White Rose Histories

I am making all three segments of Chapter 10 free to all readers. I want you to get a good glimpse of the humanity of these students, how they could have fun together, their dynamics in a group setting, simply their silly, serious selves.

July 22, 1942.

Summary:

Manfred Eickemeyer is annoyed and surprised when around thirty people show up for the farewell party. Sophie has brought black tea, Hans nothing, so Eickemeyer scrambles to find pastries and champagne for the guests. He is annoyed at Hans’ lack of manners and misses out on much of the conversation, as the students expect him to serve.

Hans Scholl tells anti-Nazi jokes, which breaks the logjam and gets people talking. Manfred Eickemeyer tells everyone assembled about Nazi atrocities in Poland - things he has heard from reliable sources, as well as events he witnessed firsthand, including 600,000 Jews crammed into the Warsaw Ghetto. Even Professor Huber seems to be moved by the crimes Eickemeyer describes.

Alexander Schmorell poses a question to his friends: How shall they hehave on the battlefield? He advocates passive resistance, but his comments fuel a fierce controversy. Despite pushback from his friends - including Hans Scholl - he maintains his position. Willi Graf retreats into his shell, avoiding the discussion.

At this point, the debate seems to center on passive resistance versus no resistance, not passive versus active resistance. In other words, either not following or slow-playing orders, versus doing one’s duty as a soldier.

Professor Huber comments that when a National Socialist commits a crime, it should be noted so they can be punished later. Hans Hirzel sees that everyone understands his words to mean sooner, rather than later, and is also surprised that no one denounces National Socialism, only Naitonal Socialist crimes.

Manfred Eickemeyer brings out the champagne. The partygoers break up into smaller conversation units. Professor Huber asks Hans Hirzel about the mood in Württemberg. Hans Hirzel self-effacingly says he is not qualified to answer, but his uneducated guess would be that Württemberg is more conservative and pro-Hitler than Munich.

Why this matters:

* When I wrote this book in 2002, I would frequently ask people what they would do if something like the Nazi era happened in the USA. How would they react? The answer invariably came, “It cannot happen here. Our system with its checks and balances will prevent something like National Socialism from ever taking root.” I will now pose Alexander Schmorell’s question here: How will you behave if given an illegal order or if you’re asked to consciously perform an act that is unethical or that contravenes the law? Because the 2002 response no longer is valid.

* In recording this segment, I was struck by something I’d missed before, something that seems important. This notion of protesting crimes, criminal acts, and not a political system. I didn’t give that a second thought back in 2002, but now I wonder about the concept. It goes without saying that crimes, that criminal acts, should be prosecuted. Under what circumstances should a political system be “prosecuted” or routed?

Please comment on these questions, or with anything else that caught your attention in this segment. As you can see, it’s just now starting to get really, really good.

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 128-131.

Notes and references

As of the date this book went to press (2002), my database is 1,995 printed pages long (January 31, 1933 – October 12, 1943). The entries for July 22, 1942 make up nineteen of those pages, a significantly disproportionate number for a single date*. Almost all of those entries come from Gestapo interrogation transcripts, not postwar narrative, a clue to the importance the Gestapo attached to the meeting. - *Each day should be about 1/2 page long in the data dump: 1995/3903.

Positively identified from records as in attendance at the farewell party: Hans and Sophie Scholl, Willi Graf, Alexander Schmorell, Christl Probst, Katharina Schüddekopf, Traute Lafrenz, “great woman (friend of Manfred Eickemeyer),” “Woman #5,” Professor Huber, Manfred Eickemeyer, and Hans Hirzel. It is possible but not proven that friends like Otmar Hammerstein, Raimund Samüller, and Hubert Furtwängler dropped in briefly on the festivities. Not present: Susanne Hirzel, Gisela Schertling, Otl Aicher, and Jürgen Wittenstein.

Oddly enough, in Manfred Eickemeyer’s April 7, 1943 interrogation, he claimed Kurt Huber was not at the party.

The ditty is not easily translated. Steig hernieder, Edler Streiter. / Dein Gefreiter weiβ nicht weiter. / Lasse diese schlechten Zeiten / lieber Adolf Hitler reiten.

Johannes Tuchel points out that Detlef Bald’s surmisings about Eickemeyer’s additional information – identified by Eickemeyer merely as “one or other German measures taken in the Generalgouvernement” – is off-base. In Bald’s book (that is largely based on Dr. Wittenstein’s supposed diary), he asserts that Eickemeyer told them about Hans Frank’s tirades, yet the “quotes” cited were not from public speeches, but rather from Frank’s private journals.

A second alleged Eickemeyer tidbit was not even from Hans Frank, but from Herbert Hummel, and Bald managed to mangle that quote.

Finally, Detlef Bald averred that Eickemeyer could have told them “that SS people drove through the [Warsaw] Ghetto and shot at anything that moved with automatic weapons (pistols).” While that assuredly took place, the “quote” that forms the basis for Bald’s assertion was dated December 20, 1942, five months after Manfred Eickemeyer supposedly knew about it.

In earlier interrogations of Manfred Eickemeyer (and indeed, earlier in the day on April 9), he initially professed not to have known anything about a political discussion because he was out and about running errands. Only later did he own up to his role in the conversation.

Traute Lafrenz alone claimed that Hans Scholl started the debate about passive resistance and how they should behave on the battlefield. Everyone else said Alexander Schmorell had done so.

Kurt Huber’s testimony is a little confusing. On the one hand, he adamantly stated that Alexander Schmorell’s view of passive resistance on the battlefield was contradicted by everyone present. Willi Graf confirmed that report: “With regards to our assignment on the front, Schmorell championed the idea that we should behave passively, and that the others who were present contradicted him.”

Yet Huber turned around and said that “Schmorell publicly championed the point of view that passive resistance was the most useful; however, all of those present agreed with his opinion.”

It is not clear whether Huber said the opposite of what he meant, or whether Alex was eventually able to persuade his friends of the correctness of his opinion.

In the same interrogation, Kurt Huber said that Eickemeyer made statements “that support what we believe, [namely] that one should volunteer for the army.” Compare with Katharina Schüddekopf’s 3/23/1943 interrogation. She merely mentioned the debate and did not name the person who started it.

Johannes Tuchel emphasizes the fact that Alex Schmorell basically stood alone, without Hans Scholl, Willi Graf, or anyone else present supporting his position. Tuchel noted that Detlef Bald’s White Rose book distorts this personal conviction held by Alexander Schmorell, articulated during the trial as ‘not willing to shoot at either Germans or Russians,’ and wrongly incorporates it into overall White Rose outlook.

Hans Hirzel’s comments about democratic viewpoint, about National Socialist crimes versus National Socialism, are more credible because he made the statements during a Gestapo interrogation and not postwar.

Traute’s comment about no one paying attention to Hans Scholl because they were too drunk: She was trying to apply this state of affairs to the entire evening, instead of to the later portion when champagne replaced black tea. The Gestapo did not fall for her deception.

Throughout his interrogation, Kurt Huber insisted that the boy from Ulm was Otl Aicher. Even after the Gestapo knew it was Hans Hirzel and not Otl, Huber persevered in fingering Otl. This is not the only time Professor Huber wrongly identified a person, insisting he was correct when he was clearly mistaken. Watch for this in the chapters dealing with his interrogations.

* Hirzel, Susanne. Vom Ja zum Nein: Eine schwäbische Jugend 1933-1945. Tübingen: Klöpfer, Mayer und Co. Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 1998.

* Tuchel, Johannes. “Neues von der ‘Weiβen Rose’? – Kritische Überlegungen zu Detlef Bald: Die Weiβe Rose, von der Front in den Widerstand.” In Arbeitshefte des Bereichs Historische Grundlagen der Politikwissenschaft am Otto-Suhr Institut für Politikwissenschaft. Berlin: Otto-Suhr-Institut für Politikwissenschaft, 2003.

* Tuchel, Johannes. “’Von der Front in den Widerstand’? Kritische Überlegungen zu Detlef Balds Neuer­scheinung über die ‘Weiβe Rose’.” In Friedrich Veitl (Ed.) Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissen­schaft, Heft 11 (pp. 1022-1045). Berlin: Metropol-Verlag, 2003.

* Gestapo Interrogation Transcripts: Manfred Eickemeyer and Eugen Grimminger, Volume 1. Stadtsarchiv München Stanw. Nr. 12.530. 4/9/1943 interrogation of Manfred Eickemeyer; 4/7/1943 interrogation of Manfred Eickemeyer.

* NJ1704, Volume 1, part 3. 3/1/1943 interrogation of Willi Graf.

* NJ1704, Volume 7. 2/27/43 interrogation of Kurt Huber.

* Third White Rose Trial: July 13, 1943. 7/13/1943 verdict with reasons; 4/12/1943 Gestapo report re Söhngen, Geyer, et al; 4/27/1943 order to transfer Söhngen, Geyer, Dohrn, and Eickemeyer to investigative custody.

* ZC13267, Volume 6. 3/15/1943 interrogation of Traute Lafrenz. Publication in 2024/2025.

* ZC13267, Volume 15, part 2. 3/23/1943 interrogation of Katharina Schüddekopf.

* ZC14116, Volume 1. 2/27/1943 interrogation of Hans Hirzel; 2/22/1943 interrogation of Hans Hirzel. Publication in 2024/2025.

Podcast © 2024 Denise Elaine Heap. White Rose History, Volume II, Chapter 10, © 2002 Denise Elaine Heap and Exclamation! Publishers. Please contact us for permission to quote.

This podcast is a project of WHY THIS MATTERS, a newsletter of Center for White Rose Studies, that explores the reasons that voices silenced more than eighty years ago still speak to us today.

To order digital version of White Rose History, Volume II, click here. Digital version of White Rose History, Volume I is available here.

Why This Matters is a reader-supported publication. To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. - All subscription funds are deposited directly to the account of Center for White Rose Studies, a 501(c )(3) nonprofit. Ask your tax accountant if your subscription is tax deductible.

I am making all three segments of Chapter 10 free to all readers. I want you to get a good glimpse of the humanity of these students, how they could have fun together, their dynamics in a group setting, simply their silly, serious selves.

July 19 - July 22, 1942.

Summary:

Willi Graf decides that Oscar Baez is all right, though he still worries about his sister’s nuptials. He heads back to Munich, relieved that he was wrong about Ossy.

On the overnight train ride, he reads Richard Benz’s Lösung und Bindung: Probleme der Kulturen [Unraveling and Binding Up: The Problems of the Cultures]. Benz was a Nazi philosopher who sought to make Nazi hate palatable with beautiful words. Willi’s choice of reading material is puzzling, unless he is reading it for a class. He never expounds further on the topic.

The soldier students learn that their trip East has been postponed by a day. Willi Graf visits Adalbert Grundel, pleased by the discussion about “things that moved them.” Bertl agrees to store Willi’s treasured books while he is in Russia.

Hans Scholl and Alexander Schmorell tidy up most evidence of White Rose activities. Hans returns the Greif duplicating machine, Alex gives the typewriter back to his neighbor. Together with Willi, they drop in on Lilo.

Lilo is not used to seeing Alex in uniform. It is clear that he is delighted they are being sent to the Russian front, his “true homeland.” But Lilo worries about their assignment, fearing she may never again see Alex.

Hans Hirzel decides to travel to Munich to unravel the White Rose mystery. He intends to confront Hans and Sophie Scholl and determine once and for all whether they are behind the leaflets. He makes an appointment to meet them at 7 p.m., July 22. But since he is unfamiliar with the city, he arrives late.

Hans Scholl’s landlady gives him direction to Manfred Eickemeyer’s studio, where the farewell party is taking place. Hans Hirzel arrives around 9 p.m., after the party has been in full swing for about an hour. Hans Scholl introduces him to everyone present, first and last names. But then he seats the high school boy next to Sophie Scholl.

Hans Hirzel thinks they are talking about “inconsequential things,” like literature and art. He does not immediately perceive the gradual shift to more serious topics.

Why this matters:

* It’s interesting: Literally one day before recording this segment, I was attacked on LinkedIn by a misogynist who made the same argument towards women that Richard Benz made about Jewish Germans. I wrote a short three-sentence post, expressing my gratitude that so many people in positions of power had denounced the attempted assassination and all political violence. The LinkedIn fellow said that the attempted assassination was the fault of “ladies” like me who didn’t know our place, that measures now being taken by the Trump side of the Republican party were our fault. That they were being forced to fight back against “ladies” like me. I immediately thought of Richard Benz, unaware that this would be today’s segment. How appropriate! Hate is still hate, no matter how beautiful or ‘apologetic’ the words.

* This is by far my favorite chapter in our White Rose histories. The students and the adults who love their company are present in all the beauty of their youth. They are so alive, so real. Their sharing of political jokes? Their getting a wee bit tipsy? Hans Scholl making the faux pas - intentional? - of sitting Hans Hirzel next to Sophie? The debates, the breaking off into private discussion groups? It’s who they were. It’s who we are. When someone writes the history of our era, they must include not only the serious debates and opinion pieces, but also Ron Filipkowski’s cat Kevin, and Elizabeth Warren’s dog Bailey, and Liz Cheney’s devotion to her kids. We are all people, with our quirks and pet peeves and heartfelt loves and heartrending struggles, and to write anyone - then or now - as superhero or demigod is just plain silly. It’s also a warning not to put “heroes” on pedestals. If you do, you’ll always be disappointed. Because when Hans Scholl told Hans Hirzel the last names of guests, he widened the Gestapo net in February 1943. Know the people you trust.

In the comments section, please tell us about your experiences with people who deflect blame onto victims, like Richard Benz and the LinkedIn misogynist did.

Also, have you ever been involved with a cause you strongly believed in, only to learn that you really did not like the people spearheading the cause? Talk about it here!

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 126-128.

Corrections to auto-generated transcript:

Instead of protesting the concepts he revealed, she objected to his giving her back his keys. Alex countered, It’s better this way. Take care of them for me. When I get back, I will pick them up again, all right? [Italicized sentences missing from transcript.]

After extracting a promise from the blond beauty to write him, Alex and his friends left. Lilo knew she possibly would never see him again. She recalled, It was simply awful. The prospect of such a comfortless void remained. [Italicized sentences missing from transcript.]

Notes and references

Willi Graf, at home, train ride home, Bertl, thinking about Mathilde’s wedding once in Munich:

In a move typical of some dishonest German literary historians, the Richard Benz work that Willi read is most often listed as having been published by Christian Wegner Verlag in 1946, with no addendum stating that it originally had been released during the Third Reich. Inge Jens and Anneliese Knoop-Graf noted that Willi read the 1939 edition published in Hamburg. They did not footnote the publisher’s name, and I could not find it. Will try again before 2024/2025 update.

Willi Graf’s statement about the clinical rotation: “Ich glaube einfach nicht an die 3 Monate Feldfamulatur” - I simply do not believe in the three-month clinical rotation in the field.

* Knoop-Graf, Anneliese and Jens, Inge (Eds.). Willi Graf: Briefe und Aufzeichnungen. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, 1994.

* Benz, Richard. Geist und Reich. Jena: Eugen Diederichs Verlag, 1933. Note that I checked this book out of an American university library!

Wrapping things up - Hans Scholl, Alexander Schmorell, Willi Graf:

September 2, 1942 letter from Hans Scholl to his mother, Sophie, and Inge. “My last two weeks in Munich were grand and worthwhile, but hurried, so they prevented many of my ideas from maturing.”

In Hans Scholl’s 2/20/1943 interrogation, Hans was still trying to claim sole responsibility for the leaflet operations, therefore he stated that he “gave the typewriter back to Schmorell.” However, the typewriter apparently had never left Alex’s room.

Christiane Moll reached a similar conclusion regarding continuation of leaflet activity post-Russia. “Therefore it remains open whether they would have continued distributing their leaflets had they not been sent to Russia at the end of July 1942.”

I do not “buy” Söhngen’s contention that he initiated the political conversation (“I had probably made some strong remark against the regime and particularly about the construction of concentration camps and about the Gestapo, which had carried me off loudly once again”), because nowhere are Söhngen’s ‘dissident’ claims corroborated by third parties. However, he likely did not oppose Hans’ political statements, as Söhngen was not a politically minded fellow.

Re timing of Hans Scholl’s visit: Söhngen said it occurred “immediately before he was sent to the front in August [sic] 1942.”

Söhngen did not attend the farewell party.

* Fürst-Ramdohr, Lilo. Freundschaften in der Weiβen Rose. Munich: Verlag Geschichtswerkstatt Neu­hausen, 1995.

* Jens, Inge (Ed.). At the Heart of the White Rose: Letters and Diaries of Hans and Sophie Scholl. Translation by J. Maxwell Brownjohn. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1987.

* Knoop-Graf, Anneliese and Jens, Inge (Eds.). Willi Graf: Briefe und Aufzeichnungen. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, 1994.

* Moll, Christiane. “Acts of Resistance: The White Rose in the Light of New Archival Evidence.” In Resistance Against the Third Reich: 1933-1945, ed. Michael Geyer and John Boyer, translation by Betsy Mayer and Michael Geyer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

* Third White Rose Trial: July 13, 1943. Josef Söhngen’s postwar narrative.

* ZC13267, Volume 2. 2/20/1943 interrogation of Hans Scholl.

Farewell party, part 1:

Susanne Hirzel stated that her brother had made an appointment to see the Scholls, but that Hans Hirzel found a note telling him to meet them at a different address. One would infer from her narrative that Hans Hirzel had made the appointment before he left Ulm, which was not the case. Susanne Hirzel herself stated that her brother told the truth and did not lie during his Gestapo interrogations. One must therefore assume that Hans Hirzel made the appointment when he got to Munich and called the Scholls.

In Hans Hirzel’s 2/22/1943 interrogation, he incorrectly gave the address of the studio as Ludwig Str. 45.

Susanne Hirzel criticizes Hans and Sophie (and indeed, all the participants that evening) for not having agreed upon an alibi in advance “to justify involvement in such a dangerous meeting.” Her objection seems baseless, as this was first and foremost a farewell party. That was not only alibi, it was the truth.

One of the dark threads to follow throughout White Rose history: Hans Hirzel’s adoration of Hans Scholl and his disappointment every time Hans Scholl ‘stuck him’ with Sophie.

* Hirzel, Susanne. Vom Ja zum Nein: Eine schwäbische Jugend 1933-1945. Tübingen: Klöpfer, Mayer und Co. Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 1998.

* Vielhaber, Klaus. Gewalt und Gewissen: Willi Graf und die “Weisse Rose.” Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1963. Original title of this book was Widerstand im Namen der deutschen Jugend.

* NJ1704, Volume 1, part 1. April 8, 1943 indictment.

* ZC14116, Volume 1. 2/22/1943 interrogation of Hans Hirzel; 2/27/1943 interrogation of Hans Hirzel. Publication in 2024/2025.

Podcast © 2024 Denise Elaine Heap. White Rose History, Volume II, Chapter 10, © 2002 Denise Elaine Heap and Exclamation! Publishers. Please contact us for permission to quote.

This podcast is a project of WHY THIS MATTERS, a newsletter of Center for White Rose Studies, that explores the reasons that voices silenced more than eighty years ago still speak to us today.

To order digital version of White Rose History, Volume II, click here. Digital version of White Rose History, Volume I is available here.

To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. - All subscription funds are deposited directly to the account of Center for White Rose Studies, a 501(c )(3) nonprofit. Ask your tax accountant if your subscription is tax deductible.

July 13 - July 18, 1942.

Summary:

Fritz Hartnagel’s unit continues its slow but relentless march towards Stalingrad. His company was hampered by the missing automobiles that remained at their old location, 300 miles away. Fritz flew that distance to check on status of repairs, but as they landed, the tail skid of the plane broke.

One car was ready, so he returned under cover of night. Only that automobile broke down - again - so he hitchhiked back to camp. A letter from Sophie was his reward for the long day.

Following German victory in Luhansk, Ukraine, Fritz’s company received orders to proceed to Stalingrad. After attempting that forward march, they found themselves gridlocked, hopelessly bogged down in mud. With no way to pitch tents, they slept in their vehicles.

Fritz used the standstill to fantasize about Sophie.

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 124-125.

Another freebie! And short.

Corrections to auto-generated transcript:

Standing by the side of the road, hungry and exhausted, he decided the aggravation would be worthwhile if only he would return to find a letter waiting from Sophie. He wrote her, “And consider, there was a letter on my desk! Could I have asked for a nicer reward for this trip?” But the letter distressed him. [Italicized sentences missing from transcript.]

Germans had to live and sleep in those gridlocked vehicles. As an officer, that presented less of a problem to Fritz. He told Sophie, “It is such a cozy feeling when the rain beats down on my roof and I am sitting here dry.” [Italicized sentence missing from transcript.]

Notes and references

I wish a trained psychologist would study Sophie’s letters - but only after heavy-handed censorship is lifted! - and figure out what was eating this young woman. Guilt over Jungmädel association? Had she been sexually molested? She was repulsed when Fritz Hartnagel so much as hugged her. Had she had an abortion, illegal under Nazi law? Something had made her feel worthless, unloveable.

Until Scholl Archives are no longer blocked, we can only read the scraps of excerpts that Inge Scholl fed us and wonder.

* Bock, Annegert. “Briefwechsel zwischen Sophie Scholl und ihrem Verlobten: ‘Ein Gruβ mit zarten, lilaroten Blütenblättern.” Stuttgarter Zeitung, January 27, 2003. Retrieved from www.Stuttgarter-zeitung.de/stz/page/detail.php/354217. Short excerpts from the handful of letters released by Elisabeth Hartnagel nee Scholl in February 2003.

* Hartnagel, Thomas (Ed.). Sophie Scholl, Fritz Hartnagel: “Damit wir uns nicht verlieren”: Briefwechsel 1937-1943. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 2005. Eighty-eight letters held back by the Hartnagel family.

* Jens, Inge (Ed.). At the Heart of the White Rose: Letters and Diaries of Hans and Sophie Scholl. Translation by J. Maxwell Brownjohn. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1987.

Podcast © 2024 Denise Elaine Heap. White Rose History, Volume II, Chapter 09, 2007 update, © 2007 Denise Elaine Heap and Exclamation! Publishers. Please contact us for permission to quote.

This podcast is a project of WHY THIS MATTERS, a newsletter of Center for White Rose Studies, that explores the reasons that voices silenced more than eighty years ago still speak to us today.

To order digital version of White Rose History, Volume II, click here. Digital version of White Rose History, Volume I is available here.

To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. - All subscription funds are deposited directly to the account of Center for White Rose Studies, a 501(c )(3) nonprofit. Ask your tax accountant if your subscription is tax deductible.

July 15 - July 18, 1942.

I am making this a free podcast-post, so you can get to know Otl Aicher, Christoph Probst, and Alexander Schmorell a bit better. You will understand why I admire the courage and strength of these three young men so much.

Summary:

A Russian mamuschka befriends Otl Aicher, giving him five cooked red beets, letting him know she had witnessed his humiliation. When he returns to his quarters, he finds a German soldier raping a Russian woman. He is livid. He knows that rape is not unusual during wartime, but he despises the manner in which Germans consider Russians to be brutes and themselves in the right. We are burning down their villages and cities, and they are the wild brutes?

Lilo recalls that Christoph Probst had told Alexander Schmorell that he did not like Leaflet IV. He thinks it’s too emotional. He tells Alex that they need to reach the man on the street.

Erich Schmorell insists that Christoph Probst must be restored to his rightful place in White Rose history, not relegated to the background as is usually the case. He notes that any time Christl was in Munich, he spent it with Alex (and Hans), staying informed and part of the work.

Herta Probst says that when Christl would come home after a week in Munich, his face reflects his distress. But the stress disappears when he goes for a walk with her and the children.

Christl writes his younger half-brother Dieter Sasse about a long bicycle ride he and Hans Scholl enjoyed the previous week. But he writes most lovingly about a berry-picking trip with his two boys, precocious Mischa the center of the universe (rightfully!), Vincent growing into a merry, sunny child. He tells Dieter that Herta “takes a lot of joy in her little rascals.”

The friends in Munich try to plan a final weekend in Zell with the Probst family, before the soldier students are shipped off to the Russian front. Christl is not going with them.

Why this matters:

* The story of little Mischa Probst picking raspberries is one of my favorite in all of White Rose literature. As you will see in a later chapter, Christoph Probst undertakes White Rose work, knowing its extreme risks, because he does not want his children to be ashamed of him for having done nothing. Lilo told us once that she most admired Christoph Probst, Wilhelm Geyer, Kurt Huber, because they risked not only their own lives, but the well-being of their families, of their children. She said she didn’t know if she would have been capable of doing the same. We overlook that element of “nobility” when we talk about resistance, protest, and the like. It’s “easier” for students to protest, because there’s so little to lose. Add spouse, children, job, home, established community, and the stakes are much higher.

* I also like the story of little Mischa picking berries, because it shows Christoph Probst in all his humanity. Just as the story of Alex and Limburger cheese makes Schurik more relatable, so too when we see Christl as father to two darling toddlers, we get a sense of the man. He’s no longer just the serious fellow in the photo with Hans and Sophie Scholl. Or the author of the seventh, unpublished leaflet. Or the exhausted young man trying to hold everything together. Christoph Probst is also Daddy, Vati, protective husband, funny, loving. We need to let our heroes be humans - whether they lived and worked in 1942/43, or if they are at the forefront of the fight for justice in 2024. Stop expecting perfection. Let them be moms and dads with kids who want to go berry picking.

Have you ever met a real-life hero or heroine up close and personal, seen them in daily life? What surprised you about them? Good, bad, and in-between.

Did it affect your belief in the cause they represent? If so, how?

Has your commitment to the fight for social justice, for tikkun olam, for repairing the world, changed as you’ve gotten older? More or less committed?

Talk about it here!

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 122-124.

Usually, notes and references are for paid subscribers only. But today, everyone can read.

Otl Aicher:

Date is estimate, based on his sequence of events. Should additional information become available that dates this differently, that will be noted in a future update.

* Aicher, Otl. innenseiten des kriegs. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag GmbH, 1985.

Alexander Schmorell (2007 update):

* Schubert, Peter (Ed.). “Erinnerungen von Weggefährten.” In Robert Volkmann, Gernot Eschrich, and Peter Schubert (Ed.). “…damit Deutschland weiterlebt”: Christoph Probst 1919-1943 (pp. 143-148), Gilching, Germany: Christoph-Probst-Gymnasium, 2000.

Christoph Probst (2007 update):

This relegation of Christoph Probst, Traute Lafrenz, and others to the background played a significant role in Erich and Hertha Schmorell’s decision to leave the Weiβe-Rose-Stiftung in 2003. It was not the only factor, but it was the major one.

* 1995 interviews with Erich and Hertha Schmorell in their home, Munich-Pasing, Germany.

* Schubert, Peter (Ed.). “Erinnerungen von Weggefährten.” In Robert Volkmann, Gernot Eschrich, and Peter Schubert (Ed.). “…damit Deutschland weiterlebt”: Christoph Probst 1919-1943 (pp. 143-148), Gilching, Germany: Christoph-Probst-Gymnasium, 2000.

* Volkmann, Robert, and Gernot Eschrich, Peter Schubert (Ed.). “…damit Deutschland weiterlebt”: Christoph Probst 1919-1943. Gilching, Germany: Christoph-Probst-Gymnasium, 2000. Facsimiles of letters.

Podcast © 2024 Denise Elaine Heap. White Rose History, Volume II, Chapter 09 © 2002 Denise Elaine Heap and Exclamation! Publishers. White Rose History, Volume II, Chapter 09, 2007 update, © 2007 Denise Elaine Heap and Exclamation! Publishers. Please contact us for permission to quote.

This podcast is a project of WHY THIS MATTERS, a newsletter of Center for White Rose Studies, that explores the reasons that voices silenced more than eighty years ago still speak to us today.

To order digital version of White Rose History, Volume II, click here. Digital version of White Rose History, Volume I is available here.

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. All subscription funds are deposited directly to the account of Center for White Rose Studies, a 501(c )(3) nonprofit. Ask your tax accountant if your subscription is tax deductible.

July 15 - July 18, 1942.

Summary:

Hans Hirzel’s pendulum swings back in the other direction. Now he is no longer certain that White Rose leaflets are true. He tells Franz Josef Müller about “seditious leaflets” he has received and shows one to Kurt Glöckler, who advises him to turn it in to the police. He burns it instead.

Hans Hirzel is most afraid of his parents’ learning that he is recipient of a treasonous leaflet. His father later confirms that had he known, he would have sat his son down and given him a “patriotic sermon” about the virtues of the “young” National Socialist government. Pastor Hirzel is especially upset at his children’s perception of censorship of the press by the Nazis. The reverend claims that the NSDAP was forced to take these measures not because they wanted to do so, but because of the “heartless exploitation of every weakness” undertaken by the enemies of National Socialism.

The soldier students learn they are to leave for the Russian front on Wednesday, July 22. On July 16, they invite Willi Graf to their Claudel reading, Satin Slipper. Willi savors the time spent discussing a work he enjoys, an author he admires for his contribution to Renouveau Catholique. But he acknowledges in his diary entry that evening that he has not yet grown accustomed to such blunt conversations.

First splinters in the circle of friends show up during this final week before soldier students depart for the Russian front. Traute Lafrenz and Katharina Schüddekopf meet at Manfred Eickemeyer’s studio with Eickemeyer, Josef Furtmeier, and Monsieur Rousset, the latter a French teacher at the university. Käthe specifically notes that the Scholl siblings are not present.

Sophie Scholl similarly ignores the very presence of Traute and Käthe when she writes Gisela Schertling, asking her to transfer to Munich. Sophie says she doesn’t like being the “only girl.” The letter arrives at a difficult time in Gisela’s life, so she starts making plans to transfer.

Willi Graf thinks about the fact that his older sister Mathilde will be saying her wedding vows the same day he and his friends are headed to the Russian front. Uncharacteristically, Willi rashly decides to go to Saarbrücken to say his goodbyes. On July 18, he packs his things and boards a train - very unlike his usual rational, carefully planned self!

Why this matters:

* Reverend Ernst Hirzel… what can I say? This was a pastor who signed the Bonhoeffer-Niemöller the first time around, along with 7000 other Lutheran pastors. And signed it the second time, with only 700 others, after the German Lutheran Church (aligned) threatened all signers with pay reduction of 50%. Pastor Ernst Hirzel signed anyway and brought home a 50-kg bag of oatmeal, which he placed conspicuously in the parsonage foyer. He told his children they never had to worry about going hungry. He also refused to hang Hitler’s portrait in Martin-Luther-Kirche in Ulm.

And yet - when push came to shove, he gave in. His church may not have had Hitler’s portrait, he may not have allowed Storm Troopers to wear their uniforms to church services, but Martin-Luther-Kirche also was known as most sympathetic to the Nazi cause. He advised his children to go along to get along, to compromise, to do whatever it took, to keep their heads down and noses clean.He and his wife attended the April 19, 1943 trial. Susanne Hirzel recalled thinking, Serves him right! Maybe NOW he will see what sort of people he makes excuses for. Only he did not.Reverend Ernst Hirzel wanted to have it both ways. There’s no evidence he ever learned he could not serve two masters.

* When I did my run-through of this little segment, before I started recording, I thought, “Oh, what a nice little easy section! Nothing hard or difficult to chew.”I realized as I read that the cracks in White Rose friendships start showing up here, cracks that would eventually split them.

* Hans Hirzel trusted untrustworthy people, who later betrayed him and White Rose.

* Hans Scholl could not prove himself a friend even in little things. Why didn’t he “share” his friendship with Alfred von Martin with Christoph Probst? Something so simple, yet Hans couldn’t do it.

* Hans Scholl’s harsh treatment of Traute - in effect forcing everyone else to choose between him and her - prevented the circle of friends from ever achieving the unity they needed to do this “work.”

* Sophie Scholl’s equally harsh treatment of Traute Lafrenz - this is one of those black threads you should follow in the White Rose story. Was she jealous of Traute?

* Sophie and Hans both choosing to invite known Nazis into their circle of close friends, thereby compromising the “work.” Both siblings knew of Gisela’s strong National Socialist “convictions” and hand-waved that aspect of Gisela’s person.

We live in an era of cult personalities: Religion, celebrities, politics. We ascribe positive character traits to people if they worship the way we do, sing songs we like, hold political convictions we like.

To follow anyone “cult-like” invites failure.

Have you worked for social justice in a group that puts its leader on a six-mile-high pedestal? How did that affect you personally, or the goals of the group in general? Talk about it!

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 120-122.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.

July 15, 1942.

Summary:

Fritz Hartnagel writes Sophie Scholl that he finds it odd and comforting that he can turn to her. “It’s like a clear, starry night over a village destroyed by gunfire.”

Eduard H., a student on leave from the Russian front, visits Professor Kurt Huber. Huber asks about forced sterilizations of Polish Jews and Polish women. Eduard tells Huber that he has personally witnessed mass executions of Jews in the Crimea.

Eduard tries to leave, because he must catch a train. But Huber insists he tell him more, and more. Finally around 3 a.m., Kurt Huber lets out a thunderous shout. Klara Huber comes out of their bedroom and asks her enraged husband to be quiet, “because of the neighbors.”

Before Eduard leaves around 3:45 a.m., Huber says he envies Eduard because he can put himself in the line of fire on the front, and die. Eduard protests that that is suicide. Huber replies that only that death makes sense. Eduard cannot forget Huber’s parting words: “There are situations in which that is legal – including that which is morally legal – is transcended.”

Otl Aicher, whose regiment is temporarily halted on the march to Baku, asks for medical leave. The Sergeant Major responds by commanding him to appear in full marching gear, complete with winter pullover. He runs Otl through a series of drills, while cursing and demeaning him, ending with commands to roll on the slimy street in full view of Russian peasants and fellow soldiers.

Feeling humiliated, Otl realizes he has just been fully “initiated” as member of the “great German people.”

In Munich, Hans Scholl talks of assassinating Hitler. This causes the friends to discuss the morality of assassinating anyone, even a tyrant. Despite the debate, Hans remains steadfast in his resolve.

Christoph Probst falls ill, “an interesting illness,” likely either narcolepsy or clinical depression. He cannot stay awake for more than two hours at a time. He envies Alex’s vitality.

Although Christl recognizes he is growing and maturing, he does not know what he should dedicate himself to with his entire body and spirit. He perceives himself as a clear wine that hasn’t yet been stomped.

Why This Matters:

* As powerful as Otl Aicher’s narrative is, Christoph Probst’s introspection at that time is likely something we can all stand a bit more of. I am especially struck by the fact that he underestimated his value to the circle of friends. He could clearly see how working on the leaflets had matured Alexander Schmorell, how Schurik had a renewed sense of purpose. But he could not see the same thing about himself, although his friends certainly appreciated - and needed - Christl’s growth. He was physically weak in July 1942, but inside? He was strong. His courage inspired and motivated his friends.

* Coming back to a point raised in an earlier segment: Often it is difficult to pigeonhole people. Georg Thurmair, Kurt Huber - so many contradictory and moving parts to their lives and stories. Were they Nazis or were they resistance? Were they “aligned” or did they color outside the lines? Do their actions constitute resistance? I don’t have the answers, but this question applies to many in 2024. People are complex, complicated.

How do you see yourself? How do you see your friends? Are you harder on yourself than you are on your friends? If you’re involved with social justice, tikkun olam, can you observe how your work changes you?

Among your friends, whom do you see and respect as your moral authority? Your moral backbone?

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 117-120.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.

July 11 - July 15, 1942.

Summary:

Hans and Sophie Scholl spend the weekend in Ulm. Inge queries them about the leaflets. Sophie laughs off the question, saying all students had received the leaflets. Inge joins her siblings in Munich for a few days.

Lisa Grote - a nanny and a dissident in Munich who had been receiving the leaflets - notices that the leaflets suddenly stop. She and her small circle of friends had gained great hope from the leaflets and mark their disappearance with concern. This circle actively protests by painting graffiti on walls in Munich and by distributing anti-Nazi materials.

Sophie hears rumors that whoever is responsible for White Rose leaflets has been caught, sentenced, and executed.

Willi Graf visits the mother of Georg Thurmair, who had been responsible for the publication of several Catholic bündische periodicals, including Junge Front, which Willi had avidly read. Although Thurmair is serving in the military, Willi hears that his mother lives in Munich. That conversation pleases him.

Willi pens “the” letter to Marianne Thoeren, likely his declaration of love.

The Second Student Company learns that their clinical rotation is to be served on the Russian Front. Willi panicks a little, as he has no place to store his possessions, since he is losing his room on Georgen Strasse on July 15.

Traute Lafrenz confronts Hans Scholl about White Rose leaflets. He says it is dangerous for her to know about the author. She understands that from that point on, she has been assigned her “role” as someone who can help with distribution, but not creation of the leaflets.

Transcription errata: Substack’s auto-transcription missed the following quote from Traute Lafrenz: “And that’s how it stayed. I had been shown my place, and I accepted it. I simply made sure that the leaflets were distributed.”

Sophie’s continuing battle with despondency (depression?) shows up in her July 15, 1942 diary entry. She does not believe that she can love or be loved, especially by God. She sees her soul as a barren desert.

Why This Matters:

* Just as Hans and Sophie Scholl could not trust their own sister, Inge — although they would later fully trust Elisabeth with their secret work — so today, sometimes it’s our own family members who must be shut down as we work on behalf of social justice, on behalf of issues that matter. “Loss” of family is harder than loss of friends or acquaintances, but sometimes it is necessary when they consciously choose to promote conspiracy theories and seditious acts.

* Lisa Grote’s story is one that should have been told a long time ago. She shared these memories with Inge Scholl after the war. Inge not only quashed the information; she also transcribed Lisa’s letter. Who knows what happened to the original, or what the original said? When someone [here, Inge Scholl] practices historical revisionism, there’s usually a reason for the deception. Too many people laud Inge Scholl, despite the fact that she was a Nazi and never recanted her political beliefs, and know nothing of Lisa’s heroism. That is not right.

Is there someone whose work is not recognized, perhaps a writer here on Substack with too few subscribers, or an independent journalist who labors unknown? Give them a shout-out and say why their work means something to you!

Is there a group that has worked hard on behalf of a cause you believe it, but they have worked in the shadow of a larger organization who has coopted their efforts? Mention them here!

If you are struggling to do what is right and good and just, and your own family is subscribing to Q-fraud or harmful rhetoric, speak up, so you can get support from your community.

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 114-117.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.

There is an old proverb that children are always taught anew: Pay attention or pay the consequences. A smart child will only burn his fingers once on a hot stove.

In the past few weeks, Hitler has registered successes both in Africa and in Russia. As a result, optimism grew among the people on the one hand, while consternation and pessimism grew on the other hand – and this with a rapidity that is unrivalled [in a nation known for] inertia. On every side among the opponents of Hitler – that is, among the better part of the nation – one heard plaintive calls, words of disappointment and discouragement, which often ended with the exclamation: “But what if Hitler really…?”

In the meantime, the German offensive in Egypt has ground to a halt. Rommel must hold out in a dangerously exposed position. And yet the march eastward continues. This apparent success has been at the expense of the most ghastly sacrifices, so that it can no longer be described as advantageous. We therefore must warn against every form of optimism.

Who has counted the dead, Hitler or Goebbels? Probably neither. Thousands fall every day in Russia. It is the time of harvest, and the reaper approaches the standing crops with all his energy. Mourning returns to the cottages of the homeland and no one is there to dry the tears of the mothers. But Hitler deceives the ones whose most precious possession he has stolen and driven to a senseless death.

Every word that proceeds from Hitler’s mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war. And when he names the name of the Almighty in a most blasphemous manner, he means the almighty evil one, that fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the stinking maw of hell and his might is fundamentally reprobate. To be sure, one must wage the battle against National Socialism using rational means. But whoever still does not believe in the actual existence of demonic powers has not comprehended by far the metaphysical background of this war. Behind the tangible, behind that which can be perceived by the senses, behind all factual, logical considerations stands The Irrational, that is the battle against the demon, against the messengers of the Anti-Christ. Everywhere and at all times, the demons have waited in darkness for the hour in which mankind is weak; in which he voluntarily abandons the position in the world order that is based on freedom and comes from God; in which he yields to the force of the Evil One, disengaging himself from the powers of a higher order. Once he has taken the first step of his own free will, he is driven to take the second and then the third and even more with furiously increasing speed. Everywhere and at every time of greatest danger, people have risen up – prophets, saints – who are aware of their freedom, who have pointed to the One God and with His aid have exhorted the people to turn in repentance. Mankind is surely free, but he is defenseless against the Evil One without the true God. He is like a ship without a rudder that is given over to the storm, like a nursing child with a mother, like a cloud that dissolves.

I will ask you, those of you who claim to be Christians: In this struggle for the preservation of your most precious goods, is there a hesitancy, a pretense of intrigue, procrastination of your decision in the hopes that someone else will raise his weapons to defend you? Did not God Himself give you the strength and the courage to fight against [these powers]? We must attack the Evil One where it is strongest, and it is strongest in the power of Hitler.

“So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun; and behold, the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power, but they had no comforter.

“Wherefore, I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.” (Proverbs) [sic]

Novalis: “True anarchy is the element of procreation for religion. When everything positive has been destroyed, religion raises its glorious head as the benefactor of a new world… If Europe will awaken, if it will become a nation of nations, then a new political science would be at hand! Should perhaps hierarchy … be the principle for a union of nations? … Blood will pour over Europe until the nations are aware of their terrible insanity that drives them around and around in circles. Then touched and soothed by holy music, they approach their former altars in the beauty of diversity[1], taking up works of peace, and tearfully celebrating a great festival of peace on the smoking battlefields. Religion alone can revive Europe and secure the rights of nations and install Christianity in its peace-giving office visibly on this earth with new glory.”

We expressly state that the White Rose is not a hireling of a foreign power. Though we are aware that the might of National Socialism must be broken militarily, we seek to achieve a revival of the deeply wounded German spirit from within. However, this rebirth must be preceded by a clear confession of all the guilt the German nation has incurred and by a ruthless battle against Hitler and his too-numerous helpers’ helpers, Party members, Quislings, et al. The chasm between the better part of the nation and everything connected with National Socialism must be brutally forced open. There is no punishment on this earth that is adequate for the deeds of Hitler and his followers. Out of love for the generations to come, we must make an example [of them] after the conclusion of the war so that no one will ever have the slightest desire to attempt something similar. Do not forget even the little scoundrels of this regime. Note their names, so that no one escapes! After all these atrocities, they should not be able to change sides at the last minute and thereby pretend as though nothing had happened!

For your reassurance we will add that the addresses of the readers of the White Rose have not been documented in writing anywhere. The addresses were chosen at random from address books.

We will not keep silent. We are your guilty conscience. The White Rose will not let you alone!

Please duplicate and pass it on!

[1] IE, all races together.

Source for Leaflet IV: ZC13267, Volume 5. A complete copy of the leaflets may be ordered here.

Traute Lafrenz had handed Hans Scholl the quote from Ecclesiastes (not Proverbs, as he wrote when he used the verses): Wherefore, I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. She was annoyed that he had gotten the reference wrong, but happy that he had used her contribution to the leaflet. Traute also knew immediately and for certain that Hans Scholl had written this leaflet when she saw that quote. Source: Traute Lafrenz. “Bericht.” Letter to Inge Scholl, dated February 21, 1946. Unpublished. — Ecclesiastes 4:2, Lutheran Bible.

Novalis was the pen name for Georg Philipp Friedrich Freiherr (Baron) von Hardenberg. He was raised a strict Pietist, in the Moravian Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine, a branch of the Brethren subdivision of the Lutheran church. Pietists are known for exacting rule-following and live ‘apart’ from the world.

Novalis, despite his upbringing, developed an intensely personal, mystical religious creed. He wrote poetry (including hymns) and prose, studied law, theology, mining, mathematics, physical sciences, philosophy. We’d call him a polymath. He’s often mistaken for a Catholic theologian, but he remained firmly in the Pietist, Brethren camp.

He did believe that Europe should be reunified under religion, as it had been during the Holy Roman Empire under the Catholic Church. No doubt, given his Pietist leanings, had his dream been realized, there would have been a major war over which religion should unify Europe.

Novalis lived and wrote from 1772-1801. His first fiancee was named Sophie. She died at 15. He then married Julie.

Podcast © 2024 Denise Elaine Heap. White Rose History, Volume II, translation of Leaflet II © 2002 Denise Elaine Heap and Exclamation! Publishers. Please contact us for permission to quote.

This podcast is a project of WHY THIS MATTERS, a newsletter of Center for White Rose Studies, that explores the reasons that voices silenced more than eighty years ago still speak to us today.

To order digital version of White Rose History, Volume II, click here. Digital version of White Rose History, Volume I is available here.

“Salus publica suprema lex.”

All ideal forms of government are utopias. A State cannot be designed strictly theoretically. It must grow, mature, just as an individual person will. However, one may not forget that at the beginning of every civilization, a prototype of the form of government existed. The family is so old – old as mankind itself – that out of this initial communal being the logic-endowed man created a State whose foundation would be justice, whose greatest law the good of all.

The State represents an analogy of the divine order. The greatest of all utopias – the civitas Dei – is the model it seeks to emulate. We do not wish to pass judgment on all the various forms of government: democracy, constitutional monarchy, monarchy, etc. However, one thing should be accentuated clearly and plainly: Every individual human being has the right to a useful and just State that guarantees the freedom of the individual as well as the common good. For mankind must be able to attain his natural goal – his temporal happiness – in self-reliance and autonomy. This pursuit of happiness should take place free and unencumbered in association and collaboration with the national community, in accordance with God’s will.

But our present State is a dictatorship of Evil. “We’ve known that for a long time,” I can hear you say, “and it is not necessary for you to remind us of it once again.”

So I ask you: If you are aware of this, why do you not stir yourselves? Why do you permit this autocrat to rob you of one sphere of your rights after another, little by little, both overtly and in secret? One day there will be nothing left, nothing at all, except for a mechanized national engine that has been commandeered by criminals and drunks. Has your spirit been so devastated by rape that you forget that it is not only your right, but your moral duty to put an end to this system?

If a person cannot even summon the strength to demand his rights, then there is nothing left for him but destruction. We will have deserved to be scattered to all corners of the globe, as dust before the wind, if we do not pull ourselves together in this eleventh hour and finally summon the courage that we have been lacking till now. Do not hide your cowardice under the cloak of cleverness! Because every day that you delay, every day that you do not resist this spawn of hell, your guilt is steadily increasing, like a parabolic curve.

Many, perhaps most of the readers of these leaflets are not certain how they can practice resistance. They do not see the possibility of so doing. We will attempt to show you that every person is in a position to contribute something to the overthrow of this system. It is impossible to lay the groundwork for the overthrow of this “government,” much less to effect its overthrow as soon as possible, if one opposes it alone in the manner of embittered loners. This can only be accomplished through the cooperative efforts of many unshakable, energetic people – people who are unified regarding the means necessary to achieve their goal. There are not a great many choices we have regarding the means to use; one and only one is at our disposal – passive resistance.

The purpose and the goal of passive resistance is the overthrow of National Socialism. In this war, we may not be deterred from any course of action or from any deed, no matter what the scope. National Socialism must be attacked in every place in which it is vulnerable. This Un-State must be brought quickly to an end. If fascist Germany were to win this war, the consequences would be unfathomable and frightful. The first concern of every German should not be a military victory over Bolshevism, but rather the defeat of the National Socialists. The leaflets following this one will explain why the latter demand is of greater importance.

And now every resolute opponent of National Socialism must ask himself this question: How can he most effectively contend with the current “State”? How can he deal it the severest blow? Undoubtedly through passive resistance. Clearly, it is impossible for us to give every individual specific guidelines for his personal conduct. We can only allude to general issues. Everyone must find his own way to realize resistance.

Sabotage in armaments factories and other businesses vital to the war effort. Sabotage in all assemblies, rallies, festivities, organizations that were breathed into life by the National Socialist Party, prevention of the smooth operation of the war machine (a machine that operates only for one war, one that focuses on the preservation and maintenance of the National Socialist Party and its dictatorship). Sabotage in all scholarly and intellectual realms that exist for the continuance of the current war – this whether it be in universities, colleges, laboratories, research facilities, or technical offices. Sabotage at all cultural events that could possibly exalt the “prestige” of fascists among the people. Sabotage in all branches of the fine arts that have the least connection to National Socialism and serve its goals. Sabotage in all areas of literature, all newspapers that are on the payroll of the “government”, and that fight for their ideas, for the dissemination of the brown lie.

Do not put even one penny in the collection plate, even if it is disguised as a charity. For this is merely camouflage. In reality, your gifts never make it to the coffers of either the Red Cross or the pockets of the destitute. The government does not need this money, it does not depend upon these collections. Its printing presses run uninterrupted and print any quantity whatever of paper money. But the nation must be kept constantly in harness. The pressure on the bridle bit never lets up. Donate nothing to the collections of metal, textiles, and other goods! Seek out all your acquaintances from among the lower classes of the people and seek to convince them of the senselessness of continuing the war, of the hopelessness of ever winning, tell them of the intellectual and economic enslavement by National Socialism, of the destruction of all moral and religious values. Prevail upon them to exercise passive resistance!

Aristotle in “About Politics”: “…In addition, a characteristic of a tyrant is that he seeks to keep anything from being hidden of that which a subject says or does. Everywhere, spies eavesdrop on the subject. … He also seeks to incite the whole world against one another, to set friends on one another, to provoke the poor against the noble and the rich among themselves. Likewise, among the measures taken by a tyrant: He makes his subjects poor so he can pay his bodyguards. Once they are poor and must scrabble for their daily bread, they will have neither time nor leisure to foster a conspiracy. … In addition, a tyrant levies such high income taxes – as were levied in Syracuse – for under the rule of Dionysius, the citizens of that State happily spent their entire estates on taxes within five years. The tyrant also tends to provoke wars incessantly. …”

Please duplicate and pass along!

Civitas dei: Augustinian concept of government.

I added paragraph breaks to make this more readable for English-speaking scholars.

Source of document: ZC13267, Volume 5. A complete copy of the leaflets may be ordered here.

Errata to Substack’s auto-generated transcription: “Salus publica suprema lex,” the opening line, was not transcribed.

Podcast © 2024 Denise Elaine Heap. White Rose History, Volume II, translation of Leaflet II © 2002 Denise Elaine Heap and Exclamation! Publishers. Please contact us for permission to quote.

This podcast is a project of WHY THIS MATTERS, a newsletter of Center for White Rose Studies, that explores the reasons that voices silenced more than eighty years ago still speak to us today.

To order digital version of White Rose History, Volume II, click here. Digital version of White Rose History, Volume I is available here.

June 30 - July 10, 1942.

Summary:

Fritz Hartnagel tries to tell Sophie how much he loves her, without telling her that he loves her. His insecurities shine through clearly as he tempers his declarations with the reality that she can never love him back.

He receives a second letter from Sophie, describing her “misery” and sorrows. Fritz offers her his support and comfort.

Fritz talks to a local farmer, who tells him that he lost two sons to famine about ten years earlier. Fritz describes for Sophie what we now call the Ukrainian Holodomor and the hatred that Ukrainians have for Russians. He seems oblivious to the German contribution to the current starvation of Ukrainians around him.

When the farmer tells Fritz that Russians send Lutherans to Siberia, Fritz concludes that the evil they know [in Germany] is less than the evil inflicted by Bolshevists. He forgets his anger of a few days prior when he learned about the extermination of all Jews in occupied territories.

Fritz’s unit is being deployed several hundred kilometers north from their previous location in southern Ukraine. He experiences the inefficiency of the German war machine. Twelve of seventy-three automobiles assigned to his company break down within two days of their advance. The army has given them no spare parts. Their advance pauses while he sends men back 300 miles to pick up items needed to repair the cars.

He uses the down time to go flying, marveling at sunflower fields juxtaposed against dark blue skies.

They would be moving on the next day.

Why This Matters:

* In 2002 as I was writing this book, we were almost exactly halfway between Ukraine’s declaration of independence from the old Soviet Union, and Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014. Ukraine itself was in economic freefall at the turn of the 21st century, with hyperinflation driving its failing economy. I doubt that many people would have predicted in 2002 that Ukraine would right its economic ship and that Russia would invade. But here we are. And the same issues Fritz described in 1942 have bubbled up to the surface yet again.

* Fritz Hartnagel’s more intelligent, yet still blind, patriotism as he wrote Sophie Scholl in July 1942 demonstrates that too often, despite taking all the proper precautions, we fall for propaganda. Fritz’s conclusion that Germans had the lesser of two evils, by implication that Hitler was less bad than Stalin, despite knowing of the war crimes being committed in the name of the German people? It’s easy to censure him as we sit here in 2024. But I wonder how often we do the same thing.

This section is hitting too close to home right now. I want your comments, how it’s hitting you. No partisan politics, please. Keep this focused on issues, not politicians or party.

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 107-109.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.