I would strongly endorse Trollope. I read a lot of him in lockdown. (Read War and Peace years ago when I was in bed with flu). Also Elizabeth Gaskell, though you probably already have.

A forlorn hope, I fear.

And a wonderful school in Cambridge, where I am proud to be a Governor, is named after her. Twice Queen of England.

I felt I was watching a whitewash of warcrimes. I know that wasn't the intention, but that was how it came across to me. Some filmmakers should not be allowed near history, frankly, and this is one of them. /end

it doesn't make the point it tries, rather unconvincingly, to make at the end: that you can have Nazis in America too (who knew?). All it does is suggest that Hermann and his chums weren't so bad really. /19

But this film isn't interested in that. It all has to be American. It's Jackson and Kelley v Happy Hermann, with just a pesky teacup-holding Brit getting in the way at points. And, by presenting the Nazis as victims, which, in effect, it does /18

Nuremberg was about showing the superiority of a fair trial to the sort of thing the Nazis had been doing. But this film doesn't show the defendants having any defence at all. Not even mentioned. In fact, they had German lawyers (of varying quality, some very good) /17

The film cannot even get court procedure right - which, for a courtroom drama is a bit of weakness, I reckon. The Prosecution do not call a defendant to the stand - that is done by the defence. And here is an unforgivable sin:/16

Completely watered down is the forensic demolition of Goering by the British prosecution, who were a damn sight better at cross-examination than this film is prepared to recognise./15

Left out (because it's not American enough?) was the harrowing testimony of witnesses called by the French and Soviet prosecution teams, who told from first hand of what the Nazi Death Squads had done and what happened in the camps./14

The real Goering was a vicious, violent, corrupt war criminal, who happily oversaw the murder not just of Jews and political prisoners, but also of allied prisoners of war, and oversaw the extensive use of slave labour. His whole jolly exterior was a cynical façade./13

What really disgusted me about this film is its utter dishonesty. Its whole tone would have delighted Goering himself - if he could see this film, he would think himself vindicated./12

What's that? The Brit wants a quick word? But this is an American case. Oh, OK, then, but keep it quick. So Richard E Grant comes up with a pretty lame line of argument - you were Reichsmarchall weren't you? Yes. So you must have known. As if Hermann hadn't thought of that./11

And Hermann - well, he's such a guy, you know? With that twinkle in his eye. He's a big teddy bear, y'know? And so clever! He's so clever that he's even able to face down Justice Jackson, who's American and must be the good guy, but our Hermann's just a bit too smart for him./10

Now, at one point they show horrific film footage from the camps, and that is a sobering moment. Hey, for a moment, I even thought it might break up this love letter of a film to Goering. But it doesn't really. Hermann says he knew nothing about them. /9

He's outraged when Hermann's lovely wife is arrested for complicity in some of his crimes. 'Women and children?' he shouts, meaning the Goerings. Yeah, I can imagine some of cuddly Hermann's victims saying the same. /8

But that's not the worst of it. Because this film falls completely under Hermann Goering's spell. In this film, Goering is one hell of a guy. Our all-American doc forms quite the bond with him, and with his absolutely lovely family. /7