MovieChat Forums > Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) Discussion > Firing squad or hanging

Firing squad or hanging

posted 9 years ago by crakatoot
5 replies | jump to latest

Dietrich was all pissed off that her husband was hung instead of getting shot. What's the difference he is just as dead either way.

[–] boxerrebellion 9 years ago

Hanging is for 'common folk'; it's degrading. He was an OFFICER (the stress on the word is because to her character, that meant something) from a military aristocratic family. Being shot had more dignity. I agree with you, but that was her point.

[–] doug65oh 9 years ago

If I recall correctly, didn't Mr. Habestadt mention that General Bertholt was associated with (or a defendant in, more likely) the "Malmedy case?" That might well explain things right there.

The Malmedy Massacre took place on 17 December 1944 and culminated in the deaths of 84 American POW's, murdered by the German military.

So Bertholt received the same punishment as did everyone else.

[–] movies789 9 years ago

To the person being executed it might make a great deal of difference. Death by firing squad would be (or seem to be, to many) more sudden and quick than death by hanging, which (they might fear) could drag out by seconds or even minutes.

[–] stevekaczynski 8 years ago

Death by firing squad might seem a more military death to a soldier. Death by hanging is not. Hanging is often seen as an undignified way to go.
A fairly typical attitude was expressed by Major John André when he was executed for espionage in 1780. He knew he was to be executed but did not realise it was hanging, saying when he saw the gallows, "I am reconciled to my death, but I detest the mode."

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

[–] sawarrior 8 years ago

The reasoning is the same that Saddam Hussein used in objecting to being hung as opposed to firing squad: hanging is for the common criminal, not for military higher ups.