Second interrogation of Katharina Schüddekopf

II A Sond./Gei. [Special Commission / Geith]

Munich, March 24, 1943

Schüddekopf Katharina, personal details known, was led out of police custody for continuation of the interrogation. She further stated:

After careful consideration, I now recall that I did stay at the farewell party at Eickemeyer’s studio to the very end. Remonstrance

Remonstrance: In this context, you stated during the first interrogation that you learned from Lafrenz after the fact that there was a political discussion that evening. Following your present statements, you therefore must have also heard the political discussion.

Answer: For certain I can say that I arrived at the party in Eickemeyer’s studio later. I do not know what had been discussed politically before I arrived. I also did not bother myself with it. It is also quite possible that I am partially confusing the meetings at Schmorell’s villa with the farewell party at Eickemeyer’s studio in terms of the political discussions there. I particularly can no longer say for certain whether questions or statements about passive resistance were made at the Schmorell meeting or at Eickemeyer’s. I can no longer recall details of the political debates. In any case, political discussions as I described during my first interrogation were held.

Remonstrance: Do you stick to your statement that you received the leaflet “White Rose” from Hans Scholl during the evening at Schmorell’s? It is improbable that after the leaflet was shown, there was no further discussion about it.

Answer: I must correct my statements in this matter, which I certainly did not consciously make falsely. I no longer know whether the leaflet “White Rose” was a topic of discussion at the evening at Schmorell’s or at the farewell party at Eickemeyer’s.

In any case, during one of these evenings, I learned about the leaflet “White Rose” for the first time. I definitely can recall that when I asked what it was, Scholl told me he had another copy. He did not say where he got it from. This conversation between Scholl and me foundered in general conversation. I do not believe that others present heard this conversation.

Several days later on the occasion of an accidental meeting at the university, Scholl gave me a copy of the third edition of the leaflet “White Rose”. In so doing, he remarked that I should not read it here (in the hallways of the university), but rather at home. I took the leaflet, stowed it with the textbooks I had with me, and took it home. I then read the leaflet at home alone in my room.

The statements I made yesterday with regards to the impression the leaflet made on me were true. I never talked to Scholl about the leaflet after I had read it. I carelessly set the leaflet aside. I assure [you] that I did not make anyone else aware of the leaflet.

Question: Where is the leaflet, or rather what did you later do with it?

Answer: I gave the leaflet to Lafrenz, since she asked for it back from me. I gave the leaflet back to Lafrenz on the occasion of Lafrenz’s visit to me at my residence after the long break in November 1942. I no longer know how Lafrenz knew that I had a copy of the leaflet “White Rose”. It is possible that she herself was there when Scholl gave me the leaflet. But it is also possible that either Hans Scholl or I told her about it. I actually do not know why Lafrenz wanted the leaflet back from me. I didn’t give it a second thought. I only noticed that when Lafrenz got the leaflet from me, she said something to the effect of, That was what I was looking for. I did not discuss the contents of the leaflet any further with Lafrenz.

Otherwise, my statements during the first interrogation were true. Now as then I must resolutely deny that I had knowledge or even the slightest consideration of the machinations [intrigues] of the Scholl siblings and their accomplices.

Question: You are a [female] pupil [Note 1] of Prof. Huber. What have you learned about Prof. Huber’s political views?

Answer: Since summer semester of 1941, I have regularly attended Prof. Huber’s lectures [Note 2]. Around Christmas 1942, I decided to do my doctoral work with him, since I have confidence in him. In this context, I visited Prof. Huber often in his residence in Gräfelfing. These visits were partly personal, but mostly had the goal of working on scholarly things.

From our personal contact, I could never observe that Prof. Huber had political leanings that were against the current regime. In any case, when we worked together on my studies, we never talked about politics in any detail.

Question: Which persons from Scholl’s circle of friends or closer acquaintances did you get to know in addition to the persons you have already named?

Answer: From the names I learned, I only know Willi Graf, his sister Anneliese, the artist Geyer, and the architect Eickemeyer.

I met Graf on the occasion of the evening at Schmorell’s. I never came into closer contact with him. As far as I could tell, he reacted to the political debates very passively. I only met him on the evening at Schmorell’s and Eickemeyer’s. Lafrenz told me that Graf is a good friend of Scholl and often associated with him in his residence.

I only briefly met Graf Anneliese on the occasion of a philosophical-literary reading given by Prof. Haecker, which took place in Eickemeyer’s studio. On that evening, politics definitely was not discussed in any manner. With regards to her political attitudes, Anneliese Graf is a complete stranger to me. I also cannot recall that I ever saw Anneliese Graf with the Scholl circle.

I also know Geyer only from the Haecker evening. I met Geyer a second time when I went to his exhibit at Eickemeyer’s studio. On that occasion, no one from the Scholl circle was present in Eickemeyer’s studio. Lafrenz told me that Geyer often ate breakfast with the Scholl siblings. I cannot make any additional statements about the relationship between Geyer and Scholl.

The only thing I know about Eickemeyer is that he made his studio available for meetings of the Scholl circle. But I do not believe that Eickemeyer made his studio available for political meetings, rather exclusively for literary purposes. I only met Eickemeyer personally on one evening, and that was at the farewell party. I can still recall that Eickemeyer told me on that evening that he was not pleased with the entire political debate. He thought that Scholl’s innuendos against the State were not right and that one should not [Note 3] judge the State in that manner.

I cannot make any more statements about the circle of friends. Except for Lafrenz, I was in contact with the Scholl circle approximately 23 only 3 times. Therefore I only met the individual persons briefly.

On the basis of the photographs I am being shown, I recognize only one person. I only learned his name during the interrogation (Hirzel Hans). I did not meet him personally. I only know that I saw him at the farewell party in Eickemeyer’s studio.

In my view, my statements about Ellermann are correct. I also recall that Ellermann was present at Haecker’s reading. Since I personally don’t like Ellermann, I was a little put off that he was there that evening. I therefore asked Lafrenz why Ellermann had been invited. She said that Scholl had invited him and that Hans Scholl was looking for a publisher. I cannot judge whether Scholl Hans was looking for a publisher for his intrigues and had Ellermann in mind. I do not know whether Ellermann continued to associate with the Scholl circle.

Remonstrance: According to your own statements, you recognized that the content of the leaflet “White Rose” was a seditious product. The whole connections and circumstances doubtless aroused a strong suspicion in you that Scholl was somehow connected to these leaflets. I absolutely guarantee

Answer: I absolutely guarantee that I did not have [Note 4] the slightest idea that Scholl was connected to this leaflet in any way. As unbelievable as my statement may sound, I cannot say anything else no matter how hard I try.

Question: You recognized the leaflet as seditious. Yet rather than hand it over to the police, or at least destroying it, you gave it to Lafrenz. Therefore you distributed the leaflet and committed a crime by following the instructions in the leaflet to pass it along. What can you say in your defense?

Answer: I would have burned the leaflet without a second thought in the winter. I have to write it off to my stupidity and political inexperience that I did not bring the leaflet immediately to the police at that time. I did not immediately destroy it after I was convinced that the content was seditious because I did not have an appropriate time to do so.

I had stowed the leaflet in my room in such a manner that a stranger would never have been able to see it. Even when Lafrenz asked me for the leaflet, I had to look for it for a long time. I certainly did not see giving the leaflet to Lafrenz as distribution of the leaflet, because Lafrenz had asked me for the leaflet.

From the way Lafrenz talked, I assumed she already knew the leaflet. In no case did I feel that the leaflet represented my political point of view. I never had the slightest thought of giving the leaflet to a third party. At the time, I did notice the conclusion of the leaflet where it stated: “Please duplicate and distribute”, but I did not fulfill this demand in any fashion. I also did not receive an oral demand along those lines from anyone in the Scholl circle. If I committed a crime through my conduct, by not handing the leaflet over to the police, and by giving it to Lafrenz, then I did so out of pure ignorance. There were certainly no political motives for my conduct.

Question: Did you talk to additional persons at all about the leaflet?

Answer: I certainly did not show the leaflet to third parties except for Lafrenz. I also never discussed the leaflet with third parties.

The interrogation is terminated for official reasons.

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

Read and signed by:/Signed: K. Schüddekopf/


Note 1: Geith did not use the word Studentin (university student), but rather Schülerin (female pupil or schoolgirl). This insult would be repeated during the trial.

Note 2: Here: Vorlesungen.

Note 3: The word nicht (not) was inserted by hand.

Note 4: Word was inserted by hand.


Source: Schertling/Schüddekopf (102 – 107)

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s