Eickemeyer’s recollection re discussions

What I said yesterday about my acquaintance [Note 1] with Hans Scholl is correct. I thought about it overnight and came to the conclusion that I did not meet up with Hans Scholl eight times in Munich until Christmas 1942, but rather only six times. During the summer of 1942, he spent some time on the Front, where we naturally did not see one another. …

Remonstrance: According to our previous determinations, during this meeting in your studio Hans Scholl and Alexander Schmorell talked about the seditious leaflet “White Rose” in addition to their political conversation. Both of them probably described themselves as the authors of this leaflet [Note 2] and intended to spur the remaining participants to the publication of additional seditious leaflets or to get ideas [for additional leaflets] from them. What do you say to this?

Answer: The existence of such a leaflet was never discussed in my presence. If Hans Scholl or Alexander Schmorell had identified themselves as publishers of this leaflet on that evening or on any other occasion, I would have broken off all future contact with them and denied them use of my studio.

During today’s interrogation I am hearing for the first time that Scholl and Schmorell had already published and distributed a seditious leaflet entitled “The White Rose” during the summer of 1942. No matter what, I stand by my statement and will only add that such a leaflet was not sent or handed to me. I am aware that this statement bears criminal consequences, but I cannot give any other explanation since I am hearing about the existence of this leaflet for the first time today.

==========

Note 1: Bekanntschaft. Not friendship.

Note 2: Flugblatt – singular leaflet, not the series.

==========

Source: Second interrogation of Manfred Eickemeyer, April 7, 1943