Moral dilemmas
I was convinced that I must act on my inner convictions. I believed that this inner duty was greater than the oath that I had sworn as a soldier. - Hans Scholl.
Researching and writing about White Rose resistance, indeed any form of resistance during the Shoah, confronts us with concepts that make us uncomfortable. Sometimes I have squirmed as I write, edit, or read aloud, telling you this story that grips me with its passion and its timeliness.
These students and the adults who associated with them grappled with questions for which they found no answers. While they would not talk about religion among themselves, they did create space to argue, debate, and hash out imponderable ideas. Often the debates ended badly. Other times they would go to their separate corners to contemplate, coming together again to pick up where they had left off.
We read that one person or another felt overwhelmed by these debates. Either the topic was one where they fought personal battles, or they sought clarity and had found none. Or it could be nothing more than having an abscessed tooth or not having slept well that made a conversation difficult to follow. Reactions ranged from silence, to tepid participation in the debate, to loud insistence on a particular position.
The recurring themes centered on the following questions:
Could they simply practice “inner emigration” and find “inner renewal” without taking action?
As soldier students, were they still bound by the oath of loyalty they had sworn to Adolf Hitler personally, or did their status as students absolve them of the oath?
Did “Romans 13” mean they could not protest their government – the position held by almost every church?
What did resistance look like anyway? What did it mean to practice active resistance versus passive resistance? Did the notion of informed dissent apply?
They accepted as true that Hitler was evil. Would an assassination attempt therefore be acceptable and morally defensible?
Critical to understand that when they debated these topics, they pointedly avoided basing their arguments on credal assertions. On the occasions when Harald Dohrn joined them, he insisted on interjecting his thoroughly “papal” point of view, to the extent that even devout Catholics like Wilhelm Geyer begged Hans Scholl not to invite him ever again. His religious reasoning acted as dam, preventing the free exchange of ideas.
Fortunately for the friends, Dohrn was not in attendance when their pivotal exchanges occurred.
Today, join me in looking at the first two of these questions.
Could they simply practice “inner emigration” and find “inner renewal” without taking action? Although they debated this topic, the “debate” part did not last long.
On June 4, 1942 at a literary soiree, the hostess Mrs. Mertens read aloud a sketch about “inner renewal.” Noteworthy that that was a National Socialist catch phrase, and the students knew it was. They reacted powerfully and negatively to Mrs. Mertens’ little gem.
Christoph Probst apparently objected to Mrs. Mertens’ sketch first. He made the heretical – if not treasonous – observation that the French notion of homeland was healthier than the German version. His former teacher and ardent National Socialist, Heinrich Ellermann, countered Christl’s comment by spouting drivel about inner education, maintaining that that was more important than “book learning.” Which was a curious thing for a former teacher and current publisher to say.
The more Ellermann argued for “islands of existence,” the louder the students opposed his rhetoric. No! All this “inner” nonsense was just that, nonsense. In the face of what they were living through, resistance was their only option.
Neither Heinrich Ellermann nor Professor Kurt Huber took kindly to that suggestion. And Mrs. Mertens? In her eyes, her lovely literary soiree had devolved into chaos.
Almost as if to make this point unmistakable and ‘in your face,’ in the very first Leaflet of the White Rose a few days later, Hans Scholl and Alexander Schmorell challenge fellow citizens to “make a start,” reminding them that every nation deserves the government it endures.
No wallflowers or shrinking violets among these students! You see wrong? You do something about it. Inner what? No way!
Does this mean they neglected their emotional and intellectual development, the positive forms of “inner” being? Also no. They were aware of inner turmoil, inner debates, inner conflict, inner convictions, inner duty, and most especially of their innermost being. These things too found their way into deliberations of inscrutable matters.
What was inside them could only be effective, could only change their world, if it were manifested externally. That manifestation could be in the form of a leaflet, or graffiti. It could be as simple as giving a seat to a forced laborer, or taking food to Russian POWs. Sometimes it required a dangerous activity like burying an enemy soldier on the battlefield. Other times it could be the humble act of visiting a friend in the hospital. Daily.
These students instinctively knew that recognition of injustice required action. They would have grasped the meaning of Abraham Joshua Heschel’s words regarding marching in Selma, “I felt my legs were praying.”
Hans, Sophie, Christl, Alex, Traute, Willi, Hubert, Wolf, Käthe, and the rest – they would not let the adults in the room excuse away inaction by claiming inner renewal, inner education, much less inner emigration. Period.
The question about the oath of loyalty was a bit harder. As soldier students, were they still bound by the oath of loyalty they had sworn to Adolf Hitler personally, or did their status as students absolve them of the oath?
A few weeks after Mrs. Mertens’ literary soiree, Alexander Schmorell sponsored one at his parents’ villa. Invitations indicated it would be non-political, but the students had other ideas from the start. And again, Heinrich Ellermann and Kurt Huber argued on the wrong side of history.
Ellermann spoke especially forcefully about the student soldiers’ obligation to honor their oath of loyalty to Hitler. This was Willi Graf’s first time at one of the free-for-alls otherwise billed as a literary soiree. He did not say much, but he and an old friend had only recently discussed this topic – with additional question as to whether it were morally acceptable to accept a promotion to officer status in Hitler’s army. Willi kept silent that night. He was getting his sea legs among these friends who talked so openly about treason.
Alex did not mince words, however. He denied Ellermann his point. It was not all right to honor that oath. He intended to resist.
A few months later, Willi Graf broached this dilemma with long-time friends in Saarbrücken. He sat one evening with the Bollinger brothers, Heinz and another Willi, talking out this question that ate them alive. The three young men were devout Catholics who took their faith – and creed – seriously. They believed, and lived by, the axiom that one’s word was his bond.
The two Willis and Heinz considered two possible exceptions that they tried to convince themselves would work. First, the National Socialist government was illegitimate. Since its politicians were a bunch of thugs, wouldn’t that negate their oath? And if not, wouldn’t the fact that they were now students first and soldiers second mean they were no longer bound by the oath of loyalty to the Führer?
None of them felt any better about their quandary, possible exceptions or no. Willi Graf would later admit to the Gestapo that he knew his status as soldier had not changed, meaning that he had violated the oath of loyalty to Hitler.
Alexander Schmorell is apparently the only one of the White Rose student soldiers who actively sought to recant his oath of allegiance to the Führer. His Commanding Officer would not allow him to do so and involved Alex’s father in the discussion when Alex persisted.
There is no record that Hans Scholl entertained those same thoughts. On the contrary, Hans seemed perfectly at home in a uniform. That makes his declaration during his initial interrogation all the more powerful. Around six o’clock in the morning on February 19, 1943, as the Gestapo pressed him for confession and denunciations, Hans Scholl said:
When I first decided to produce and distribute leaflets, it was obvious to me that such conduct was in opposition to the current regime. I was convinced that I must act on my inner convictions. I believed that this inner duty was greater than the oath that I had sworn as a soldier. I knew what I took upon myself and I was prepared to lose my life by so doing. [Emphasis mine.]
Alex too would be blunt with his Gestapo agent, telling Schmauβ on February 25, 1943, that he not only tried to publicly recant the oath, he had also sought discharge from the army completely. He could not in good conscience uphold that oath of loyalty, that oath of allegiance. He “unwillingly” wore the uniform thereafter. Alex signed his death warrant with these treasonous statements.
Two months later when Roland Freisler hurled Alex’s statements at him from the bench, Alex doubled down. He told Freisler that he had told his Commanding Officer he could not swear that oath.
To a person, they had consciously violated an oath of loyalty that they had at one time sworn, some even having meant the words for the first year or two of their military service. Once their government committed crimes against humanity, they also understood – to a person – that conscience and justice required breaking that oath.
And that breaking the oath would have consequences.
They knew what they took upon themselves and were prepared to lose their lives by so doing.
Why This Matters:
As human beings, our physical bodies cannot tolerate constant turmoil. Turmoil and trouble cause surges of adrenaline or cortisol. Over time our bodies will shut down. So where is the balance between repudiating “inner emigration” and fighting for what is right; and, picking one’s battles, keeping silent on occasion?
Treading fine line here, as these posts consciously avoid partisan political debates in honor of White Rose families and friends: When is “treason” right? We look at White Rose and are moved by their courage in the face of evil. How would you answer people who say that their treason on January 6, 2021 was justified based on the courage of their convictions?
How do you see these two concepts? When do you keep silent, what pushes you to speak up and act?
What is the difference between “courage of my convictions” and “treason” - and how would you have argued this point with the two Willis and Heinz?
Please take the conversation to the comments!
© 2024 Denise Elaine Heap. Please contact us for permission to quote. To order digital version of White Rose History, Volume II, click here. Digital version of White Rose History, Volume I is available here.