“Die Ermittlung” – Between Remembrance, Reckoning, and Criminal Prosecution
Film Screening and Discussion

The Auschwitz Trial as a Historical Turning Point

The film "Die Ermittlung" is based on the 1965 play of the same name by Peter Weiss and addresses the first Auschwitz trial, which began in Frankfurt am Main in 1963 and concluded in August 1965. The proceedings had a lasting impact on the debate surrounding Germany’s confrontation with its National Socialist past. Initiated by the Hessian Attorney General Fritz Bauer, the trial broke the widespread public silence about Nazi crimes and aimed to hold perpetrators legally accountable. At the heart of both the film and the play are questions about how the extermination in Auschwitz was organized and what responsibility the defendants bore.

At the screening on February 24, 2026, at the University of Cologne, Lena Altman, Co-CEO of the Alfred Landecker Foundation, emphasized: “For the first time, the organized extermination of European Jews was examined in detail before a German court. This was an act of democratic self-affirmation.” Her full remarks are available here (in German).

Following the screening, Dr. Sara Berger, historian at the Fritz Bauer Institute, provided historical context for the film excerpts. Annemarie Hühne-Ramm, Managing Director of the Hans and Berthold Finkelstein Foundation, then moderated a discussion with legal historian Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Haferkamp and Dr. Stefan Lode, attorney and representative of co-plaintiffs in trials concerning Nazi crimes.

Criminal Law, Responsibility, and the Limits of Legal Reckoning

Prof. Haferkamp opened the discussion with a fundamental reflection: criminal law, he argued, is only partially suited to addressing “monstrous crimes” such as the Shoah. Although jurisprudence has evolved over the decades, the question remains whether individual criminal law can truly do justice to the scale and systematic nature of National Socialist crimes. At the same time, such trials should not be viewed solely as instruments of punishment. They also fulfill a communicative and democratic function: in the courtroom, it becomes visible how a constitutional state deals with guilt, responsibility, and evidence—objectively, according to established rules, and fairly. This, he stressed, is of great societal importance.

Dr. Lode traced the long and hesitant legal reckoning with Nazi crimes. Nearly two decades passed between the end of the Second World War in 1945 and the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials in 1963. The reasons were manifold: the prevailing social climate, institutional continuities within the judiciary and administration, and high legal thresholds requiring proof of specific individual acts of killing. Only gradually did jurisprudence begin to evolve.

Later proceedings, such as those against Demjanjuk and Oskar Gröning, marked a turning point. Courts began to recognize that knowingly contributing to the functioning of an extermination camp could constitute aiding and abetting murder - even without proof of a specific individual act. This development represented not only a legal shift but also carried symbolic significance: for the first time, survivors were explicitly recognized as victims of attempted murder.

Courtroom Trials in Film and in Reality

Another focus of the discussion was the portrayal of courtroom proceedings in film. While cinema condenses and dramatizes emotional high points, real trials are often characterized by factual rigor, the reading of documents, and detailed legal work. Expectations of public confessions or moral self-revelations rarely align with procedural reality. Likewise, the role of the defense - indispensable in a constitutional state - is sometimes oversimplified in artistic representations.

The discussion made clear that the legal reckoning with National Socialist crimes is more than retrospective prosecution. It is part of democratic self-assurance. These trials demonstrate not only how guilt is established, but also how a constitutional state functions - and where it faces challenges. For young lawyers, both speakers emphasized, engaging with this history remains an enduring task: law is never merely technique. It is always responsibility.