Why didn't Michael tell someone she couldn't have written the report?
-
Lyndhen — 12 years ago(January 22, 2014 06:50 AM)
I completely agree on both points. They story requires a huge suspension of disbelief (that her illiteracy would go unnoticed and Michael's role). It could be (has been) argued that the court was at fault and that it wasn't Michael's responsibility, though as you say, the film intends us not to take this perspective.
-
adrossan — 12 years ago(January 28, 2014 07:42 PM)
Because he realises that Hannah wishes to receive punishment, and hide her illiteracy. We can't tell from the movie which she is most afraid of, but my guess (by way of how innocently she answered questions to horrific events)is that she was more ashamed of her illiteracy.
She was somewhat simplistic and it appeared that to take the blame for the report was to allow the real writer to go unpunished. On the other hand, as long as a "German" took punishment for the crime, would not justice be done ?
As I lawyer I believe they all should have been sentenced to life without parole as they were all culpable and complicit in the murders.
It was also compulsory for German youth to complete exercises in National Socialism, in both Hitler Youth & Bundes Deutschemadschel (League of German Girls, same as Hitler Youth but for girls) and also demonstrate knowledge of Mein Kampf.
Also, as a member of the SS Konzentration Abteilung (KZ Guards) she would mostly definitely been arrested at the end of the war, and educated in a De-nazification camp by the Allies, before either being tried or released back into the opoulation.
Not satisfied with the lengthy jail term she received, she took the action at the end of the sentence to ensure she paid the ultimate price for her crimes.
Perhaps after listenting to the tapes and reading the books, she finally understood the magnitude of her actions. -
Lyndhen — 12 years ago(January 29, 2014 03:09 AM)
As I lawyer I believe they all should have been sentenced to life without parole as they were all culpable and complicit in the murders.
I think to be guilty of murder, intent had to be proved. The people found guilty of murder were the camp commandants and individuals who murdered and tortured of their own accord without a specific order to kill someone. (ie locking the church doors).
Those who carried out the selections were accessories to murder because actual intent to murder (complicity) could not be proved.
Because he realises that Hannah wishes to receive punishment, and hide her illiteracy. We can't tell from the movie which she is most afraid of, but my guess (by way of how innocently she answered questions to horrific events)is that she was more ashamed of her illiteracy.
I'm not sure that Hanna wishes to receive punishment. She doesn't believe that what she did was wrong - hence her candid answers - not an example of innocence but rather of a distinct lack of morality. -
adrossan — 12 years ago(January 30, 2014 02:34 AM)
Lyndhen, I won't retain you for my defence
I said culpable and complicitnot planning and instigating. Had they been caught in 1946 rather than 1969, they probably would have received the death penalty rather than a very lenient 4 years
On a legal basis, how can you defend locking 300 people into a barn & setting fire to it ? You cannot put someone in a building and set fire to it, let alone
300
people, without intending to take the life of at least one person - that is premeditated murder in every court I know of.
Doctrine of Res ipsa Loquitor.
Do try & get hold of "The Scourge of the Swastika", an excellent book on Nazi atrocities. There are several cases of persons being locked in buildings and being burned to death, throughout Poland, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, France and many other places in Europe, and many many times to Jews also.
Not one of the Nazi perpetrators successfully defended a charge of murder on the basis that intent could not be proved.
Real life cases involving Nazis who claimed they were following orders (befehl) failed at Nuremburg and many other trails afterward.
Hanna to my mind most definitely knew she deserved some punishment, and clearly knew she had done wrong and her memories troubled her. While not burdened with an overly high IQ, I believe she wanted to perform some sort of penance, at the very least to relieve her conscience. She didn't anticipate the others would turn on her & falsely accuse her of writing the report, and her shame at confessing her illiteracy kept her mouth closed when the three words "I can't read" would have saved her from 25 years imprisonment.
But then we wouldn't have had the story, would we ?
Cheers. -
Lyndhen — 12 years ago(January 30, 2014 10:13 AM)
Absolutely, had they been tried immediately after the war what you say would apply. However, this is with regard to the trial under German Law in the 1960s.
German law seems to take into account intent or interest and circumstance etc - Kant seems to have brought his own special flavour to German law. The different treatment of Hanna and the other guards is reflected in the actual Auschwitz trials in Germany.
As to Hanna's attitude towards her own punishment. It cannot be said (either way) whether she felt punishment was deserved.
1- there isn't any evidence to suggest that she was penitent.
2- the lack of evidence for her penitence is in great part why Michael is faced with a moral dilemma. He cannot forgive her because he doesn't know if she's sorry or not - if he doesn't know - how can we?
3- Lastly, the above fits well as a story of 'Vergangenheitsbewltigung' (struggle to come to terms with the past). The post war generation's difficult relationship with their parents. -
airborne60 — 12 years ago(February 02, 2014 06:17 AM)
setting fire to it
.
Maybe a petty remark, but I think Hannah said that there was bomb raid, and that the church burned because of that. They did not open the doors and let them out, but as to the question of intent to murder 300 persons it would make a difference to if they had actually set it on fire?
The keystone of the story is Hannahs enormous shame of her illiteracy, as you say there would be no story without that. It has controled her whole life and "career". To admit illiteracy was so completely out of scope that she admitted to anything to hide it. That is one of her personality or mental flaws, the other is the complete and utterly honest "What would you have done?" question ( also discussed in another thread). She really does not think she has done anything wrong. "We where RESPONSIBLE!" she exclaims to the judge, meaning that they could not unlock the door and let them loose to escape.
I wonder (seriously, no joke intended) what a judge or a superior at that time would have said about letting 300 prisoners, which they where responsible for, getting killed in a bomb fire. -
adrossan — 12 years ago(February 03, 2014 04:39 AM)
Lyndhen, my question was; how do you defend locking 300 people in a barn, setting fire to it, and not opening the doors but allow them to burn to death, on a legal basis ? How can there be NO intent ?
airborne60 has said, it may have been that Hannah said an air raid started the fire.
Unfortunately,I either didn't hear that part, or it was an error. That still does not relieve, on a legal basis, the charge of murder: the 300 were left to burn while either the doors could have been opened, or the fire extinguished. They owed a duty of car to the prisoners, and the harm outweighed the penalties applicable to the 300. That is why they had a positive duty to do something to assist the prisoners, unlike the "Unknown Good Samaritan", which does not have a positive duty to perform a saving act.
In other words, a passerby could have continued to pass, but the guards had a legal duty to protect the prisoners from harm. Letting the barn burn with 300 inside is specific intent, in my book, to kill the occupants.
We don't know if they (KZ guards) were armed, presumably so, therefore the doors could have been opened and any attempt to escape dealt with up to and including shooting. We also don't know (in the film) exactly where the incident took place, whether escape was physically possible, and what the prisoners were charged or convicted of.
The dilemma for most serving Germans from that time, is if they disobeyed an order, they in turn would be shot, &/or their family imprisoned or interned in a concentration camp.
German law was, long before WW2, a written and very rigid set of rules, what tyou can do and also what you can't do is both written down, whereas British, Australian and
founding
American law is all based on English common law, which is inferred rather than specified like German law.
Of course, US law has gone a step further with a Bill of Rights, whereas most English common law countries still rely on inferred and not specific written Rights.
As Hanna was a perpetrator at the time, I see no relevance in the German term for difficulty with past generations - she was an older woman teaching him about sex.
As a law student Michael would have no capacity to speak to the court, he could perhaps urge her to speak out, or informed her defence of his knowledge, but then the story would have been spoiled. -
Lyndhen — 12 years ago(February 03, 2014 08:05 AM)
Absolutely, it makes no difference that an RAF bomb started the fire - the guards had legal obligation to ensure the prisoners well being. (no orders to the contrary).
Incidentally, it's generally a (popular) misconception that guards or other perpetrators acted under threat of death or imprisonment (for them or their families).
As to German law. I think Schlinke (the writer and a German lawyer) has constructed the fictional case thus - the order giver (report writer) had intent to murder - she was faced with a problem and decided to solve that problem by killing the prisoners. Those who followed the order did not have intent to murder - they only had intent to follow the order given and thus are guilty of aiding and abetting murder. (that's a rough explanation).
Likewise, those making selections had the intent of meeting ordered quotas - they were merely tools of a higher (deciding) authority and it cannot be proved that they intended to murder through their actions. Interestingly, Hanna damns herself with her own candid explanations. She is seen by the court not as a tool (or thoughtless automaton) but as someone who sees the bigger picture and therefore as someone who is capable of giving orders. This is why the other defendants (the five wise monkeys) jump to accuse her.
The above is more or less in line with the issues discussed in German law at the time of the trials.
I agree that Michael would have no capacity to speak to the court (and this is possibly why he is shown 'almost-but-not-meeting' Hanna during the trial.) But Hanna was much more to Michael than an older woman teaching him about sex. We might need to suspend disbelief but the story does try very (very) hard to show that he loved her - It is a story which reflects the post war generation's difficulty with dealing with their criminal parents, who, as parents they also had to love. Schlinke just adds spice by turning it into a love story. -
ciprianl — 11 years ago(May 28, 2014 02:27 PM)
In the story of this movie, the Nazis did not set fire to the church. The allied incendiary bombs did that. Now, why exactly were incendiary bombs used against a civilian target is another question (a church isn't usually considered as a military target).
-
catbookss — 11 years ago(October 19, 2014 07:54 PM)
From Hanna's own testimony, all six of them decided as a group to not unlock the door. Hanna was very truthful in her answers bizarrely so and there's no reason to not believe her. So, who actually wrote up the report didn't matter; they were all equally guilty.
The difference would have been that all six of them would have served life sentences. -
catbookss — 11 years ago(November 06, 2014 08:16 AM)
They decided as a group in both instances; there was no leader amongst the guards.
With the "selections," they decided as a group to each choose 10 people. With the fire in the church, they agreed to not unlock the doors because the 6 of them didn't think they could contain 300 panicked prisoners they were in charge of. -
lornamd-1 — 12 years ago(March 04, 2014 11:06 AM)
I think Michael should have said something but not so Hanna got less time in prison. She helped kill innocent people she should have gotten more than a few years in jail but those women should not have gotten let off for their crimes which is why he should have let the truth be known.
-
jajceboy — 11 years ago(April 23, 2014 02:51 PM)
I just figured it was due to Michael feeling guilty for being with a SS-guard and being associated with a murderer. Not so much Hannah's dignity as his own shame.
So he therefore chose to keep it a secret. -
ljackson-53207 — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 12:26 PM)
I just saw this movie so sorry for the late reply. I've skimmed most of the intricate responses here and I have my own opinion. I think that there is no real answer as to why Michael did not say she was illiterate, only that he knew. I further believe the writer wants us to know this as a possible parallel to the common theory that the SS knew and didn't tell..that the German people knew and didnt tell..that the whole world knew and didnt tell. These are the consequences of when you know and you dont tell.any ideas?