White Rose Histories

July 1 - July 10, 1942.

Summary (all 2007 update):

Someone mails a leaflet to the high-ranking Nazi librarian, Dr. Halm. When questioned about this in 1943, Alex says he knows nothing about it.

Robert Mohr is assigned to the White Rose case. Despite his postwar spin that he ‘never wished to belong to the Gestapo,’ Ulrich Chaussy’s interview with Mohr’s son Willi reveals that Robert Mohr had been a committed National Socialist. His membership was effective May 1, 1933, that is, in first group after Hitler’s ascension to power.

Chaussy tracks Mohr’s rise from the ranks as regular police officer, to Police Chief, to SA Sturmführer, to Obersturmführer with the NSKK (the National Socialist Motor Corps), to the SS, to Gestapo. There is significant gap between September 30, 1941 move to the SS, and Mohr’s assumption of the White Rose case in July 1942.

Christoph Probst visits his mother in Tegernsee, as his half-brother Dieter Sasse prepares to join Reich Labor Service. Christl writes his sister Angelika a long letter, telling her of his exhaustion from “life” in Munich, of his disappointment with Heinrich Ellermann, of the emptiness of the readings of Claudel’s Satin Slipper. Christl writes Angelika that he is reading Nikolai Berdyaev’s “brochure” about the Middle Ages and is being forced to reevaluate some of his long-held notions regarding philosophy and faith.

In a paragraph that also hints at trouble in Angelika’s marriage (and likely deepening romance with Alexander Schmorell), Christl says he can find her a room in Munich. He notes that that will be nice for him, as he will get to see her more often.

In the concluding section “for serious scholars,” I look at Robert Mohr’s problematic “biography” in a little more detail, specifically as regards his quid pro quo relationship with Robert Scholl after the war.

Why This Matters:

* Writing this chapter gave me a front-row seat to the ironies of that time. At almost exactly the same time that Hans Scholl was writing words that begged fellow citizens not to let the little scoundrels escape after the war by reinventing themselves, Robert Mohr was assigned to the White Rose case. If ever there was a person who reinvented himself after the war, it was Robert Mohr. I like the actor Alexander Held on a personal basis, but his portrayal of Robert Mohr as a sympathetic character did a great disservice to White Rose history. That Ulrich Chaussy was involved with that portrayal as historical consultant? I don’t even know what to say.

* The same movie that portrayed Robert Mohr sympathetically, portrayed Christoph Probst as a weak, simpering coward - contrasted to an equally false portrayal of Hans Scholl as strong and virile. In real life, Christoph Probst had a backbone of steel and a heart that embraced everyone he knew. He was an unusual, and unusually strong, young man. Historical revisionism as it pertains to White Rose has robbed us of a view of true courage in dark days. - I especially value Christl’s willingness to reevaluate his opinions, to talk about hard topics, to read books outside his comfort zone.

In the comments, talk about American (or British, or Australian, or contemporary German, or YOUR country) politicians and leaders who have reinvented themselves. How does it make you feel when you become aware of new legends they create to wipe away a problematic past?

How can and should we best deal with historical revisionism as it occurs in our time?

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 105-107.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.

July 10 - July 12, 1942.

Summary:

After the Haecker reading on July 10, 1942, Willi Graf sits for a “long time” with Hans Scholl and Alexander Schmorell. He does not say what they discussed, only that it makes an impression on him.

Hans Hirzel is still determined to know for certain who is behind the White Rose leaflets he has received. Since Inge Scholl was no help, he asks their father Robert Scholl. Robert Scholl does not even know about the leaflets, much less who wrote them.

Hans Scholl alone writes Leaflet IV. Haecker’s “good versus evil” polemic bleeds through. He uses a Novalis quote that implies he wishes Christianity to become the new world order. Hans Scholl also inserted the verse from Ecclesiastes that Traute Lafrenz had handed him a few days prior, although he incorrectly identifies it as “Proverbs.”

The fourth leaflet muddies the water, especially regarding target audience for the “White Rose” message. People who adhere to Romans 13’s insistence on obeying the government would be put off by Alex’s call to overthrow the government. People who want political action to right wrongs would shy away from Hans Scholl’s religious texts.

[In 1983, Hermann Krings observed that Hans Scholl’s call to withstand evil made it difficult to perceive the White Rose as a political entity. Krings wrote, “Revolt against evil is actually not a political phenomenon – in contrast to revolt against injustice, which is wholly a political category and the root of many revolutions. Against injustice, there are political strategies. Against evil, there are none.”]

Traute Lafrenz reads this fourth leaflet and immediately knows that Hans Scholl wrote it. When she sees Käthe, she cannot contain the news.

Why This Matters:

* If we wish to effect change - whether our cause is homelessness, immigration, climate change, racism, or education - we must know our target audience. A mixed message will be ineffective.

* Hermann Krings’ 1983 comment should be plastered on the walls of every organization or group or media hub that wants to repair the world, that hopes to make this a better place for our grandchildren. “Revolt against evil is actually not a political phenomenon – in contrast to revolt against injustice, which is wholly a political category and the root of many revolutions. Against injustice, there are political strategies. Against evil, there are none.”

Is there a cause you believe strongly in, where you’d like to join a specific organization to bring about lasting change, but where the mixed message sent out by the primary group gives you pause? I will start: For me, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is an entity whose cancer research I would like to support. But the organization’s litigious nature, going against small, equally-effective charities that use “for the cure” in their marketing campaigns; Komen’s reversal of support for stem cell research and Planned Parenthood, not based on science, but politics; and its extraordinarily high pay for its C-Suite — all of that has turned me off.

I see their legal team, for-profit behavior, and politics-over-science as roadblocks I cannot get past.

What has been your experience as you navigate the path of justice in your life?

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 102-105.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.

July 5 - July 10, 1942.

Summary:

Although the four friends - Hans, Sophie, Alex, and Christl - need help with production and distribution of the leaflets, the issue of trust keeps their circle small. Traute is excluded because of a rupture in her relationship with Hans Scholl. Raimund Samüller does not trust Hans, because of his reckless behavior at the ski trip over New Year’s December 1941 to January 1942. Hubert Furtwängler’s fiancée Margaret Knittel is expecting their first child. They could not marry because Margaret is a British citizen. Hubert is very protective of his new family.

Some who could help do not trust Hans Scholl, while the friends do not know whom they can trust. A former pal Jürgen Wittenstein is now off limits. His membership in the Nazi Party makes him untrustworthy, so they avoid him.

Traute gives Hans a quote from Ecclesiastes that she thinks he’ll like. He keeps “quotables” in a little notebook.

Hans tries a new strategy - for the first time that we know of - by handing a leaflet to someone, instead of mailing it. When he bumps into Katharina Schüddekopf on campus, he gives her a copy of the third leaflet. As she starts to read it, he tells her she should not read it in university corridors. She takes it home. After reading it, she puts it with other “keepsake” documents.

The student soldiers are notified that they must do their “Famulatur” or clinical rotation on the front lines. They are tested for fitness for the tropics, which suggests Africa.

Willi Graf renews his efforts to convince his sister Anneliese to join him in Munich in December. He combats his loneliness as best as he can, filling his time with fencing, concerts, and visiting friends at the Siegfried Strasse. He longs for meaningful conversation.

Willi accepts an invitation to a reading at Manfred Eickemeyer’s studio on July 10. Theodor Haecker reads aloud from his work, “Der Christ und die Geschichte,” or The Christian and History. It’s heavy on theology.

While Willi Graf and Hans Scholl enjoy Haecker’s emphasis on Catholic doctrine, Haecker’s words do not sit well with everyone. Especially once Haecker equates “the Christian” as someone of the Catholic faith, and his belief that the Catholic Church alone has the authority to decide what a person’s moral obligation is.

Traute Lafrenz does not enjoy such contemplations and begins reading anthroposophic works with a group of medical students. Without Hans Scholl in attendance.

The theological nature of some of these readings does not have universal appeal among this group of friends.

Why This Matters:

* When working together for a common goal — whether political, social, or business — maintaining trust is crucial for success. Once lost, it is hard to regain. Raimund Samüller’s story begins in White Rose History, Volume I, and continues past the Russian Front experience in July 1942. Traute Lafrenz confirmed postwar that Raimund’s instincts were right.

* Unless your common goal and activity is religious in nature, it’s advisable to leave religion out of the equation. There is little on the earth that divides and angers to the extent that religion does. It was one of the factors that eventually caused White Rose resistance to fail. Traute was merely the first to seek emotional and intellectual support outside the circle of friends. She was not the last. Follow this thread.

Have you been involved in a cause - save the whales, soup kitchen, political campaign for mayor - where someone introduced religion into the mix? How did it impact your work? Positively, negatively?

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 98-102.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers. For this segment, the notes are extensive.

July 1 - July 4, 1942.

Summary:

Hans Scholl and Alexander Schmorell write Leaflet III. As with Leaflet II, Hans pens the “philosophical” part of the leaflet, appealing to fellow citizens’ “moral duty” to put an end to the System. He evokes images from the US Declaration of Independence, especially the right of every individual to enjoy freedom, as well as the common good. He uses the well-known phrase, “pursuit of happiness” to make his point.

Alex on the other hand, continues his insistent you already know language. He starts from the premise that every German knows their government is so corrupt, it must be overthrown. He offers them practical advice on how to proceed.

First, he recites his sabotage liturgy, demanding that Germans sabotage armaments factories, intellectual activities that support National Socialism, cultural events, fine arts, as well as literature and newspapers on the Nazi payroll.

Second, Alex asks Germans not to give money to charity, to the Red Cross, or to various collections of metal and textiles, since those “charitable” organizations funnel their money to the Nazi Party.

Alex later tells his Gestapo interrogator that he does not see this leaflet as a call to treason, even though he intended it to call German soldiers to disrupt the war effort.

After mailing Leaflet III, the four students take a short break. They have been working almost nonstop.

Alex accompanies Lilo to Chiemsee. He tells her that he is disturbed over Hans Scholl’s treatment of Traute Lafrenz. Katharina Schüddekopf shares Alex’s concern, as she watches her friend Traute pull away from the group and keep more to herself.

The estrangement hurts both Traute, who needs their friendship, and the White Rose friends, who need Traute.

On July 4, 1942, after finally having his rotten tooth pulled, Willi Graf tells his diary, “I need people around me, don’t I?”

Why This Matters:

* Professor Dr. Richard Harder, whom the Gestapo retained to analyze the leaflets and profile its author, critiqued Alex’s call to sabotage the intellectual side of German life, not its war industry. My first several read-throughs of the leaflets, I agreed with Harder’s assessment. But with time, I wonder if perhaps Alex’s approach were not more effective. Without cultural events, newspapers, mass (and now social) media, fine arts - all in service to a despotic regime - there’s little support for a war industry. Because despots use intellectual and cultural (and charitable) experiences and “happenings” to bolster their war efforts.

* Working through this phase of their work for the millionth time, I am struck anew by how their work was rendered less effective because of personal squabbles and slights. It wasn’t just Traute and Raimund (and eventually Willi) who needed them. The friends needed more helpers!

How do we as flawed human beings keep personal feelings out of the mix when working for social justice or other causes we believe in? If you have been involved in a situation where a key member of your action group has been marginalized, please talk about it in the comments. Was the situation remedied? How did the personal interactions affect the ongoing work?

The first point about cultural events and media propping up war efforts through propaganda is almost too obvious, but please document your observations anyway. If you see it differently, please note that as well in the comments! Have you ever caught yourself “supporting” a cause that goes against your core beliefs because of something you’ve been exposed to in a movie, on the news, on social media?

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 96-98.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.

July 1, 1942.

Summary:

First week of July 1942, recipients of Leaflets of the White Rose begin turning them over to Gestapo headquarters in Munich. Robert Mohr is assigned to the case. He cannot determine authorship of the leaflets, but he starts a file.

Reception to the first two leaflets is mixed. Georg Schwarz hands his copies over to the Gestapo and tells Hans Scholl he has done so. Werner Bergengruen and his wife type and mail leaflets, with Bergengruen depositing them in as many different mailboxes as possible.

Manfred Eickemeyer is pleased that Alex used his data about murders in Poland, but he tells Hans Scholl they should have been more specific and included damning facts.

Willi Graf begins his July with a good conversation with his friend Adalbert Grundel (Bertl), but is surprised that a frank discussion leaves him unsettled.

News from the Russian front - that Germany has taken Sevastopol - disturbs friends in the circle. They love their country, but they cannot reconcile that with their desire that Germany will lose the war.

Werner Scholl is now on the Eastern Front, while his best friend Otl Aicher is part of Hitler’s Operation Blue, out to capture oilfields of Baku. Otl feels immense personal guilt as they move through battlegrounds where he sees wheat fields, horses, vehicles, and cadavers flattened thin as paper by German tanks. It is as if he has sinned. He decides to memorize every face and remember what he is seeing. [In 2024, Baku is in Azerbaijan.]

The Russian military is ready for their assault and traps Otl’s unit in an area from which a hasty retreat is impossible. Otl muses that they are not “retreating.” Rather, they are “turning around,” since Hitler’s army does not retreat.

Why This Matters:

* The politics of oil. Enough said.

* The four students - Hans Scholl, Sophie Scholl, Alexander Schmorell, and Christoph Probst - kept working, even though they saw no results and received little positive feedback. Their desire to overcome injustice exceeded their discouragement.

What do you do when you are working for social justice and see little to no change resulting from your efforts? At what point should you tweak your work - as Manfred Eickemeyer suggested they become more specific and present more facts - and at what point do you simply carry on?

This applies to more than social justice, that is, political causes. It’s equally at home in business ethics, how you treat your neighbors, or caregiving for a loved one with dementia.

What other applications do you see for the notion of “keep going” in your life?

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 94-96.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.

Why This Matters is a reader-supported publication. Your paid subscription allows us to keep the lights on and pay operating expenses. - 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.

This leaflet was mailed June 29 - July 1, 1942.

Had I tried to meticulously plan the schedule for these “podcasts” or segments of the serialized audiobook, I could not have planned better. Happy Independence Day to everyone in the USA! Even if you are outside the USA, the timing should resonate with you.

I wonder sometimes if Hans Scholl and Alexander Schmorell would have been great orators had they survived the war. Their words surely lend themselves to oratory. May my inexpert but passionate rendition of this leaflet stir you on this day, July 4, 2024.

It is impossible to come to terms with National Socialism on an intellectual basis, because it is simply not intellectual. You cannot speak of a National Socialist ideology. If such a thing existed, you would be forced to try to defend or engage it on an intellectual basis. Reality offers us a completely different image. When the movement was still in embryonic form, it relied on deception of its fellow man. Even then, it was rotten to the core and could preserve itself only on the basis of constant lies.

Hitler himself wrote in an early edition of “his” book – a book that is written in the most awful German I have ever read, despite which the nation of poets and thinkers have elevated it to the status of the Bible: “You would not believe how one must deceive a nation in order to rule it.”

If this cancerous growth in the German nation was not too noticeable in the early phases, then that is because there were enough forces for good at work to try to slow its growth. But as it grew larger and larger and finally ascended to power by means of one last vulgar corruption, the abscess erupted and defiled the whole body. This caused the majority of its previous opponents to hide themselves. German intelligentsia took refuge in holes in the cellar like Solanaceae, hiding from light and the sun, gradually suffocating.

And now we are facing the end. Now it is a question of mutually coming to our senses, of mutually keeping one another informed. We must always keep these things in mind and allow ourselves no rest until the last man is convinced of the utmost necessity of his battle against this system. If a wave of insurrection surges through the country, if “it is in the air,” if many join us, then this system can be cast aside with one last mighty effort. An end with terror is always better than terror without end.

It is not up to us to pass final judgment regarding the meaning of our history. But if this catastrophe shall be our sure salvation, then it shall be so: We will be cleansed by suffering, we will long for the light from the midst of the blackest night, we will summon our energy and finally help shake off the yoke that oppresses the world.

-----------------------------      

We do not wish to address the Jewish question in this leaflet, nor do we wish to pen a case for the defense. No – we would like to mention by way of example the fact that since Poland was conquered, three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in that country in the most bestial manner imaginable. In this we see a terrible crime against the dignity of mankind, a crime that cannot be compared with any other in the history of mankind.

Jews are human beings too – it makes no difference what your opinion is regarding the Jewish question – and these crimes are being committed against human beings.

Perhaps someone will say, the Jews deserve this fate. Saying this is in itself a colossal effrontery.

But let us assume that someone has said this. How can he face the fact that the entire population of aristocratic Polish youth has been exterminated (would God that the extermination is not yet complete!)? You may ask, and in what manner has this taken place? All male offspring of aristocratic families between 15 and 20 years old are sent to concentration camps in Germany as forced labor. All the girls of the same age group are being sent to the SS brothels in Norway!

But why are we bothering to tell you all this, since you know everything anyway? If you are not aware of these specific crimes, then surely you are aware of equally heinous crimes committed by these terrible subhumans? Because this touches on a question that affects all of us deeply, a question that must make us all stop and think: Why is the German nation behaving so apathetically in the face of all these most abominable, most degrading crimes? Hardly anyone even gives them a second thought. The facts are accepted as just that and filed away. And one more time, the German nation slumbers on in its indifferent and foolish sleep and gives these fascist criminals courage and opportunity to rage on – which of course they do.

Is this a sign that the Germans have become brutalized in their most primitive human emotions? That no chord shrieks [in horror] in the face of such deeds? That they have fallen into such a fatal sleep out of which they will not awake, never, ever? It appears so.

And it must be so if the German does not finally rise up from his numbness, if he does not protest wherever he possibly can against this clique of criminals, if he does not have pity on these hundreds of thousands who have been sacrificed. And he must not merely feel pity – no, much more: He must share in the guilt.

It is his apathetic conduct that gives these sinister people the possibility to carry out their deeds. He tolerates this “government” that has incurred such infinite guilt. Yes, he is even guilty himself that this government come could into existence!

Each man wishes to be acquitted of his complicity – everyone does so, then lies back down to sleep with a calm, clear conscience. But he may not acquit himself. Everyone is guilty, guilty, guilty!

But it is not too late to rid the world of this most awful of all miscarriages of government, in order to avoid incurring even more guilt. Those of us who have had our eyes completely opened in recent years since we know with whom we are dealing – it is high time for us to exterminate this brown horde.

Until war broke out, the majority of the German people were hoodwinked. National Socialism did not show itself in its truest form. But now that we have recognized it for what it is, it must be the sole and primary duty of every German – indeed, our most holy duty – to annihilate this wild inhuman beast!

Lao-tse: “He whose administration is unobtrusive, his people are happy. He whose administration is meddlesome, his people are broken. Distress, oh!, that is what happiness is built upon. Happiness, oh!, masks distress. And what is the end of this? The end cannot be seen in its entirety. Order becomes disorder, good becomes bad. The nation becomes confused. Has it not been this way every day for a very long time?

“That is why the Great Man is rectangular, but he does not injure; he is angular, but he does not wound; he is upright, but not rough. He is transparent, but he does not glitter.”

[Also] Lao-tse: “He who undertakes to rule a kingdom and forms it as he pleases, I do not see him achieving his goals. That is all.

“The kingdom is a living organism. Verily, it cannot be fabricated! He who wishes to take it in hand will ruin it. He who wishes to usurp it will lose it.

“Therefore: ‘Some creatures lead, others follow them. Some are cold-blooded, others are warm-blooded. Some are strong, some are weak. Some attain wealth, others are overthrown.’

“The Great Man therefore refrains from excesses, refrains from arrogance, refrains from infringements.”

* * * * *

We request that you make as many carbon copies of this document as possible and pass it on.

If I were to write “Why This Matters” in this space, it would be redundant. Their text speaks for itself.

Please note in the comments how the words of this particular leaflet affects you. Thanks!

Please share this post with someone who needs to be encouraged, stirred up, or motivated to take a stand.

Notes and references

Solanaceae is a form of the plant also known as nightshade.

Where Alex wrote, “That no chord shrieks [in horror] in the face of such deeds?” - The image is of the strings on a stringed instrument making an awful noise in response to the situation.

“Sympathy” for the hundreds of thousands murdered: The German word Mitleid or mitleiden is generally used as “have sympathy with or pity for” – but literally means to suffer with.

“Miscarriages of government” - Not just any miscarriage (Fehlgeburt), but a birth of a monster or a freak (Miβgeburt).

“The majority of the German people were hoodwinked” - Blenden is not blinded. It is rather bedazzled, fooled (as by sleight of hand), tricked, or hoodwinked. Rendered here hoodwinked.

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

[Am I the only person who wishes they had left off the Lao-tse section and stuck with their own powerful words? No?]

Regarding auto-transcript of the podcast or audiobook -

* Hitler himself wrote in an early edition of “his” book – a book that is written in the most awful German I have ever read, despite which the nation of poets and thinkers have elevated it to the status of the Bible, “You would not believe how one must deceive a nation in order to rule it.” - Substack’s transcription omitted the italicized portion.

* The facts are accepted as just that and filed away. And one more time, the German nation slumbers on in its indifferent and foolish sleep and gives these fascist criminals courage and opportunity to rage on – which of course they do.

Is this a sign that the Germans have become brutalized in their most primitive human emotions? That no chord shrieks [in horror] in the face of such deeds? That they have fallen into such a fatal sleep out of which they will not awake, never, ever? - Substack’s transcription omitted the italicized portion.

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 27 - June 29, 1942.

Summary:

The four friends continue to work out of Alex’s third-floor room in his parents’ home. Since his parents already disapprove of Alex’s life choices, he ensures that no one in the house can observe anything they are doing.

They mail Leaflet II to persons they believe support their cause, and they try to remember from one leaflet to the next whom they deem “sympathetic.” They want the same people to receive all leaflets.

Alex bids his neighbor Karl Pötzl farewell, telling him that he will soon be transferred to the Russian front. He never sees Karl again.

Fritz Hartnagel’s certainty about not judging people harshly comes in for a rude awakening when half his company fails to fall in for morning calisthenics. He begrudgingly metes out disciplinary action. When one soldier does not report for guard duty, he must hand him over to military authorities. This decision pains him, but he wonders if some people only respond to force. Fritz bemoans feeling like a policeman.

As much as he hates insubordination, Fritz hates flattery even more. He tells Sophie how fake his two lieutenants are. One a braggart, and the other a milquetoast.

But since his world does not touch Sophie, he says it is as if it does not affect him at all.

Note to transcription: Substack auto-generated transcription skipped two sentences completely, and there is no way to correct whole sentences.

Fritz wrote Sophie, “It always depresses me when I must step in with such severity. But, I must also admit it is impossible to reason with most of the men. They will only conform to the given necessities when they sense force behind them. And in so doing, I am unfortunately put into a position similar to that of a policeman who can only reprove and threaten.” Transcript omits the italicized portion.

Also in the Fritz and Sophie section, “He reflected on the fact that nothing in his world touched her. ‘I can therefore look back on all of this as if it did not affect me at all.’” Again, italicized portion was omitted from auto-generated transcript.

Why This Matters:

* The bulk of White Rose narratives have the students working in the studio from the beginning. No! For the first four leaflets, Alex’s rooms served as headquarters. For the last two, Hans and Sophie’s rooms did so. Eickemeyer’s art studio was not used to print leaflets and address envelopes. - This revisionism obscures the very real risks these students took upon themselves. It matters! Doing what’s right always comes with risk.

* For well over twenty years, I have puzzled over their decision to mail leaflets only to people who agreed with them. This would change with the last two, where they case a wider net. But for the first four, with around 100 copies per leaflet, target group was primarily like-minded individuals. I don’t have answers here. It simply strikes me as relevant to 2024: When we wish to effect change, whom do we target?

Have you been involved in discussions regarding target groups for political protests? If so, how did you and your coworkers decide on the people who should hear your message? Did you go after people who agreed with you, or seek to change hearts and minds?

Either way, please explain your thought processes in the comments section below. Thanks!

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 90-91.

This post and podcast are free, not just for paid subscribers. I want more people to be able to comment on the topic at hand. It’s too important for our era.

However, if you can afford $5/month or $50/year, I personally - and we who care about White Rose scholarship as a whole - would appreciate it if you would consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Why This Matters is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or 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.

Notes and references

* Hartnagel, Thomas (Ed.). Sophie Scholl, Fritz Hartnagel: “Damit wir uns nicht verlieren”: Briefwechsel 1937-1943. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 2005.

* RGWA I361K-1-8808. Alexander Schmorell: Gestapo Interrogation Transcripts. 2/25/1943 interrogation of Alexander Schmorell; 3/10/1943 interrogation of Karl Pötzl.

Podcast © 2024 Denise Elaine Heap. White Rose History, Volume II, Chapter 07 (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.

June 30, 1942.

Summary:

As a researcher, I am curious not only as to why these students resisted, but also why they chose the last two weeks of June 1942 as the time to start their work.

Lilo points to the “thousand plane” bombings as motivation (I concur). Elisabeth Scholl thinks it was the execution of ten or twelve Communists in Pforzheim in Spring 1942 that motivated her siblings to do something. Anneliese Knoop-Graf says their goal was to conquer apathy and cowardice, which explains timing only if the arrival of Sophie and Christl on the scene is taken into account.

The scholar Eckard Holler reminds us to keep two things front and center: First, that the White Rose consisted of far more than just Hans, Sophie, Alex, Christl, Willi, and Professor Huber. And second, that it was not a religious movement.

Lilo tells of the difficulties in keeping their work secret. Alex refers to their leaflets as “secret mail.” When he invites her to dinner with his family, he asks her not to mention it, but rather to focus on their art classes or general matters. She realizes that Alex’s father has no idea that his son is involved in resistance.

Willi Graf attends a series of theological lectures at the end of June. He understands that there’s more to life than a career and that he must rebuild facets of his life from the ground up.

Otl Aicher’s unit gears up for battle. He chafes at the Prussian uniforms, woolen, with tailored waist, stiff collars, and silver buttons. Otl envies Russian soldiers their comfortable fatigues. Though determined not to engage in looting as his comrades do, he spies a pair of American-made rubber boots that he simply must have. He understands how war has changed his priorities.

Why This Matters:

* Even as I write about the when and who and why, I realize that the students we call White Rose did not have that luxury. They worried about duplicating leaflets, typing envelopes, and making it to the post office without getting arrested. Too often, we dissect and debate the effectiveness of someone else’s work on behalf of social justice, instead of getting out there and doing something ourselves. It’s easy to be an armchair quarterback. But tough to be Tom Brady.

Have you ever been in Alex’s position, where your family would not approve of your work on behalf of social justice or civil rights, so you hide your activities from them? How did that make you feel? How did you overcome their disapproval?

And when Alex longs for liberating debate but finds only leaflets - which he does not think will work - can you identify? Talk about it in the comments!

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 88-90.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.

Why This Matters is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or 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.

June 29 - June 30, 1942.

Summary:

Sophie Scholl relapses into depression just as they are working on Leaflet II. She feels that she cannot pray to God as “Du” or informally, as to a friend. Rather, if she prays at all, it must be in formal terms, to God as “Sie.”

The students mail Leaflet II with less efficiency than with the first leaflet: More trips to the post office, contents of envelopes more haphazard. It’s likely that they are feeling the stress of working on leaflet production while still going to class, or the pressure of getting two leaflets out back-to-back.

Alex sends a leaflet to Professor Baur, his sculpting teacher. Baur figures out that Alex is one of the authors and discusses the leaflet’s contents with Lilo. Baur says that it’s good they are distancing themselves from lies, but he fears their circulation is too small to be effective and that real change will only come about if resistance comes from within the military. Lilo is relieved she has someone in her corner who both cares about Alex as she does, yet who - like her - recognizes the danger he is in.

Alex’s words about the mass murders of Jews and Poles resonates with Hans Hirzel, who has been seeking concrete “proof” about National Socialist crimes. Hans Hirzel determines to make future political decisions based on ethical principles. His logic - that of a 17-year-old high school student - is worth citing in its entirety here.

It was a “2 + 2” approach: Two bases for evaluating actions and thoughts, which would result in one of two distinct endeavors.

To judge material stated as fact for which he had no firsthand knowledge, Hans Hirzel’s primary criterion became, “Everything that has not been disproved is possibly correct, and everything that has not been proved is possibly false.” That was closely followed by, “Act in such a way that a minimum of harm arises from what you have done and what you have left undone.” He added that harm could be caused by an otherwise ‘good’ action, and that it was first necessary to define “harm.”

Once both of these conditions had been met (and only then), an individual had one of two responsibilities. If he were intelligent, he must become involved in politics. Hans Hirzel believed that persons of lesser intelligence had a correspondingly lower obligation to “act correctly.” However, someone who was unable to accept political accountability was duty-bound to collect information that would at least give him greater insight into political relationships.

Hans Hirzel takes the two leaflets to Inge Scholl to confirm Hans and Sophie’s involvement. She assures him her siblings have nothing to do with the documents.

Then Erika Reiff’s mother confronts Inge with the same two leaflets. Inge does not know what to say. But she does know better than to tell either of her parents.

Why This Matters:

* Even taking Sophie Scholl’s depression - which included suicidal ideation - into account, the four students had assumed immense responsibility with this task. Their discouragement shows up here and will repeatedly resurface. Only when they expanded the circle, with more hands on deck, did their work inspire and rejuvenate them, instead of causing them to despair. When we take up tasks related to social justice or freedoms or civil and human rights, we will also succumb to feelings that we are being ineffective if we do not join a larger circle of coworkers. These “battles” should not be fought alone. We need one another.

* Hans Hirzel’s logic may be a tiny bit immature and self-important, but his willingness to grapple with his responsibility in that era is laudable. When he categorized himself in the second group, i.e., not among “the intelligent,” my respect for him grew. He may have been messed up by his rocky home life, he may have compromised rational thought by overreliance on LSD and harmful sleep aids, but he was on the right track.

Have you ever felt terribly alone in your battle for a particular cause? Were you able to find people with whom you shared common cause? If so, describe both experiences in the comments please. You will help others think through their own experiences.

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 85-88.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.

Why This Matters is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or 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.

June 27 - June 28, 1942.

Summary:

The second leaflet is not paid for out of Alexander Schmorell’s allowance, as he could not ask his father for an advance without giving away their activity. So Hans Scholl asks Dr. Muth for money, while Lilo gives Alex what she can afford to donate.

Hans Scholl writes the first part of Leaflet II, needling Nazi leaders with derogatory remarks about Hitler’s bad German in Mein Kampf, while highlighting Hitler’s declaration that, “You would not believe how one must deceive a nation in order to rule it.”

The students still mistakenly think that if they could just show German intellgentsia and academics that they had been duped, those people would rise up.

Alex’s portion of Leaflet II focuses on more practical matters. He relates the information obtained from Manfred Eickemeyer about the cold-blooded murder of 300,000 Jews in Poland, along with Nazi etermination of the Polish aristocracy. While Hans Scholl appeals to German intellectualism and political theory, Alex addresses German crimes against humanity.

Setting themselves apart from other dissidents of the era, the students challenge their fellow citizens. They tell them that they already KNOW about German atrocities and are choosing to ignore them. This, they write, makes them every bit as guilty as the perpetrators.

There is strong evidence of Christoph Probst’s involvement in this leaflet as well. The leaflet ends with a nonsequitur, quotes from Lao-tse’s writings about The Great Man, about the nature of a kingdom, of government.

Alex takes extra leaflets to Lilo’s home for storage. She puts some leaflets in the broom closet in her basement, others she stows on an open shelf in her living room. She is not ready to commit to open action, but she keeps her promise to Alex to be there for him.

There is something oddly poetic about the leaflets’ being hidden in a broom closet.

Hans Scholl warns Lilo against full-on participation, a warning she is willing to heed. He uses the word “danger” to describe their undertaking. That corresponds exactly with her understanding of their pursuits.

Why This Matters:

* Even now, there are two separate yet equally effective - and necessary - forms of resistance. The first lays bare the intellectual dishonesty of a political movement. Hans Scholl’s exposing the National Socialist ideology as empty, as worthless, played a role in their work. Alexander Schmorell’s tack of decrying specific war crimes, specific crimes against humanity, also had great value, perhaps for some readers, even more. Both Hans and Alex issued strong calls to action, making it clear that anyone who read their words and did nothing was guilty.

* Lilo’s willingness to be there for her friend Alex, to give him space to Be, a place to store leftover leaflets, exemplifies the sort of support, the “allyship” that is equally necessary when confronting injustice.

As you read the words of writers who speak out against injustice, who speak on behalf of freedom and rightness, are you more motivated by those who expose intellectual dishonesty, or by those who decry specific acts of injustice?

In the comments, name writers (or journalists) whose work in either area influences you. Let’s give these important people the respect they are due!

White Rose History, Volume II, pages 83-85.

Notes and references available only to paid subscribers.

Why This Matters is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or 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.