Kurt Huber’s initial interrogation

Secret State Police [Gestapo]
State Police Headquarters Munich
II A/Sond./Geith

Fingerprint taken*): [blank]
Fingerprint not necessary *): [blank]
Personal data has – not – been determined *) [blank]
Date: [blank]
Name: [blank]
Office Ref: [blank]
Bureau: [blank]
*) Cross out whatever is not applicable.

(Bureau of the official carrying out the interrogation)

Munich, February 27, 1943

The following was summoned – was brought in [for questioning]: The person named below, and gave the following statement, after having been instructed to tell the truth:

I. Regarding his personal data

1a) Family name, including additional designations [Note 1] (for women, also maiden name, or if appropriate, name of previous husbands): Huber, Dr.

1b) Given names: Kurt.

2a) Occupation. The following information shall be given: Whether owner, Master Craftsman, business manager or assistant, journeyman, apprentice, factory worker, office clerk, sales woman, etc.; for married women, the occupation of their husband; for minors who are not employed, the occupation of their parents; for civil servants and government employees, the exact address of their bureau; for university students, the address of the university and major; for those who have earned academic honors (M.Eng., Dr., PhD), when and where the title was obtained. Adjunct university professor, University of Munich, Philosophy.

2b) Income. Net RM 640 [monthly] [$5,120 per month or $61,440 annually]

2c) Unemployed? If so, since when. [blank]

3) Born on October 24, 1893 in Chur/Switzerland. Administrative region:. Upper district court of [blank]. State: [blank].

4) Residence or most recent domicile in Gräfelfing. Administrative region: Munich. State: Upper Bavaria. Ritter-von-Epp Str. 4. Telephone number: [blank].

5) Citizenship: German Reich. Citizen of the Reich? Yes.

6a) Religion (including prior) Catholic. 1) Member of a religious community or a philosophical society? If yes, which one. [blank] 2) Theist: Yes or No [blank]. 3) Agnostic: Yes or No [blank].

6b) Are the parents of German blood? Yes. Are the grandparents of German blood? Yes.

7a) Marriage status (single – married – widowed – divorced – separated): Married.

7b) First and last name of spouse (for women, include maiden name): Klara nee Schlickenrieder, born August 12, 1908 in Schwabhausen.

7c) Residence of spouse (if different residence): Gräfelfing, Ritter-von-Epp Str. 5.

7d) Are or were the parents – grandparents – of the spouse of German blood? [blank].

8) Children: Legitimate: a) Number: 2. b) Ages: 12 and 4. Illegitimate: a) Number: 1. b) Ages: 6 years.

9a) First and last name of father: Theodor Huber (deceased [Note 1]), Professor. Occupation and residence: At his death, he was lecturer at the Central Office for Industry and Trade [Zentralstelle für Gewerbe und Handel].

9b) First and maiden name of mother: Katharina H., nee Jakobi (deceased. Occupation and residence: [blank].

(This information should be provided even if parents are deceased.)

10) First and last name, occupation, and residence of guardian or trustee: [blank].

11a) Passport was issued by the Police Chief in Munich, on August 3, 1929. No. B 21742.

11b) Permission to drive a motor vehicle – motorcycle – was granted by the on [blank].

11c) Peddler’s license was issued by [blank].

11d) Identity card in accordance with § 44a of the commercial code was issued: [blank].

11e) Hunting license was issued by [blank].

11f) Master Mariner’s Certificate or Pilot’s License was issued on [blank].

11g) Subsidy certification (civil service subsidy certification) was issued by [blank]. Pension decision: [blank]. Social security offices? [blank].

11h) Other forms of identification?  Official ID of the University of Munich, dated August 8, 1941.

12a) Has this person been chosen or selected as a juror [Note 3] for this or the next electoral period? By which panel (§ 40 GDG)? N/A.

12b) Mediator (commercial, labor) or committee member of a social disciplinary court? N/A.

12c) Guardian or trustee for anyone else? If so, whom? [blank]. Which Court of Chancery? [blank].

13) Membership in a division of the Reich Chamber of Culture (exact description)? N/A.

14) Membership

14a)In the NSDAP [Note 4] since: 1940, No. 8282981 / Gräfelfing. Last local [Party] organization: [blank].

14b) With which organizations? NSV.

15) Reich Labor Service: Where and when reviewed? [blank]. Results: [blank]. Member of the Labor Service from [blank] to [blank].

16) Military experience

16a) Drafted or volunteered for which unit? Did not serve.

16b) Excluded [from military service] due to unworthiness [Note 5]? [blank]. When and why? —.

16c) Served from Did not serve. Unit: [blank]. Location: [blank]. Discharged as: [blank].

17) Decorations and medals (list individually): Award for 25 [why 25?] years of service. [Note 6]

18) Prior convictions? (Short statement by the accused. Insofar as possible, these statements shall be supplemented by a search of official documents.) Allegedly no.

II. To the Case: Still to his person:

I was born in Chur and moved to Stuttgart in 1896. There I graduated from the humanistic Gymnasium. In 1912, I came to the University of Munich and studied philosophy and musicology. In 1918, I graduated summa cum laude [Note 7] with a degree in musicology. In 1923 I qualified as a university lecturer at the University of Munich in philosophy.

In 1926, I was named associate professor [Note 8]. From 1925 to 1937 I worked on folk songs for the German Academy.

In 1937, I was made Department Head of the National Institute for German Music Research [Staatliche Institut für deutsche Musikforschung] in Berlin. Since the required transfer documents were not completed, I was re-transferred to the University of Munich as associate professor in the year 1939. I have held that position ever since.

My father was a professor of trade in Stuttgart, and later was lecturer at Württemberg’s trade entity at the Central Office for Industry and Trade. [Note 9] He died in 1911. My mother was from Kempten, where her father and after his death her mother directed the well-respected “Jakobi” [their name] educational institute.

I have three siblings. My brother is currently chief medical officer in Passau. My older sister works at Bruckmann Verlag in Munich. My younger sister is the Director of the Intermediate School for Girls in Aichstätt [sic].

II. Politically:

My father was very interested in liberal politics. He belonged to the Liberal Party and was outspokenly nationalistic.

That same nationalistic attitude forms the basis for my political viewpoint. After the war in 1918, I belonged to the Bavarian People’s Party [Note 10] for 2 years, since I initially hoped that the party would not develop into a party that was in any way connected to a particular religion.

When that party began to move towards the center, I left the party. My wife and I both signed the National Socialist Party’s protest against the Dawes Plan. In 1927, members of the National Socialist Party asked me to work for the Party. However, I could not bring myself to join the Party because of its increasing hostility to the Churches.

I twice refused appointments to Catholic-related teaching positions, because Catholic teaching positions are unbearable. From 1927 – 1940, I did not belong to any political party. I also had no connections of any kind to Masonic lodges.

My friends [Note 11] kept asking me to join the NSDAP. After many conversations with my friends, I decided to apply for Party membership in 1938. However, my application was interrupted by my transfer back to Munich. I re-applied in 1940.

In no way did I join the Party because I was forced to do so. My only motivation was to develop close relationships with the conservative part of the Party to work against what I perceived to be the drift to the left. Because of my heavy workload, I was hardly able to work much with the local group in Gräfelfing.

I published several articles in National Socialist newspapers, e.g. an article about folk songs for “Educator in a Brown Shirt” [Erzieher im Braunhemd]. I was extraordinarily close to a host of intellectually [Note 12] leading National Socialists, both politically and personally: Above all President Prof. Dr. von Müller (whose family I am close to), but also Generaldirektor Dingler and Prince [Fürst] Donnersmarck. They can all give statements about me.

In these circles, I did not hold back my critical and risky positions with regards to what I perceived as the threatened evolution of the Party. I basically believe in the National Socialist form of government and have always acknowledged the military and economic services rendered by the Party.

However, I was not in agreement with certain aspects of National Socialist cultural policy, especially with its increasingly harsher anti-Christian positions, with its educational policies for our youth, and with its attitude to science.

I am in no way very religious. From the very beginning, I have condemned both Catholic and Lutheran church politics with regards to National Socialism. But I am firmly convinced that a healthy German nation cannot be successfully [Note 13] built without the cooperation of Christian-thinking members of the government. The position of the uppermost leadership of the Party in this matter – and it has become ever clearer – has entangled me in the most difficult spiritual [Note 14] conflict.

I also found myself in the most difficult political – but also moral – conflict of my life and thought with the development of the political situation since the end of the French campaign, along with the (in my opinion) increasing threats of intellectual-spiritual freedom of the individual and of my research, teaching, and politically successful activity, which followed the (in my opinion) drift to the left in German national policy. I have complete sympathy for a strong policy in the East. However, I could not inwardly justify the ever-increasing numbers of blood sacrifices in the East.

I am firmly convinced that a milder and more understanding policy after the French campaign would have enabled a genuine construction of Greater Europe without the enslavement of all the nations [of Europe]. The speeches made by the uppermost Party leaders and the measures taken last year [1942] have caused me to abandon all hope.

III. To the Case:

There is no doubt in my mind regarding the reason for my arrest. In particular, I know that it is directly connected to the Scholl & Friends [Note 15] matter.

I am prepared to admit my guilt and to make a full confession.

Early in the summer of 1942, I met Hans Scholl at a small party given by Prof. Dr. Mertens. A short time later, he and several of his friends came to one of my lectures. They asked to be allowed to occasionally audit the class, since as a medical student he would not have time to officially take the class. I agreed to Scholl’s request and would occasionally talk to him after class.

One of those times, he invited me to go along to the Schmorell’s villa, and I agreed. At the end of June 1942, I took him up on his invitation. I was at the Schmorell’s villa one evening. We met around 7 pm in a so-called music room. As best as I can recall, the siblings Hans and Sophie Scholl, Alex Schmorell, Miss Lafrenz, an older man from Hamburg (whose name I do not know), and a Miss Schüttekopf [sic] (who later became my pupil [Note 16] were all present.

The conversation primarily revolved around the political contrast between North and South. In this context, especially Scholl and I championed the point of view that the strong wave of Bolshevization largely emanated from the North, while we in the South lean more towards a constant democratic form of government.

That generated a controversy about the participation of Southerners in the defense [of the country]. The debate took on quite a sharp tone. We went our separate ways with the stated intention of meeting more often in this home for musical evenings. However, nothing ever came of that.

Mr. Schmorell hardly participated in this debate at all. Petermann championed the viewpoint that absolutely nothing could be achieved positively, that this Bolshevization was a form of fate. With regards to Petermann’s overall attitude, I can only say that he was skeptically resigned.

Basically, only Petermann, Scholl, and I participated in this discussion. One could only describe the female students as quiet listeners.

A short time after this meeting, Scholl and his friends [Note 17] invited me to a little farewell party on the occasion of their transfer to the front. The farewell party took place in the studio of the architect Eickemeier [sic] on Leopold Str. This was probably around the end of July 1942.

The participants of this farewell party definitely included the siblings Hans and Sofie Scholl, Alex Schmorell, Willi Graf, and the architect Eickemeier [sic]. A certain Otto Eicher (sic) [Note 18] came a little later, and a younger woman, whose name I don’t know. Another participant in this farewell party was the student Christoph Probst. At the moment, I cannot recall additional participants.

This evening, the discussion turned to politics. The young people especially talked about how they should conduct themselves in the field. Schmorell especially emphasized that he would behave very passively. Scholl, all the female students, Eicher (sic), and I believed that they had to pull their weight in battle.

Scholl, Eickemeier (sic), and I also championed the point of view that the activities of the SS-units [Note 19] in the field diminished the reputation of the army in general. We had come to this point of view because of the SS’s shooting of Poles and Russians that we had learned about.

Schmorell publicly championed the point of view that passive resistance was the most useful. However, all of those present agreed with his opinion.

There was not much else substantial that evening. I left the party around 11 pm. Probst, Miss Schüttekopf [sic], and Miss Lafrenz left with me.

While Scholl was on the front, I received a letter from him. In it he told me that he had gotten a completely different view of Russia. Previously, Scholl had been a colossal opponent of Bolshevism. However, I had to conclude from the letter that he had completely changed his mind.

Scholl showed up again at the beginning of the 1942/43 semester and occasionally came to my lectures. During the course of the semester, I frequently met Scholl in the course of lectures. [Note 20] During these little occasional meetings, Scholl would tell me about the situation and his impressions of Russia. He particularly emphasized that the farmers seemed to be philo-Germanic, not Bolshevistic at all. They wanted to keep their religious traditions. However, they were better off economically than they had been under the Czars. According to his statements, the farmers championed the point of view that Bolshevism was the lesser evil in comparison to the era of the Czars.

Shortly after New Year, Scholl and Graf visited me in my apartment in Gräfelfing. On the occasion of a meeting in the university shortly before Christmas, Scholl told me that he was the author and distributor of the inflammatory leaflet “The White Rose”.

I myself had received the 1st and 2nd editions of that inflammatory leaflet. I had shown the first edition to Prof. v. Müller. We talked about from which circles that leaflet could have originated, but we did not figure it out. At that time, I did not even consider Scholl. In talking to Prof. v. Müller, I emphasized that I planned to burn any subsequent editions of the leaflet immediately.

During the conversation between Scholl, Graf, and me in my apartment we addressed the topic of the advisability of producing leaflets. Scholl said that he wanted to write additional leaflets and distribute them primarily in northern Germany. Graf told us that with regards to the distribution of leaflets, he had good prospects in the Rhineland.

I had to conclude from Scholl’s statements that he wished to write the leaflets himself, produce them, and distribute them. The purpose of these leaflets was to be a change in the (according to our opinion) expressly left-leaning form of government. We were convinced that this change could only emanate from southern Germany, which politically was completely different. In Southern Germany, National Socialism had not taken on the sharp form it was demonstrating in Northern Germany.

We believed that the spirit of independence found in the people of southern Germany unconditionally required such a change, and that it was impossible that the methods of certain Party officials corresponded with the sense of justice of the south German.

On that basis, I advised him – if he still wished to publish leaflets – to implement the assets. [Note 21] I asked him how the technical questions regarding publication of the leaflets were being handled. He replied that he did not wish to initiate me into all the questions of production and distribution of the leaflets. And he essentially kept his word. Therefore I know nothing about the production and distribution of the already-printed leaflets.

A short time after that conversation, I occasionally met Scholl at the university. We decided to debate the basic questions of our position regarding a positive form of government. I occasionally met with Scholl at his apartment, Franz Josef Str. 13, after a lecture. During that discussion [Note 22] (and his sister Sofie Scholl was present during some of the discussion, but she did not participate in the discussion), the norms for the construction of a new form of government were discussed.

My basic attitude was that the conservative portion of the National Socialist Party (and above all, the old National Socialists) had to be recruited gradually if change were to take place. Scholl was decisively skeptical about that viewpoint. He repeatedly championed the point of view that all National Socialist leaders [Note 23] basically had to be shut out of any future government.

On the other hand, we agreed completely that the Southern form of government was the only constant one that could provide a possible basis. This was the form originally envisioned by the National Socialist movement.

We additionally agreed that the socialist form would definitely be a necessity with the current shape of the economy in Europe.

Once again he said that I fundamentally should not be involved in the technical implementation [of leaflet production and distribution]. Therefore I cannot make any statements regarding the technical implementation of the leaflet operation. In general, I agreed with the principle of publishing leaflets, because I believed that only in this way could one gain acceptance and gain an audience.

About 4 weeks ago, Scholl read aloud the draft [of a leaflet]. I protested several passages that in my opinion expressed exactly the opposite of that which I wished to accomplish, and that had Communist overtones. This took place before the student assembly in the conference hall at which Gauleiter Giesler spoke.

I then heard nothing further about that draft, not even whether the draft had been used as a leaflet. A lot later, Scholl told me that in his opinion, a new leaflet they had written had not met with much success. He did not, however, tell me about the text of the leaflet. He only told me that that leaflet had primarily been sent to the working class. At the moment, I cannot make any statements about the text. However, I will still try to recall the content.

For me, the decisive factor in a complete change of my attitude occurred when Gauleiter Giesler called a student assembly in the conference hall of the German Museum. I perceived this to be an absolutely unspeakable offense again German “Front Students”, that they were expected to let themselves be stamped before entering the assembly, with the threat that whoever was not stamped could not enroll at any German university the following semester. Now as then, I see the Gauleiter’s measure not only as monstrous disdain of German students and of German education, but also as a direct attack upon the German army. I know that I am not the only person who is of this opinion. One hears it in the farthest circles of the student body and faculty, at least among those who have the courage to state their own opinions.

To me this insolence appears to have had a far more difficult and unsettling effect than the insult of the female students made by the [Reich] student leader, and unfortunately [also] by the Gauleiter. One could view the latter as a momentary lapse of good judgment. It was not the insult itself, but rather the manner in which the insult was handled by the press and among the students that most deeply disturbed me.

I firmly decided that I would break my silence. In one way or another, I would announce – not to the general public, but to the decision-makers in the Party – what the people and the student body and the faculty think about this measure taken against personal freedom and honor.

This was the first time that I thought about using Scholl’s leaflet operation for this cause.

When I then met Scholl briefly after one of my lectures, I expressed my indignation about the event. Scholl thought that now would be the time to respond with a leaflet referring to it. However, the matter got lost under the impression of the terrible events at Stalingrad.

I am firmly convinced that since the Führer assumed the high command and dismissed our most competent generals, the striking power of the German army has been catastrophically weakened. The entire developments of the past 14 days confirm my previous impressions. My suffering under this catastrophe has been unequalled.

And that is probably the deciding factor for my decision to directly write a leaflet [myself] after Scholl had asked me to jot down a few notes to be used in a leaflet. I included several points that Scholl wished to emphasize and that were not of personal concern to me. These points include the demand not to attend classes taught by members of the SS.

We also did not completely agree about the details of the leaflet. In my draft, I included several references that expressly emphasized our solidarity with the military, and Scholl did not want them in the leaflet. I left the draft with Scholl – rather annoyed – with the comment that they could do with it what they wished. At the time, I was under the impression that they did not wish to publish the leaflet in that form. Therefore, I demanded that they destroy it immediately.

Unfortunately, that week my wife and I took a trip to a lecture in Kempten. I have not heard anything from Scholl since then. Of course I did not hear anything about their edit of the discarded leaflet. I also did not receive a copy of the leaflet. Except for the 2 editions of the “Leaflets of the White Rose” leaflets [Note 24], I have not received a copy of any leaflet by mail or seen it by any other means.

With regards to the production and distribution of the leaflet I had drafted as well as credit for authorship, Scholl promised to keep me out of the picture. I was also not asked to finance the leaflet operations in any manner. We never talked about the financial side of things.

Schmorell never participated in the basic conversations between Scholl and me about our political goals. I therefore assume that Scholl had assigned him to the technical questions of the production and distribution of the leaflets. In any case, I never discussed these questions with Schmorell.

When I am asked about the financing of the entire operation, I can only reply that in that point I relied on the extant form of the operation. I only wished to influence it politically, especially in an outspokenly anti-Bolshevistic manner. I guarantee that I have no knowledge of the financing as such. I see that they absolutely had to have had a financial backer. But no matter how hard I try, and as far as I know, and in all good conscience, I cannot make any statements regarding it.

I can no longer recall the details of the text of my draft that I gave to Scholl to edit as a leaflet. I am being shown the leaflets entitled “German Students!” and “Fellow Students!” I can determine that the text of my draft is contained therein with small revisions.

I would like to point out a single substantial exception: In one of the first passages that was left out, my draft had emphasized the magnificent achievements of the Germany army and declared the complete solidarity of German students with the army.

In a second passage, the draft demanded the complete submission of students to the German army. Both of these passages – which particularly define my own attitude – were left out of both leaflets.

Mr. Scholl had asked me to write the draft in the language of a young [male] student. When I gave him my draft (that took place in Scholl’s apartment), Schmorell was present. Both of them thought the draft was not written aggressively enough.

Therefore I left and actually believed that they would not use the draft. But I make no secret of the fact that I wrote the draft as the basis for the production of a leaflet.

Regarding Graf, I can only state that with regards to the distribution of leaflets, he said he had good connections to the Rhineland. Whether and in which manner Graf participated in the production and distribution of leaflets, I do not know. Graf himself said very little. But I was of the opinion that he agreed with Scholl.

I have no idea about Sophie Scholl’s political views, because I did not talk to her about politics, except for politics of a most general nature. I do not know how much she participated in the production and distribution of leaflets.

Regarding Schmorell’s political attitude: From the conversations I had with Scholl, I concluded from the things he said that Schmorell had Communist leanings. I never debated political questions with Schmorell. I cannot make any statements regarding his participation in the production and distribution of leaflets.

I only saw Eicher Otto [Note 25] for about half an hour on the occasion of the farewell party in Eickemeyer’s studio. I did not have a personal conversation with him. I therefore cannot make any statements about him. The same thing applies to Probst. I still cannot recall the name of the young woman from this occasion. However, I believe that Eickemeier (sic) knows her.

I only met Eickemeier (sic) briefly on this evening. He only made statements that support what we believe, that one should volunteer for the army, and that the passive resistance advocated by Schmorell was to be completely rejected. I have no idea whether and how much Eickemeier participated in Scholl’s intrigues.

Around the end of January or the beginning of February – on either a Tuesday or a Thursday [Note 26] – Scholl introduced me to another student named Harnak (sic). I had initially refused to meet him. But then one day, Scholl appeared with him before after one of my lectures and asked me to join them in his apartment.

I talked with Harnak to determine what his goals were. I quickly learned that it must have had something to do with a Communist operation that was headquartered in Berlin and apparently had been broken up a short while before. I urgently warned Scholl against getting together with this Mr. Harnak any more, since his goals were precisely the opposite of ours.

As far as I know, Harnak (correct Harnack) [Note 27] is an economist. Therefore we discussed almost exclusively the economic situation. Harnack believed that the economy could be restored only through actual socialism, that is, through the total socialization of all production in Europe. He stated that the Russian form of socialization could be exemplary. I sharply refuted that statement.

I cannot shake my impression that Harnack must somehow be connected to the Communist wave in Germany.

I believe that this event occurred on either February 4 or 9, 1943.

Harnack is around 1.75 m [5’9”], around 25-30 years old [Note 28], very thin, longish face, long pointed nose, probably dark blond hair combed back, very small hands, and he speaks a Northern dialect. He was wearing a brownish suit with long pants.

I do not know a certain Furtmeier, who likewise associated with Scholl. I cannot describe Miss Lafrenz’s political viewpoints. I also do not know whether and how much she was involved with the leaflet operation.

Regarding the stationery that was found in my apartment, which certainly is the same quality used in the duplication process: I purchased it approximately 8 days ago from a participant (named Wagner) in one of my seminars. Mr. Wagner prepared several copies of scholarly texts for my students both last semester and this one. Wagner is an older gentleman who audits my lectures. I do not know whether Wagner made the copies himself or where he had it done.

I do not know a person named Hirzel. That name is completely unknown to me.

I knew that my actions (the production and distribution of leaflets and my intellectual-spiritual demands) represented an action against the current regime. I was also conscious of the fact that in an investigation, I would have to reckon with the severest punishment. Nevertheless, I took the risk, firmly convinced that there was no other way to remedy the terrible damages the German government has suffered through the events of the last 4 years. I am firmly convinced that the German people must have their eyes opened to our actual situation before we lose the war.

I especially counted on the fact that leaflets like these would not only inform the people, but would also reach the higher and highest positions in the Party. I hoped that the impression left by the facts presented in the leaflet would not completely miss their mark.

It is impossible for me to continue to live under a government of the current structure and to practice my profession as philosophy professor [Note 29]. That profession daily and hourly brings me into the conceivably most difficult conflict with the national views [Note 30] of the current Party leader [Note 31].

I once again emphasize that I could concur with a pure National Socialist claim [Note 32] only with joy and with fullest understanding. In the development of the current Reich during the four years of war, I only see the drift from the just claims that the Party once made.

I know that my conduct is illegitimate. But it is precisely as illegitimate as the conduct of a long line of brave National Socialists who brought about the overthrow of the democratic government through their courage.

I request that today’s interrogation be interrupted.

Recorded: /Signed: Geith/, Crim. Secr.

Read aloud, approved, and signed by: /Signed: K. Huber/

==========

Note 1: E.g., Junior, II.

Note 2: Used the genealogical symbol for deceased (that is, +)for both mother and father.

Note 3: The original document used two different words that mean the same thing (juror). The first is archaic (Schöffe), the second contemporary usage (Geschworener).

Note 4: National Socialist Party.

Note 5: Not the same as “unfit for duty” – not related to physical ability.

Note 6: There is no explanation regarding 25 years of service.

Note 7: Before the summa cum laude designation, there is a long word that has been x’d out and is no longer legible.

Note 8: Außerordentlicher Professor.

Note 9: Zentralstelle für Gewerbe und Handel.

Note 10: “Bayer. Volkspartei.”

Note 11: Freunden, not Bekannten or Kollegen. That is, close friends, not acquaintances or colleagues.

Note 12: Geistig. Geistlich is rendered throughout as spiritual. Geistig is usually translated intellectual-spiritual, unless otherwise noted.

Note 13: Lit. fruitfully (fruchtbar).

Note 14: Actually more emotional than spiritual – seelisch.

Note 15: Scholl und Genossen.

Note 16: He used the word Schülerin to describe Katharina Schüddekopf, who was a PhD candidate with him as her Doktorvater. This was an insult to Katharina.

Note 17: Kameraden, not Freunden. Lit. comrades.

Note 18: The “sic” is two-part: First, it’s Otto Aicher, not Eicher. Second, it was Hans Hirzel who attended the farewell party, not Otl Aicher.

Note 19: Used the runic symbols for SS.

Note 20: First use of lecture = Vorlesungen in the original. Second was Kolleg.

Note 21: Auf dieser Grundlage etwa riet ich ihm, wenn er schon Flugblätter verfassen wolle, die Aktiva durchzuführen. – If anyone has a better translation for this sentence, please advise!

Note 22: Singular, although he initially mentioned occasionally meeting with Scholl, from which one could infer multiple debates. Same comment for the note about Sophie Scholl’s presence.

Note 23: Führende Köpfe – in other words, not merely political “leaders”, but anyone in a prominent position.

Note 24: Redundancy is in original document.

Note 25: Same as above. Kurt Huber never met Otl Aicher. He confused him with Hans Hirzel, just as he later confused Wilhelm Geyer with Eugen Grimminger.

Note 26: This only adds to the confusion regarding the dating of the incendiary debate between Huber and Harnack! – The dating of the meeting, starting with “beginning of February” and ending with “Thursday”, was inserted as a correction into the document.

Note 27: The correction of Falk Harnack’s family name is typed in the document. Not handwritten, not inserted.

Note 28: His approximate age was inserted (typewritten) into the document.

Note 29: Here he used the word Dozent, or assistant professor/lecturer.

Note 30: Staatsauffassung.

Note 31: Parteiführer, i.e., Adolf Hitler.

Note 32: Forderungen. He mixed “a” and plural in the original.

==========

Source: Huber/Harnack (16 – 31)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s