Grimminger’s supplementary statement
Munich, March 16, 1943.
Supplement to My Statements.
I would like to point out once again that I barely knew [Hans] Scholl, and in contrast, I did not know Schmorell at all. It is therefore understandable that I did not give their statements the same weight as they themselves did. In addition, the discussion lasted such a short time that it was impossible for Scholl to make comments in enough detail so that I would know precisely what they were planning.
I only had the impression that the two of them wanted to distribute a document [called] the “White Rose”. I did not take their statements about connections to professors and other circles very seriously. I therefore was not wrong in my assessment that what they said did not correspond to reality.
Additionally, it was not presented to me as a finished plan, but rather as something they were considering, namely that if the circumstances were right, they would publish this periodical [Note 1].
Schmorell must confirm that I was very clear in speaking with both of them regarding my viewpoint: That I fundamentally reject any act of violence, that I am an opponent of any Communist movement, and that I believe that the government cannot cease operation for even one day, because that would mean chaos and misfortune.
I had a great deal to do in my office and once again Party business, so that I had no time to think about the matter. I also did not think it was very important. I was glad when the two of them left after I made them some empty promises. I had already resolved not to give them any money. I did not even make the effort to learn more about this “White” [sic] etc.
Scholl and Schmorell were already in Stuttgart before they came to see me. Afterwards, they had other discussions close to Stuttgart. I fear that Schmorell has confused the discussions with me with others they had.
The matter was so unimportant to me that I had forgotten the date that Scholl was going to come back to visit me. I also did not think that Scholl would visit me again, since he knew my views.
Scholl’s second visit occurred shortly before Christmas. I recall this because he told me he wanted to use [Christmas] vacation to take a trip. He then immediately told me that several good friends [Note 2] of his had gotten entangled in a bad situation. These were economists, officers, and partly persons in high places who were trying to bring about peace talks with Russia.
I asked Scholl if he were involved with the matter in any manner. He firmly denied it. But good friends were involved, and he would like to go to Cologne, Berlin, and (if I recall correctly) Breslau to learn more about it. I assumed his wish to learn more had to do with the indictment against his friends.
He asked me to give him several hundred Marks, since he did not have any money. I then gave Scholl the money for this trip and only for that purpose. When I gave it to him, I said, “You stay away from such things. Think about your family, so that you don’t bring misfortune upon all of them.”
Why I gave Scholl the money in the first place:
1) I was firmly convinced that after Scholl talked to these friends [Note 3], to those men who were entangled in this affair, he would be cured of his ideas.
2) Out of boundless good-heartedness, which has already cost me many sorrows in my private life, and because I felt morally obligated to the Scholl family, because when I lost my job, Scholl Senior took me in.
3) Because Scholl was a soldier and probably did not have enough money to undertake the trip.
Of course it is only in hindsight that the entire matter takes on such serious overtones, more than I thought at the time. At that time, I did not think that I was committing a crime.
[This copy is not signed].
Note 1: Zeitschrift, or magazine or periodical. Not a Flugblatt, or leaflet.
Note 2: Bekannte, not Freunden. Same in following paragraph.
Note 3: Here: Bekannten und Freunden.
Source: Eickemeyer/Grimminger (48 – 49)