Sophie Scholl and the White Rose
Page 25
Manfred Eickemeyer
Wilhelm Geyer
Josef Söhngen
Fourth Trial
April 3, 1944, Saarbrücken
Willi Bollinger
Fifth Trial
October 13, 1944, Donauwörth
Lieselotte Dreyfeldt
Wolfgang Erlenbach
Valentin Freise
Marie-Luise Jahn
Hans Liepelt
Hedwig Schulz
Franz Treppesch
APPENDIX 3
The Indictment of Hans and Sophia Scholl, and Christoph Probst February 21, 1943, Berlin
Reich Attorney General to the People’s Court
Indictment
1. Hans Fritz Scholl of Munich, born September 22, 1918, in Ingersheim, single, no previous convictions, taken into invest-igative custody on February 18, 1943;
2. Sophia Magdalena Scholl of Munich, born May 9, 1921, in Forchtenberg, single, no previous convictions, taken into invest-igative custody on February 18, 1943; and
3. Christoph Hermann Probst of Aldrans bei Innsbruck, born on November 6, 1919, in Murnau, married, no previous convictions, taken into investigative custody on February 20, 1943;
all at present in the jail of the headquarters, State Police (Gestapo), Munich;
all at present not represented by counsel;
are accused:
in 1942 and 1943 in Munich, Augsburg, Salzburg, Vienna, Stuttgart, and Linz, of committing the same acts together:
I. of attempted high treason, namely to change the constitution of the Reich by force, and acting with intent:
1. to organize a conspiracy for the preparation of high treason,
2. to render the armed forces unfit for the performance of their duty of protecting the German Reich against internal and external attack,
3. to influence the masses through the preparation and distribution of writings; and
II. of having attempted, in the internal area of the Reich, during a time of war, to give aid to the enemy against the Reich, injuring the war potential of the Reich; and
III. of having attempted to cripple and weaken the will of the German people to take measures toward their defense and self-determination.
Crimes according to Para. 80, Sec. 2; Para 83, Secs. 2 and 3, No. 1, 2, 3; Paras. 91b, 47, 73 of the Reich Criminal Code (St GB), and Para. 5 of the Special War Criminal Decree.
In the summer of 1942 and in January and February of 1943 the accused Hans Scholl prepared and distributed leaflets demanding a settlement of accounts with National Socialism, disaffection from the National Socialist “gangsterism”, and passive resistance and sabotage. In addition, in Munich he adorned walls with the defamatory slogan “Down With Hitler” and with canceled swastikas. The accused Sophia Scholl participated in the preparation and distribution of the seditious materials. The accused Probst composed the first draft of a leaflet.
I
Summary of Results of Investigations
1. Up to 1930 the father of the accused Hans and Sophia Scholl was mayor of Forchtenberg. Later he was Economic Adviser in Ulm on the Danube. The accused Scholls have two sisters and a brother, who is now serving in the armed forces. Against the accused Hans Scholl, as well as against his brother Werner and his sister Inge, charges had previously been brought on the part of the Reich Police Headquarters, Stuttgart, concerning conspiratorial acts, which led to the temporary arrest of the above-named. Hans Scholl attended the local secondary school and in 1937 he enlisted in the army. In 1939 he began his studies in medicine, which he continued during his period of active service in the army in April, 1941. He was last assigned to the Student Company in Munich with the rank of sergeant. He covered the cost of tuition out of his army pay and out of an allowance from his father. In 1933 Scholl joined the Hitler Jungvolk and was later transferred to the Hitler Jugend.
2. The accused Sophia Scholl worked first as a kindergarten teacher and since the summer of 1942 has been studying science and philosophy at the University of Munich. Until 1941 she belonged to the Bund deutscher Mädel, serving finally as Group Leader.
3. The accused Probst attended the Gymnasium in Nuremberg and, after finishing his Labor Service, volunteered for the army. Later he became a medical student and most recently belonged to the Student Company in Innsbruck with the rank of sergeant in the medical service.
II
During the summer of 1942 the so-called Leaflets of the White Rose were distributed through the mail. These seditious pamphlets contain attacks on National Socialism and on its cultural-political policies in particular; furthermore, they contain statements concerning the alleged atrocities of National Socialism, namely the alleged murder of the Jews and the alleged forced deportation of the Poles. In addition, the leaflets contain the demand “to obstruct the continued functioning of the atheistic war machine by passive resistance, before it is too late and before the last of the German cities, like Cologne, become heaps of ruins and German youth has bled to death for the “hubris of a subhuman.” According to Leaflet No. 2, a wave of unrest must spread through the land. If “it is in the air,” if many participate, then in a great final effort this system can be shaken off. An end with terror, the leaflet stated, is preferable to terror without end. In Leaflet No. 3 the idea is developed that it is the intent and goal of passive resistance to bring down National Socialism. In this struggle one should not hesitate to take any course, to do any deed necessary. National Socialism must be attacked at all points, wherever it may be vulnerable. Rather than military victory, the first concern of every German should instead be the defeat of National Socialism. Every committed opponent of National Socialism must therefore ask himself how he can most effectively struggle against the present “state” and deal it the most telling blows. To this end sabotage in armament plants and war industry, the obstruction of the smooth functioning of the war machine, and sabotage of all National Socialist functions, as well as in all areas of scientific and intellectual life, is imperative.
A total of four separate leaflets of this sort were distributed in Munich at that time.
In January and February of 1943 two separate seditious leaflets were distributed by means of random scattering and through the mail. One of these bears the heading “Leaflets of the Resistance Movement in Germany” and the other “Fellow Fighters in the Resistance!” or “German Students!” The first leaflet states that the war is approaching its sure and certain end. However, the German government is trying to direct all attention to the growing submarine threat, while in the East the armies are falling back ceaselessly in retreat, in the West the invasion is expected, and the armament of America is said to exceed anything that history has heretofore recorded. Hitler (it states) cannot win the war; he can only prolong it. The German people, who have blindly followed their seducers into ruin, should now dissociate themselves from National Socialist sub-humanity and through their deeds demonstrate that they do not agree. National Socialist propaganda, which has terrorized the people by fostering a fear of Bolshevism, should not be given credence, and people should not believe that Germany’s future is tied to the victory of National Socialism for better or for worse.
The second leaflet, referring to the battle of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad, states that there is a ferment among the German people, and the question is raised whether the fate of our armies should be entrusted to a dilettante. The breaking of National Socialist terror, the leaflet expects, will be the work of students—to whom the German people are looking for guidance and who will achieve their goal through the power of the intellect.
III
1. The accused Hans Scholl long considered the political situation. He arrived at the conclusion that in 1918, and after the seizure of power by the National Socialists in 1933, it was not the German masses but rather the intellectuals who had failed politically. This is the only explanation, in his opinion, why mass movements with simplistic slogans had succeeded in drowning out all rational thought. Accordingly, he felt it
his duty to remind the middle-class intellec-tuals of their political obligations, one of which was to take up the struggle against National Socialism. He therefore decided to prepare and distribute leaflets intended to carry his ideas to the broad masses of the people. He bought a duplicating machine, and with the help of a friend, Alexander Schmorell, with whom he had often discussed his political views, he acquired a typewriter. He then drafted the first leaflet of the “White Rose” and claims to have singlehandedly prepared about a hundred copies and to have mailed them to addresses chosen from the Munich telephone directory. In so doing, he selected people particularly in academic circles, but also restaurant owners who, he hoped, would spread the contents of the leaflets by word of mouth. Subsequently he prepared three additional leaflets of the “White Rose,” which were likewise written by him. The contents of these leaflets are reproduced above, in Part II of this indictment. Again these were distributed through the mail.
He was prevented from issuing more leaflets by his assignment to active duty on the eastern front in July 1942. He claims that in part he himself paid for the materials used in preparing the leaflets; some portion of the costs were given to him, he claims, by his friend Schmorell.
The name “The White Rose,” according to the statements of the accused Hans Scholl, was chosen arbitrarily and took its inception from his reading of a Spanish novel with this title. The accused claims that at first he did not plan an organization; only later, namely early in 1943, did he draw up the plan for an organization which was to propagate his ideas. He claims that he has not yet attempted to bring together a group of like-minded persons.
Early in 1943 the accused Hans Scholl, who in the meantime had been given leave from army service in order to study at the University of Munich, came to the conclusion, as he relates, that there was only one means of saving Europe, namely by shortening the war. To publicize this idea, he drafted two more leaflets, in editions totaling about 7,000, and with the titles mentioned above in Part II of this indictment. Of these he scattered about 5,000 copies in the inner city of Munich, in addition to mailing numerous other copies. At the end of January he traveled to Salzburg, and from the railway post office he posted some 100 to 150 letters containing the leaflets he had prepared. In addition, about 1,500 of the seditious papers were distributed through the post in Linz and Vienna by Schmorell, who traveled to these cities at Scholl’s request. Scholl contributed to the cost of train tickets. Finally Scholl had his sister Sophia take about 1,000 letters containing seditious leaflets to Augsburg and Stuttgart, where she put them in the mail. After the news of the reverses in the East, Hans Scholl again prepared leaflets in which he reproduced the text of his student leaflet under a new title. Of these he sent several hundred by post. He took the addresses from a University of Munich directory. On February 18, 1943, he and his sister scattered more seditious papers. On this occasion he was observed by the witness Schmied and placed under arrest.
Early in 1943 the accused Hans Scholl requested that his friend, the accused Probst (with whom he had for a long time exchanged ideas about the political situation), write down his ideas on current political developments. Probst then sent him a draft, which without doubt was to be duplicated and distributed, though there was no time for such action. This draft was found in Scholl’s pocket at the time of his arrest.
At the end of January 1943 the accused Hans Scholl, at the suggestion of Schmorell, decided to make propaganda by painting defamatory slogans on walls. Schmorell prepared a stencil for him with the text “Down With Hitler” and with a swastika which was canceled through, and he provided paint and brush. In early February 1943 Hans Scholl, together with Schmorell, painted such slogans in black tar on several houses in Munich, on the columns in front of the University, on the buildings of the National Theater and the Ministry of Economics, the Schauspielhaus Theater, and elsewhere.
2. The accused Sophia Scholl as early as the summer of 1942 took part in political discussions, in which she and her brother, Hans Scholl, came to the conclusion that Germany had lost the war. Thus she shared with her brother the view that agitation against the war should be carried out through leaflets. She claims to be unable to remember whether the idea of the preparation of leaflets had its inception with her or with her brother. She claims that she had no part in the preparation and distribution of the leaflets with the title “The White Rose” and that she did not become aware of them until a friend showed her a copy. On the other hand, she admits to having taken part in preparing and distributing the leaflets in 1943. Together with her brother she drafted the text of the seditious “Leaflets of the Resistance in Germany.” In addition, she had a part in the purchasing of paper, envelopes, and stencils, and together with her brother she actually prepared the duplicated copies of this leaflet. She also helped her brother address the envelopes for mailing. Furthermore, at the request of her brother she traveled by express train to Augsburg and Stuttgart and put the prepared letters into various mailboxes, and she took part in the distribution of the leaflets in Munich by depositing them in telephone booths and parked automobiles.
The accused Sophia Scholl was also implicated in the preparation and distribution of the student leaflets. She accompanied her brother to the university, was observed there in the act of scattering the leaflets, and was arrested when he was taken into custody.
The accused Sophia Scholl was not involved in the act of defacement of buildings, though when she learned about it, she offered to assist on future occasions. She even expressed the view to her brother that it might be a good form of concealment to have a woman taking part in this activity.
The accused Sophia Scholl knew that her brother spent considerable sums of money in the preparation of the seditious papers. In fact, she took charge of her brother’s finances, since he was little concerned about money matters; she kept financial records and issued to him the sums he needed for these purposes.
3. The accused Probst, who was often in the company of brother and sister Scholl and who shared their ideas, wrote at the request of the accused Hans Scholl the draft, mentioned above, of his estimate of the current political scene. He claims, to be sure, that he did not know that Scholl intended to use the draft for a leaflet, but he did admit that he was aware that it might be used for illegal propaganda.
IV
The accused were on the whole willing to admit to their acts.
Testimony and Exhibits
I. The statements of the accused in the Supplementary Volumes I–III;
II. The Judge of the Police Praesidium of Munich: H 9 R;
III. The witnesses:
1. Custodian Jakob Schmied, Munich, Türkenstrasse 33/I,
2. and
3. Officials of the Police yet to be named;
IV. Exhibits:
1. The confiscated typewriters, duplicating machine, duplicating master, paint, and brushes;
2. the leaflets and photographs in the appended volume of exhibits.
With the concurrence of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command of the Armed Services and the Reich Minister of Justice, the case is transferred to the People’s Court for action and decision.
APPENDIX 4
The transcript of the Sentence of Hans and Sophia Scholl and Christoph Probst
February 22, 1943
Transcript
I H 47/43
In the Name of the German People
In the action against
1. Hans Fritz Scholl, Munich, born at Ingersheim, September 22, 1918,
2. Sophia Magdalena Scholl, Munich, born at Forchtenberg, May 9, 1921, and
3. Christoph Hermann Probst, of Aldrans bei Innsbruck, born at Murnau, November 6, 1919, now in investigative custody regarding treasonous assistance to the enemy, preparing to commit high treason, and weakening of the nation’s armed security,
the People’s Court, first Senate, pursuant to the trial held on February 22, 1943, in which the officers were:
President of the People’s C
ourt Dr. Freisler, presiding,
Director of the Regional (Bavarian) Judiciary Stier,
SS Group Leader Breithaupt,
SA Group Leader Bunge,
State Secretary and SA Group Leader Köglmaier, and, representing the Attorney General to the Supreme Court of the Reich, Reich Attorney Weyersberg,
find:
That the accused have by means of leaflets in a time of war called for the sabotage of the war effort and armaments and for the overthrow of the National Socialist way of life of our people, have propagated defeatist ideas, and have most vulgarly defamed the Führer, thereby giving aid to the enemy of the Reich and weakening the armed security of the nation.
On this account they are to be punished by
Death
Their honor and rights as citizens are forfeited for all time.
Grounds
The accused Hans Scholl has been a student of medicine since the spring of 1939 and, thanks to the solicitude of the National Socialist government, has begun his eighth semester in those studies. He has served meanwhile on temporary duty in a field hospital in the campaign in France and again from July to November 1942 on the eastern front as a medical aide.
As a student he is bound by duty to give exemplary service to the common cause. In his capacity as soldier—on assignment to medical study—he has a special duty of loyalty to the Führer. This and the assistance which he was expressly granted by the Reich did not deter him in the first half of the summer of 1942 from writing, duplicating, and distributing leaflets of the “White Rose.” These defeatist leaflets predict the defeat of Germany and call for passive resistance in the form of sabotage in war industries and for sabotage in general, to the end that the German people would be deprived of the National Socialist way of life and thus also of their government.