Gestapo memo re Gisela Schertling

Secret State Police [Gestapo]
State Police Headquarters Munich
Munich, April 5, 1943
Vol. No. 13226/43 II A/Sond. Be. [Special Commission / Beer]

Regarding:   Results of the investigation in the matter of Schertling Gisela, born February 9, 1922 in Pössneck.

The accused Gisela Schertling is transferred as a participant in the matter of high treason (Scholl) on the basis of the statements made during her interrogation. She and Sophie Scholl mailed a number (about 50 pieces) of leaflets addressed to students (“Fellow Students”) on Tuesday, February 16, 1943 and therefore distributed them. Schertling also learned about the existence of the leaflets on February 12, 1943.

The following details regarding the relationship of Gisela Schertling to the Scholl siblings and with reference to her participation in that matter of high treason have been determined:

Schertling met Sophie Scholl while they were doing their Reich Labor Service together in the summer of 1941. They became good friends. Around this time, she accepted Sophie Scholl’s invitation to visit her parents’ home in Ulm. Schertling said that the Scholl family pleasantly impressed her.

Sophie Scholl was also the person who awakened her interest in her brother Hans. She brought them together [Note 1] on the occasion of her coming to Munich to study in the Winter Semester 1942/43.

Around Christmas 1942, Schertling attended concerts with Hans Scholl. On January 6, 1943 following one such event and a [subsequent] visit to the residence of the artist Eickemeyer, she went home with him to his apartment on Franz Joseph Str. Hans Scholl was allegedly very insistent and gave her a shot of morphine for purposes of getting closer to her.

In the time following that, a regular love relationship emerged. The two of them often had sex.

When Schertling decided that she did not like Hans Scholl’s erotic insistence and she wanted to break up with him, he threatened to commit suicide. In so doing, he was able to once again make her submissive [Note 2]. Therefore she was completely in his power. Until her arrest, she was almost exclusively with the Scholl siblings. She often stayed in their apartment.

In so doing, she was a witness to the treasonous words uttered by Hans Scholl and his circle on several occasions. Schertling had had a good National Socialist education at home and had belonged to various National Socialist young girls’ organizations [Note 3]. Therefore she thought and acted like a National Socialist.

At the beginning, she tried to rebut the treasonous ideas of the Scholl siblings. But on one occasion Hans Scholl said that he would rid her of her “Prussian way of thinking”. Hans Scholl was then able to conquer the last of her extant political challenges through his powers of persuasion.

When Hans Scholl’s political activity became especially evident the week before his arrest and he and his accomplice Schmorell stayed in the apartment nights, Schertling became convinced that the two of them were involved in treasonous activity. Her suspicions were strengthened when she was with Hans Scholl daily (and spent the night there) the week before his arrest when Sophie Scholl was gone.

Her statements are credible (when one considers the circumstances) when she states that she did not know directly about the treasonous and seditious actions or intentions. It is also likely that she never would have learned this from Hans Scholl if she had not looked into the matter herself.

But Schertling had to admit that she was initiated into the treasonous activity after she saw the freshly printed treasonous documents in Hans Scholl’s room on Friday, February 12, 1943. She additionally admits that she helped Hans Scholl hide the leaflets in the desk, and that on the following Monday [sic] [February 15, 1943] she and Sophie Scholl placed around 50 leaflets in a mailbox. In so doing, she knew that they were treasonous and seditious leaflets.

Although the accused would say that she did not agree with Hans Scholl’s actions and that she was sucked into the matter through her dependency on the Scholl siblings without exactly knowing what she was doing, nevertheless that does not acquit her of guilt. Precisely because of her National Socialist upbringing, she should have recognized the special danger of this undertaking.

However, when evaluating this case, it may not be overlooked that due to his intellectual superiority, Hans Scholl was gradually able to destroy all of her ability to resist politically and morally. In this case as in no other, it can be stated that the accused was a victim of the criminal Scholl. He murdered the spirit of a National Socialist.

The character of the accused is described as especially suggestible. The assessment of her life may not be disregarded from the psychological [Note 4] side.

Her parents’ statements point to a certain psychopathic predisposition. It is possible that it will be necessary to introduce the expert opinion of a psychiatrist to determine the question of guilt. The parents have requested that that be done.

/Signed: Beer/, Crim. Secr.

==========

Note 1: Durch ihre Vermittlung. In other words, Sophie ‘fixed them up’.

Note 2: Gefügig. Compliant, docile, submissive.

Note 3: Did not use the term Jungmädel, but rather Jungmädchenorganisationen.

Note 4: Psychisch. Also psychic or emotional.

==========

Source: Schertling/Schüddekopf (66 – 68)

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