. ©MAZAL LIBRARY

NMT07-T1260


. NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNAL
Volume VII · Page 1260
Previous Page Home PageArchive
Table of Contents - Volume 7
consumer of these products for future years, increased amortization rates were approved in isolated cases.

Q. Do I understand you correctly if I say that such increased amortization rates were approved when they had an economically justifiable reason?

A. Yes, if we could not expect the firm to take the financial risk.

Q. A final product, Witness: picric acid. Did the plant at Bitterfeld-Wolfen supply picric acid to the Wehrmacht?

A. As far as I know, there was a small plant for the production of picric acid for industrial purposes at Wolfen. But these quantities were of no interest to the Wehrmacht, so that the plant at Wolfen certainly did not supply picric acid in any large quantities for the Wehrmacht. Picric acid is a highly explosive substance and, for this reason, the Wehrmacht had no interest in having a big plant in a normal, privately owned chemical factory. All the picric acid plants were owned by the Wehrmacht.

Q. If I understand you correctly, as far as Bitterfeld-Wolfen is concerned, there was only a small occasional delivery of picric acid?

A. I would assume so, for I recall that in 1935 the only picric acid factory which we had in Germany blew up at Rheinsdorf, and the firm had to deliver the product as raw picric acid, not as an explosive.  
 
* * * * * * * * * * 
 
6. TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT AMBROS  
 
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT AMBROS¹  
 
DIRECT EXAMINATION 
 
* * * * * * * * * *  
 
 
DR. HOFFMANN (counsel for defendants Ambros and von der Heyde) : Was the Gendorf plant a kind of Reich-owned chemical plant, or was it not such a plant?

DEFENDANT AMBROS: The Gendorf plant was a Reich-owned plant. The owner was the Reich, that is OKH, which used the Montangesellschaft as a holding company for directing such enterprises. The man in charge of this Montangesellschaft, who constructed all armament plants and who gave the initiative for such construction, was the prosecution witness, Zeidelhack.²
__________
¹ Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27, 28 February; 1 March 1948. pp. 7751-7920; 7964-8145.
² Dr. Zeidelhack gave several affidavits to the prosecution and his testimony consists principally of cross-examination by the defense concerning these affidavits.

 



1260
Next Page NMT Home Page