torical account than a court document. However, a couple discrepancies exist. For example, the exact amount of time for the session is given in the McLaughlin article from the New York Time, five and one quarter hours. “The Opening Day” article from The Manchester Guardian, described the amount of time in a rather ambiguous manner, noting that the trial lasted a half hour past its appointed hour. The descriptions of Goering remain as the other major discrepancy. “The Opening Day” describes Georing as having a “heavy sadness in his eyes,” and as having “permitted a discrete smile at the mention of the million bottles of champagne looted from France.” The McLaughlin article on the other hand describes Goering as “pompous” and an “exhibitionist.” The Foust article describes Goering as “Grinning.”The secondary sources were far different from the primary sources. The primary sources I used were very straightforward accounts of the Nuremberg trial, while the secondary sources each took a different approach toward the event. While both secondary sources were more thorough than the primary sources, they were very different from each other. For example, the Andrus book, “The Infamous of Nuremberg,” took a more narrative approach. Written by a guard who had experienced the event first hand, the book was written in an almost story like manner, even including pieces of dialog and photographs throughout the piece. It had a more powerful account of the prisoner’s demeanors and the attitude in the court than the primary sources. The Calvocoressi book on the other hand, had a lot of detailed technical and statistical information about the trial, including charts and actual court articles. The Calvocoressi book also contained the names of every prisoner and their ranks and positions within the Reich. The primary sources, on the other hand, had less spac...
