Product Description

In August 1945 Great Britain, France, the USSR, and the United States established a tribunal at Nuremberg to try military and civilian leaders of the Nazi regime. G. M. Gilbert, the prison psychologist, had an unrivaled firsthand opportunity to watch and question the Nazi war criminals. With scientific dispassion he encouraged Gering, Speer, Hess, Ribbentrop, Frank, Jodl, Keitel, Streicher, and the others to reveal their innermost thoughts. In the process Gilbert exposed what motivated them to create the distorted Aryan utopia and the nightmarish worlds of Auschwitz, Dachau, and Buchenwald. Here are their day-to-day reactions to the trial proceedings; their off-the-record opinions of Hitler, the Third Reich, and each other; their views on slave labor, death camps, and the Jews; their testimony, feuds, and desperate maneuverings to dissociate themselves from the Third Reich's defeat and Nazi guilt. Dr. Gilbert's thorough knowledge of German, deliberately informal approach, and complete freedom of access at all times to the defendants give his spellbinding, chilling study an intimacy and insight that remains unequaled.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #126534 in Books
• Published on: 1995-08-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 488 pages

Customer Reviews

Unique, in its own kind. I wouldn't miss it.
I would recommend this book as it views the trial and above all the defendants from a perspective which no other book can possibly offer. I think it important for future reader that they are aware that this is hardly a complete account of the trial itself. Other books (The Nuremberg Trial, by Ann and John Tusa for example) achieve this well enough. This book brings you into the cells and lets you hear what the defendants thought about the whole situation, until you become familiar with their different personalities. I would recommend reading some other book before this, to gain better knowledge of the trial, but definitely I would not miss this one. It'd be like reading a book first, and then having a chance to meet the actors.

Good but should have been better.
I agree with the New York based reviewer below. The introduction of the psychologist's own opinions into conversations with the defendants and into descriptions of events in the text does spoil this book somewhat. The omission of coverage of a number of the defence cases 'for brevity' is very annoying.

Another quibble is that the account presented is strongly biased towards coverage of conversations with Goering, Schact, Von Shirach, Ribbentrop, Frank and Speer - whether this is because the others (e.g. Frick, Funk, Kaltenbrunner) refused contact with Gilbert, coverage was simply omitted or if they were not approached at all is not made at all clear. Finally, I would also agree with the sentiment expressing a desire for more (some!!) coverage of the scientific psychological examination of the defendants.

This is, however, a very engaging account of the trial and the personalities of some of its protagonists, which is, by definition, unique. Those seeking a thorough description of the history of the trial, the legal issues, geopolitical wrangling and the prosecution characters will be better served with the excellent 'The Nuremberg Trials' by Ann and John Tusa. That said, this book really should not be overlooked, as it is an excellent read.

Good, But Should Have And Could Have Been Better
Gilbert brings Goering and the other Nazis to three-dimensional life in this impressive and ambitious book. Ultimately, however, Nuremberg Diary doesn't live up to its promise. A key problem is that Gilbert can't resist intruding his (albeit understandable) moral indignation. After all, he was the prison psychologist, and one has to wonder how objective his appraisals were. In interpreting the results of the personality tests, did Gilbert do so as a trained psychologist or as an outraged layman? The book would have been superior, I think, if Gilbert had discussed at least some of the results of his psychological testing, while keeping his angry outbursts (however understandable and even laudable) more to himself.