Continuation of Schertling interrogation

Continuation of the interrogation at 3 pm.

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. Harnack was in a hurry during this meeting. He said he could not stay long because he had to go to the theater.

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.

The next day when I came out of Prof. Huber’s lecture, I saw Scholl and Schmorell in front of the university. They then met with Harnack. Harnack then immediately took his leave. Scholl and I went to the city to eat lunch, while Schmorell went to a restaurant alone where he allegedly wanted to meet up with a Russian woman.

When Hans Scholl and I were visiting Prof. Muth the next day, he told me that he had a meeting with Harnack the next day, and that Prof. Huber was invited. I must take back this statement. It was not on that occasion, but rather when we attended one of Prof. Huber’s lectures together, that he told me about the intended meeting with Harnack.

When Hans Scholl and I left the lecture that day, Willi Graf was already waiting for us. We met Schmorell and Harnack waiting for us in front of the apartment. As far as I know, Prof. Huber arrived about 15 minutes later.

I cannot recall that Prof. Huber was introduced to Harnack upon leaving the lecture, or that we all went to [Hans] Scholl’s apartment together. The conversation during that day’s meeting lasted from about 12 to 2 pm. I was not invited to that discussion, nor did I take part. I stayed in Hans Scholl’s room the whole time, while the conversation took place in Sophie Scholl’s room. Hans Scholl never told me about the purpose or the results of that discussion.

I must additionally deny that Hans or Sophie Scholl initiated me into their seditious activity, such as the production and distribution of leaflets or painting seditious slogans.

Remonstrance and question: It has been determined that particularly during the time that Scholl and his circle were particularly active, you were almost always around. What do you have to say to the remonstrance that under those circumstances, you had to have been initiated into [Hans] Scholl’s plans and activities, especially since Scholl more or less told everybody in this circle about his seditious activity?

Answer: I must continue to insist that there was no talk of any kind of any seditious plans such as the production and distribution of leaflets and the like in my presence. Neither Scholl nor anyone else told me that anyone in that circle was opposed actively working against the current regime.

Of course, I knew of their treasonous attitudes from the various conversations, but I never suspected that neither Scholl nor or any other person in that circle would carry out illegal activity. The various persons in that circle namely did not seem very suspicious to me. I also did not think anything because of the meetings. I also noticed nothing suspicious in these meetings [Note 1], although I must admit that I should have been suspicious because of the work that Schmorell did at night with Hans and Sophie Scholl.

And indeed I knew that Sophie Scholl and Schmorell had gone on trips at the end of January or beginning of February. Sophie Scholl did not tell me why she was going on that trip. She only told me that she had something to do with her parents in Ulm.

I only found out about Schmorell’s trip when he arrived at [Hans] Scholl’s apartment one morning at 4 am. Hans Scholl said that he had just returned from the train. It is also possible that on that occasion, Hans Scholl said that Schmorell had been staying in Stuttgart. I did not learn why Schmorell went on that trip. I also did not find out anything else from Sophie Scholl when she returned from Ulm. She also did not let me know that she had been occupied with the distribution of leaflets.

Remonstrance and question: By interrogation [Note 2], it has been irreproachably determined that the Scholl siblings gave your address as an accommodation address [Note 3]. Why did you keep silent on that point? In what quantity and from whom did the Scholl siblings receive letters or other materials at your address?

Answer: I can recall that around Christmas, Sophie Scholl told me that she intended to had used my address for her correspondence. She told asked me namely whether I had already received a letter from Hildegard Schüle. I could conclude from that conversation that she had given Schüle my address.

But I only received 3 or 4 letters from this Schüle for Sophie Scholl. I do not know what the letters said. Sophie Scholl did not tell me that she had given other persons my address as an accommodation address.

Recorded by: /Signed: Beer/ KS.

Read aloud and signed by: /Signed: Gisela Schertling/

Present: /Signed: Elfriede Maier/, Administrative Employee.

==========

Note 1: Statement about the “meetings” is in the original document twice.

Note 2: Einvernahme: Austrian-Swiss word for interrogation.

Note 3: Deckadresse. Literally, an address used as a cover, e.g. by spies.

==========

Source: Schertling/Schüddekopf (23 – 25)

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