Alexander Schmorell re Schertling

Secret State Police [Gestapo]
State Police Headquarters Munich
Munich, March 30, 1943
II A/Sond/Be/Mah. [Special Commission / Beer / Mahler]

Called upon [Note 1] in Neudeck Prison-Munich, Alexander Schmorell (medical doctoral candidate, personal data known) was told of the statements made by Gisela Schertling. To the corresponding remonstrance [regarding his testimony], he made the following statements:

I know that Gisela Schertling was in Hans Scholl’s apartment nearly every day. She participated in general conversations during which politics possibly was discussed. But we always avoided talking about our illegal activity in her presence, such as the publication of leaflets, graffiti, etc. I also cannot recall that Schertling was ever present when I was working with Hans or Sophie Scholl on the production of leaflets or anything similar.

It is also not possible that Schertling became aware [of our illegal activity] through any manuscripts or notes of a seditious nature, because we always stored all our documents in a suitcase when our work was completed, took the suitcase to Eickemeyer’s studio, and burned them.

However, it is absolutely possible that Schertling learned of our treasonous attitude [Note 2] through various discussions. But I cannot recall that in her presence anything was ever said about the necessity of rejecting the current regime. On several occasions, we indeed said that the current regime must be fought, but we never went into detail about how the regime should be fought.

When Schertling states that she took part in a discussion in the presence of Harnack, then this certainly was the second discussion with Harnack. 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.

I know that because when we noticed a noise coming from Sophie’s room, Harnack asked who else was in the apartment and whether the conversation we had been having could have been overheard by unauthorized persons. Hans Scholl said it was his girlfriend, but that she could not hear anything, because she was two rooms down. During this conversation, Schertling certainly did not come into the room where we were having our conversation.

During the second visit during which Schertling was present, as far as I know we only talked along general political lines. It is possible that on that occasion, Harnack said he thought many political questions should be resolved the same way they had been resolved in Russia. I told Harnack that he had to see the consequences of those actions in Russia. But we certainly did not discuss our illegal activity during this conversation.

The third and last time – this was the day that Prof. Huber was there – Schertling certainly was not present.

Incidentally, I know for a fact that I myself never told Schertling about our illegal activity. I never told her about the existence of the leaflets. Hans Scholl never told me what he had told Schertling about the matter. It is possible that Schertling heard when I returned from my trip to Vienna, and I told Hans Scholl that I had disposed of the leaflets well. This is possible because I talked about this with Hans Scholl when I was in the hallway or in the bathroom. I was not particularly cautious during this conversation because I did not assume that anyone besides Hans and Sophie Scholl was in the apartment.

It is absolutely possible that Schertling was in the apartment when we were occupied with the duplication of leaflets. But she never looked in on us to see what we were doing. My statements in this regard are certainly true.

To the remonstrance that Christoph Probst’s father-in-law Mr. Dohrn was repeatedly at Hans Scholl’s [apartment] while I was there: I can say that I recall that I met Mr. Dohrn twice in Eickemeyer’s studio. Christoph Probst likely introduced him there. During the meeting, I could tell that Mr. Dohrn had the same literary interests as Hans Scholl. It is possible that political matters were discussed on this occasion.

As far as I know, Dohrn is very religious [Note 3] and championed the interests of the Church in his conversations. But I cannot recall what Dohrn said regarding his attitudes to the current State. I can state for a fact that he had not been initiated into our illegal activity.

I did not know Mr. Geyer very well. Of course I saw him in Scholl’s apartment often, where he also took part in political discussions. I also visited him a couple of times at his studio. There I met a student named Feuerle. I met him [Feuerle] there only once. I cannot recall whether politics was ever discussed in his [Feuerle’s] presence.

Now as before, I must defend my statement that Geyer knew nothing of our political intrigues and that he also did not know that we were storing various objects with him [i.e., in the studio].

Recorded by: Signed: Beer, Crim. Secr.

Read and signed: Signed: Schmorell

Present: Signed: Mahler, Crim. Secr.

==========

Note 1: Unusual for an interrogation: aufgesucht (visited, called upon) instead of summoned. No explanation in transcript.

Note 2: Specifically Einstellung or attitude(s), not work.

Note 3: Konfessionell. That is, he represented the interests of the Catholic church, not religion in general.

==========

Source: Schertling/Schüddekopf (27 – 29)

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