Nuremberg Movie True Story Explained: What Really Happened?

The 2025 film “Nuremberg” tells the true story of the International Military Tribunal’s historic trial of Nazi leadership following World War II. Based on Jack El-Hai’s 2013 book “The Nazi and the Psychiatrist,” the movie centers on U.S.

Army Major Douglas Kelley, the chief psychiatrist assigned to assess 22 of the most important surviving Nazi leaders before and during their trial.

The film explores the psychological examination of these defendants, with particular focus on Kelley’s cat-and-mouse relationship with Hermann Göring, one of the Third Reich’s most powerful figures and a man whose intelligence and charisma made him both a fascinating subject and a dangerous adversary to study.

What really happened was far more than just a legal proceeding—it was an unprecedented attempt to hold accountable the architects of Nazi genocide through an international court of law. From November 20, 1945, to October 1, 1946, the trial unfolded in Nuremberg, Germany, with Kelley playing a critical but often overlooked role in the background.

While prosecutors built their cases and judges deliberated over charges, Kelley interviewed the defendants, administered psychological tests, and observed their behavior in captivity, all while grappling with the disturbing question: what kind of minds engineered such horrors?

His work would ultimately inform the trial’s outcome, including the executions of 10 of the defendants and the sentencing of 12 others to death. The movie dramatizes this real historical moment when justice and psychology intersected in ways that had never been attempted before.

The true story reveals how one American psychiatrist witnessed history’s judgment upon Nazi evil while simultaneously confronting the unsettling reality that the men responsible for genocide were not irrational monsters, but calculating individuals whose ordinariness in some respects made their crimes all the more troubling.

Table of Contents

• THE NUREMBERG TRIAL: JUSTICE FOR NAZI CRIMES
• DOUGLAS KELLEY’S ROLE: PSYCHIATRIST TO THE ENEMY
• GÖRING AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CHESS MATCH
• THE FILM VERSUS THE HISTORICAL RECORD
• THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION AND MENTAL FITNESS
• THE EXECUTIONS AND GÖRING’S FINAL ACT
• LEGACY AND THE LINGERING QUESTIONS
• Frequently Asked Questions

THE NUREMBERG TRIAL: JUSTICE FOR NAZI CRIMES

The International Military Tribunal’s trial of Nazi leadership was a major legal endeavor designed to prosecute the surviving architects of the Holocaust and World War II atrocities. When the trial began on November 20, 1945, it marked the first time an international military tribunal had been convened to judge leaders of a defeated nation.

Twenty-two of the most important surviving Nazi leaders sat in the dock, each facing charges including crimes against humanity, war crimes, and conspiracy to wage aggressive war.

The trial would continue for nearly a year, becoming the most significant war crimes prosecution in modern history up to that point. The scale and complexity of the trial cannot be overstated.

Prosecution teams from the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and France worked together to present evidence of Nazi atrocities, including the systematic murder of six million Jews and millions of others deemed undesirable by the Third Reich. Witnesses testified about concentration camps, death marches, and the industrialized genocide that defined the Holocaust.

The defendants, many of whom had wielded enormous power under Hitler, now sat behind glass booths wearing headphones that translated proceedings into their native German. Some displayed remorse; others remained defiant or attempted to minimize their roles.

A few, like Göring, maintained an air of aristocratic indifference to the proceedings, treating the courtroom as another arena for intellectual combat.

The nuremberg Trial established important legal precedents, particularly the principle that individuals could be held responsible for war crimes even if they were following government orders. However, the trial was not without limitations.

Some argued that it represented victor’s justice, since the Soviet Union—which had committed its own war crimes—sat as judge alongside the Western powers. Additionally, many Nazi officials escaped prosecution entirely, either through hiding, suicide, or capture by powers that proved less interested in justice than in Cold War strategic advantage.

DOUGLAS KELLEY’S ROLE: PSYCHIATRIST TO THE ENEMY

Major Douglas McGlashan Kelley arrived in Europe in August 1945 with an unusual assignment: he was tasked with being the chief psychiatrist for Nazi leadership in captivity.

Before the formal trial began, Kelley’s job was to evaluate whether the defendants were mentally fit to stand trial and to assess their psychological state. His work was deeply personal—he interviewed all 22 defendants, administering psychological tests and conducting extensive psychiatric evaluations.

Kelley was not merely documenting their pathology; he was trying to understand how these men had become the architects of unprecedented evil. This was a psychiatrist’s attempt to make sense of the seemingly senseless through the lens of clinical psychology.

Kelley observed the defendants during the opening weeks of the trial, from November 1945 through January 1946, giving him a unique vantage point on their reactions as the prosecution laid out evidence of their crimes. His observations were clinical but also deeply human.

He noted how some defendants wept when confronted with photographs and testimony about the concentration camps.

Others remained unmoved, protected by denial or psychological compartmentalization. Kelley’s most detailed work focused on Hermann Göring, with whom he conducted multiple interviews and whose narcissism and intelligence fascinated and disturbed him in equal measure.

One important limitation of Kelley’s work was that his psychiatric assessments, while thorough, operated within the assumptions and methodologies of 1940s psychology. Concepts like post-traumatic stress disorder did not yet exist in clinical terminology. The psychological frameworks Kelley used were less sophisticated than those available to modern psychiatrists.

Also, Kelley’s role raised ethical questions that would later trouble him personally. He was simultaneously a healer and a tool of a legal system seeking execution; his psychiatric work helped ensure that defendants deemed mentally competent could be hanged.

This moral ambiguity would haunt Kelley for the rest of his life, contributing to personal struggles that eventually led to his own suicide in 1965.

GÖRING AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CHESS MATCH

Hermann Göring was perhaps the most fascinating subject in Kelley’s psychiatric portfolio. As Reichsmarschall, Göring had been the second most powerful figure in Nazi Germany, heading the Luftwaffe and serving as director of the German economy. He was intelligent, articulate, and during his interviews with Kelley, often charming and reflective about his own motivations.

Göring presented himself as a soldier and patriot who had been following orders and serving his nation, a narrative that differed markedly from the evidence of his personal wealth accumulated through theft from occupied territories and his active involvement in the persecution of Jews.

What made Göring exceptional in Kelley’s assessment was his psychological makeup. Kelley concluded that Göring was “a highly intelligent, highly imaginative, extremely narcissistic person,” but notably, Kelley did not diagnose him with serious psychiatric illnesses.

This conclusion proved disturbing to many, as it suggested that the masterminds of genocide were not insane in any clinical sense.

Göring was not delusional about reality; he was fully aware of his actions and their consequences. His narcissism, while extreme, did not render him legally insane. This finding highlighted a troubling reality: evil acts can be carried out by psychologically “normal” people operating within pathological systems.

Göring’s case demonstrated that one need not be mentally ill to commit monstrous crimes; moral bankruptcy and narcissistic entitlement could be sufficient. The relationship between Kelley and Göring became something of a psychological duel, with Göring frequently attempting to charm or intellectually spar with the American psychiatrist.

Göring tried to control the narrative about himself, downplaying his role in atrocities while emphasizing his military honor and accomplishments. Kelley, for his part, maintained professional distance while documenting the ways in which Göring’s psychology allowed him to compartmentalize responsibility for genocide.

This dynamic—an intelligent, articulate Nazi leader attempting to convince an American of his essential humanity while facing charges for crimes against humanity—became a focal point of the film’s narrative.

THE FILM VERSUS THE HISTORICAL RECORD

The 2025 movie “Nuremberg” dramatizes these true events but, like all historical dramas, takes creative liberties with factual detail and narrative structure. The film concentrates heavily on the Kelley-Göring relationship, making it the emotional and intellectual center of the story.

This focus, while dramatically compelling, necessarily sidelines many other significant aspects of the trial, including the experiences of other major defendants and the complex legal arguments presented by prosecution and defense.

The film’s narrative arc emphasizes Kelley’s growing moral disturbance about his role and his fascination with Göring’s psychology, which makes for compelling cinema but may oversimplify the broader historical context. The trial itself was more sprawling and complex than any two-hour film could capture.

Proceedings lasted nearly a year, with testimony from dozens of witnesses, presentation of thousands of documents, and detailed examination of the Nazi regime’s bureaucratic structure.

The jury—four judges from the Allied powers—had to weigh evidence not only about specific criminal acts but also about the systemic nature of Nazi crimes and the degrees of responsibility borne by different officials.

Many defendants tried to claim they were merely functionaries following orders, a defense that the tribunal ultimately rejected, establishing the principle that individuals bear moral and legal responsibility for participating in crimes against humanity, regardless of whether they were acting under government orders.

A key difference between the film and history is the outcome it emphasizes. The movie focuses on Kelley’s perspective and the psychological drama, but the historical trial’s verdict was remarkably balanced given the severity of the crimes.

Of the 22 defendants tried: 12 were sentenced to death by hanging, 7 were sentenced to between 10 and 20 years imprisonment, 3 received life sentences, and 3 were acquitted.

This distribution reflects a serious legal proceeding where judges carefully considered evidence and applied law, not simply a victors’ tribunal doling out predetermined punishments. The three acquittals, in particular, demonstrated that the tribunal took its judicial responsibility seriously, not merely pursuing revenge.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION AND MENTAL FITNESS

Before the trial began, one of Kelley’s primary tasks was to determine whether the defendants were mentally fit to stand trial.

This was a complex question because fitness to stand trial requires that a defendant be able to understand the charges against him and assist in his own defense—a different question from whether he is mentally ill. Kelley’s psychiatric evaluations had to distinguish between mental illness and mere moral depravity.

Many of the defendants exhibited narcissism, grandiosity, and a disturbing lack of empathy for their victims, but these are not clinical mental illnesses that would render someone unable to understand courtroom proceedings. The limitation here is important: psychology and psychiatry, as practiced in 1945, were less sophisticated tools than modern practitioners might have available.

Kelley was working with the diagnostic categories and understanding of his era.

The concept of psychological trauma, as understood today, barely existed. The long-term psychological effects of perpetrating genocide—what we might now recognize as a form of cognitive dissonance or compartmentalization—were not clearly articulated in clinical terms.

Also, Kelley’s role raised an ethical question that still resonates today: should a psychiatrist participate in a legal system that uses his assessments to determine who will be executed? This tension between the healing mission of psychiatry and its use in support of state punishment remains controversial.

One defendant whose fitness was particularly questioned was Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, who had flown to Scotland in 1941 in a bizarre attempt to negotiate peace. Hess had some cognitive decline by the time of the trial, but he was deemed fit to stand trial.

His case illustrates the trial’s care in ensuring that justice was not merely summary execution, but rather a legal process with some consideration of individual circumstances. Even at Nuremberg, where the guilt of most defendants was evident, the tribunal took its judicial role seriously enough to consider questions of mental competence and individual culpability.

THE EXECUTIONS AND GÖRING’S FINAL ACT

The verdicts were announced on October 1, 1946, and the executions followed swiftly. Twelve of the 22 defendants had been sentenced to death by hanging. The executions were set for October 16, 1946, but Göring would not be among those hanged.

On the night of October 15, 1946—hours before his scheduled execution—Göring died by swallowing a cyanide capsule, either one he had concealed in his possession or one smuggled to him by someone with access to the prison.

His suicide denied the tribunal the final satisfaction of executing the Reichsmarschall, yet it also provided a perverse ending to the story: Göring maintained control even at the end, choosing his own death rather than submitting to the tribunal’s judgment.

Ten Nazi defendants were hanged on October 16, 1946: Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Wilhelm Keitel, and Arthur Seyss-Inquart. These men represented various positions within the Nazi hierarchy—military officers, civilian administrators, propagandists, and others.

Their executions represented the first time an international tribunal had convicted and executed leaders of a defeated nation, establishing precedents that would influence international law for decades to come. The sentences handed down at Nuremberg became the template for subsequent war crimes trials, from the Tokyo trials to the tribunals established for Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

LEGACY AND THE LINGERING QUESTIONS

The Nuremberg Trial left an enduring legacy in international law and human rights jurisprudence. The principle that individuals can be held accountable for war crimes, regardless of government orders, became foundational to international humanitarian law. However, the trial also left unanswered questions, particularly those raised by Kelley’s psychiatric work.

If psychological examination found that Göring—intelligent, charming, and entirely conscious of his actions—was not mentally ill, then what does that tell us about evil? Does evil require insanity, or can it flourish in minds that are, by clinical standards, completely rational?

Kelley’s findings disturbed many, including Kelley himself, because they suggested that monstrous crimes could be perpetrated by psychologically ordinary people operating within pathological systems and ideologies.

The film “Nuremberg” attempts to explore these questions through the relationship between Kelley and Göring, but the historical trial itself was about far more than psychology.

It was about establishing that genocide and war crimes could not go unpunished, that there were rules of war and standards of human decency that even sovereign nations could not violate. Seventy-plus years after the trial, those principles have guided subsequent prosecutions of war criminals, genocidaires, and perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

Yet the trial also revealed the limitations of prosecuting crimes of such scale—many Nazi officials escaped justice, and some argue that the Cold War’s beginning prevented fuller accountability. The Nuremberg Trial was an extraordinary achievement in justice, but it could never be complete.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long did the Nuremberg Trial last?

The International Military Tribunal trial lasted nearly one year, from November 20, 1945, to October 1, 1946.

How many Nazi leaders were tried at the main tribunal?

Twenty-two of the most important surviving Nazi leaders were tried at the main International Military Tribunal.

What happened to Hermann Göring after his death sentence?

Göring committed suicide on October 15, 1946, by swallowing a cyanide capsule, hours before his scheduled execution by hanging on October 16, 1946.

How many defendants were sentenced to death?

Twelve of the 22 defendants were sentenced to death, and 10 of those were executed by hanging on October 16, 1946. Göring died by suicide before his execution.

What verdicts were handed down besides death sentences?

Three defendants were acquitted, four were sentenced to 10-20 years imprisonment, and three were sentenced to life imprisonment.

What was Douglas Kelley’s main role at Nuremberg?

Kelley was the chief psychiatrist assigned to assess the Nazi defendants’ psychological state, interview them to determine if they were fit to stand trial, and prevent suicides. He interviewed all 22 defendants.

---

You Might Also Like

• Michael Movie True Story Explained: What Is Real And What Changed?
• F1 Movie True Story Explained: Is It Based On Real Racing?
• Nuremberg Movie Ending Explained: What The Final Scene Means

Browse more: Box Office | Entertainment | Film | Movie News | Movies

For more on Nuremberg Movie True, see the full breakdown above – the nuremberg movie true details cover what most viewers want to know.

Whether you searched for nuremberg movie true reviews, nuremberg movie true streaming, or nuremberg movie true cast, this guide consolidates the relevant nuremberg movie true facts in one place.