrian men at that time.

☮️