 |
Reich, and endeavored to retain his freedom as a scientist and
technician.
He voiced objective criticism on the over-organization of
state control when it became unbearable for industry.
In his
cross-examinations* during the prosecution's presentation of evidence, the
Tribunal gave Otto Ambros an opportunity to explain his special field of work
by means of an illustration of a mighty tree with many branches.
An
expert for the prosecution confirmed the outstanding significance of this
modern chemistry for peacetime purposes, as compared with the few branches
which were exclusively devoted to military armament. The evidence will confirm
this impression and clearly prove that Otto Ambros had no influence on the
establishment and speedy expansion of plants which served the purpose of
armament.
The evidence will show furthermore that the three branches
for whose development Otto Ambros is being held responsible — namely,
poison gas, preliminary products for powder, and above all, buna — were
much too weak at the beginning of World War II to survive a modern war, much
less to aid the preparation of a war of aggression. In any case, Otto Ambros
could not deduce from his sphere of work that Hitler might be planning a war of
aggression.
During the war, his feelings were those of a German —
and who would blame him for that? But, in spite of the intensive influence
exerted on the individual by the dictatorship of the Third Reich, and even in
those horrible times when it was an almost weekly occurrence for one of his
plants, or his own home town, to be hit by a mass of bombs, he calmly examined
the problem of where to draw the line in this murderous struggle.
It is
this very point which the defense will elucidate in great detail.
How
little spare time was left in such a full life — even his days did not
have more than 24 hours — has evidently not been realized so far by those
who, in addition to all this, want to hold Otto Ambros responsible for
incidents with which he, as a chemist, had nothing to do at all.
This,
at the same time, brings us to the attitude of the defense with respect to
count two of the indictment: "Plunder and spoliation." In this field too, where
the name of Otto Ambros is twice mentioned by the prosecution, he was working
in his capacity of tech- […nician] |
__________
* Dr. Hoffmann refers to
cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses conducted by the defendant Ambros
himself. See volume XV, this series, section XIII L. The particular reference
here was to the cross-examination of the prosecution's expert witness,
Nathaniel Elias, whose testimony appears in the transcript at pages 1342 to
1462.
269 |
. 
