21 January 1943

21 January 1943

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

21 January 1943

January 1943


War at Sea

German submarine U-301 lost in the Mediterranean

North African campaign

The North African campaign of the Second World War took place in North Africa from 10 June 1940 to 13 May 1943. It included campaigns fought in the Libyan and Egyptian deserts (Western Desert Campaign, also known as the Desert War) and in Morocco and Algeria (Operation Torch), as well as Tunisia (Tunisia Campaign).

British Empire

  • United Kingdom
  • India
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
  • South Africa

United States [nb 1]
Free France

  • Algeria[nb 1]
  • Tunisia[nb 1]
  • Morocco[nb 1]


  • Libya


Vichy France [nb 2]

  • Algeria[nb 2]
  • Tunisia[nb 2]
  • Morocco[nb 2]

The campaign was fought between the Allies, many of whom had colonial interests in Africa dating from the late 19th century, and the Axis Powers. [12] [13] The Allied war effort was dominated by the British Commonwealth and exiles from German-occupied Europe. The United States officially entered the war in December 1941 and began direct military assistance in North Africa on 11 May 1942.

Canada provided a small contingent of 201 commissioned officers and 147 non-commissioned officers. [14]

Fighting in North Africa started with the Italian declaration of war on 10 June 1940. On 14 June, the British Army's 11th Hussars (assisted by elements of the 1st Royal Tank Regiment, 1st RTR) crossed the border from Egypt into Libya and captured the Italian Fort Capuzzo. This was followed by an Italian counter-offensive into Egypt and the capture of Sidi Barrani in September and its recapture by the British in December following a British Commonwealth counteroffensive, Operation Compass. During Operation Compass, the Italian 10th Army was destroyed and the German Afrika Korps—commanded by Erwin Rommel, who later became known as "The Desert Fox"—was dispatched to North Africa in February 1941 during Operation Sonnenblume to reinforce Italian forces in order to prevent a complete Axis defeat.

A fluctuating series of battles for control of Libya and regions of Egypt followed, reaching a climax in the Second Battle of El Alamein in October 1942 when British Commonwealth forces under the command of Lieutenant-General Bernard Montgomery inflicted a decisive defeat on Rommel's Afrika Korps and forced its remnants into Tunisia. After the Anglo-American landings (Operation Torch) in North-West Africa in November 1942, and subsequent battles against Vichy France forces (who then changed sides), the Allies encircled several hundred thousand German and Italian personnel in northern Tunisia and finally forced their surrender in May 1943.

Information gleaned via British Ultra code-breaking intelligence proved critical to Allied success in North Africa. Victory for the Allies in this campaign immediately led to the Italian Campaign, which culminated in the downfall of the fascist government in Italy and the elimination of Germany's main European ally.

The North Africa campaign was often labeled a "war without hate," a pure military clash in the desert without the partisan roundups and ethnic cleansing happening in Europe. This view has been challenged by recent historians, given that there were indeed many civilians who lived in the region, [15] and the campaign was marked by numerous atrocities and abuses by both German and Italian forces towards prisoners of war and local Jewish, Berber, and Arab populations. [16] They were often motivated by racism and anti-semitism. [17]

White Rose History: January 1933 – October 1943

Chief Prosecutor of the People’s Court – Berlin, February 21, 1943

H = Main Volume, S = Supplemental Volume.

I herewith charge the following persons:

/S2/ 1. Hans Fritz Scholl from Munich, born September 22, 1918 in Ingersheim, single, no prior convictions, taken into temporary custody on February 18, 1943,

/S1/ 2. Sophia Magdalena Scholl from Munich, born May 9, 1921 in Forchtenberg, single, no prior convictions, taken into temporary custody on February 18, 1943,

/S1/ 3. Christoph Hermann Probst from Aldrans near Innsbruck, born November 6, 1919 in Murnau, married, no prior convictions, taken into temporary custody on February 20, 1943.

All are currently held in the prison located at State Police Headquarters in Munich.

All are currently without defense counsel.

I herewith indict the above for jointly undertaking the following actions in Munich, Augsburg, Salzburg, Vienna, Stuttgart, and Linz in 1942 and 1943:

I. Preliminary actions of high treason with intention of changing the constitution of the Reich by force. Actions included:

1. Creating an organization for purposes of high treason

2. Attempting to render the army unfit for fulfillment of its duty to protect the German Reich against attacks from domestic or foreign elements

3. Influencing the masses by production and distribution of documents.

II. Aiding and abetting the enemies of the Reich here at home and inflicting damage on the ability of the Reich to wage war, this during a time of crisis in the Reich.

III. Seeking to publicly cripple and destroy the will of the German people for militaristic self-determination.

Felonies in accordance with § 80, par. 2 and 3, No. 1, 2, 3, §§ 91b, 47, 73 StGB, and § 5 of the Special War-Time Penal Code.

In the summer of 1942, as well as January and February 1943, the accused Hans Scholl produced and distributed leaflets in which he demanded that National Socialism be called to account. He called for separation from the “subhumanity” of National Socialism for passive resistance and for sabotage. In addition, he painted graffiti throughout Munich, [specifically the words] “Down with Hitler” and a crossed-out swastika. The accused Sophie Scholl assisted with the writing, production, and distribution of the inflammatory leaflets. The accused Probst wrote the draft of one leaflet.

Significant Conclusion of the Investigations.

/SI 4-B/ 1. The father of the accused Scholl [Note 1] was mayor of Forchtenberg until 1930. Later he was a business consultant in Ulm on the Danube. The accused Scholls have three siblings: two sisters and one brother, who is currently in the army. The State Police Headquarters in Stuttgart brought charges of “bündische” [Note 2] activities against the accused Scholl and his brother Werner and his sister Inge, which led to their being taken into temporary custody. Hans Scholl attended the Oberrealschule [Note 3] in 1937, he volunteered for the army. In 1939 he began his medical studies after being called up to the army, he continued his medical studies in April 1941. Most recently, he belonged to the Student Company in Munich, with rank of Sergeant. He paid for his education with his war wages and with an allowance from his father. In 1933, Scholl joined Jungvolk [Note 4] and later Hitler Youth.

2. The accused Sophia Scholl was initially employed as a kindergarten teacher. Since the summer of 1942, she has been studying Natural Science and Philosophy at the University of Munich. She has belonged to the League of German Girls since 1941, with final rank of Gruppenführerin [Group Leader].

3. The accused Probst attended the Gymnasium [Note 5] in Nuremberg. After fulfilling his duty in the Reich Labor Service, he volunteered for the army. Later he became a medical student. Most recently he belonged to the Student Company in Innsbruck with the rank of sergeant in the medical corps.

In the Summer of 1942, the so-called “Leaflets of the White Rose” were distributed throughout Munich by mail. The inflammatory pamphlets contained attacks against National Socialism, particularly against its cultural-political endeavors. In addition, the leaflets contain reports of the alleged atrocities of National Socialism, namely the alleged murder of Jews and the alleged deportation of Polish nationals. In addition, the leaflets contain the demand to “hinder the progress of the atheistic war machine” by means of passive resistance, before it was too late and before every last city were reduced to rubble as Cologne had been [and before] the nation’s youth had hemorrhaged to death for the “hubris of a subhuman.” In Leaflet No. II, it said that a wave of insurrection must travel throughout the land. If “it were in the air”, if many people participated, then this system could be thrown off with one last powerful effort. An end with terror were always better than terror without end. In Leaflet No. III, the notion is developed that the ruin of National Socialism is the essence and goal of passive resistance. In this battle, one must not shrink back from any path, from any deed. National Socialism must be attacked at every point in which it is vulnerable to attack. The first concern of every German must not be a military victory, but rather the defeat of National Socialism. Every staunch opponent of National Socialism must ask himself how he can fight the current “State” most effectively and where he can deal it the most damaging blows. To accomplish this, sabotage is necessary – sabotage in the armaments industry and other industries that are crucial to the war effort, obstruction of smooth-running function of the war machine, sabotage of all National Socialist organizations, as well as of all scientific and intellectual spheres of activity.

At that time, a total of 4 different leaflets of this type were distributed in Munich.

In January and February 1943, two different inflammatory pamphlets were circulated by means of distribution operations and by mail. One bears the inscription “Leaflets of the Resistance Movement in Germany” and the other “Fellow Students!” or “German Students!” In the first leaflet, the notion is developed that the war were heading for its certain end. But indeed, the German government were attempting to divert attention to the growing submarine threat. All the while, the armies in the East were [supposedly] retreating incessantly, an invasion were expected from the West, and the arms build-up in America apparently surpassed anything that had ever taken place in history. There was allegedly no way that Hitler could win the war he could only prolong it. The German people, who were said to have followed their seducers to destruction, would now have to separate themselves from the National Socialist subhumanity and prove through their actions that they thought differently. One was not to believe the National Socialist propaganda, which supposedly infused the nation with a fear of Bolshevism. Nor was one to believe that Germany were wed to National Socialism for better or for worse.

The second leaflet developed the notion that with regards to the battle waged by the 6th Army in Stalingrad, there were unrest among the German people as to whether they should continue to entrust the fate of our armies to a dilettante. The German people were allegedly looking to students to break the National Socialist terror by the power of the spirit.

1. The accused Hans Scholl had long harbored misgivings regarding the political state of affairs. He had reached the conclusion that it was not the bulk of the German people, but rather the intelligentsia who had failed politically – not only in 1918, but also after the National Socialists came to power. He believed that it was only for this reason that mass movements, with their simple slogans, were able to drown out more meaningful philosophical work. He perceived it to be his duty to show middle-class intelligentsia what their political duties entailed, which he understood to be the battle against National Socialism, among other things. He therefore decided to produce and distribute leaflets which would disseminate his ideas among the broad masses. He purchased a duplicating machine, and with the assistance of his friend Alexander Schmorell – with whom he often discussed his political views – he acquired a typewriter. He then wrote the first draft of the first leaflet of the “White Rose,” and allegedly working alone made approximately 100 copies [of the leaflet]. He then mailed these to addresses that he had chosen from the Munich telephone directory. He particularly targeted academicians, but also innkeepers, because he hoped that the latter would spread the news about the contents of the leaflets. He subsequently produced three additional leaflets of the “White Rose” that he allegedly wrote by himself the contents of these leaflets are described in Part II of this indictment. These were likewise mailed.

He was prevented from publishing additional pamphlets due to his assignment [to active duty] on the Eastern Front in July 1942. He said that he partly raised the funds required for the production of the pamphlets himself, while some of the funds were given to him by his friend Schmorell.

According to statements made by the accused Hans Scholl, the name “White Rose” was randomly selected and is attributable to a Spanish novel with this title. The accused Hans Scholl claims that initially there were no plans for the formation of an organization. It was later, namely at the beginning of 1943, that he embraced the plan of establishing an organization that would disseminate his ideas. He supposedly has not yet made an attempt to rally like-minded people.

At the beginning of 1943, the accused Hans Scholl claims he came to the conclusion that there was only one way to preserve Europe, namely by shortening the war. At the time, he had been furloughed from his unit for the purpose of [continuing his] studies at the University of Munich. He decided to publicize [Note 6] this view and therefore once again drafted two leaflets with the titles already mentioned in Part II of the indictment. He produced around 7,000 pieces altogether. Of these, he disseminated approximately 5,000 in downtown Munich and mailed numerous additional pamphlets. At the end of January 1943, he traveled to Salzburg and mailed between 100 and 150 letters from the post office at the train station the letters contained the leaflets he had produced. In addition, Schmorell posted another 1500 inflammatory pamphlets in Linz and Vienna he had traveled there with Scholl’s approval. Scholl paid for some of the travel costs to Linz and Vienna. Finally, Scholl had his sister Sophia take around 1000 letters containing inflammatory material to Augsburg and Stuttgart, where she mailed them. After the setbacks in the East had been announced, Hans Scholl once again produced leaflets, whereby he gave the draft of the ‘Student’ leaflet a new title. He mailed several hundred pieces of this leaflet. He took the addresses from the student directory of the University of Munich. On February 18, 1943, he and his sister also scattered additional inflammatory leaflets. On this occasion, he was observed by the witness Schmied and was apprehended. /REG/

At the beginning of 1943, the accused Hans Scholl challenged his friend – the accused Probst – to write down his thoughts about current events. Scholl had spoken his mind about political matters with Probst for a long time. Probst then sent him a draft that undoubtedly was to be duplicated and distributed, though indeed this never took place. When Scholl was apprehended, this draft was found in the pocket of his clothes [Note 7].

At the end of January 1943, the accused Scholl decided to also make propaganda [Note 8] by painting graffiti on buildings. This was at Schmorell’s suggestion. Schmorell made a template for him with the words “Down with Hitler” and a crossed-out swastika, and procured paint and paintbrush. At the beginning of February 1943, Hans Scholl (together with Schmorell) painted such graffiti on several buildings in Munich using black tar-based paint. The places included the pillars of the university, the National Theater, the Ministry of Economics, and the Playhouse [Note 9].

2. The accused Sophia Scholl participated in political discussions as early as the summer of 1942. During these discussions, she and her brother Hans Scholl came to believe that Germany had all but lost the war. She shared her brother’s view that one must make propaganda against the war by producing leaflets. Of course she does not remember whether the idea for producing these leaflets originated with her or her brother. She alleges that she did not participate in the production and distribution of the documents entitled “The White Rose” and that she first learned of them when a female friend showed her a leaflet. In contrast, she confesses that she participated in the production and distribution of leaflets in January 1943. She and her brother co-wrote the text of the inflammatory pamphlet “Leaflets of the Resistance Movement in Germany.” In addition, she participated in the purchase of duplicating paper, envelopes, and stencils, and together with her brother, she produced the copies of this document. She also supported her brother in the writing of the addresses [for the documents] that were mailed. In addition, at her brother’s behest she took the express train to Augsburg and Stuttgart where she mailed these prepared letters from several different mailboxes. Moreover, she participated in the dissemination of leaflets in Munich by placing leaflets in telephone booths and parked autos.

The accused Sophia Scholl likewise participated in the production and distribution of the ‘Student’ leaflets. She accompanied her brother to the university, was observed scattering the leaflets, and was apprehended along with him.

The accused Sophie Scholl did not participate in the graffiti operation. Once she learned of it, of course she offered her services for subsequent activities. She even told her brother that it would be good camouflage for their activities if a woman were present.

The accused Sophia Scholl knew that her brother was spending large sums of money on the production of the inflammatory pamphlets. She even acted as cashier for her brother, who did not worry very much about money matters. She was their bookkeeper and gave him the money he needed for these purposes.

3. The accused Probst frequently visited the Scholl siblings and shared their opinions. At the request of the accused Hans Scholl, he wrote the above-mentioned draft of his position on the political aspects of current events. Of course he claims that he did not know that Scholl would use that draft for a leaflet, but admitted that it was not unclear [Note 10] to him that [the document] could [be perceived] as illegal propaganda.

The accused essentially admitted their guilt.

I. The admissions of the accused in Supplemental Volumes I – III

II. The expert witness of police headquarters in Munich: H 9/R

1. Maintenance man Jakob Schmied, Munich, Türken Str. 33/I.

3. Police officials yet to be named.

1.) The typewriters, duplicating machine, template, paint, and brushes that were seized

2.) The leaflets and photographs in the enclosed volume.

In accordance with the agreement reached between the Chief of Staff of the Supreme High Command of the Armed Forces and the Reich Minister of Justice, this case has been remanded to the People’s Court for trial and resolution.

The trial before the People’s Court shall be so ordered, that the continuance of interrogative custody pending trial shall end, and that the accused shall be assigned court-appointed counsel.

/Signature: Weyersberg/

“Accused Scholl” is singular here instead of plural.

Participating in youth groups other than Hitler Youth. The charges were brought even though Hans and Inge remained members of HY.

[4] Young boys’ section of Hitler Youth.

[5] College preparatory secondary school.

[6] The writer of the indictment used the word “propagieren”, which does in fact mean publicize, but would carry the negative connotation of propaganda.

[7] The compound noun makes this distinction. IE, not necessarily coat pocket. Very vague, however not pants pocket as would be expected.

[8] Propaganda machen. It is likely clumsy in the original language.

[10] Clumsy grammatical construction “not unclear” is from the original document.

White Rose History: January 1933 – October 1943

Report [Note 1] Catalog [No.] [blank]
District Court, Munich
Criminal Court Division

Interrogation of the Accused [Note 2]

In the investigation of Scholl Hans Fritz

For high treason and aiding and abetting the enemy

Munich, February 21, 1943.

| Present: District Court Judge, Dr. Zeller, Upper District Court
| Court Clerk: Nestler.

The accused was interrogated in accordance with §136 St PO, as follows:

Personal data: Scholl Hans Fritz, the rest as in the file.

During several thorough police interrogations, I have been heard [Note 3] in every detail with regards to all the facts of the matter. My statements have been recorded in the records dated February 18 – 21, 1943 (Supplementary Volume I pages 2 – 25 R.). These statements, which moreover are present at this time, have been re-read to me as part of a detailed conference. I herewith make them an exhibit to my deposition. Naturally I denied everything at the beginning. I gradually made a true confession.

/Form 10. J.G. Weiβ’che Printers and Publishers, Munich./

Immediately preceding this deposition, I have also had to correct statements I gave to the police, because in their previous form they did not correspond to the truth. This has to do with the leaflets of the “White Rose”.

I said and now briefly repeat that together with Schmorell, I wrote, produced, and distributed these 4 different leaflets @ 100 copies each . In particular I make reference to the statements I made to the police, which I am now expressly making an exhibit to my deposition.

In this interrogation, I also reported:

My sister knew nothing of the first graffiti operation. I only told her about it after the fact. She requested that she be allowed to participate in subsequent operations of that sort. But I denied her request. She did however know before the 2nd and 3rd graffiti operations what Schmorell and I intended to do.

I have nothing else to report or to add.

In conclusion, the following was announced:

A warrant for the arrest

Of the accused Scholl Hans Fritz is [herewith] issued.

By his actions, the accused is under strong suspicion of conspiracy to undertake a treasonous activity, of conspiracy to aid and abet the enemy, of conspiracy to demoralize the armed forces. Imprisonment is hereby ordered, because there is a risk of flight due to the severity of the charges.

Read aloud, approved, and signed by: /Signature: Hans Scholl/

District Court Munich – Investigating Judge 2 /Signature: Dr. Zeller/ District Court

/Signature: [Illegible]/ Chief Secr.

Note 1: Anzeige is also the word used for “denunciation”.

Note 2: This document is in the file twice – once signed, once unsigned.-Ed.

Another plot to kill Hitler foiled

On March 21, 1943, the second military conspiracy plan to assassinate Hitler in a week fails.

Back in the summer of 1941, Maj. Gen. Henning von Tresckow, a member of Gen. Fedor von Bock’s Army Group Center, was the leader of one of many conspiracies against Adolf Hitler. Along with his staff officer, Lt. Fabian von Schlabrendorff, and two other conspirators, both of old German families who also believed Hitler was leading Germany to humiliation, Tresckow had planned to arrest the Fuhrer when he visited the Army Group’s headquarters at Borisov, in the Soviet Union. But their naïveté in such matters became evident when Hitler showed up—surrounded by SS bodyguards and driven in one of a fleet of cars. They never got near him.

Tresckow would try again on March 13, 1943, in a plot called Operation Flash. This time, Tresckow, Schlabrendorff, et al., were stationed in Smolensk, still in the USSR. Hitler was planning to fly back to Rastenburg, Germany, from Vinnitsa, in the USSR. A stopover was planned at Smolensk, during which the Fuhrer was to be handed a parcel bomb by an unwitting officer thinking it was a gift of liquor for two senior officers at Rastenburg. All went according to plan and Hitler’s plane took off—the bomb was set to go off somewhere over Minsk. At that point, co-conspirators in Berlin were ready to take control of the central government at the mention of the code word 𠇏lash.” Unfortunately, the bomb never went off at all as the detonator was defective.

A week later on March 21, on Heroes’ Memorial Day, (a holiday honoring German World War I dead), Tresckow selected Col. Freiherr von Gersdorff to act as a suicide bomber at the Zeughaus Museum in Berlin, where Hitler was to attend the annual memorial dedication. With a bomb planted in each of his two coat pockets, Gersdorff was to sidle up to Hitler as he reviewed the memorials and ignite the bombs, taking the dictator out𠅊long with himself and everyone in the immediate vicinity. Schlabrendorff supplied Gersdorff with bombs�h with a 10-minute fuse.

Once at the exhibition hall, Gersdorff was informed that the Fuhrer was to inspect the exhibits for only eight minutes—not enough time for the fuses to melt down.

White Rose History: January 1933 – October 1943

Secret State Police [Gestapo] – Munich, February 21, 1943
State Police Headquarters Munich
II A / Sond. / Mah. [Special Commission / Mahler]

In a subsequent interrogation, the single male, medical student

born on September 22, 1918 in Ingersheim, made the following statements:

I am a member of the German Alpine Club, Munich branch, because I am an enthusiastic mountain climber and skier. I have spent a great deal of time in the country house of Professor Eduard Borchers in [Bad] Tölz, Haus Rosswies [Note 1], as well as in the home of Professor Hartert (Chief Public Health Officer) in [Bad] Tölz at Kalvarienberg 1, as well as in Zell near Ruhpolding in the home of (Mrs.) Dr. Probst.

I have primarily frequented the cabins of the Alpine Club as follows: The Bavaria Cabin near Lenggries the Tutzinger Cabin near Benediktbeuren the Ehrwalder Alm near Ehrwald and the Coburg Cabin near Ehrwald. In previous years I went to the mountains alone and met up there with the Borchers children and Hellmuth [sic] Hartert.

This past winter (1942/1943), my sister Sofie Scholl and my girlfriend Gisela Schertling went with me to Ehrwald once. We took the cable car up the Zugspitze.

Pentecost 1942 my sister Inge Scholl and I were in Vorderrieβ [sic] and I think it was a year earlier, I was also in Vorderrieβ with Rose Nägele.

Schmorell and I never went to the mountains together. I know that he often visited our mutual acquaintance Christoph Probst in Zell near Ruhpolding. I do not know whether he made trips to other mountain regions.

In Munich, Schmorell primarily associated with Christl Probst and me. But I do know that he knows some of the Russian immigrants who visit him at his home. I only know them by their first names. I know that one is named Andrej, a girl is named Natja, and there is also a man whose surname is Nalbandoff. The latter resides on Mauerkircher Street, street number unknown. I know this man a little better, because he gave me Russian lessons. I cannot name other acquaintances that Schmorell may have. I cannot make any additional statements about the conduct of these Russian immigrants because I hardly know them. Of course I saw them now and again in Schmorell’s residence, but I hardly ever talked with them.

After being shown a letter from Prof. Karl Muth (residing in Munich-Solln) to me dated October 19, 1942, I will give the following explanation: Muth wrote this letter under the influence of the air raid on Munich. I myself was at the Eastern Front at the time. I could not say to what extent his description about the results of the air raid represents the facts of the matter, because I did not verify his statements. But I am aware that an air raid always looks worse than it actually is. I can therefore well imagine that Professor Muth had no intention of exaggerating. This would be contrary to his entire nature.

Professor Muth is from Worms. He would have gotten his information about the results of the air raids in Cologne, Düsseldorf, Mainz etc. from letters he received from family and friends in that region, as well as from the daily news. I know that Prof. Muth never exaggerates. When he says in his letter that the house of B. is no longer inhabitable, he means the writer Werner Bergengrün.

To the question as to what Professor Muth meant with his statements that the inner life is always growing warmer and deeper, I will make the following statement: By “inner life” one generally understands this to mean the life of the soul, in contrast to the external [life]. Professor Muth is a thoroughly religious character. In his old age, his thoughts are not so much directed at the temporal, but rather at the supernatural. Professor Muth has neither influenced, incited, nor encouraged my activities. He knows absolutely nothing of my activities.

Upon being required to make a statement with regards to the letter written by Sergeant Raimund Sammüller (medic), currently on the Eastern Front, address unknown, I offer the following explanation: Currently, Sammüller is likely under the direct influence of the Polish Baroque. I know that he is personally acquainted with the Austrian Baroque, which he has loved for a very long time. We are both great admirers of this era in art history, which arose out of the spirit of the Counterreformation and perhaps represented the last great cultural unity in Europe. When we juxtapose Rembrandt as a pondering individual up against Rubens in certain aspects, this has a universally accepted basis in art history [Note 2]. Rubens is representative of the catholic insofar as he loves the creation above all else, as it exists and primarily in all its glory and variety. Therefore he is catholic in the literal, but not in the theological, sense, that is, all-embracing.

With regards to the envelope addressed to me, postmarked Bonn April 7, 1942 – on the back side of the envelope the ABCs, and then under that various numbers – this has to do with a stupid and superficial joke, one that has appeared many times in the history of the world. It is well-known that in the apocalypse there is talk of the number 666. Harmless spirits have repeatedly tried to pin this number on various persons. It is well-known that the names of the emperor Nero and various popes have been mentioned in connection with this. Recently, there have been attempts to link this number to Hitler’s name, namely in the following manner: Under each letter of the alphabet, one writes the corresponding number, beginning with A equaling 100. I and J must be listed separately [Note 3], otherwise this does not work. If you then add up the values of all the letters in the word Hitler, you arrive at the sum of 666. I think this is a silly joke and stupid. Some colleague or the other told me about that number game. I have never made any propaganda using it. I also do not know who could have done so.

After being shown the last paragraph in a letter [Note 4] from Traude Lafrenz, now residing in Munich, Steinsdorf Str. 7, c/o Gmeling, I will give the following explanation: I do not know what she meant by F.s. It certainly had nothing to do with an organization or anything like that. Lafrenz is of no consequence at all to me. I did not care in the least what she meant by “stupid people” and “truly smart”. She herself can likely give the best explanation of that matter.

The document “Leaflet of the Resistance Movement in Germany” that I have just been shown, that was duplicated using a typewriter, is undoubtedly a copy of the document of the same name that I disseminated. However, it did not originate with me. I never disseminated documents that were prepared in this manner.

When we returned home from our long trip to Russia, we arrived late at night. We were filthy, full of lice and bugs. I did not know where I should go, so Alexander Schmorell invited me to spend the night at his house and to bathe there. No sooner said than done. On that occasion, I left letters that had been with my dirty laundry at the Schmorell’s house. That is why they were found there. Otherwise, I have nothing to confess.

Recorded by: /Signature: Mahler/

Read and signed by: /Signature: Hans Scholl/

Present: /Signature: Berger/

Note 1: In Upper Bavaria, houses are often known by their names more than by their addresses. Rosswies means Horse Meadow.

Note 2: Grammatical construction of sentence in original document is poor.

Note 3: In the 1940s, upper case I was still written and typed with a J (old linguistics usage), although lower case “i” and j were not the same.

White Rose History: January 1933 – October 1943

Since we’re trying to add data to this history “blog” with White Rose inner circle first, spreading out from there, perhaps it does not make sense to do Gisela Schertling next. After all, she was not part of White Rose resistance. If anything, she caused much of the discord within the group.

Because Gisela Schertling was 100% a Nazi. She believed in Hitler’s cause with every ounce of her being. (Which makes Hans and Sophie Scholl’s friendship with her puzzling indeed.)

We are adding Gisela Schertling’s Gestapo interrogation transcripts next because she was 100% a Nazi. She quickly broke down and told the Gestapo everything they wanted to know. In some cases, she volunteered information they had not requested.

For that reason, her interrogations give us detailed information about their activities from the first of January 1943 until their arrests. Detailed – and accurate – information.

Interestingly (and psychologists should study Gisela Schertling), somewhere along the line, Gisela had a true jailhouse conversion. By the time of the third White Rose trial on July 13, 1943, she had had a change of heart. When called to testify against Wilhelm Geyer, Harald Dohrn, Manfred Eickemeyer, and Josef Söhngen, she recanted her statements to the Gestapo – which saved their lives.

After the war, Gisela Schertling devoted her life to atoning for her actions during the Third Reich. In so doing, she redeemed herself.

The Fairfield Recorder (Fairfield, Tex.), Vol. 67, No. 18, Ed. 1 Thursday, January 21, 1943

Weekly newspaper from Fairfield, Texas that includes local, state, and national news along with advertising.

Physical Description

eight pages : ill. page 22 x 15 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.

Creation Information


This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Freestone County Area Newspaper Collection and was provided by the Fairfield Library to The Portal to Texas History, a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries. It has been viewed 11 times. More information about this issue can be viewed below.

People and organizations associated with either the creation of this newspaper or its content.




Check out our Resources for Educators Site! We've identified this newspaper as a primary source within our collections. Researchers, educators, and students may find this issue useful in their work.

Provided By

Fairfield Library

The Fairfield Library first opened its doors August 2, 1954, in a small brick house on the Courthouse square with just 224 books. By 1977, the growing library gained accreditation in the Texas Library System and subsequently became a place where families could spend time together reading and enjoying the abundant resources.

This Week in AG History -- January 23, 1943

James Menzie (1899-1986) helped to lay the foundation for the Assemblies of God in the Upper Midwest in the 1920s. In a 1943 Pentecostal Evangel article, he recounted his early days as a Pentecostal pioneer and also offered a warning of what he called “a crisis in Pentecost.”

The Pentecostal movement, according to Menzie, “was born of the Holy Spirit.” He described the Pentecostal revival at the turn of the twentieth century as a sovereign move of God and not orchestrated by any one founder. At first, small groups of people would gather in homes to pray. God’s power was manifested and people accepted Christ, were healed, and were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Believers organized churches that, despite opposition, grew to constitute one of the fastest-growing segments within American Christianity.

Menzie expressed concern over what he perceived to be a decline in spiritual fervor in some quarters of the Pentecostal movement. He recalled in earlier years that people went to church with great expectation, wondering what God would do in the service. He lamented that some churches had become too “formal” and no longer seemed to have room for unexpected manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

This spiritual decline, in Menzie’s estimation, was the unfortunate result of “fanaticism.” Fanatics, he wrote, are often otherwise godly people who allow their zeal to justify “foolish things that hurt rather than further the cause of Jesus Christ.” Some Pentecostals, in rejecting foolish behavior, also rejected genuine moves of the Holy Spirit.

Menzie concluded his article with this admonition: “Let the Holy Ghost be unhampered in our lives and our meetings. I do not mean, for a moment, to give any leeway to fanaticism…I believe that God wants to manifest Himself in our midst and in our lives, and if we have ears to hear, we will hear His voice.”

Read the article, "Make Way for the Holy Ghost," by James Menzie, on pages 2-3 of the January 23, 1943, issue of the Pentecostal Evangel.

Also featured in this issue:

• "Encourage Him," by Zelma Argue

• "Praying in the Holy Ghost," by Ernest S. Williams

• "The Healing of G. W. Hardcastle, Jr.”

Pentecostal Evangel archived editions courtesy of the Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center.

The Electra Star (Electra, Tex.), Vol. 23, No. 34, Ed. 1 Thursday, January 21, 1943

Weekly newspaper from Electra, Texas that includes local, state, and national news along with advertising.

Physical Description

eight pages : ill. page 20 x 14 in.

Creation Information


This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Electra Area Newspaper Collection and was provided by the Electra Public Library to The Portal to Texas History, a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries. More information about this issue can be viewed below.

People and organizations associated with either the creation of this newspaper or its content.




Check out our Resources for Educators Site! We've identified this newspaper as a primary source within our collections. Researchers, educators, and students may find this issue useful in their work.

Provided By

Electra Public Library

Founded in 1925, the Electra Public Library provides free services to all residents living within a 20-mile radius of the city limits in the Wichita and Wilbarger County boundaries.

Contact Us

Descriptive information to help identify this newspaper. Follow the links below to find similar items on the Portal.


  • Main Title: The Electra Star (Electra, Tex.), Vol. 23, No. 34, Ed. 1 Thursday, January 21, 1943
  • Serial Title:The Electra Star


Weekly newspaper from Electra, Texas that includes local, state, and national news along with advertising.

Physical Description

eight pages : ill. page 20 x 14 in.


Incorrect date printed on issue: Thursday, January 21, 1943.


Library of Congress Subject Headings

University of North Texas Libraries Browse Structure


Item Type


Unique identifying numbers for this issue in the Portal or other systems.

  • OCLC: 16855041 | External Link
  • Library of Congress Control Number: sn87091010
  • Archival Resource Key: ark:/67531/metapth1219241

Publication Information

  • Volume: 23
  • Issue: 34
  • Edition: 1


This issue is part of the following collections of related materials.

Electra Area Newspaper Collection

From Wichita County comes the Electra Area Newspaper Collection, serving the city of Electra and its surrounding area with five titles available in The Portal to Texas History, including the Electra Daily News, Electra News, The Electra Star-News, and the Harrold Howler.

Texas Digital Newspaper Program

The Texas Digital Newspaper Program (TDNP) partners with communities, publishers, and institutions to promote standards-based digitization of Texas newspapers and to make them freely accessible.

Watch the video: Krónika: Áttörés, 1943 január