History of the History of the White Rose (part 1)
Why so many posts about Traute Lafrenz? Weren't there only six or so friends in the White Rose inner circle? Why should I care?
Let’s hear ALL the voices! — Photo: Microsoft stock image.
The long series of posts about Traute Lafrenz’s incomparable, courageous life provided me with the second wind I have been needing. Her willingness to keep going in the face of personal rejection, family conflict, uncertainty… As one reader commented, “I find myself asking, What would Traute do?”
In our tumultuous days, I have personally grown weary of Twitter wars. Of Facebook pettiness. Of LinkedIn’s “ubiquitous pseudocognition” (with hat tip to Daryl Hewison for sharing that gem from the Economist). It’s enough to make me think about hitting the Uninstall button for social media.
But – what would Traute do? The mean Tweets and superficial nastiness are nothing compared to the pressure to join Bund deutscher Mädel or to sign on the dotted line as a National Socialist university student. Social bullies pale next to the Blockwart down the street who could have you arrested if your blackout curtain did not meet his dutiful exactitude. Even the narcissists we seem to encounter on a more frequent basis – as much misery as they cause, we have options that Traute and the other White Rose friends did not have. Narcissists of the Third Reich could send a body straight to Gestapo headquarters.
Telling Traute’s story reminded me of the importance of these voices. I closed the post about the April 19, 1943 trial with the promise of an article entitled “The History of the History of the White Rose.”
White Rose historiography (history of the history of) has been Scholl-centric from the beginning. Inge Scholl obtained millions of dollars from our Marshall and McCloy funds, despite having been a radical Nazi until the bitter end. She exchanged the schooling of hundreds of Jungmädel leaders in racial ideology and antisemitic doctrine, for the teaching of democracy at the behest of the US government, and never missed a beat. No remorse, no recanting, no “I was wrong.”
Instead, Otl Aicher – resistance during the war, but husband of Inge Scholl afterwards – told friends: “It's been good for us and quite lucky that Hans and Sophie Scholl died.” (Barbara Schüler. „Im Geiste der Gemordeten...“: Die ‚Weisse Rose‘ und ihre Wirkung in der Nachkriegszeit. Paderborn, Germany: Ferdinand Schoeningh, 2000. Page 427.) Note that Schüler’s book is also positively Scholl-centric, which makes her revelation all the more credible.
Once Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher understood how much money was to be had from the US government, their work became all White Rose all the time. With sole focus on Hans and Sophie. — Schüler’s work lays out Scholl postwar activities in detail. Similarly, Dr. Klaus Krippendorff of University of Pennsylvania wrote about his unpleasant encounters with Scholl-Aicher in the 1950s.
Inge knew the broader story. She had access to letters from almost all the friends, letters written to the first German journalist to write about White Rose, as well as letters sent directly to Inge. She ignored what did not match her existing outline.
When people like Wilhelm Geyer (and others) called her to task for financial irregularities related to the Hochschule für Gestaltung (Design), she retaliated and wrote him out of the story. To this day, I don’t know how Traute “offended” her. But Traute’s 1946 letter was omitted from Inge’s telling of White Rose events. And she had written directly to Inge Scholl. No detours, no third parties.
Inge’s book – handed out free to US universities, high schools, and Holocaust museums by Goethe Institute – is almost pure myth. Unfortunately, most White Rose “historians” have used that myth as foundation for their work.
The result of the Hans and Sophie mythology? Voices of real people – including the actual voices of Hans and Sophie Scholl – have been silenced. Acceptance of the Inge version, with its haloes and pedestals, has robbed us of real-life role models. In this era when liberty and justice struggle to stay centered, we need flawed humans who are willing to stand up, alone if necessary, and shout a very loud no.
We do not need saints. In fact, the very-old Hebrew definition of a tzaddik, a righteous person, is simply someone “whose merit surpasses his iniquity.” That’s a pretty low bar. Perfection not required.
Since our research began in 1994, and especially since the publication of our Histories in 2002, we have sought to add meaning and purpose to “the history of the White Rose.” Primary means for so doing has been inclusion of all voices, even the ones that sang off-key. Some in the circle were courageously fearful. Others were fearfully courageous. Some were front and center at every function and Aktion (operation). Others sat in the vestibule of the studio, wanting to be a part, yet knowing what commitment could bring.
Some were all hat no cattle. Others were all in, knowing that speaking out could mean death for themselves, but silence meant death for millions and sure death of their conscience. Some suffered depression and suicidal ideation. Others had been physically, even sexually abused. At least one had been an abuser. Some bore tremendous guilt for things they had done while under the thrall of Hitler Youth and the promises of National Socialism. Others could not get the bestiality, the inhumanity of the Russian front out of their nightmares.
They read together, ate together, laughed together. Some found release in music. Others took to the slopes to clear their heads. Some attended raucous (and possibly underground) comedy clubs. Others sought respite in the symphony. They espoused monarchism, democracy, Socialism, Communism, anarchy, benevolent authoritarianism, and nationalism, but not theocracy, and except for Huber, not National Socialism. Some were Lutheran, others Catholic. Or Buddhist. Or anthroposophist. Or agnostic.
They agreed on precious little. But they did agree that Hitler was a mass murderer, that if they did nothing about the gross injustice of their day, they were guilty, guilty, guilty (Alexander Schmorell). That “liberty and justice” was a concept worth dying for.
I have not been content, nor will I ever be content, to write or tell a lesser story. Every voice in this circle of friends must be heard. You, that reader in Texas, I see you. I bet you can identify with at least one of the friends, that their life inspires you to fight a little harder. You there in Oregon or Washington, whose words resonate with you? Lilo the fearful friend who was safe haven? Käthe, whose parents barely stayed married — one was Nazi and the other a non-Nazi Catholic? Pennsylvania friends, Kansans, Utahns, Germans, Brits, Russians – in this larger group, this group of 180+, not six or seven, I would wager there is a person whose life story looks like yours, whose innermost thoughts give you goosebumps.
Our White Rose Histories sit squarely in official historiographies, publication and copyright date 2002, a strong pivot point away from Scholl-centrism.
But we are not done yet. There are more real-life stories to tell, there is more courage to uncover. We want to move on to others outside White Rose. There were 180+ (per the Gestapo) in the White Rose network, but 15,000 dissidents in Germany. Their voices too should be heard.
Over the next few weeks, we’ll share more about our vision and ways you can become a part of this work. There’s so much to do. Become a voice that is heard.
Next post: History of the History of the White Rose, part 2: A Brief Historiography.
If you are curious about supporting documents for any of these Substack posts, check out our White Rose Histories (Volume I, 1/1933-4/30/1942, and Volume 2, 5/1/1942-10/12/1943, along with primary source materials. As always, if you have questions or private comments, please contact us
Here is your microphone. Are you ready for your voice to be heard? - Photo: Microsoft stock image.
.