Women of the White Rose: Traute Lafrenz (part 2A - May through July 1942)
Shining an overdue spotlight on a woman who was at the heart of White Rose resistance. Her story has been neglected too long.
As Munich finally enjoyed a few sun-drenched days in May 1942, the circle of friends we would later call White Rose expanded. Somehow Traute started talking to a new friend in a language seminar taught by Professor Kurt Huber. Katharina Schüddekopf – Käthe – was a regular in Huber’s classes. Huber would soon become her Doktorvater.
Neither woman would later say who first recognized a kindred spirit in the other. Käthe would state she admired Traute’s wide range of interests and thought she was very gifted. Traute found a person who shared not only academic interests, but who understood how one could love family while detesting their politics.
Traute also responded to a personal ad placed on campus. Hermann Tröltsch, a blind artist, wanted someone to read aloud to him. Like Käthe, Hermann Tröltsch embraced anti-Nazi thought. Like Käthe, Hermann represented someone outside her circle of close friends with whom she could talk freely.
Though Traute’s relationship with the Scholl siblings was becoming strained, she nevertheless accepted Hans’ invitation to a literary soiree given at the home of an influential woman named Mrs. Mertens. As far as Mrs. Mertens was concerned, this was a literary evening, nothing political. She had invited Sigismund Radecki to read aloud from his works.
The students had other ideas. Christoph Probst, Hans, Sophie, Traute, Käthe, Wolf Jaeger, Hubert Furtwängler, Otmar Hammerstein – these students, plus Kurt Huber and Heinrich Ellermann (a publisher and former teacher of Christoph Probst) immediately turned the conversation to politics. No matter how hard Mrs. Mertens tried to steer the discussion back to Radecki, they remained single-minded. How had the notion of homeland become so aberrant? Why were the French better at ‘patriotism’ than Germans? And when Ellermann suggested “inner emigration” as solution, the students swarmed. Huber and Ellermann were not spared their students’ indignation. Traute was front and center.
Despite knowing Traute’s strong political beliefs, Hans, Sophie, Alex, and Christl did not include her in their initial leaflet operation. As they worked in Alex’s room in his parents’ home in Harlaching, they kept the clique tight. And yet. Hans Scholl may have treated Traute badly, may have purposely hurt her with a “dalliance” with her best friend Ulla. But he needed her approval. After class one day, he handed her a leaflet in a green envelope and said Sophie had received it. Would she read it and give him her opinion?
Traute stood transfixed, not noticing students hurrying to their next class. Transfixed by words that said everything she had been thinking. “This must have been written by a person of superior intelligence,” she said. No greater compliment for Hans Scholl! Her next words scared him, as it was clear she knew.
“Where did it come from?” Hans avoided her question, saying only that was a stupid question and a dangerous one to ask. From that moment on, Traute had no doubt who was behind the leaflets that were distributed on campus over the next month or so.
Throughout June and July 1942, Traute’s friendship with Hans and Sophie suffered. One day – when Hans needed her – they’d be golden. The next, she would be dirt under his feet. Intensely loyal, she made it work as long as she could.
On a “Good Hans” day in late June, the siblings and Traute strolled through the English Gardens. Most of the conversation centered on Sophie’s philosophical musings about nature. Hans turned the banter serious. If things were to be changed, really changed, they had to become active and do something. Talk would not suffice. Sophie commented that small actions could be effective. “Even if someone only writes something on the street at night so people can see it the next morning…”
With that, silence. Traute never forgot her words.
Soon thereafter, the students – again with Huber and Ellermann – met at the Schmorells’ home for another literary soiree. Official invitation mentioned a reading of Claudel’s Satin Slipper.
Hans and Traute accompanied Prof. Huber on the streetcar ride to Harlaching. In a likely well-rehearsed move, Hans and Traute asked Huber if he had seen the White Rose leaflets, if “he had heard people on the streetcar talking about it.” Hans knew Huber was on the mailing list, so the answer must be yes. The streetcar bit was camouflage. Huber said he did not remember.
Hans dropped the topic, but Traute would not. She repeated the question, whereupon Hans snapped at her. That was all it took to make Hans angry for the rest of the evening. He walked on ahead of Huber and Traute once they reached their stop. Traute used the private moment to ask Huber quietly about the White Rose leaflets. He admitted he had received them by mail, and Traute told him that several of her friends had as well. Once it became clear he did not want to talk about the leaflets further, she changed the subject.
Hans’ anger turned into near-aggression, as he immediately steered the conversation away from any pretense of literary discourse to politics. Not just any politics, but how to end the war, whether passive or active resistance were preferable, and the best form of government. The evening devolved into a harsh debate between Hans and Huber. Traute, who normally relished this sort of talk, remained silent, as did the other students. Only Alex spoke up, and only once, when Huber and Hans spoke about the oath of loyalty to Hitler.
Käthe worried about her new friend. Hans’ mistreatment of Traute was causing the outgoing Traute to withdraw into herself. The estrangement pained Traute, who needed the circle of friends for political sanity. It damaged the circle, because people like Raimund Samüller avoided them, even while maintaining Traute’s friendship. Hans drove away the people that the friends most needed. And they needed Traute.
Hans Scholl needed Traute as well. Even as he demeaned her, he needed her affirmation of his work. As the third leaflet was in progress, Hans caught up with Traute, asking her opinion about passive versus active resistance, the topic of that leaflet. We do not know how she responded; we only know that she handed him a scrap of paper from her notebook. She had been in the habit of jotting down ideas and comments she thought Hans would like. This time the quote was, “Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead, more than the living which are yet alive,” from Ecclesiastes.
After the third leaflet was out the door, Alex accompanied Lilo Ramdohr on a trip to her Chiemsee hideaway, toting suitcases full of prized possessions for safekeeping. Along the way, he confided to Lilo that he was concerned about Traute, specifically about the heartache that Hans was causing his friend. Seeing Hans hurt Traute? That hurt Alex.
July 10, 1942, Traute accepted Hans Scholl’s invitation to a reading in Manfred Eickemeyer’s studio. Theodor Haecker would be reading from Der Christ und die Geschichte (The Christian and History). Traute was familiar with Haecker because of her association with Hans and introduction to Carl Muth. While Willi Graf was deeply moved by the July 10 meeting, Traute was not.
Manfred Eickemeyer would later say the reading had been of a “poetic-religious” nature. Traute agreed. It was empty. She wanted reality. Shortly after that reading, she began studying anthroposophical works with a group of medical students. The theological nature of the meetings Hans organized did not appeal to everyone.
However, when Traute saw the fourth leaflet, her strong suspicions were confirmed. No doubt that Hans Scholl – and who else? – was behind the White Rose leaflets. After all, there was the quote from Ecclesiastes she had given him, although she was annoyed that he had misquoted as Proverbs. She and Käthe happily read and talked about the fourth leaflet.
Now that Traute was certain Hans Scholl was at least one of the leaflet writers, she confronted him directly. Every time he had given her a copy of a leaflet, she had copied and distributed. He knew that. She wanted to be more involved, brainstorming with him and whomever… His response? A firm no.
“And that’s how it stayed,” she later said. “I had been shown my place, and I accepted it. I simply made sure that the leaflets were distributed.”
Hans’ rough treatment of Traute was taking its toll on the friends. Manfred Eickemeyer held another reading at the studio on July 16. He invited Traute, Käthe, Josef Furtmeier, and Monsieur Rousset – friend of Käthe – to continue the Claudel conversation. Pointedly not invited? Hans and Sophie Scholl.
And yet. When Hans invited everyone and their neighbors to a going-away party at Eickemeyer’s studio on July 22, 1942, Traute and Käthe went. Most revelers were likely surprised at her appearance. By now, things were tense. They would have been even more surprised if they had known that Hans Scholl himself had invited her.
Traute protected herself somewhat by arriving late, around 9 pm, after the party had been in full swing for an hour. By then, Eickemeyer was perturbed by Hans and Sophie. Those two had told him they were inviting “a few people” only. More than thirty showed up. Sophie had provided black tea. Hans Scholl showed up empty-handed. Eickemeyer was left to scramble for refreshments for the crowd. He fetched pastries and champagne, sour at Hans not only for the expectation that he would get food and drink, but also that he (Eickemeyer) would serve the guests.
Eickemeyer recovered from his irritation as the party wore on. The champagne had the desired effect. Initially the students told funny anti-Nazi jokes. Hans said there was a house that had been destroyed by an air raid. An unknown person had installed a placard reading, “Führer, we thank you!”
Slowly the conversation turned serious, opening the door for Eickemeyer to recount the atrocities he had been witnessing in Poland. The students hung on his words, while Huber remained silent. When Alex posed the question: Passive or active resistance?, there was no holding them back. The students argued and explored their quandary at length. They were leaving the next morning for the Russian front. How should they behave on the battlefield? Even the most steadfast anti-Nazis among them had trouble with that question.
They talked for more than an hour, determined to think through their dilemma together. Once conversation died down, Eickemeyer brought out more champagne. Hans Hirzel had traveled from Ulm for this party. He later noted, “I remember very well that there were far fewer glasses than there were people.” Traute was more direct. “I don’t believe that anyone present paid much attention to the things Hans Scholl said, because everyone was pretty much in a party mood and a little drunk.”
The larger group split up into smaller conversations. Käthe discussed the leaflets with Hans. Christl admitted to Hans Hirzel that he was a bit unnerved by Hans’ talk. Someone asked aloud if placards would be more effective than leaflets.
Traute and Käthe left with Prof. Huber around 11 pm. A little over an hour later, Hans and Sophie showed up at Traute’s room. They stayed up all night, talking. Traute did not disclose what they talked about, nor have any letters or diary entries from Hans and Sophie been made public that would reveal the reason the Scholl siblings visited Traute. Traute would only say – much later – that that was the night she understood how much they had grown apart, and how unhappy Hans was.
But she would not accompany them to the Ostbahnhof, the East Train Station. Sophie borrowed Traute’s bicycle when the siblings left for the station to make the 7 am deadline. Hans, Alex, Willi Graf, Hubert Furtwängler, and Raimund Samüller managed to secure a compartment together for the long trip to the Russian front.
After the train pulled out at 11 am, Sophie went to retrieve Traute’s bicycle for the trek back to her room. The bike was gone, stolen. Never replaced, never made right.
Next post: Traute Lafrenz, part 2B — August 1942 through February 17, 1943.
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.