She was denounced and sentenced to death by Oeschey, and the affiant was present at her execution.
Still another sentence by the Court martial under Oeschey was the sentencing to death of the teacher, Popp, in Fuerth, who in the course of conversation slapped a soldier in the facr and expressed disgust about prevailing conditions. Popp was tried, sentenced to death and executed.
The last case to which the affiant refers was the case, Valentina Witrak, who had been indicted before the courts martial under Oeschey for acquiring illegally certain food ration coupons. This defendant was a girl about 25, but for this act, she was sentenced to death and executed.
We wish in addition to mentioning those cases to call the Court's attention to the fact that all of these cases in this affidavit apparently occurred and were tried and the defendants were executed within a matter of days before the area Nuernberg-Fuerth fe;; after battle by the American troops.
JUDGE BRAND: I wonder if you could give me your idea as to whether the Volksturm was a regular part of the Army. I am not familiar with the term.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, the Volkssturm meant the People's Troops at the last stages of the War in Germany, at the last six or eight months of the war. Civilians of old age and extreme youth, and other misfits that were not admitted to the Wehrmacht, were called up without uniforms, often without weapons, to make a makeshift impromtu defense of their home town. It was a makeshift civilian army.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 494, Document NG--952.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 69 of the English Book is found NG-1009This is a single page affidavit by one, Dr. Arno Weimann, a practicing lawyer in Berlin, who used to appear during the war as a defense counsel before the People's Court.
Dr. Weimann here deposed that he defended before the Special Senate of the People's Court a case in which his client was a lawyer named Dr. Will from Hamburg, who had been indicted in 1944 because of making certainremarks of a defeatistic nature as to Germany's victory. For making these defeatistic remarks, this client of the affiant was sentenced to death in the People's Court by Freisler, and all his property was confiscated except 100,000 Reichsmarks. After Freisler had passed that sentence, due to reasons which were not known to the affiant, the Chief Reich Prosecutor raised an extraordinary appeal against the sentence and, as has been seen from previous evidence, the case was tried in the Special Senate of the People's Court which included the defendant Peterson as a judge. The prosecution of the second trial before the Special Senate in this case was represented by Reich Prosecutor Rothaug. The Defendant Rothaug, in this second trial, pursuant to the extraordinary appeal, the defendant was again sentenced to death for the second time. But in the second trial, all his property was confiscated.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit 495 this Document NG-1009.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The last document book 111-B is NG-1081. This is a compilation of death sentences passed by the Defendant Oeschey while he was presiding judge of the Nuernberg Special Court. In the first columm is given the official file number of the case; in the next column the name of the defendant; the third column date the date that the sentence was imposed by the court, and in the last column the date that the defendant was in fact executed. There is a total of twentyseven death sentences, here, passed between 11 October, 1943 and the 22nd of November, 1944 namely, a period of thirteen months. The certificate by the research analyst, that is attached to this compilation states in detail the method by which it was compiled and also indicate that this list is intended as a supplement to Document NG-409which was admitted in evidence sometime ago Exhibit No. 238.
DR. DOETZER: (For Defendant Oeschey) May it please the court, I object to the submission of this document because the confirmation of making out this document which was quoted by the Prosecution has not been sworn to; it is merely a simple statement.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you, is it your position that all of the infromation contained in NG-1081 is derived from other exhibits which are before us now?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: NO, Your Honor.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, it is our position that this certificate of General Taylor's shows that the man who makes the certificate, Henry Einstein, is a U.S. Civilian, duly employed and empowered to administer oaths and to obtain evidence in this case; he certified that the facts contained in here are true; he can swear it to some one else if he want's to. I will read the certificate; I don't know whether it is in the book or not.
"I, Henry Einstein, hereby certify that the above list of death sentences is a supplement to document NG-409 which composes all the death sentences passed by the Nurnberg Special Court. NG-1081 is a list of death sentences passed solely by Oeschey. I obtained the facts from the case files of the above persons, which have been brought to my attention."
That is all I can say for it -- and there it is.
THE PRESIDENT: You can say something more at a later date, if you want to, but at the moment that is sufficient.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I do want to say something at this date though. let more than half an hour ago I inadvertently mislead this Tribunal. I don't think there is any good reason to meet on Friday. I mean we won't have a full day; I have been out and investigated the facts with reference to the document room. We would have a part of a day and then it would be necessary to probably stop. I don't like it, out it seems to be much more sensible to adjourn until Monday rather than to have a piecemeal day on Friday. I may say in passing, to protect myself, that I am not going to Prague or any place else. We simply don't have anything.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn at this time then until next Monday morning at 9:30 o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 19 May, 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 19 May 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent through illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the proper notation be made.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: It if pleases Your Honors, our first witness this morning will be the witness Filbig, who will be examined by Mr. Wooleyhan. But before the witness is called I would like to make a very short statement to the Tribunal.
There was some discussion in the Court ton days or two weeks ago with reference to document NG 1007. On last Friday the Prosecution learned for the first time that notwithstanding tho fact that on its face, this document a pears to be an affidavit, that it was not, in fact, subscribed and sworn to. This information was adequately checked and found to be factually correct.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not remember whoso affidavit it was.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That was the affidavit of Dr. Kurt Behling.
Under those circumstances I wish to make this announcement now: The Prosecution has no intention of using that instrument because it is not, in fact, an affidavit. That is not only my opinion, but the unanimous opinion of the Prosecution staff after full discussion. And, that is all I have to say.
JUDGE BRAND: Was it given an exhibit number?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: It has never been introduced, Your Honor. I also want to say that I have received from Dr. Kuboschok, as a result of a discussion we had in the courtroom some three or four weeks ago, a list of persons whose names often appear in the documentation of this case. It is similar to the one which the Prosecution furnished to the Court. I would like to send this to the Tribunal, in English and German, but not formally as a document.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution calls the witness Filbig.
THE PRESIDENT: While we are waiting for the witness, it appears to me to inquire in regard to the disputed translations. Has that matter been ironed out by Counsel on both sides?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, beginning about two weeks ago, the sound recording tape that records every word that is spoken here, has been checked against the transcript, and that automatically eliminates every translating problem that is spoken in the Court, with regard to any translating problem, that has not come up or read into the record. No such problem exists at the present time, and if it docs arise we will take care of it out of Count.
Karl Kaspar Filbig, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Will the witness stand, raise his right hand, and be Sworn? You will repeat after me the following oath;
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Witness, will you please tell the court your full name?
A. My name is Karl Kaspar Filbig.
Q. Mr. Filbig, during the years 1939 to 1945, what work did you do, and where?
A. From 1910 until 1944 I was a watchman in the "Vereinigte Schuhfabriken" - United Shoe Factory.
Q. From 1944 until 1945, what kind of work did you do?
A. During that time, because I had been seriously injured in the war, I became a prison warden.
Q. And in what prison were you a warden, Mr. Filbig?
A. In the prison, Zellon Prison, Zellenstrasse. I was assigned there. I was there until the Americans had the prison evacuated.
Q. Mr. Filbig, is that the same prison that is in back of the courthouse, here?
A. Yes, indeed, that is the same prison.
Q. Yes. As warden in that prison, here in Nurnberg, during late 1944 and early 1945, were you ever ordered to take prisoners to sessions of the Nurnberg Civilian Court Martial -- the Standgericht?
A. Yes, I received the order -- that was on the 15th of April 1945 -- to take the prisoner Gottfried to the Civilian Court Martial, to bring him before that court.
Q. You say that was on the 15th of April 1945?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that the last session of the Court Martial, here in Nurnberg, before the end of the war?
A. Yes, that was on the 15th of April 1945, the last Sunday before the occupation by the Americans.
Q. Y u say the 15th of April, this day that the Court Martial had its last session, was on a Sunday?
A. That was on a Sunday, yes; at a quarter of five the session started.
Q. Mr. Filbig, do you remember -- let me withdraw that -- Did you attend this last session of the Court Martial on the 15th of April 1945?
A. Yes, I was there myself. I brought the prisoner, and during the entire session I was present.
Q. Mr. Filbig, do you remember who was the president of that Court Martial, on that day?
A. The presiding judge of that Court Martial was Oeschey.
Q. Was this Oeschey that you mention, the same man who is named Rudolf Oeschey, or Nurnberg?
A. Yes, that was the man who had been appointed for that Civil Court Martial at Nurnberg.
Q. Mr. Filbig, do you remember who else had anything to do with that trial, on that day, that you saw?
A. I did not quite understand that question.
Q. Mr. Filbig, you have stated that Rudolf Oeschey was the president of the Court on that day.
A. Yes.
Q. Who else was in court, or in the courtroom, that you remember?
A. During that session there were also present the Gau Inspector Haberkern, in uniform; then, a Major from the armed forces, also in uniform -- I can't recall his name; and the, the senior prosecutor, Dr. Schroeder was also present.
Q. You state that during this trial, Mr. Filbig, you brought a defendant to the session, named Gottfried.
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please tell us, with what detail you can remember, f the facts of the case involving this man Gottfried?
A. Gottfried was a man of the "Volkssturm" -- and in that function he was captured by the American forces near his village after the Americans had already taken the nearest village. And, after having been arrested for one night, he was released again and Gottfried returned to his village. He told the inhabitants of the village that the American forces were not so bad, after all; that they were nice people, alright, and that they were not as what they were described over the radio -- he even received cigarettes from them -- and the Americans distributed chocolate... And the case was such that when he came back he told the people in the village that he had seen many tanks. He mentioned the figure thirty when he was asked about it. He also told the inhabitants of the village -- that is to say -- the other two people who had been arrested with him, that under all circumstances they should open the tank traps, the tank barriers, and the "Volkssturm" should stop fighting at once because otherwise the village would be completely destroyed. On the basis of that, the leader of the "Volkssturm" was approached, and by threats he was forced to withdraw his troop ... which actually happened. The tank barrages were removed by a part of the population, and the remainder of the population assumed a threatening attitude against the "Volksturm". Thereupon, the leader of the Volkssturm arrested Gottfried, and Gottfried was brought in. And now, it happened that Gottfried had actually .. excuse me for a moment ... that magnanimous act of Gottfried, who was only interested in the welfare of his village, was evaluated quite differently by the fanatical Nazis of the Civil Court Martial. It was Oeschey who was particularly indignant that Gottfried had such a high opinion of the Americans, and with cynical remarks Oeschey expressed his rage.
Q. Mr. Filbig, during the trial of this man Gottfried, do you remember observing that the presiding judge Oeschey became obviously enraged at any time during the trial?
A. Yes, I noticed that particularly when gottfried made the statement that the Americans were not as bad as that, that they were very decent nice people, and -
Q. Mr. Filbig -- excuse me -- during the trial of this man Gottfried -- was Gottfried, represented by a defense counsel?
A. No, there was no defense counsel there for Gottfried because in that trial, in the trial of the Civil Court Martial, there was no lawyer present at all.
Q. Mr. Filbig, do you remember what sentence Gottfried received?
A. The sentence was for death -- the death sentence for Gottfried. The defendant Gottfried repeated again and again that he was only interested in the welfare of his village, that he wanted to prevent any more bloodshed, and that nothing could have been done against the American forces -- and he tried again and again to explain that -and the Presiding Judge Oeschey interpreted the matter somewhat differently. He tried to accuse him of treason. But it seems that this was not the case with Gottfried. He only wanted to save his village and save it from further bloodshed.
Q. Mr. Filbig, who was it, at the trial of Gottfried, that announced the death sentence?
A. That was the Presiding Judge. He announced the death sentence.
Q. And this Presiding Judge, as you have stated, was Oeschey. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Filbig, can you describe, from what you saw, the manner in which Oeschey announced the death sentence for Gottfried? How did he say it?
A. As we say -- he "showed off" -- as we say -- in a very cynical manner he pronounced the death sentence -- and, as we say -
he "showed off" and in an ironical way he announced the death sentence on Gottfried after the judges had returned to the courtroom.
Q. Now, Mr. Filbig, how long was it after Oeschey announced this death sentence for Gottfried, until Gottfried was executed?
A. That took about twenty to twentyfive minutes after the announcement of the sentence; the entire court were present at the execution.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q One more question, Mr. Filbig. Can you describe what the Volkssturm was during April of 1945, in general? Can you tell us who they were; what they looked like?
A The Volkssturm, in my opinion, was used in order to save what could still be saved at the last moment for the German Reich, but everybody could see that everything was lost and there was nothing left to be saved. I could mention an example, if I am permitted to.
Q Yes, please.
A They wanted to get me into the Volkssturm. But since....
Q One moment, Mr. Filbig. You say they wanted to get you in the Volkssturm?
A Yes.
Q How old are you, Mr. Filbig?
A I am 53 years old now.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is all; thank you very much.
No further questions on direct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does defense counsel desire to cross-examine this witness?
Before defense counsel begin, there are one or two matters that I should like to inquire about so that I will better understand.
The witness has said that the session of the court was at a quarter of five, but he did not say whether that was in the morning or evening. Which was it?
THE WITNESS: In the evening; in the evening at a quarter to five. That was the session of the Civil Court Martial.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q How long did that session of the court last before time final sentence?
A That session took about forty to forty-five minutes.
Q You used the expression or the figure 30. Did I understand you correctly?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Excuse me, Your Honor. To what do you refer Court No. III, Case No. 3.by the figure 30?
THE PRESIDENT: I understood that expression. I may have been in error, but I understood him to say something about the figure 30.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In what connection, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: At the end of the trial. Evidently I was in error.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, could you be referring to the last question I asked the witness which, namely, was his age, which I believe he said was 53?
THE PRESIDENT: No, it was in the early part of his examination that caught those words, but evidently I was mistaken about the expression.
DR. SCHUBERT (Counsel for the defendant Oeschey): May it please the Tribunal, may I start the cross-examination?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Mr. Filbig.
A Yes?
Q You have mentioned the persons who attended that session.
A Yes.
Q That was the presiding judge, the two associate judges, and the prosecutor.
A Yes.
Q Can you remember who was the certifying official in that session?
A That I cannot say; no, that I cannot remember. Of those present, I can only remember the ones I have mentioned.
Q Was that case Gottfried the only one which was scheduled for that day?
A Yes, the case Gottfried, and two others who were co-defend Court No. III, Case No. 3.ants were dealt with in that session.
I don't know of any other session that took place on that same day.
Q If I understand you correctly, Gottfried was not the only defendant, but there were two other defendants?
A Two other defendants, yes, during that trial.
Q Did you bring these other defendants into the courtroom too?
A Yes.
Q In other words, you brought three defendants to the courtroom?
A Yes; there was another one with me.
Q Can you tell us the names of the two co-defendants?
A Yes, that was Sergeant Leichter, and the third name--the third name I cannot remember.
Q Mr. Filbig, you read from some notes before, during your direct examination. Did you write them down at the time, during the session?
A No, I made some notes afterwards.
Q What you have read to us--were those the notes that you took?
A Yes, the notes that I took after that civilian court martial.
Q Witness, have you been interrogated by the prosecution here, and was anything written down as a result of that interrogation?
A Something was written; the statements that I made.
Q And what you have read here before?
A No, that is not it, no.
Q You said before, witness, that the defendant Oeschey had sentenced Gottfried for treason. Was that precisely the expression which was used in the sentence, in the opinion? Or can you tell us whether it might have been "Landesverrat"?
A That is very difficult for me to remember, whether it was "Landesverrat" or "Verrat", treason of high treason.
Q Can you still remember whether Gottfried was sentenced Court No. III, Case No. 3.primarily because he had made statements to the American troops, that he had given them information about preparations for defense which had been made, about strength and armament of the troops, and of the Volkssturm?
A Gottfried stated again and again, when he was asked -
Q (Interposing) One moment. Was that put to Gottfried, and did he confess it?
A No. He stated again and again it was only in order to save what could be saved; he stated it in the trials he was captured as a Volkssturm man by the Americans. He wanted to find out there what was going on and probably he was taken prisoner there.
Q Gottfried denied, therefore, that he had betrayed military secrets?
A Yes.
Q That is to say, during the trial he was reproached for betrayal of that kind? Otherwise there would have been no reason to deny it.
A Yes. Well, the matter was like this. He was reproached for having done it, for having told the Americans what had been going on; and he said "No, no, I am innocent." He was also asked how it happened that he came to the Americans. He said all of a sudden he was surrounded and captured.
Q Herr Filbig, were there witnesses there?
A Yes.
Q There were witnesses there? What kind of witnesses were there?
A What do you mean by witnesses?
Q Witnesses at the trial.
A Witnesses at the trial?
Q Yes. Who were the witnesses?
A Witnesses? Witnesses? I haven't mentioned any witnesses.
Q But you said just now that there were witnesses present.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A No. He always maintained that he was innocent--Gottfried did. There were only present the judges--I have not spoken about witnesses. The two others who had been arrested together with him, of course, were present during the trial.
Q Had the two other defendants also been American prisoners temporarily?
A No, the two others who were brought in with him were not in American captivity, only Gottfried.
Q Do you know whether the two co-defendants testified against Gottfried?
A That I could not say; they stated time and again that it only came that far because Gottfried had made such and such statements to them.
Q And what happened to the two co-defendants?
A They were acquitted.
Q Acquitted? What had they been charged with?
A The two defendants had been charged with the same thing Gottfried was charged with, if I remember correctly. Why the two codefendants were acquitted I don't know.
Q In other words, If I understand you correctly, the three of them were charged with the same thing, or about the same thing?
A The same thing; that is why all three of them had been arrested.
Q And all three of them said they were innocent?
AAll three of them testified that they were innocent.
Q And the outcome was that one of them was sentenced to death for high treason, as you say, and the two others were acquitted?
A Yes.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes. Gottfried was sentenced to death, and the two others were acquitted.
DR. SCHUBERT: Thank you.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to ask the witness a question or two at this time.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q It has been suggested that the figure 30 that I caught from the translator might have been that there were 30 tanks. Is that correct?
A Yes, that is what I meant by the figure, the tanks, about 30. He had seen about 30 tanks; that is what Gottfried mentioned.
Q One more question. How many judges were there on this Tribunal sitting with Oeschey?
A During that trial there were the Gauinspector Haberkern, the presiding judge, the senior prosecutor, Dr. Schroeder, a major from the armed forces, the Wehrmacht, and then Oberregierungsrat Paulus. That was the superintendent of prisons at Nurnberg at that time.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, may I put one more question?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Would you characterize this court martial under the name we sometimes hear, drumhead court martial?
THE WITNESS: No, it was only a trial of the civilian court martial. That is what I was told. The question is, however, what you understand by a court martial, what I do not know, I was told it was Standgericht, and that is about the same thing as a Schnellgericht. That is a speedy court.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you want to ask mother question?
DR. SCHUBERT: One question.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Herr Filbig, you also mentioned that the entire court was present during the execution.
A Yes.
Q Were you present?
A I stood aside when the sentence was executed.
Q Where was that?
A That was in the courtyard of the cell prison at Nuremberg.
Q When you stood aside, was it possible for you to watch the entire procedure?
A Yes, I could even show you where I stood, and I could show you precisely, where the execution took place.
Q Can you be absolutely sure that all participants of the trial, that is, the presiding judge Oeschey as well as Haberkern, the associate judge, and the major of the armed forces, that all three of these were present at the execution?
A Yes.
Q Did you see the three of them?
A Yes, the entire court, also Oberregierungsrat Paulus, were present. He brought them there where the execution took place.
DR. SCHUBERT: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further redirect?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Just one question , Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Mr. Filbig, you have stated that this trial of Gottfried occured on the 15th of April, 1945, is that correct?
A Yes, that was the last Sunday before the Americans occupied Nuremberg, because on Monday noon there was a tank alarm and it was the Sunday, the 15th of April, 1945.
Q Now, Mr. Filbig, do you remember how long it was after this Sunday on which Gottfried was tried and executed until American troops were in Nuremberg? How long was it after?
AAmerican troops entered Nuremberg, that is, the suburbs of Nuremberg, on Tuesday or Wednesday, and there was fighting going on in the Bucherstrasse.
Q Now, Mr. Filbig, by "Tuesday or Wednesday" do you mean the Tuesday or Wednesday following the Sunday that Gottfried was executed?
A Yes, that was the Tuesday and Wednesday immediately after.
Q Thank you.
A You're welcome.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution calls the witness Hodges. Your Honors, this witness will testify in the English language.
THOMAS K. HODGES, a witness, took the stand and testified as fellows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this case will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness would you please tell the Court your full name and your obvious army rank?
A Thomas K. Hodges, 1st Lieutenant, Infantry, Army of the United States.
Q Lt. Hodges, at any time during the recent war in Europe were you in Germany as a member of the United States Army?
A Yes, I was.
Q Do you remember where you were in February of 1945?
A Yes. In February the American troops fought to the west bank of the Rhino River, and the Rhine was finally crossed at Remagen, which is just south of Bonn, on the 8th of March. But during February the fighting was on the left bank of the Rhine.
Q Lieutenant, so we can get a little clearer picture of just how you knew where the fighting was going on, would you please describe for the Court the nature of your official duties while you were in Germany in 1945?
A I was a combat intelligence officer with duties that kept me in connection not only with the German soldiers and civilians but also with the tactical situation as reflected in intelligence reports at at headquarters.
Q On the 16th of February, 1945, what was the situation on or near the Rhine River? Do you remember with any particularity?
A Yes, I would --I should say that we were ten miles west of Cologne with very heavy fighting, with tanks in lead and backed by infantry, with a jeavy fighting as I ever saw at any time during the war.
Q Now on April 2, 1945, do you remember how close to Nuremberg the nearest Allied troops had advanced on the 2nd of April, 1945?
A The nearest troops on 2 April were just about to capture the town of Crailsheim, which is, oh, I should say 50 to 60 miles from Nuremberg.
Q On 5 April, three days later, were the Allied troops still advancing in this direction?
A Yes, the advance during the early part of April was extremely rapid. It was a two-pronged advance.
Q By "advance", Lieutenant, do you mean Allied advance in this direction toward Nuremberg?