On February 8, 1943, Schmorell and I left my apartment at about 11:30 pm. We intended to refresh the graffiti at the university. We used green oil-based paint to paint graffiti on the university in several places, namely using the template that you already know about. Continue reading
A few days later, I was once again in Scholl’s residence. When I left in the evening, Hans Scholl told me that he would be painting graffiti again the next night. The graffiti that we had painted days earlier had long been removed. As he alluded to this, Hans Scholl said he would be taking his friend Willi Graf with him.
And as a matter of fact, the next day I observed or rather Hans Scholl himself told me that he and Willi Graf had done as he had said. That time, they painted with green paint. I emphasize this because I had nothing to do with it. Continue reading
It also appeared suspicious to me that Hans Scholl and Willi Graf left the apartment around midnight on February 8/9. Continue reading
I am alarmed by the revelation that Hans Scholl misused my kindness to Geyer in such a rude fashion. In no case did I ever give Geyer or Scholl or any other person permission to take green enamel paint from my studio (which Hans Scholl, Alexander Schmorell, and Willi Graf used to paint the slogan “Down with Hitler!”) or to store other objects for the production of their seditious leaflets in my basement. Continue reading
Schmauβ: In the night of February 8/9, 1943, the words “Down with Hitler” with a crossed-out swastika were painted on the university building, this time using green oil-based paint. The word “Freedom” was painted four times on the university building.
Source: ZC13267, Schmauβ’s report dated February 20, 1943.
Mahler: In the night of February 8/9, 1943, the word “Freedom” was painted in green on the entrance of the University of Munich three times in 60 cm [24”] high letters [Note 1], and the inscription “Down with Hitler” (with crossed-out swastika) twice. Continue reading
…up and down in front of the fountain or rather the grounds in front of the entrance to the university to protect Scholl from possible surprise. It was fairly dark that evening, yet I could still see the inscriptions that Scholl was painting, because I would occasionally walk up to the entrance to the university so I could see what was going on for myself. Continue reading
I admit in particular that I knew that Hans Scholl and Willi Graf participated in the graffiti operation at the university, or at least I could assume so from the circumstances. I myself cannot explain why I did not denounce them. Continue reading
The “Down With Hitler” and “Freedom” graffiti have recently been painted on university buildings in the night of February 8/9, 1943. The same oil-based paints were used for all the graffiti operations (this time it was green), so that both graffiti operations were carried out by the same perpetrator or perpetrators. An investigation of the chemical composition of the paint has been commissioned. Since the perpetrator or perpetrators obviously targeted the university buildings, we have placed the buildings under appropriate surveillance.
Source: ZC13267, Schaefer’s memorandum dated February 11, 1943
In January and February 1943, two different inflammatory pamphlets were circulated by means of distribution operations and by mail. One bears the inscription “Leaflets of the Resistance Movement in Germany” and the other “Fellow Students!” or “German Students!” … Continue reading
I coincidentally met Harnack on one other occasion on the streets (of Munich), and we talked briefly. This was between the two conversations at Scholl’s residence. Continue reading
If I have not credited Prof. Huber as the intellectual property owner of this leaflet till now and if I have taken it all upon myself, it is solely because I wished to shield Prof. Huber. Continue reading
Huber claimed that he only wished to bring about a strong political swing to the right. When he saw that – at a time when there was the greatest concern about the welfare of the nation – a schism had arisen between the student body and the political leadership, he understood that to be a portentous incentive for that step. And in addition, he is an opponent of Bolshevism. Continue reading
German Students! [Note 1]
Our nation stands shaken before the demise of the heroes [Note 2] of Stalingrad. The brilliant strategy of a Lance Corporal from the World War has senselessly and irresponsibly driven [Note 3] three hundred thirty thousand German men to death and destruction. Führer, we thank you! Continue reading
A short time later, the accused Huber – allegedly induced to do so by the events of a student assembly – decided to go public with a leaflet opposing the National Socialist government. Following a discussion with Scholl, during which Huber evidently presumed to scandalously insult the Führer as he also did during his interrogation on February 27, 1943, the accused Huber wrote a leaflet and gave it to Scholl. Continue reading
He [Kurt Huber] edited a seditious leaflet of the “Resistance Movement”, and he himself wrote another one entitled “Students”. Continue reading
The leaflet “Students!”, that was later entitled “Fellow Students!” occupied itself with the events in the East and blamed the Führer for that. It primarily directed its call to the student body to force the day of reckoning with the “most abominable tyranny” that our nation has ever endured. It called on the students to crush the National Socialist terror with the power of the spirit.
Source: Indictment dated April 8, 1943
Sometime around February 10, our defeat in the East became known. As a result, the mood among the student body worsened. I got the idea to do justice in this situation [Note 1] by publishing a new leaflet. I wrote a draft entitled “Students!”
Note 1: In the sense of making it right.
Source: Hans Scholl’s second interrogation, February 18, 1943 (after 4 a.m.)
I do not know whether Harnack was invited to another discussion, that is, during the discussion in my presence. Hans Scholl told me, however, that he planned to get together with Harnack one more time, and that Prof. Huber would be participating in that discussion. Continue reading
After we had talked for about two hours, Mrs. Berndl came to Scholl’s residence, at which time she (Berndl) left with Harnack. Before they left, we agreed to meet Harnack the next day at 11 am in front of the university, so we could introduce him to our collaborator, Prof. Huber. We hoped that would make for an interesting discussion. Continue reading
I have nothing else to add regarding the meeting with Harnack. I cannot recall that anything was said on that occasion about Harnack meeting Prof. Huber. Continue reading
I know for a fact that Schertling was not present when we showed Harnack the leaflet. As is already known, that took place during the first meeting with Harnack. Schertling was in fact present in Scholl’s apartment during that [first] meeting, but she stayed in Sophie Scholl’s room. Continue reading
Question: When were you introduced to Harnack, what do you know about him, and what is your relationship to him? Continue reading
[Gisela Schertling:] Now I can recall that for that [first] visit of Harnack, Schmorell and Harnack were already in the apartment when Hans Scholl and I arrived around 3 pm. Continue reading
At that meeting, we (Hans Scholl, Harnak [sic, throughout], and I) discussed the ways and means by which one could overthrow Hitler and strive for and usher in a socialist form of government. Continue reading
Since that was not possible [Note 1], after we finished eating we went to Scholl’s residence, where we did in fact meet him. After lunch, Mrs. Berndl returned to her studies as a dancer; she came to Scholl’s residence later to pick up Harnack. We continued our conversation in Scholl’s residence. Continue reading
And indeed, both of them [Lilo Berndl nee Ramdohr and Falk Harnack] showed up the next day at that restaurant, and I met Harnack there. I was the first person there. Continue reading
I would like to mention here that Mrs. Schmidt rarely stays in her apartment in Munich, because she usually stays with her married daughter (name unknown) in a country house in Steinbach near Landsberg for weeks at a time. This woman has been at her daughter’s house for the last 10 days. Continue reading