Fourth interrogation of Katharina Schüddekopf
II A Sond./Gei. [Special Commission/ Geith]
Munich, April 1, 1943
Schüddekopf Katharina (personal data known), led out from police custody, made the following statements:
Remonstrance: In your previous interrogations, you have repeatedly stated that you were never in Scholl’s apartment. Additional investigation and statements made by others prove that the opposite is true. Why have you kept this fact a secret till now?
Answer: During the course of one of my last interrogations, it did occur to me that I had indeed been in Scholl’s apartment. However, I forgot to make that statement. It is correct that I was in the apartment of the Scholl siblings on Franz Josef Str. I was only in Scholl’s apartment once around mid-January. In any case, it was several days after the events on the occasion of the student assembly in the conference hall of the German Museum. At that time, I had borrowed a book from Sofie Scholl that I was returning.
On that occasion, the siblings Hans and Sofie Scholl as well as Schertling were in the Scholls’ apartment. I stayed at the Scholls’ apartment about 10 minutes. I left with Sofie Scholl and Schertling, who were going to a concert. We talked about the events at the conference hall of the German museum in Scholls’ apartment.
Hans Scholl had not been present at that student assembly. As someone who was there, I told him all about the events at his request. No political debate or statements were made during that meeting.
I can still recall that Hans Scholl said that he would not have sacrificed himself for such a small thing. By that he meant the behavior of the students during the assembly. Hans Scholl also said (paraphrase) that these days, one must prepare himself for something big.
At that time, I did not understand what he meant. However today I know that he meant his big thing. We did not talk further about the events in the conference hall or about politics.
I never spoke to Hans Scholl alone, neither in his apartment nor anywhere else. However, I did look for an opportunity to speak to him alone so I could remonstrate with him about his behavior towards Lafrenz. At that time, Lafrenz was very depressed, because she felt like Hans Scholl had put her aside.
Remonstrance: It has been proven through other statements that you were in Scholls’ apartment often and that you were alone with Scholl in his apartment occasionally as well.
Answer: I must emphatically deny this assertion, that is, I must correct my previous statement only to say that I was at Scholl’s apartment only one other time to pick up a book. But we did not have a political or any other kind of conversation that time.
Remonstrance: You have repeatedly stated that you recognized Hans Scholl’s treasonous attitudes because of statements he made. However, you have continually defended yourself with the assertion that you considered Hans Scholl’s political speechmaking to be only empty phrases and word games. Do you wish to continue to make this assertion?
Answer: I must now as before most emphatically deny that I ever took Hans Scholl’s political speechmaking seriously. I had no idea about his intrigues. I was never initiated into any of Hans Scholl’s plans. Of course I knew the Scholl siblings Hans and Sofie, but I kept a certain distance from them. We did not even reach the stage where we addressed one another informally [Note 1], which is customary in the student body with even a short-term acquaintanceship.
Remonstrance: You keep on insisting that you did not talk to Lafrenz about the leaflet “White Rose”. It is actually in your best interest to finally admit the truth.
Answer: In this point I must stick with the statements I have already made, even if these seem [to you] to be completely unbelievable.
Question: What do you know about Schertling’s relationship to the Scholl circle?
Answer: I myself do not know Schertling particularly well. I only got to know her within the Scholl circle by her first name of Gisela. I had seen her in Prof. Huber’s lectures. I saw Schertling in Scholls’ apartment only once. I heard from Lafrenz that she frequently associated with Scholl. I cannot make any statements regarding whether or how much Schertling was involved with Scholl’s intrigues, if she was at all. I never learned anything more about it.
Question: You yourself introduced a person to the Scholl circle, and to date, you have not named this person. Who was this person and what was the reason that you introduced this person to Scholl?
Answer: This person is a lecturer at the University of Munich named Rousset. The first time [I introduced him to Scholl’s circle] was for a literary evening in Eickemeyer’s studio in the summer of 1942 before summer break. At that time, there was a reading about French literature. This reading was limited solely to literary matters. Only Lafrenz, Eickemeyer, Furtmeier, Rousset, and I took part. The Scholl siblings were not present that evening and politics was not even touched upon.
The second time that Rousset took part was also limited to literary matters. If I recall correctly, it took place around mid-January 1943. The Scholl siblings were present that evening. Politics was not discussed that evening.
I invited Rousset to these literary evenings because I knew that Rousset’s National Socialist attitudes were well-known. I thought that if Rousset were present, the usual political statements made within the Scholl circle would not occur. But I did not tell Rousset of my intentions, because I knew he would decline to come.
I did not name Rousset earlier because I knew for a fact that Rousset had no idea about the political talk in the Scholl circle. He did not come to any additional meetings. Rousset had no idea about what was going on, because I must say once again that whenever Rousset was present, no one in the Scholl circle talked politics.
If I am asked whether I know a Mr. Dohrn, I must reply that I barely know the name. I do not know whether Dohrn is Probst’s father-in-law. It is possible that I met Dohrn once at a meeting of the Scholl circle, but I cannot recall when that would have been. In any case, I did not especially notice that Dohrn took part in the political discussions or stood out.
Recorded by: /Signed: Geith/, Crim. Secr.
Read and signed by: /Signed: Schüddekopf/
Note 1: Dutzen.
Source: Schertling/Schüddekopf (114 – 117)