Disagreements among friends

I've already written an essay about the February 1943 debates, on the anniversary of the disagreement that tore apart friendships, that destroyed White Rose resistance.

But perhaps we need to be reminded again, perhaps I should remind myself, what happens when minutiae trumps principle, when the overarching message of liberty and justice for all is forgotten behind disputes over relatively inconsequential policy matters. This time, I am fleshing out what caused them to go their separate ways, how their divergent politics seemed to them to be irreconcilable.

Yes, minutiae has its place. Yes, what is an inconsequential policy matter may (if not will) become important again once liberty and justice for all have been restored.

Even if you're familiar with what happened in February 1943 when minutiae and policy obliterated the larger message that White Rose friends had struggled to get across to their fellow Germans, a reminder may be in order. So much was lost in a single afternoon.

The last ten days of White Rose resistance before the first arrests — February 8 through 17, 1943 — tend to be portrayed as calm before the storm. As students preparing for a big operation at the university on February 18. Sophie Scholl peacefully listening to classical music, Hans Scholl plus Alexander Schmorell and Willi Graf serenely generating more leaflets to be distributed on campus on the 18th.

Occasionally these storytellers will wonder aloud about poor decisions made on the February 18, 1943. Why Hans and Sophie did not run away from the heavy-set Jakob Schmid as he lumbered up the staircase at the university. Why Hans had Christoph Probst’s leaflet draft in his pocket.

But even as storytellers hint at underlying issues, the official version generally wins out. The Scholls are portrayed as unflinching heroes, whose courage is unassailable. If the others are mentioned, it’s as afterthoughts. Or worse, as in the Breinersdorfer movie, with Christoph Probst depicted as weak.

The real story is far more complex.

These final days began with Falk Harnack’s long-anticipated visit to Munich. Hans and Alex had visited him in Chemnitz. Because of his brother and sister-in-law’s leadership in opposition activities the NSDAP had labeled ‘the Rote Kapelle’ [Red Orchestra, alt. Red Chapel] resistance, and because Falk seemed more determined than ever to continue what his family had begun, the students in Munich valued the insights he would give them as they sought to expand their work to greater Germany.

Yet almost as soon as Falk met the students in the Scholls’ apartment, the worst fears of some were realized. Falk expressed extreme discomfort at the mess in Hans Scholl’s bedroom and in their general living quarters. It wasn’t the mess, as much as it was the items that comprised the mess: The duplicating machine, leaflets, envelopes, stamps. Instead of working in the studio basement, the apartment had been turned into Grand Central Station, with co-conspirators coming and going 24/7. Falk let them have it. Which only confirmed the feelings Willi and Alex had tried to suppress, namely that they were taking unnecessary risks.

And when Gisela Schertling appeared, and Falk learned that not only was she not involved in the work, but she was an ardent Nazi? And that she had free access to the Scholls’ living quarters, while they were working? Falk lost it.

A couple of days later when Falk met with Hans, Willi, Alex, plus Professor Kurt Huber, the rift that had been bubbling beneath the surface exploded. Huber immediately recognized Falk as Arvid’s brother. To Huber, the Harnacks represented the worst of both worlds. They were at once connected to liberal Lutheranism and the social gospel described by Adolf von Harnack (Adolf von Harnack was Falk’s uncle), as well as to left-leaning politics, which the Gestapo and Kurt Huber characterized as “Communist.”

Oddly, Falk’s presence also seemed to bring Huber’s hatred of Alex to the forefront. He could not forgive Alex for being half-Russian. In his mind, that automatically meant Alex was Bolshevist.

Their meeting — ostensibly to discuss how they could expand their work and join forces with other groups — disintegrated into an angry shouting match. It was not enjoyable in the least. (Sophie Scholl was in Ulm and not present.)

Lilo Ramdohr recognized the friction in the room when she escorted Falk to the Scholls’ apartment. She took no offense when Willi Graf did not recognize her, attributing it to poor lighting and the tension she sensed among those gathered. She was happy to have an excuse to leave.

Hans Scholl opened the meeting with chitchat, primarily about the events in Stalingrad a few days earlier. He knew that topic would draw Prof. Huber into the conversation. And it did, but not as he anticipated. Falk mentioned the work his brother and sister-in-law had been deeply involved with, how one of their goals had been peace between East (USSR) and West (Europe, USA).

That was all it took to enflame Huber. He contested every statement Falk made, even when he would have normally agreed with Falk. It was enough that Falk Harnack said it. For example, early in the debate, Falk wondered if Germany needed an authoritarian figure. Would a democracy ever be possible? Huber agreed with that assessment of German governance, but nevertheless disputed Falk’s claim. Falk worsened matters by suggesting that elements of the Soviet economy and political powers were possibly adaptable for Germany postwar.

Willi Graf wanted to interject that he did not like the notion of socialized industry. But he could not interrupt the debate between Huber and Harnack long enough to make an observation, much less an argument.

Huber argued that Falk’s reasoning would lead to the “destruction of the middle class and the invalidation of private ownership.” Hans Scholl, ever eager to curry favor with the professor he admired, agreed with Huber’s assessment. But neither Huber nor Harnack paid him much attention when it became clear Hans was simply agreeing and had nothing to add to the debate.

By that time, Huber was convinced that Falk was part of the “red wave” that Hitler warned good Germans about. Falk protested he was not, and that he in no way wished to advocate on behalf of Communism. But that he saw a difference between advocating for a Communist form of government and considering some of the ideas that had originated in the USSR.

Both Willi Graf and Alexander Schmorell got it. They comprehended Falk’s point and would have elaborated on it themselves, but the brawl between Huber and Harnack did not permit interjection of their thoughts. Willi badly wanted to say that he agreed with Falk about Germany’s necessity of an authoritaria ruler, but he believed there had to be a process to ensure the right man was in place. Alex on the other hand didn’t like the idea of an authoritarian, and industry that was totally socialized wasn’t good either, but he thought a strong central government with some nationalized industry could best rebuild Germany postwar.

Neither of them had the chance to say those things, because Huber initiated a new line of debate, namely that his concern with Adolf Hitler was how far left he had taken Germany. The NSDAP platform was all well and good, but Hitler was ignoring it, and besides, he was losing the war.

The mood in that room darkened. These students had thought that Huber supported a democracy, or at minimum a democratic form of federalism. But now? This was not the professor whose class they simply could not miss. This Huber was unrecognizable.

When someone (no idea who) was able to ask what Huber thought had been Hitler’s biggest mistake, Hans and Alex surely thought Huber would say something like “mass murder of Jews” or the other crimes they had carefully delineated in their leaflets. No. Huber insisted that Hitler’s biggest mistake was aligning with the Soviets against Great Britain in the 1930s, instead of recruiting world powers to common cause with Germany in the NSDAP’s battle against Communism.

They were now paying in spades, said Huber, by visions of a classless society and nationalization of industry, perpetrated by the Führer.

To say that the White Rose friends gathered in that room were dumbfounded would be an understatement. Alex thrilled momentarily to Falk’s counterclaim that he hoped Germany would re-form as a democracy after the war, that he did not believe Germany could resolve its systemic issues with “old, failed remedies.” Falk asserted that the National Socialist form of government would be conquered. Alex concurred with everything Falk was saying, but did not dare open his mouth.

Besides, Falk was doing a good enough job walking Huber through German history, real German history, not the slop they had been fed growing up. He also pointed out that Huber’s allegation that there was something drastically wrong with “visions of a classless society and nationalization of industry” stood in direct contradiction to Huber’s own life and career. Falk noted that Huber’s paycheck came from the government, since German Beamtentum included not just city council clerks, tax authorities, and railroad workers, but also university professors.

And further, did Huber really like the existing conditions at German universities, where admission relied solely on one’s connections and father’s status, and not one’s intelligence? Was it fair that poor yet smart students were relegated to blue collar jobs just because their parents couldn’t afford the price of a university education for their child? Was not a university education something that should be “socialized” to level the playing field and ensure that Huber (and Falk made it personal) only taught those qualified to sit in his classroom?

Falk apparently understood that he and Huber had dominated the conversation for too long, because he then yielded the floor. He asked Hans, Willi, and Alex what they thought Germany should look like after the war. He ignored or rebuffed Huber’s attempts to hijack the discussion, bringing it back around to the opinions of Hans, Alex, and Willi. What do YOU think?

For a while, the debate cooled down as Falk ensured that the students could be heard. Hans talked the least, and when he did speak, it was mainly to attempt a reconciliation between Huber and Harnack. He seemed to have no political viewpoints of his own.

The students mulled over principles such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the war, resistance work, propaganda. Regarding the freedoms, there was no debate. They were all in agreement. Postwar, Germany may not restrict religious freedom, freedom of speech. Even Huber could not derail that exchange (he believed in those freedoms, but only for Aryans, not for “non-Germans” like Jews and Roma-Sinti).

There was even little disagreement over current events like the war. Reality was too strong to pretend otherwise. They knew about Roosevelt’s Casablanca speech.

The minute the conversation drifted back to imagining Germany postwar, their equanimity vanished. Falk suggested that after the war, there should be a limit of three political parties in Germany: Marxist, Liberal, and Christian. He may as well have lit a stick of dynamite under Huber’s chair.

Only now, Huber’s attacks on Alex began. His accusations of Falk’s being a Communist now included Alexander Schmorell. Alex defended himself to Huber — as he had done repeatedly over the previous two months — by declaring for the millionth time that he was not a Communist, but that he believed Russia was capable of a “great political and economic future.” He said they couldn’t just ignore Russia because of its current political situation. Huber was not mollified and continued to call Alex a Communist.

Alex had found his voice. He said that although he agreed with Falk on a great many things, he did not like all of Falk’s ideas. He had seen Communism firsthand, had seen how it had destroyed his beloved homeland. But he did agree with Falk’s belief that peace was only possible if Germany’s future political direction embraced both Western (US, British, European) and Eastern (USSR) friendship.

Huber’s personal attacks on Alex intensified with Alex’s brave statement. There could never be friendship with the Soviet Union, said Huber. End of discussion.

Not end of discussion, said Alex. That’s a short-sighted view. Once again emphasizing that he was not a Communist, he said that they, the younger generation, could not go back to the same old same-old. They had to look at everything with a totally new perspective after the war. Even regarding the USSR.

Once again the debate took on a conciliatory nature as someone suggested listing all the things they did agree on. They believed Germany had lost the war. They thought that “Hitler and his clique were continuing the war merely for their personal security and were ready to sacrifice the German nation to do so.” All German resistance needed to be mobilized under a single umbrella to be effective. And, after the war, anyone who had belonged to the Party should never be allowed to vote in another election (presumably Huber kept mum during this “agreement,” since he was a Party member), and that everyone who had perpetrated ‘this evil’ should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Their unity did not last long. The meeting ended with another angry outburst, with Huber telling the White Rose friends that he rescinded permission for them to publish his leaflet (Leaflet VI) when they strongly disagreed about his wording regarding the vaunted German military. No one seemed to notice that although Alex found his voice, Willi Graf retreated into his shell.

When everyone dispersed for the evening, it was as if they took themselves to separate corners to recover. Willi sipped wine with his friend Hannes Schlögel and talked of inconsequential matters. Lilo and Falk spent the evening at the movies. Gisela Schertling sulked alone in Sophie’s bedroom. Hans and Alex worked another six or so hours typing stencils of and envelopes for the forbidden sixth leaflet.

This debate effectively ended White Rose resistance.

Starting the next day, Willi and Alex made plans to leave White Rose work and do something that they deemed would stand a better chance of success. Their friendship seems to have deepened as they talked about what they would do now.

Alex took his uniform to Lilo Berndl nee Ramdohr’s home and burned it in the furnace, together with his pay book. Although he agreed to stand watch for Sophie and Hans as they distributed the leaflets on February 18, he intended to leave for Russia immediately thereafter. He wanted to join the partisans and fight Nazis on Russian soil.

Willi Graf, meanwhile, headed south to Lenggries, Gaissach, and the mountains, where he liked to go to clear his head. He looked up friends he knew were linked to Pater Delp and the group around 20 July 1944 resistance. He even talked about making a brash statement by blowing up Gestapo headquarters in Berlin. He knew that printing leaflets would not change Germany.

Both Willi and Alex discussed the morality of assassinating Hitler. Alex had thought about doing so for a while, worrying Lilo when he would raise the topic. Willi’s questions revolved around whether “thou shalt not murder” included killing a profoundly evil man. By February 18, he had not found peace either way. He just knew that he had to do something else. As Hans and Sophie sat in Gestapo interrogation rooms, Willi asked his cousins in Pasing if they knew “reliable” students who would be interested in resistance.

After this war of words, there were no more readings. No more discussions late into the night — at least, not with the Scholls. No new leaflets. No recruiting for White Rose work. Alex bared his soul to Lilo, Willi deepened his connection to his old friend Gustel Sahm.

This circle of friends who had written such powerful words, painted graffiti that would not be overlooked, gone without sleep to type one more stencil, stuffed one more envelope, made one more mailbox run — this group had all but disbanded.

They knew that February 18 would be their last hurrah. And everyone but Hans and Sophie assumed that after that day, they would go their separate ways to work in a more concrete manner for the overthrow of Hitler’s regime.

Their unity did not stand the test of an acrid debate — a debate that distanced them from their common bond. A bond that focused on injustices Germans had inflicted on Jews, Roma-Sinti, dissidents. A bond that grew tighter when they personally witnessed wrongdoing and did something about it. A bond forged over outrage at the limits on freedom and justice that they saw every day in class, on city streets, and at home.

When they lost sight of their primary objective, that indissoluble bond was dissolved.

The above details became crystal clear when narratives were entered into a database that did not care about legend. For more about how I created the database and weighted the credibility of primary source documents, please check out our Web site section entitled Purpose, Preparation, and Methodology.

Questions? Comments? Speak your mind below. Before doing so, please log in using the email address that corresponds to your orders or newsletter subscription. Note: MARKDOWN is the app's label for formatting shortcuts.

If you learned something from this very serious post and would like to leave me a tip, I would be grateful! Buy Me A Coffee!

Image credit: Shopify, public domain for platform users.

The above information is fully footnoted in our White Rose histories. Please purchase them for access to that material! To order digital version of White Rose History, Volume I: Coming Together (January 1933-April 30, 1942), click here. To order digital version of White Rose History, Volume II, click here. WRH1 is © 2002, 2003, 2007 by Denise Elaine Heap. WRH2 is © 2002, 2007 by Denise Elaine Heap.

No part of this post, Web site, or translations contained herein may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the copyright holder, except for the “fair use” of quotations that are properly cited and credited, including identification of the translator if applicable. No part of this post, Web site, or translations contained herein may be included in any Large Language Model without proper licensing from the copyright holder, Denise Elaine Heap.