The people Inge Scholl erased
If their lives (and deaths) are to have meaning, let them all be real. Let them be flawed. Let them make you angry. Let them thrill your heart. All of them. Not just Hans and Sophie.
During a most-excellent conversation with a long-time, dear friend, I was surprised when she said, “I know you don’t like Sophie Scholl, but…” Since I have talked with this friend for years about historical revisionism as seen in Inge Scholl’s version of White Rose resistance, I thought she understood. If she doesn’t, then it’s highly possible that other readers may also misread my viewpoint re Scholl.
I genuinely like the real Sophie Scholl. I genuinely dislike the saccharine version of Sophie Scholl promoted by Inge Scholl and everyone who’s simply perpetuated the legend-ary version of Sophie created by Inge. I have moved my essay about Sophie Scholl up the list of priorities for this Substack.
But first, let me explain why the Inge Scholl version of White Rose resistance disgusts me and causes a visceral reaction when I see it on display.
After the White Rose families were convinced my work was not going to be like the works of Annette Dumbach and Jud Newborn, or Anton Gill, or even the well-written but mostly-fictional books by Christian Petry, Harald Steffahn, and Richard Hanser, they started plying me with unpublished documents. The Geyers let me read and make notes from everything in Wilhelm Geyer’s archives. Anneliese Knoop-Graf sent me copies of unpublished letters from her archives — Willi Graf’s letters and diary entries prior to June 1942 (the Inge Jens/Knoop-Graf edition starts with June 1942) and a bunch of other primary source documents unrelated to White Rose resistance, such as Willi’s report cards and Anneliese’s notes from events in Munich.
Interestingly, Elisabeth Hartnagel nee Scholl sent me the documents that her sister Inge had received from 1945-1981 when first Ricarda Huch and then Inge Aicher-Scholl issued a call for “memories” related to White Rose. Elisabeth was concerned that Inge would destroy the documents before her death. She wanted to ensure that at least one reliable historian had access to them.
As I read them, I lost whatever grains of respect I may have had for Inge before that day. Her decision to reframe the story of White Rose resistance to make her siblings the “stars” was deliberate. Her deceptions, both by omitting persons she knew to be central to the real story and by puffing up her siblings’ work and beliefs, were intentional.
Inge’s mostly-fictional version of events tainted the true story of White Rose resistance. She refused to correct untruths even when her sibling Elisabeth and her brother-in-law Fritz Hartnagel and her husband Otl Aicher were the ones pointing out errata.
So you can understand what you — you who identify with White Rose resistance, with students and adults who risked their lives to say NO during the Shoah — so you can understand what you’ve lost because of the dominance of Inge’s lies, here’s a summary of the documents she had in her possession and chose to ignore. These are the people you should be familiar with, whose lives should have been front and center in any depiction of White Rose, and yet who were erased. By Inge.
In alphabetical order. “Excluded” means Inge Aicher-Scholl excluded all information in the document from her White Rose narrative. “Cherry-picked” means Inge used statements regarding her siblings and essentially ignored everything else.
“Lic. Dr. Karl Abt”: Letter from Dr. Karl Alt, Lutheran chaplain in Stadelheim, undated. This single document underscores the perils of believing any document that Inge Scholl “transcribed,” where the original document was not preserved. How can any of the transcription be trusted when she didn’t even get the chaplain’s name correct? Cherry-picked. – Note: It was this document that confirmed my suspicions that Alt was working closely with the Gestapo.
Otl Aicher: Inge’s transcription of her husband’s report dated September 22, 1968. No way to verify if complete or edited. Cherry-picked.
Inge Aicher-Scholl: Yes, Inge herself! She wrote about the Scholls’ connections to Theodor Haecker and Carl Muth. And it’s clear from the document that it’s just Hans and Sophie, herself, and Otl Aicher. But she imposes her connections on the entire White Rose group. She used this report extensively. Undated.
Anonymous Americans: “Someone” (unnamed) sent Inge a copy of a leaflet written by [her transcription] Nationalkomitee “Freies Deutschland.” Again, original missing, only her typewritten transcription, with no attribution to either author or sender. Undated. Excluded.
Anonymous military comrades: Another case of transcriptions of letters sent to Inge, without preservation of original handwritten documents. These are even worse than usual. She did not keep their names, nor the dates the letters were written, nor the specifics about where they served with Hans Scholl. Complicating matters — she took letters from multiple authors and summarized them under her own headings. And she did so at different times (different typewriters). And then she cherry-picked what she used. — There are two versions of this document.
Bischoff Eivind Berggrav: Letter dated September 30, 1952. Excerpt of typewritten transcription. Cherry-picked.
Siegfried Deisinger: Undated document on Deisinger’s legal stationery. Siegfried Deisinger was defense counsel for Alexander Schmorell. He witnessed the executions of Alexander Schmorell and Prof. Dr. Kurt Huber. Unlike most postwar documents, Deisinger did not use this letter to reinvent himself during the war. He’s repentant and focuses on the heroism of Alexander Schmorell and Kurt Huber. Not only did Inge exclude this document, she did not share it with the Schmorell family. I sent a copy to Erich and Hertha Schmorell! — Totally excluded. And this is a powerful letter.
Englische Fräulein in Schrobenhausen: Letter dated December 24, 1945. Excerpt (transcribed) only of a longer letter from the nuns at the hospital where Hans Scholl served his ‘residency’ in Spring 1942. Original handwritten document missing. Inge did not transcribe the entire letter. Excluded.
Englische Fräulein in Schrobenhausen: Undated excerpt of a letter (transcribed). Original handwritten document missing. Inge did not transcribe the entire letter. Excluded.
Helmut Fietz: Inge “transcribed” oral testimony from Helmut Fietz. “Autumn 1945 or Spring 1946.” Fietz was Hans Scholl’s cellmate. Cherry-picked. Fietz not named when his information was used. No transcription of full oral testimony. As far as I know, the oral testimony was not preserved.
Lilo Fürst nee Ramdohr: Undated letter from Lilo to Falk Harnack. Falk Harnack shared Lilo’s memories with Inge (1953?). Excluded.
Wilhelm Geyer: Inge’s transcription of Geyer’s report dated September 21, 1968. No way to verify if complete or edited. Excluded.
Helmut Goetz: Letter dated December 28, 1953. Inge’s transcription of an excerpt of this letter. Excluded.
Kurt Grossmann: Letter dated February 22, 1969. Excluded.
Lisa Grote: Excerpt only of Inge’s transcription of a letter from Lisa Grote. Full handwritten letter apparently did not survive. Undated. Excluded.
Eduard H.: Undated. Another of Inge’s transcriptions where original handwritten document apparently did not survive. She chose not to give Eduard’s last name. Excerpt only. Excluded.
Falk Harnack: First of three documents. October 30, 1946. Excluded.
Falk Harnack: Second of three documents. Undated. Excluded.
Falk Harnack: Third of three documents. Undated. Cherry-picked.
Hellmut Hartert: Letter dated November 26, 1946. Cherry-picked.
Elisabeth Hartnagel nee Scholl: Inge’s transcription of Elisabeth’s report. Excerpted. Inge butchered her sister’s report, cherry-picking what she wanted to include, twisting what she did use to make it align with her narrative. No date. Inge typed at bottom: 1968/1980.
Hans Hirzel: Letter to Inge Scholl dated November 27, 1947. She only saved the first two pages. Excluded.
Wolfgang Jaeger: Undated letter to Inge Scholl. His memories of Prof. Kurt Huber and White Rose friends. Excluded.
Hermann Krings: Letter dated November 16, 1981. Excluded.
Xaver Kuhn: Letter dated March 2, 1973. Kuhn was clearly one of the “anonymous comrades” of Hans Scholl and others in the Second Student Company. She butchered his report. She attached page one of his letter to her transcription of the reports of the anonymous soldiers. Sloppy. Plus, what did he write after page one? Did not matter. Excluded.
Traute Lafrenz: Report dated February 21, 1946. Typed. Six pages. Excluded.
Robert Mohr: February 19, 1951 report from Robert Mohr. Apparently transcribed, because letter closes with “Für die Richtigkeit: Robert Mohr.” That phrase was affixed to certified transcriptions of Gestapo documents, indicating the transcription had been reviewed for accuracy. — Inge used Robert Mohr’s self-serving “report” extensively without verification of his “facts.” Robert Mohr and Robert Scholl provided mutual Persilscheine for de-Nazification process.
Hans-Peter Nägele: Excerpt of a transcription of letter dated September 4, 1952. I would have expected Inge to include 100% of anything written by the brother of the girl Inge touted as one of Hans Scholl’s “girlfriends” (beards). However: Fully excluded.
Herta Probst: Inge had a copy of the clemency proceedings filed on behalf of Christoph Probst. It’s a facsimile of the original handwritten document. Excluded.
Leo Samberger: Samberger’s letter dated prior to July 19, 1953 (see reference to Robert Scholl, below) is not in Inge’s documents.
Leo Samberger: Inge’s transcription of Samberger’s report published by the Abendzeitung, dated February 17/18, 1968. Cherry-picked to the point of excluding everything she already had in her outline.
Inge Scholl: Her narrative regarding evolution of her White Rose history book. Self-serving. Of course, she used all of it. February 28, 1981.
Robert Scholl: Letter dated July 19, 1953 to the president of the Anwaltskammer [bar association] in Munich regarding Leo Samberger’s report of the events of February 22, 1943. Inge’s father confirmed Samberger’s report. As odd as this may be, Inge chose to cherry-pick her own father’s account of that day. If he said something that didn’t match her preconceived narrative, she excluded it. – Facsimile, not transcription.
Josef Söhngen: Appears to be another excerpted transcription. No signature. And Inge marked out “1945” and penciled in “1951.” You talk about cherry-picked! There are two versions of this letter.
Inge Scholl also saved a facsimile of an October 1943 article in the Ulmer Sturm about her family. However, someone (likely Lilo) sent her the death notices for Christoph Probst, Hans Scholl, and Sophie Scholl as they appeared in the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten. She apparently made no effort to find a facsimile to verify the text, nor did she credit whomever gave her the transcription. [Lilo had a copy of the death notice in her possession.]
As Inge Scholl prepared the outline for her book about White Rose resistance, she confirmed she had eyewitness testimony from the following people. Highlighted names are those for whom their “testimony” was not included in the package Elisabeth Hartnagel nee Scholl ensured I received. And again, in alphabetical order:
Otl Aicher. Inge Aicher-Scholl. Karl Alt. Anonymous comrade from invasion of France. Pater Romuald Bauerreis. Bishop Eivind Berggrav. Siegfried Deisinger. The Englische Fräulein. Helmut Fietz. Else Gebel. Wilhelm Geyer. Helmut Goetz. Lisa Grote. Falk Harnack. Hellmut Hartert. Elisabeth Hartnagel nee Scholl. Karl Hepperle. Eduard Hertz. Hans Hirzel. Wolfgang Jaeger. Xaver Kuhn. Traute Lafrenz. Robert Mohr. Hans-Peter Nägele. Leo Samberger. Gustl (sic) Saur. Jakob Schmid. Robert Scholl. Josef Söhngen. [Where are the missing documents, and what did those people have to say?] She did not mention Lilo Fürst nee Ramdohr, which is strange.
My additional question: Why didn’t Inge ask Erich Schmorell, or Anneliese Graf, or all the others known to have been connected to White Rose resistance for their memories, for their reports? Why didn’t she ask Fritz Hartnagel to do so? Why didn’t she chase a couple of rabbits?
By her own admission, therefore, Inge possessed a “big picture” view of White Rose work. As Elisabeth Hartnagel nee Scholl told me, “They [Hans and Sophie] were equals among equals.” That comes through loud and clear in the above documents and reports sent directly to Inge.
And yet, her subsequent fleshing-out of that outline focuses solely on Hans and Sophie Scholl. All the other wonderful, laughing, breathing, hard-working friends who likewise risked their lives, who led the way in saying a very loud NO, whose courage and nobility were every bit as great as (and in some cases, greater than) that of Hans and Sophie Scholl? She acts as if they never existed. As if their lives, their work, their passion for justice did not matter.
When she applied for a DM 2,000,000 [$16,000,000 in 2025 currency] McCloy fund grant in 1951, it was not for a “White Rose” organization. It was merely for “Geschwister Scholl,” as if they stood alone. As if SHE had something to do with their resistance, instead of being the diehard Nazi she truly was.
The entire White Rose story in its current incarnation, based on Inge Scholl’s legend, is built on the quicksand of lies. On the lie that she herself, Inge Scholl, had always been anti-Nazi (when she never recanted her Nazi ideology, even after the war). On the lie that her siblings Hans and Sophie had “founded” White Rose resistance. On the lie that the group was small and consisted only of Hans, Sophie, Alex, Christoph, Willi, and Kurt Huber, with Hans and Sophie leading the way of course. (Gestapo said there were 180 people involved. I’ve identified approximately 90 actors, bad and good, and continue my search for the remaining half.)
And Inge’s story, perpetuated by sloppy scholarship in the twenty-first century, encompasses the even bigger lie that the Scholl family was democratic in nature, that they were well-known for their resistance to Hitler and National Socialism. When they were anything but. People in Ulm did not especially like Robert Scholl. But that had nothing to do with his politics.
As both Otl Aicher and Hans Hirzel reported, Robert Scholl was just plain odd. If he had a political ideology, one could possibly say he was an anarchist. Not democratic. Robert (and Inge) Scholl’s fascination with democracy would not come until after the war, when Marshall and McCloy funds were attached to spreading that good word.
In short, I don’t dislike Hans Scholl or Sophie Scholl. I especially like Elisabeth Hartnagel nee Scholl. I like and respect Werner Scholl a great deal, the Scholl whom Traute Lafrenz described as the only independent thinker among the siblings, the only smart one.
I greatly dislike Inge Scholl. Not for who she was or who she became. But for rewriting history to cover her own scent. And I am annoyed with our government for having funded her reinvented self.
In my work, I not only un-erased all those wonderful people whom Inge expunged from White Rose resistance. I also followed their trail down rabbit holes, over mountaintops, into dusty archives, through chance meetings. These were all individuals who deserve our respect, our approbation, our deepest esteem.
You want to know how the people listed above, as well as the others I found down those rabbit holes, impacted and influenced White Rose resistance? I documented their lives, and when applicable, their deaths, in my White Rose histories. There is no reason to keep believing the legend.
Please — if their lives and deaths (or for those who survived, their lives and postwar work) are to have meaning, let them all be real. Let them be flawed. Let them make you angry. Let them thrill your heart. All of them. Not just Hans and Sophie.
Because they — the greater They — are all of us. That greater “They” holds us to account, calls us to stand up for justice. And freedom. And right-ness.
When Inge Scholl erased people from White Rose resistance, she stole an exceptional story, a story that inspires and uplifts and challenges us to fight.
Postscript #1: As I tried to emphasize in book reviews and historiography, I don’t disparage the work that Christian Petry, Harald Steffahn, and Richard Hanser undertook in the 1980s. They wrote their White Rose histories before the Gestapo interrogation transcripts were uncovered (for the second time) by Christiane Moll.
I recognize that by starting in 1994 as I did, I had the benefit of knowing these names from those transcripts. Petry, Steffahn, and Hanser had to rely on Inge’s version. Unlike Gill and Dumbach-Newborn, they did the best they could with the material they had. And for that, I am grateful, even though their works are unreliable and not useful in post-Gestapo transcript days.
Postscript #2: I also find it fascinating that Inge Scholl did not ask Jürgen Wittenstein or Franz Josef Müller for their “reports” or testimony. We know that from Wittenstein that he worked with Inge Scholl to write his 1947 speech for the OSS. Like Müller, Wittenstein knew next to nothing about White Rose resistance, because he was not one of them.
Therefore when he was tasked with writing that speech, he turned to Inge. She had a vague knowledge of what had happened. And Wittenstein had photographs. The two developed a quid-pro-quo relationship that deserves a deeper dive by a scholar with leverage and access. Because their correspondence from 1947-1998 has been strictly off limits.
In the early days when I still thought Wittenstein had been part of White Rose, he expressed his indignation over Inge Scholl’s use of his photographs. He had sent her copies — especially the one with Christoph, Hans, and Sophie. She put them in the “Scholl Archives,” stamped on the back, “copyright by Scholl Archives.”
After her death, Wittenstein reclaimed his copyrights and sold them to Getty Images. I say that because while he was alive, he stringently enforced his copyright and would sue anyone who used his pictures without payment. Assume that now Getty Images does so.
© 2025 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.
Why This Matters is a reader-supported publication. To receive emails regarding new posts and to support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I also understand completely if you cannot afford one. more. Substack. subscription. Tips are welcome too.
