Hibiscus Teach · Vids · Movies
Judgment at Nuremberg
The reach and limits of a powerful argument
Follow a formal argument, identify the work done by rhetorical questions and distinguish widening responsibility from removing individual responsibility.
Created by Denis M., British English teacher.
Content note: Discussion of Nazi crimes and responsibility. The defence speech contains historical assertions and quotations that this language lesson does not independently establish. Analyse its rhetoric without treating shared responsibility as an excuse for atrocities.
A little context: Defence lawyer Hans Rolfe addresses the court and challenges the narrowness of its focus by naming other governments, institutions and public figures.
Watch each clip, then try its activities.
Study guidance
Pause after each exchange. Give your own spoken answer before opening a model.
Choose one disagreement about the scene and explain which words support your reading.
The vocabulary and model replies are original teaching examples.
Before you watch
- Does showing that several people contributed to a problem remove any one person’s responsibility?
- What makes a courtroom speech persuasive beyond the facts it presents?
A sequence of questions
Defence lawyer Hans Rolfe addresses the court and challenges the narrowness of its focus by naming other governments, institutions and public figures.
First watch: Notice how the same question pattern links different examples.
English scene guide
Rolfe asks whether the wider world knew the regime’s intentions. He names the Soviet Union, the Vatican and Churchill, attributing agreements or words to them. Repeated questions about guilt turn these examples into a challenge to the court’s frame of responsibility. The lesson examines the construction of the argument, not the historical accuracy of every assertion.
Watch and check · 6 questions
Choose one answer for each question. Check your answers, then read the feedback.
Answer key and explanations
- Whether it knew the regime’s stated intentions. The questions concern knowledge and the implications of that knowledge.
- He presents an agreement as enabling the regime’s actions. This is the role he assigns to the agreement in his speech.
- Prestige or legitimacy for Hitler. His example concerns recognition and its political effect.
- To make the timing of the attributed words part of their rhetorical force. The repeated date draws attention to when the words were supposedly written.
- They make the listener consider a broader and potentially uncomfortable field of responsibility. The repetition creates a cumulative challenge to the frame of the case.
- The force of the pattern and the evidence needed for each attributed claim. Persuasive presentation does not remove the need to establish accuracy and relevance.
1–2 minGrammar in a minuteC1–C2 · A formal hypothetical condition
were England to suffer national disaster
New practice inspired by this scene.
Scene connection: A sequence of questions
Keep the speaker’s intended meaning when choosing a form.
You say: Give a formal hypothetical condition, then restate it with if without changing its status.
Speaking · 3 prompts
Speak before opening the support. Different answers are possible when you explain your reasons.
Explain the effect of the repeated question pattern.
Support and one possible answer
Each example adds…, while the repeated question…
Each example adds a different institution, while the repeated question asks the audience to extend its idea of responsibility.
Follow-up: Where could that strategy become evasive?
Ask for evidence without dismissing the whole argument.
Support and one possible answer
Before accepting that example, I would want to establish…
Before accepting that example, I would want to establish the exact words, their context and their relevance to this decision.
Follow-up: What would remain even if the quotation were accurate?
Separate an attributed statement from your own claim.
Support and one possible answer
The speaker attributes…; I am not yet claiming…
The speaker attributes those words to a public figure; I am not yet claiming that the quotation or its framing is accurate.
Follow-up: Use the distinction in a report about a disputed quotation.
From other actors to the whole world
Rolfe turns to industrialists, then links the wider argument to the individual defendant’s admission of guilt.
First watch: Identify where the speech moves from examples to a general conclusion.
English scene guide
The speech adds profit from rearmament to its examples. Rolfe then argues that responsibility extends beyond Germany and criticises selective condemnation. He ends by connecting the defendant’s admitted guilt with the world’s guilt. A listener must distinguish shared or wider responsibility from an argument that any particular person has no responsibility.
Watch and check · 6 questions
Choose one answer for each question. Check your answers, then read the feedback.
Answer key and explanations
- Profit from rebuilding armaments. Rolfe connects commercial benefit with the conduct he describes.
- He argues that responsibility belongs to the wider world as well as Germany. His conclusion expands the group he regards as responsible.
- It can allow other actors’ conduct to be ignored. He frames the condemnation as selective when comparable external conduct is neglected.
- The defendant has said that he is guilty. He links an acknowledged admission to his broader claim.
- How that contribution affects the specific responsibility of the person being judged. The wider context and the individual conduct must still be related by a valid argument.
- We should examine those actors too, while still assessing this defendant’s choices. The response accepts the wider issue while preserving individual assessment.
1–2 minGrammar in a minuteC2 · The scope of alone
Germany alone is not guilty
New practice inspired by this scene.
Scene connection: From other actors to the whole world
Keep the speaker’s intended meaning when choosing a form.
You say: Reword an ambiguous sentence with only so the intended scope is unmistakable.
Speaking · 3 prompts
Speak before opening the support. Different answers are possible when you explain your reasons.
Respond to a claim that everyone shares the blame.
Support and one possible answer
The wider context matters, but we still need to distinguish…
The wider context matters, but we still need to distinguish what each participant knew, chose and enabled.
Follow-up: Name one question that tests individual responsibility.
Identify a move from examples to a general claim.
Support and one possible answer
The examples establish…, but the broader conclusion also requires…
The examples may establish several forms of involvement, but the broader conclusion also requires a clear account of what kind of responsibility is being assigned.
Follow-up: How could the claim be made more precise?
Challenge selective criticism while acknowledging a valid accusation.
Support and one possible answer
I accept the criticism of…, and I also think…
I accept the criticism of the original conduct, and I also think comparable actions by others deserve examination.
Follow-up: Avoid wording that sounds like an excuse.
Listen and repeat
Use these original expressions, then try the You say situation aloud before opening a possible reply.
That widens the question without settling it.
Recognise a broader issue.
You say: A response names several other people who contributed to a failure.
Possible reply
That widens the question without settling it. We still need to assess this particular decision.
Stress widens and settling.
Shared responsibility does not mean no responsibility.
Reject a false choice.
You say: Someone argues that many contributors make individual accountability impossible.
Possible reply
Shared responsibility does not mean no responsibility. We should examine each person’s part.
Contrast shared and no.
We need the quotation and its context.
Request sound source evidence.
You say: A speaker relies on a striking historical quotation.
Possible reply
We need the quotation and its context. How does it support the point being made here?
Pause before the follow-up question.
I can accept that point without accepting the conclusion.
Distinguish a premise from an inference.
You say: A plausible example is used to support an overbroad claim.
Possible reply
I can accept that point without accepting the conclusion. There is still a missing step in the reasoning.
Contrast point and conclusion.
1–2 minGrammar masteryC2 · Recovering a shortened conditional
if he is
New practice inspired by this scene.
Scene connection: From other actors to the whole world
Keep the speaker’s intended meaning when choosing a form.
You say: Use a shortened conditional after a clear antecedent, then state what the sentence does and does not establish.
Put it all together
Accountability without a convenient distraction
How can a team examine wider responsibility and still address a specific decision?
Role A
You are asked to explain a failed project. Several other teams contributed. Present the wider context with evidence.
Role B
You accept that several teams were involved but need a clear account of this team’s decisions.
Optional twist: One speaker uses a striking quotation whose source is uncertain. Request its context before relying on it.
- Acknowledge the wider evidence, separate facts from claims and agree one specific responsibility to investigate.
One possible exchange
A: Other departments made mistakes too.
B: That widens the question without settling it. What did our team know at the time?
A: We had received two warnings but thought the schedule could still work.
B: Then let us examine that decision as well as the wider process.
Try again: Swap roles and add one well-supported example from another team.
Finish: A broader context strengthens an argument when…
Tutor notes
- Accept different interpretations when learners can point to a line or a gesture in the excerpt.
- Ask learners to perform the final exchange again after changing one relationship or intention.