The debate: White Rose as symbol?
IMPORTANT NOTE: If you are a casual nonfiction reader, or if details of the fight to portray White Rose resistance accurately bother you, you might want to skip this post. Target audience: Serious scholars.
I have briefly mentioned the brouhaha in 2002 over my accurate portrayals of the lives of Hans and Sophie Scholl. A subset of the Scholl clan took umbrage over this portrayal.
In short order, I learned several things very quickly. How a reporter – in this case from the Hohenloher Tagblatt – can and will twist and distort words to suit his audience. How people who tell you one thing in an interview will back-track when there’s money involved. Why it is incredibly important to document, document, document. When to walk away from an “argument” that the other party is using to gin up fake controversy, just for free publicity.
And why this matters.
This is the longest article I have written since January 6, 2022. It is coincidentally, but not accidentally, uploaded on May 9, 2024, the 103rd anniversary of Sophie Scholl’s birth.
But it honors Traute Lafrenz – birthday May 3 – even more. Because if anyone encouraged me to look behind the curtain, to keep digging, it was Traute. She was likely hurt more by the Scholl legend than any other survivor. She would brook no nonsense about untouchable symbols. Traute, thank you.
The questions I will address here, although my thoughts occasionally betray me as I wrestle with the contemporary German notion that it's all but illegal to write anything bad about White Rose people, because dammit, they are heroes!
- Can people be national “symbols” – untouchable?
- How do we proceed when a legend, such as the Inge Scholl legend about her siblings, has become entrenched because of government funding (both USA and Germany) and unwillingness of “historians” to challenge the legend? Especially, as is the case here, when the three major sources and driving forces behind the legend were all überzeugte (convinced) Nazis during the war? I am, of course, speaking of Inge Scholl, Franz Josef Müller, and Jürgen Wittenstein.
- What is the definition of a hero? And how should historians write about heroes?
Because believe it or not, a simple email discussion on those three questions erupted into a hideous dispute that spanned two months in 2002 and caused Dr. Armin Ziegler, one of the best historians on the planet – a retired economist who “fell into” White Rose scholarship upon retirement – to walk away from years of research. I've been on the verge of walking away myself, more times than most people realize.
Over the course of about six weeks, as Dr. Armin Ziegler and I attempted to persuade the Hohenloher Tagblatt in Crailsheim, Germany to print our rebuttal to defamatory claims supposedly made by a member of the Scholl family, we understood that the opposition was being less driven by that man, and more by a single person in Crailsheim who apparently had a different agenda altogether.
At Armin Ziegler’s 2002/2003 recommendation, I am not mentioning that man’s name here. No need to give him the publicity he apparently craved. (Craves?) Let’s just say his virulent campaign worked. The tiny little inconsequential “task force” in Crailsheim got a ton of funding from official channels to fight the fight against the evil American writer. Who dared to write the truth. Sigh.
Following therefore are excerpts from weeks of correspondence. As you will see, I am focusing on my discussion with Armin Ziegler and articles published in the Hohenloher Tagblatt. The points of discussion are, I think, important to the larger issue of how we present history, ethics of history (here’s our statement regarding ethics of Holocaust scholarship), and historical revisionism. Because continuation of Scholl legend is nothing more than historical revisionism.
As an aside – and if you’ve purchased the Histories, you have probably wondered: In 1998-1999 as I began to write publicly, online, about White Rose, R’Alan Iser of Berwyn was concerned for me. In those days, neo-Nazis held rallies at Valley Forge. Widow of a non-Jewish professor with a “Jewish-sounding” last name found her home and driveway covered in swastikas. Dick Wolf’s Law and Order featured horror stories, fiction based on fact, that exposed the depths of neo-Nazi fervor in these United States. In 1998/1999.
And - July the Fourth, 1999. Benjamin Nathaniel Smith opened fire on African- and Asian-Americans and Orthodox Jews. Smith was well-educated, raised in a “comfortable Illinois suburb.” Somehow his path had led him to join the World Church of the Creator, a neo-Nazi organization deeply committed to RAHOWA, a racial holy war. (From Chapter 1 of White Rose History, Volume I: “The Why.”)
R’Iser therefore suggested I write under a pen name. “You live alone. No neighbors that could hear you scream. I worry about you.” And so the pseudonym Ruth Hanna Sachs was born. Rut Chanah bat Avraham v’ Sara + my great-grandfather’s name, Sachs.
I’m telling you this because the people in Crailsheim in 2002, as well as Jürgen Wittenstein in 2003, and apparently an antisemitic person in 2023, tried to use the pseudonym to “discredit” me and my work. As if.
Dr. Armin Ziegler will forever be dear to me, because when Wittenstein tried to persuade him how ‘evil’ I was – after Ziegler had already figured out that Wittenstein was a Nazi, not part of resistance – Wittenstein wrote him confidentially, ‘You do know that Denise Heap and Ruth Sachs are one and the same person?’
To which Ziegler replied, “But of course. Who doesn’t know?” Shut him up.
That is part of the context of the following. It’s important in a minutiae sort of way, but is in no way the main attraction.
That would be, repeating from above:
- Can people be national “symbols” – untouchable?
- How do we proceed when a legend, such as the Inge Scholl legend about her siblings, has become entrenched because of government funding (both USA and Germany) and unwillingness of “historians” to challenge the legend? Especially, as is the case here, when the three major sources and driving forces behind the legend were all überzeugte (convinced) Nazis during the war? I am, of course, speaking of Inge Scholl, Franz Josef Müller, and Jürgen Wittenstein.
- What is the definition of a hero? And how should historians write about heroes?
On to the correspondence. Note: Omitting quotation marks for ease of reading. But I am quoting both Armin Ziegler, X, and myself. And the newspaper. All in translation.
December 3, 2002, letter from Armin Ziegler to Hohenloher Tagblatt (received but not published by the paper)
Letter to the editor
In response to November 29, 2002 article, “Kratzen am Lack der Weiβen Rose – X presents a discussion his thesis with regards to a controversial author.”
Background: On November 18-19, 2002, Ruth Sachs, X, and I had a lively [rege] discussion by email on the topic of “symbols of the resistance” and “results of historical research.” The views represented can be summarized as follows:
X: The symbolic act is more important than anything else.
Sachs: A symbol has meaning if it is true. Inge Scholl legends are not true.
Ziegler: ‘I believe – unfortunately – that it is an illusion to believe that the “Scholl” symbol, which has been entrenched for so long and so uncritically, can be made more ‘attractive’ by means of a legitimate enrichment of truth [Wahrheitsanreicherung]. Truth is not easy to digest, even with a symbol. It is linked too deeply and too long to interests that will defend themselves by all means possible. One must only think about the many Scholl schools, organizations, teachers, and professors, whose names are [closely] tied to the Inge Scholl legends.’ I therefore suggested that both approaches [X and Sachs] be allowed to co-exist on socio-political and historical planes. For me, that ended the debate.
Then on November 21, [2002], two hours before the start of the meeting in Crailsheim, X sent us [Ziegler and Sachs] an email with allegations against Sachs that had not been made before and were completely taken out of context. She had no chance to defend herself. X badly misrepresented Sachs’ intentions, because she vehemently [mit Vehemenz] represents the true representation of White Rose resistance in the USA as an example for our time.
My work mentioned by X shows the status of historical research regarding White Rose: ‘The incomplete history of the White Rose: Obstacles, Research Gaps, Controversies, Legends.’
[To readers of my White Rose histories: First, you will notice that I cite that particular book often. Ziegler did excellent, ground-breaking research. Second, from the end of 2001 on, we proofread one another’s writing. It was always such a thrill if I found something he did not know! And vice versa. The best collaborative work ever.]
December 3, 2002, letter from me to Hohenloher Tagblatt (received but not published by the paper)
Ladies and gentlemen,
In your report entitled “Kratzen am Lack der Weiβen Rose” [Scratching at White Rose Varnish] dated November 29, 2002, you stated that my work “attacks” the White Rose, and that I reached erroneous conclusions – according to X because of a “typically American propensity” for “sex and crime.” I find that not only insulting, but also a diversion. Instead of evaluating my work on the basis of its content, X decided to attack me personally.
To research the White Rose resistance group, I created a Microsoft Access database with all extant information, chronologically sorted. My sources were Gestapo interrogation transcripts [Protokolle], documents in various archives, interviews with surviving family members as well as with those who had survived imprisonment, as well as all existing books about White Rose. Volume I deals with the coming together of these young people (1/31/1933-4/30/1942). I describe their resistance activities in Volume 2, which has not yet been released: White Rose History: Freedom.
It is remarkable that not one word of my book has been refuted with facts. For example, I asked the question regarding why Mrs. Aicher-Scholl does not allow us to read the diaries and letters of her siblings.
Inge Scholl collected as much as she could in the Scholl Archives, and then she hid the key. Even the world-renowned scholar, Dr. Inge Jens, was not permitted to view actual documents when she edited the Scholl letters. Mrs. Aicher-Scholl made typewritten excerpts [for her]. I and other researchers were granted no access whatever. Those who were permitted to work in the archives were only allowed to see papers that Mrs. Aicher-Scholl approved.
X accuses me of attacking the Scholl family. [He says] that I treat other White Rose members differently, that I do not criticize them as strongly. If he truly believes that, then he has not read my book. Which he admitted to me following his presentation (November 2002).
My intent is that the young students of the White Rose be presented as people and not as demigods. That their flaws are described alongside their heroic deeds. That [readers] know how they loved, hated, danced, screamed, envied, lied, studied, prayed, cursed, harmed one another, provided one another security.
Core of the history of the White Rose is the friendship these young people and their mentors had. They accomplished much, because they had one another. One cannot know the breadth and height of their story, if one accepts the Inge Scholl story as “true.” As long as these young people remain two-dimensional, their deeds will be completely alien to us.
[Y] wants to make White Rose history relevant to modern youth. But they will never be successful as long as they hold fast to legend and lies. Our young people are much too smart to believe that anyone – even Sophie Scholl – lived a sinless life. Saying this clearly and loudly does not at all comprise an “attack” on these resisters.
Whoever reads my book knows at once how very much I love these young people. But I love them enough to tell their story without distortion.
Sincerely,
Ruth Hanna Sachs.
December 6, 2002, Hohenloher Tagblatt
A heated argument is brewing in Crailsheim. “[They] were not demigods.” American author feels completely misunderstood.
A few weeks before the 60th anniversary of the execution of the Scholl siblings, a heated dispute is brewing in Crailsheim, the birthplace of Hans Scholl, about the correct handling of the legacy of the student resistance fighters.
Those who are embroiled in this fight actually have the same goal, namely, to keep alive the memory of the student resistance group White Rose, and especially of the siblings Hans and Sophie Scholl. But those involved have been deeply divided about the right path to this goal since at least November 21st.
On that day, X – a board member of the [Y] task force – reported on the White Rose book by American author Ruth Hanna Sachs. This pursuit [Beschäftigung] was obviously very critical, as can be seen from the report on the meeting, Hohenloher Tagblatt, November 29, 2002.
In any case, Ruth Sachs, who is fascinated by White Rose and has recently published a book (“White Rose – Coming Together”) was more than annoyed by the report of the [Y] meeting. She feels that X has defamed her with his comments. In X’s report, he said that Sachs showed a typically American penchant for “sex and crime.” Furthermore, [he said], the author arrived at bold [kühn] and even misleading conclusions.
In an email to the editor of the Hohenloher Tagblatt, Sachs wrote that she found that “insulting.” “Instead of evaluating my work on its merits, X decided to attack me personally,” she wrote. She cannot understand the critical attitude of [Y], which, according to the follow-up report, expressed “incomprehension” [Unverständnis] and “consternation” [Entsetzen] at the meeting [regarding Sachs’ book].
The intensity of the conflict was surprising, as Sachs and X had gotten to know and appreciate one another over the past few years. In spring of this year, when the American was in Germany on a research trip, she made a special detour to Crailsheim and met with members of [Y]. See Hohenloher Tagblatt, May 7, [2002].*
In the meantime, it has become clear that although they are concerned with the same topic, they have very different approaches. While Ruth Sachs is interested in bringing the Scholl siblings down from their demigod pedestal** in order to be able to approach them as people, while she reports [berichten] on the Scholls’ everyday life and on their human strengths and weaknesses, X [on the other hand] is less interested in historical details. Rather, he sees the siblings as a symbol of a different, good Germany in the midst of the barbarism of Nazi rule.
Dr. Armin Ziegler, author of several books on the history of Crailsheim (he has just published the work ‘Crailsheim 1944 - a city in total war’), also draws attention to this conflict in a letter to the editorial team of the Hohenloher Tagblatt. Similar to Sachs, he deplores and criticizes the overpowering Scholl myth, which makes it difficult or impossible for historians to research the life and work of Hans and Sophie Scholl in detail - independently of Inge Scholl’s portrayal.
For Ziegler it is clear, that X “badly misrepresents Sachs’ intentions,” because in the USA she represents “vehemently” the Scholl matter. [Ziegler said that] in recent years [Sachs] has made a significant contribution to ensuring that the story of the two student resistance fighters, whose 60th anniversary of their death is on February 22, 2003, has become known to a broad public.***
*Among those present: Jörg Hartnagel, son of Fritz and Elisabeth Hartnagel nee Scholl. Jörg met with me off to the side at the end of the meeting. He said he was so happy to hear me speak publicly about Hans Scholl’s drug addiction, about Hans Scholl’s §175 paragraph 2 conviction (homosexual assault of a young boy under his command), about the dysfunctional Scholl family. He commented that they all knew those things, but no one talked about those matters out loud in the Scholl family.
When I sent him a copy of White Rose History, Volume I, he wrote me back after he read it, thanking me for what I had written. He even donated $100 to Center for White Rose Studies as a thank-you!
But when X went ballistic, he fell in line and attacked me along with the rest of the group in Crailsheim.
**Hohenloher Tagblatt took my words out of context. See my December 3, 2002 email above, where I had written that Hans and Sophie Scholl were no demigods, and therefore a history that included their story should be honest and truthful. That somehow turned into “bringing them down from their demigod pedestal.” The point is, they never were and are not now demigods. Nothing to bring them down from.
***If you think about it, this personal attack is a helluva recommendation for my histories!
December 9, 2002, email from X to Armin Ziegler
Dear Dr. Ziegler!
Actually, it’s not my place to contact you after you’ve moved our conversation to the Hohenloher Tagblatt. By the way, I presented your questions at the [Y] meeting as legitimate… in contrast to the bold [kühn] associations [Assoziationen] that Ruth Hanna made.
Now, since I wanted to read the Pervetin lines again self-critically (sic)… and have read them… I am even more outraged. I couldn’t help but pick up your Grimminger book… and now (as expected) I can’t explain why you defend Sachs and her way of working [Arbeitsweise].
I can’t imagine that you [Ziegler] would have claimed that H [Hans Scholl] was addicted to Pervetin based on snowstorm behavior (I’ve also seen crazy mountain guides!) and three unnamed witnesses (or did I miss them?). If RHS worked appropriately, her book could have been 40 pages shorter, which she devoted to providing evidence [awkward German]. Maybe it would have been 80 pages longer because the assumptions would have had to be accommodated.
Unthinkable with Dr. Ziegler!
We both know where the diagnoses from Volume 1 are supposed to lead in Volume 2. I’m now also inclined to make bold associations [kühne Assoziationen]!
But to be conciliatory: Your Grimminger book gives our circle and our [Y] work in Crailsheim a secure footing to get through wild Pervetin discussions or the like. By the way, your “Unfinished Story...” also helps because it has armed us [gewappnet] against RHS. You raise the question marks to which RHS provides no answers!
I will be really surprised if you would see “Coming Together” as the completion of the “Unfinished.”
Many thanks for your reliable information. X.
**Notes: In the meantime, a dozen White Rose books have plagiarized my information about Hans Scholl’s addiction to pervetin. No attribution, except to cite my sources, not me. It’s now common knowledge.
It’s also clear that X probably did not read even Volume I. The Histories are “unfinished” [unvollendet], because of blocked archives, not because Volume II would “finish” the story. But I digress.
Finally, the ellipses do not mean that I left anything out. That is X’s writing style. He also frequently confused “Sie” [formal You] with “sie” [she]. Since this is not a dissertation, I left his meaning intact. In other words, if he wrote, “sie hätten das nicht…” I translated as you.
December 11, 2002, Hohenloher Tagblatt
Tomorrow there is a “White Rose” meeting.
[Y] in Crailsheim invites you to a meeting in the new music hall on Thursday, December 12, 2002. The focus is on the discussion in the Hohenloher Tagblatt with the American writer Ruth Hanna Sachs and the Crailsheim historian Armin Ziegler. [Y] provides an opportunity for thorough information and discussion. You can take a look at “Coming Together,” the name of the Sachs paper (sic), part 1, which was published in the fall. [Y] is interested in conscientiously conducting the debate at the birthplace of Eugen Grimminger, Inge and Hans Scholl.
December 11, 2002, faxed letter from Dr. Armin Ziegler to X [after reading the above in the Hohenloher Tagblatt]
Dear X,
I would like to prevent damage that would be caused by further misunderstandings that may be difficult to clear up. This would be the case, for example, if you intended to introduce the point “Pervetin” into the discussion. I have to tell you in advance that this is not an invention of Ruth Sachs. Hans Scholl’s use of drugs is on the record. Any historian who has really studied the sources can provide you with written statements from people who were closely associated with Hans Scholl.
But does this discussion now have to be conducted in the manner in which it was suggested in your email to me yesterday? [Ziegler meant the December 9, 2002 email above, which was attached to the copy of this fax that he sent me.]
From my viewpoint, two issues have been conflated heretofore. Firstly, it is about the relationship between the social significance of the White Rose as symbol [versus] the results of historical research. That was the topic in the originally productive discussion between Ruth Sachs, you, and me. In my opinion, both can stand side by side if there is appropriate tolerance on the part of those involved.
But it also has to do with criticism of the book “Coming Together” by Ruth Sachs. Criticism is open to anyone who has dealt with the book. That is not a question. But there are rules for the form of criticism. [Criticism] must not devolve into personal insults and accusations against the author. If this happened in a lively discussion, apologies [Richtigstellungen] are necessary.
My advice – the advice of an older person [Ziegler was in his mid-70s when he wrote this] – to you would be: At tomorrow’s meeting you should express your regret for your formulation, “Ruth Sachs’ typically American propensity for ‘sex and crime’” and say that you had no intention of offending her personally. You also would not attribute a negative attitude towards White Rose to her [Sachs]. Your criticism is directed (if I understand this correctly) against the form of presentation of this English-language “narrative” [Erzählbuch], which could lead to misunderstandings for German readers - for whom the book is not intended at all.
There is a danger that a discussion about White Rose as a symbol will be damaged by the introduction of additional misleading factual details. Without any of those involved - including Ruth Sachs - intending this. Things like this can easily get out of hand.
Best regards,
Armin Ziegler.
*Note that the confirmation of Hans Scholl’s drug of choice as Pervetin was news to Dr. Ziegler, although he was well aware that Scholl suffered with addiction issues. He confirmed with my three sources (Schmorell, Huber, Wittenstein). So he knew my “conclusion” was impeccable.
December 16, 2002, email from Armin Ziegler to me
Subject: Miscellaneous
Sunday: Also nothing on the Sunday Internet site, no report of the Thursday meeting of [Y]. Also no emails on this topic.
To the topic of symbols:
We [Ziegler and I] are probably talking past one another, probably because I cannot completely put myself in your shoes. When I read your email [my very long response to X in advance of Y’s December meeting], my reaction was one you possibly will not understand. When they made the swastika the symbol of the National Socialist [governmental] system – I remember, as a young boy in Jungvolk, the Hitler Youth association for 10- to 14-year-olds, we were not familiar with it [the swastika]. Our troop used a so-called Victory Rune (half of the SS-runic symbol). It was a black cloth with a white symbol. And then I remember the Hitler Youth song, which also only spoke of “the flag.” The flag was therefore our symbol.
I believe I can almost remember the text, assuredly with memory errors. I can no longer remember what was a verse and what was the chorus. Our flag flutters ahead of us, our flag is the new era, our flag is more than eternity (may be a memory error), our flag is more than death (not a memory error). Then: Forward, forward, bright fanfares blare, forward, forward, youth knows no danger (and now my memory fails me).
All of that to say, flags are symbols. (For Russians, for example, hoisting the [Russian] flag over the destroyed Reichstag. For Americans, in every official building.)
But to use people as symbols, that is inappropriate. Because they are people, and human. Here we are in agreement.
I also very much agree with your demand for “thorough historical accounting for the years 1933-1945.” But that is possible only from a single point of view, thanks to the “political correctness” of people like X. (I am curious as to what the reaction will be to my book, ‘Crailsheim 1944 – A City in Total War.’ In addition to National Socialist demagogy and constraints, it also shows the suffering and people’s fulfillment of duty. Hopefully, backlash from “political do-gooders” is somewhat fair. Although things might not go so well for me, since I’m chipping away at the Scholls’ legend at the same time. Wait and see.)
With regards to your remarks about the 80- to 90-year-olds who say during Holocaust discussions that they did not know anything, I’d rather not get into that [now]. For many of them, that may have been the case. It is much more important when it is denied or trivialized today. And: For the people who lived next to Jews as neighbors back then, that they didn’t understand that they weren’t just Jews, but they were neighbors. At least in Germany.
To your question, the Holocaust will happen again. That is possible – but the form will be different. Where? Additionally: Holocausts [genocides] also took place subsequent to World War II. Somewhere in Africa. “Only” in Africa?
I will send this email now and address X more in-depth later.
**Armin Ziegler and I did indeed discuss the topics at the end of this email in much greater depth over the following months. I learned a lot from his painful honesty.
December 19, 2002, Hohenloher Tagblatt
Questions for the US author Sachs. What exactly is she implying. [She] hints at a too-close relationship between Hans and Sophie Scholl.
How to deal with the book by the American author Ruth Hanna Sachs? [Y] is currently working on this question. Sachs implies that Hans and Sophie Scholl had a too-close relationship.
In her book “Coming Together,” to date published only in the USA*, Ruth Hanna Sachs repeatedly implies that Hans and Sophie Scholl’s relationship was too close. This recently led X to remark that the typical American inclination towards “sex and crime” could be sensed in Sachs. This statement, in turn, greatly upset the author. She feels “insulted.” (As reported by Hohenloher Tagblatt.)
In its most recent meeting, [Y] dealt with the Sachs book and her statements about the sibling relationship between the two Scholls. The result: The author is asked to support her thesis using references. Furthermore, Sachs should explain what importance she attaches to her thesis in the context of White Rose history. Furthermore, [Y] has adopted a personal statement made by its chairman at the beginning of the most recent meeting.
Hohenloher Tagblatt is publishing this statement in its entirety. “I don't feel tied to Inge Aicher-Scholl’s so-called legends, since my access to White Rose did not come through her book. For me, the decisive factor in my commitment to the White Rose are the events that are historically completely clear: the opinions, however developed, that were articulated unmistakably and combatively by the leaflets and their calls for resistance against the National Socialist regime. In doing so, these people - they indeed are not demigods - consciously risked their lives and fought against the barbarism and racism of the so-called Third Reich.
“For me personally as a witness to the era [Zeitzeuge], that and the risking of their own lives are the only decisive things, that is the only truth that matters. I admire and revere [verehren] all the people who were part of the group. I really don’t have to justify the fact that the Scholls are in the foreground here in Crailsheim!
“Understand the desire”
“I completely understand and confess (sic) [gestehe] scholars if they strive to come to conclusions through research and combing through documents about how both external and internal events took place, right down to the personal and intimate level.
“Personally, I don’t necessarily need these enrichments of truth [Wahrheitsanreichreungen] to advocate for the memory of the White Rose. Perhaps these very personal glimpses make the story of these young students particularly exciting and powerful, especially for young people today.
“In this respect, I understand Ms. Ruth Sachs’ desire to explore as much authentic and personal material as possible for her work and I respect and recognize her commitment to the cause of White Rose.
[Not sure whether the following is part of the statement, or if it is by the Hohenloher Tagblatt “reporter.” It seems to be the latter, but there’s no closed quotation marks.]
The American author complained in emails to conversation partners in Germany that researchers including her often have difficulty accessing “White Rose” archives. Inge Aicher-Scholl in particular supposedly did not permit free research [into the Scholl archives]. Until the death of Aicher-Scholl in 1998, the archives were located in Rotis im Allgäu. In the meantime, her son Manuel bequeathed [should read “sold”] the extensive documents to the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich. At the moment, they [the documents] are being archived. Upon inquiry from the Hohenloher Tagblatt yesterday, we were assured that the [Scholl] archives will be freely open next year [2003].**
*“Only published in the USA.” But X, and Hartnagel parents, and Hartnagel son, and every single White Rose person I interviewed had already received a copy. Read Erich Schmorell’s review here. With postscript: It's been plagiarized by at least two German "scholars" who simply used my work and palmed it off as their own. Book reviews will follow.
**Of course, the Scholl archives still are not open in May 2024. Or in November 2026.
January 8, 2003, Hohenloher Tagblatt
[Y] in Crailsheim invites you to a meeting in the Albert Schweitzer Gymnasium on Thursday, January 9, 2003. Topic is once again the discussion with the American author Ruth Hanna Sachs, which has also been held [Gespräch führen] here in the Hohenloher Tagblatt. Also to be discussed: February 18, the 60th anniversary of the date on which the Scholl siblings’ [!] leaflet operation took place.
**Stressing that no conversation was taking place. By this time, Armin Ziegler and I had washed our hands of both the person X and the group [Y]. They were spitting into the wind, as far as we were concerned.
The January 28, 2003, Hohenloher Tagblatt
Jörg Hartnagel, Sophie Scholl’s nephew, criticizes US writer.
The conflict between [Y] and the American writer Ruth Hanna Sachs has escalated. While the author feels insulted by [Y], [Y] accuses her of being unable to prove her thesis.
The author’s main claim - in a nutshell and abbreviated - is the following: Hans Scholl had a relationship with his sister Sophie, was a drug addict, and endangered the lives of other people through his egocentricity. This prompted [Y] to request that the author provide information to support her claims.
She at least partially complied with this request in her answer.* In her opinion, there was an “unhealthy relationship” between Sophie and Hans Scholl. The younger sister is said to have lived in a kind of psychological dependence on the older, dominant brother and Hans is said to have exploited Sophie for his political purposes.** But [Y] cannot recognize any “historical quality” in either her statements or in Sachs’ White Rose book, “Coming Together,” as stated in a statement adopted at the most recent meeting. Sachs is accused of trying to be an “amateur psychologist” and of carrying out questionable analyses, results she only hints at.
Jörg Hartnagel, a son of Elisabeth Hartnagel née Scholl, is a member of [Y] and has dealt intensively with the Sachs book. Sophie Scholl’s nephew comes to a clear conclusion: “Wherever you investigate Ruth Hanna Sachs, nothing remains but her pathological hatred of the Scholls.”
The scolded woman [die Gescholtene] has a completely different opinion: “Anyone who reads my book knows immediately how much I love these young people,” she writes in an email to the Hohenloher Tagblatt editors.
She asks [Y] to give itself another name [the name of Y implies that they promote the study of White Rose resistance, not just Scholls]. Although [Y] has White Rose in its name, it only deals with the Scholls. But the student resistance group had more members than just Hans and Sophie Scholl. The gap between Sachs and [Y] is now so deep that the collaboration, which began last year with a meeting in Crailsheim, can only be viewed as terminated.
Meanwhile, [Y] is preparing an event to mark the 60th anniversary of Hans and Sophie Scholl’s arrest. The siblings were caught distributing leaflets against the Nazi regime on February 18, 1943. On February 18, 2003, the Scholls’ resistance activities will be remembered at an event in Crailsheim.
*I had sent a multi-page document to [Y] detailing answers to their specific questions, which they “took up” at their December meeting. The intellectual dishonesty of the formulation here, where it sounds like I had not defended my “thesis” until after the January meeting? Not sure whether X or Hohenloher Tagblatt is to blame for the defamation here.
**[Y] completely missed the point. In my pre-December-meeting response, I pointed them to John Bradshaw’s excellent book entitled On the Family. Forever referred to as “the red book about family.” Bradshaw was one of the first psychologists to explain codependency - usually involving an addictive family member - in layman’s terms.
In the early 1990s, when a very close friend was ordered by a court to work through issues that had caused his illegal behavior, that court order specified that I, my friend, and a psychologist must read this book together, so my friend could address his codependent behavior involving family members. [For what it’s worth, I did NOT want to do that, because it’s scary. But I cared about this person more than I was afraid of what would be dredged up.]
I explained all of that - including a recommendation that they read Bradshaw - to [Y]. Dr. Ziegler sort of laughed when he read my draft email. You know they’re not going to pay attention to a word you write in your explanation. They’ve already made up their minds. Once again, he was right.
January 25, 2003, I sent a copy of White Rose History, Volume I to the reporter at Hohenloher Tagblatt. No thanks, no comment, no response.
May 9, 2024 note: This story has a sad ending, at least for me. Armin Ziegler was prescient. Once his hometown not-friends understood what he had written in his Crailsheim 1944 book, once they grasped that his Scholl book – like mine – called out the legend, he too became persona non grata.
For me, I could walk away from person X and group [Y] with little damage to my psyche. I had no close personal connections to anyone in Crailsheim. Yes, at one time I had liked X. He can be funny in real life. But even in April 2002 during our Crailsheim detour, doubts crept in about his willingness to talk about Crailsheim, White Rose, and Scholls during the war in honest terms. Non-White Rose example: In April 2002, he told me that Crailsheim had protected its Jewish citizens. A few months later, Armin Ziegler dug up newspaper reports that proved the opposite. Crailsheim was the first city in Germany to sponsor a government-approved pogrom against its Jewish residents.
When X refused to apologize, and instead doubled down, my dear Armin Ziegler counseled me to move on. I did, because I could. Ziegler, Don’t quote him. He is enjoying the controversy. Don’t give him the satisfaction. Sage advice.
Dr. Ziegler defended my work so stridently to the people at Hohenloher Tagblatt and [Y], because he had read every word of White Rose History, Volume I at least two or three times before it was released. Our debates were fun. You’ll see in the footnotes that I sometimes wrote, “Dr. Ziegler believes this or that, but it’s my book, so I’m sticking with my conclusion. But I want you to know what he said.” Because with me, his opinion carried weight.
For Dr. Ziegler, this rift became irreparable. But he lost far more. He was born and raised in Crailsheim, although he lived near Stuttgart when I knew him. He lost place and people who were woven into his life.
Not too long after this unnecessary fiasco, Dr. Armin Ziegler walked away from White Rose research. He made copies of everything that he and I had been talking about, his works in progress – Gisela Schertling, Hans Hirzel, Susanne Hirzel, Jürgen Wittenstein, and even more about Scholls – and sent me the copies. “You may not publish them until after my death.”
In November 2016, I called him when I was in Stuttgart. “May I come visit? It’s been too long?”
“No, my dear, no. I am dying. I do not want you to remember me this way. I want you to remember our good conversations, our arguments, our friendship. Not dying. Please respect my wishes and stay away. It is hard enough talking to you, as I may start crying, and I am not supposed to cry. Just know, just know…” And he did not have to say more. I knew.
He had boxed up everything and put it in his basement. He had not written much of anything after 2003. It wasn’t worth it.
Part of our 2025/2026 work entails locating Ziegler’s children and buying the originals from them. If they kept them. He did work few others (besides me, and those aren’t empty words) even attempted. Because - when we publish Ziegler’s correspondence with the Hirzels, with Wittenstein, with people who shed firsthand light on the group of friends we call White Rose, your mind will be blown. You’ll like the core group even more. But you’ll be disgusted - just wait.
So to honor him, to honor me, please think about the questions at the top of this post.
- Can people be national “symbols” – untouchable?
- How do we proceed when a legend, such as the Inge Scholl legend about her siblings, has become entrenched because of government funding (both USA and Germany) and unwillingness of “historians” to challenge the legend? Especially, as is the case here, when the three major sources and driving forces behind the legend were all überzeugte (convinced) Nazis during the war? I am, of course, speaking of Inge Scholl, Franz Josef Müller, and Jürgen Wittenstein.
- What is the definition of a hero? And how should historians write about heroes?
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 enjoyed this post and would like to leave me a tip, I would be grateful! Buy Me A Coffee!
© 2024 Denise Elaine Heap. Please contact us for permission to quote. Dr. Armin Ziegler granted me permission to publish docments from his archives after his death. I am grateful to him for his generosity. Hohenloher Tagblatt articles © 2002 Hohenloher Tagblatt. Fair use.
Image credits: 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.
