 |
[tech…] nician. But I can state briefly: his activities in
directing the operations of the Francolor plants only began after the company
had been founded and the French factories were to start production. These
activities of Otto Ambros were the subject of a thorough investigation by that
country [France] which, as the party mainly affected, was bound to apply
especially severe standards.
In view of the fact that after the war,
France again fully recognized Otto Ambros as an expert and that, as I shall
state in due course, he even was given special mention, there is no need for me
at the present time to comment further on this point.
With regard to
the matter "Buna Russia," the defense raised an objection* which appeared fully
justified during the prosecution's presentation of evidence.
The
defense will deal with this matter again only in connection with the question
of conspiracy, since the Tribunal has so decided. The whole picture of Otto
Ambros' personality will show, however, that the charge of conspiracy is
without basis.
This picture, which the defense has drawn above of Otto
Ambros, will not be changed even by the fact that Otto Ambros figures within
the IG ostensibly as a so-called "Generaldirektor" of the various plants which
he founded, developed, or took over.
Otto Ambros was a technical
director, but at the same time he always remained a chemist. This fact should
be constantly remembered in this Court.
The human aspects in the
plants, where he acted in a directing or advising capacity, were always taken
into consideration by him, and he gave immediate help when asked for support.
However, in view of the huge amount of urgent tasks of research,
development, and technical procedure connected with the plants he had founded,
he had to rely on the men in responsible positions, who enjoyed his confidence,
to fulfill their duties. To expect more of Otto Ambros would mean to demand
more than human nature can perform.
These ideas bring us to count three
of the indictment which the prosecution designates rather briefly and summarily
as slave labor.
The charge that Otto Ambros participated in a program
for the organization and exploitation of slave labor must be rejected with all
determination. The procurement of workers did not belong to his sphere of work.
Such activities were controlled by the state, and the effects in individual
cases depended on various circumstances and on the agencies concerned.
There is no doubt that, in every case, Otto Ambros and all
|
__________
* This objection and the
argument and rulings thereon are reproduced in section VIII E S, volume VIII,
the section containing material on the charge, of spoliation in Russia.
270 |
. 
