Film Review: “The Specialist” about the Eichmann Trial

Last night, I attended a screening by the Birkbeck Law Society of the film “The Specialist” about the trial of Adolf Eichmann in an Israeli court in 1961. The film, by Israeli director Eyal Sivan, works with original footage from the trial, most of which had been televised, plus some technical tricks (which I found wholly unnecessary).

I found the film quite good as it showed some key points of Adolf Eichmann‘s testimony, the questioning by the prosecutor Gideon Hausner and by the three judges. It also included some very moving witness testimony by victims of the Holocaust, including one scene of a witness who enumerates all members of his family, his parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents, brothers, sisters, cousins, with their respective ages and upon the question who of his family is still alive today has to answer “I am the only one.”

When confronted with the evidence of the defendant’s role in the Holocaust, which was well documented due to the Nazis’ obsession with bureaucracy, protocols and reports, time and again Mr Eichmann replies “That is correct. I was following orders. I had to do it.” He still seemed proud of his “organisational talent” that he used for organising the transports of millions of Jews (and other victims of the Nazis’ racist policies) to the concentration camps in Eastern Europe. Mr Eichmann didn’t even claim to not have known that he sent millions to their deaths, as he recounted four of his visits to concentration camps where he saw, and wrote reports about, how the killing was done. In some of his testimony, he still referred to Jews as “transport material”. When asked by the judges if he felt any remorse, Mr Eichmann responded “Remorse is pointless. Remorse is for children”. He clearly didn’t even attempt to win any sympathies.

Mr Eichmann’s only defence was that he was obeying orders. He in fact claimed that he didn’t like the nature of his job and had asked to be transferred (something which no documentary evidence exists about). He claims that he was a small part in a large machine and that he was bound by his oath to follow orders.

I found it shocking and disturbing to hear from one of the organisers of the Holocaust himself and to listen to his banal explanations of administrative responsibilities, showing flow-charts of intra-ministerial organisation. But listening to his voice and words, the story of a bureaucrat just following orders didn’t convince me. If even 16 years after the end of the Holocaust, you still cannot utter a word of remorse, and if this time and the developments since have not forced you to rethink your past actions, then you were not only a cog in the wheel, but you were truly evil.

I applaud the film for showing this. Or applauded, I should maybe say. Because the subsequent discussion at the Birkbeck Law Society revealed to me that the film might not be too helpful if you don’t already know a lot of the facts and the background of the Eichmann trial. Thanks to an internship at the German Federal Agency for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes that I did as a law student, I have had the (at times horrifying) privilege of participating in the investigation of small parts of the Holocaust.

Here some points from the discussion at the Birkbeck Law Society:

  1. Many participants dismissed the trial as a “show”, with the verdict known in advance.
  2. Some even thought it worthwhile to discuss if Mr Eichmann was innocent.
  3. Israel was criticised for violating international law.

Let me address these points (in more detail here than I could at the discussion):

  1. It was a very fair trial. The defendant had defence lawyers of his own choosing, he could submit all the evidence that he wanted, his lawyers could cross-examine any witness (but regularly chose not to). The trial was not only interpreted in German, but the prosecutor and all three judges spoke German at times if they felt it was necessary. The judges were even surprisingly polite when questioning Mr Eichmann. I had the impression that they switched to German at times to get closer to the person of Mr Eichmann, to try to find out what drove such a man, what were his motives, his thoughts.
  2. That people can watch this film and believe the “I was only following orders” defence shows that Mr Sivan might not have chosen the best scenes for his film (although I think he chose quite some powerful ones and I admit it is hard to make a 90 minute film of a trial that lasted 8 months). The film fails to mention some important points about Mr Eichmann: (a) He had joined a right-wing organisation in 1927 and became a member of the Nazi Party and the SS in 1932, one year before the Nazis came to power. (b) He volunteered to work for the SD of the SS in Berlin. (c) He set up the authorities responsible for the forced emigration of Jews from the Reich. (d) He was responsible for the rounding up of Jews from all of Europe and their transport to the concentration camp. He was the head of this department. (e) He was regularly visiting concentration camps and witnessed killings himself. (f) He personally attended the Wannsee Conference in 1942 at which the decision was made about how and where to execute the extinction of all Jews of Europe. As the person in charge of deportations and transport, it is unlikely that Mr Eichmann did not play a prominent role at this conference, which was attended by only 15 high-ranking officers and officials. (g) While living in Argentina, Mr Eichmann gave interviews to a former fellow SS member in which he stated “Had we killed 10.3 million Jews, then I would be satisfied and would say we have annihilated an enemy. […] I was not a normal subordinate, […] I was an idealist.” (h) He had the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel and thus was hardly a low-ranking bureaucrat.
  3. International public law does not protect individuals, it protects the sovereignty of states. While the abduction of Mr Eichmann from Argentina did violate Argentina’s sovereignty, Argentina settled this issue with Israel later. The UN decided that Israel should be allowed to retain and prosecute Mr Eichmann. Germany, as his country of citizenship, did also not raise any objections.
  4. Israel caught and tried Mr Eichmann because other countries refused to do so. Both Germany and the USA knew about Mr Eichmann’s fake identity and whereabouts since 1958 and failed to request extradition from Argentina.
  5. Besides Adolf Eichmann, Israel only put one other (alleged) Nazi criminal on trial: John Demjanjuk who was first convicted, but then acquitted by the Israeli Supreme Court. This shows that trials even against Nazis in Israel were not show trials, but fair and thorough. Mr Demjanjuk is currently on trial in Germany for assisting in the murder of 27.900 people.
  6. To those who represent legal positivism and therefore argue that Mr Eichmann was innocent because he did not break the laws of his country at the time, I would like to point out that most of the Holocaust happened in countries that had been attacked and occupied by Nazi-Germany against all international law, including in violation of treaties of non-aggression that Germany was a member to. So even if you think that positive law should be the decisive law (a view which I don’t subscribe to because it reduces law to just another tool of the exercise of power), you can still come to the conclusion of Mr Eichmann’s (and other Nazis’) guilt.

I guess one should neither judge the Holocaust by one trial, nor a trial by one film about it. For those with more time, the full transcripts and even the complete video footage of the Eichmann trial are available online.

About Andreas Moser

Travelling the world and writing about it. I have degrees in law and philosophy, but I'd much rather be a journalist, a spy or a hobo.
This entry was posted in German Law, Germany, History, Holocaust, Human Rights, Israel, Law, World War II and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Film Review: “The Specialist” about the Eichmann Trial

  1. Pingback: Die Pogromnacht und das Leid der Palästinenser | Publish or Perish – Andreas Moser's Blog

  2. Louis says:

    I personally believe, trial(s) and outcome(s), is secondary.

    On this occasion, my primary curiosity stems, as to why Hitler ordered the (blanket) elimination of Jews all over Europe to which group also belonged Gypsies et al.

    Having said that, I realize one cannot unscramble scrambled eggs but a fact would serve as a better-preventive-weapon for future occurrence of a similar (if not greater) magnitude.

  3. Rob Miller says:

    An excellent review, Herr Moser. Thank you for sharing it with me and my readers.

    I’m sure you’ve read this, but but for interested parties, I would also recommend “Judgment in Jerusalem”, a thorough and well written examination of Eichmann, his crimes and the trial itself by Gideon Hausner, the Israeli who acted as prosecutor at Eichmann’s trial.

    Best Regards,
    Rob Miller @ Joshuapundit

  4. Hels says:

    My parents were in Australia before the war thus most of my relatives survived the Holocaust. My parents-in-law lived in Czechoslovakia in 1939 so my husband had no grandparents and not a single paternal aunt, uncle or cousin alive after 1945. I know of what you speak.

    Is it too late to show The Specialist, about the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann in an Israeli court? No, I think Jewish teenagers should see why they have no extended family and non-Jewish teenagers should certainly understand what happens when the world goes mad with racism and anti-semitism. Of course it must have been hard to make a 90 minute film of a trial that lasted nearly a year, but I don’t think young people can concentrate for longer than 90 mins.

    Thanks for the link
    Hels
    http://melbourneblogger.blogspot.com/2010/08/adolf-eichmann-trial-1960-2010.html

  5. Pingback: NSU-Prozess: Noch ein Sitzplatz frei? | Mosereien

  6. Pingback: How different countries catch their “most wanted” | The Happy Hermit

  7. Xwpis ONOMA says:

    I think that the Jewish state is defending democracy, law and fairness ONLY when that serves its own interests. However problems start to arise when Israel is equally guilty of undemocratic, unlawful and unfair behavior BUT nobody, let me repeat, NOBODY, Jew or other wise dare to protest and condemn such behavior, fearing they will be accused of antisemitic behavior. Alas, this article is a blatant, ruthless and at the same time a silly attempt to make something as anomalous as Eichman’s abduction, mock trial and execution/murder appear as something normal: 1. The author sites as evidence of the trial’s lawfulness the fact that “…The judges were even surprisingly polite when questioning Mr Eichmann.” and 2. Eichman was abducted because Argentina wouldn’t extradite him. So basically you are telling us that the normal thing to do is that judges should not have been “polite” while asking the defendant questions, but rather they should try to intimidate him in order to “extract” the right” responses. And surprisingly enough, you are basically saying anyone who feels the law is not “proteting” him should take law in his own hands. So can you sit there and in a straight face admit that, if this is true, then, Palestinians who feel unprotected by Jewish law should take law in their own hands every time they experience how “democracy” works in the Jewish state of Israel. In short, have you realized that you are making an ass of yourself by arguing all this nonsense? People like you and their selfish disposition are actually and indeed responsible for crimes against humanity such as the “Holocaust”. Shame on you, Jewish people should grow out of this, what happened is atrocious but thank God, it is over for 70+ years now. Live and learn, or remain stuck in the past and remain surrounded by your own ghosts.

  8. artandarchitecturemainly says:

    I think there was evil in the world before 1933, and I talk about it all the time in history lectures eg the Spanish Fury against the Protestant Dutch. But largely our modern benchmark for evil is the 1933-45 era in Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Latvia etc. The 1961 trial was the one time in history when the few survivors could document their experience with Eichmann and the impact he had on the Jewish world then …and since.

    Andreas, you are a brave soul publishing violent, anti Semitic comments to your blog. I might not have been so equanimous.

    • Yes, with some of the comments I wonder whether to delete them or not. But then I think it’s maybe better if anti-Semites reveal themselves and we see who they are. I wouldn’t however get into any discussion with them, as that is usually a waste of time.

  9. Pingback: Der deutschen Geschichte entkommt man auch in Bolivien nicht | Der reisende Reporter

  10. Pingback: German history follows me all the way to Bolivia | The Happy Hermit

  11. Steven says:

    I think Israel was justified completely for capturing and putting this man on Trial. To say remorse is pointless and remorse is for children when you are discussing the pointless murders of millions of people tells a great deal about Eichman. He is an interesting Nazi however because whilst I certainly do not accept his ‘ I was only obeying orders or I was just a cog in a machine’ argument there is something slightly pathetic about him. Watching the trial I even found myself feeling sorry for him, not for being on trial but for the fact that he was a product of a poisoned ideology which for whatever reason he chose to embrace. I suspect there were deep psychological reasons behind this, not least a sense of inferiority and desire to be seen as important and successful. I doubt that he possessed a vehement hatred or that he was a sadist, but he was coldly indifferent to the fate of all those victims and somehow managed to detach himself from it, which he seemed to think meant he wasn’t responsible. He was. He chose to do what he did and he was proud of it.

  12. Pingback: Book Review: “Golden Holocaust” by Robert Proctor | The Happy Hermit

Please leave your comments, questions, suggestions:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s