The White Rose, the Long Story of Alberta, and the People Who Refuse to Be Quiet
By Bruce Scholl
Unscrew the News
History has a way of remembering its dissidents slowly, and then all at once. For years, Sophie and Hans Scholl were known mainly to historians and to the families of those who had lived through the Third Reich. Today their names are recognized across the world — not because they won, but because they chose not to be silent when silence was the easier and safer option.
That choice, and what it cost them, is worth sitting with. Especially now. Especially here.
This is their story. And it is also, in ways I think are worth taking seriously, part of ours.
Part One: Munich, 1942 — The White Rose
Students, a Typewriter, and a Decision
Sophie Scholl, circa 1942. She was 21 years old when she was executed by the Nazi regime on February 22, 1943.
By the summer of 1942, the Nazi regime had been in power for nearly a decade. The apparatus of control — the propaganda, the surveillance, the culture of fear and enforced agreement — had reshaped German society so thoroughly that public dissent had become almost unthinkable. Almost.
At the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, a small group of students had been watching what was happening around them and struggling, quietly, with what they saw. Hans Scholl was 24. His sister Sophie was 21. Their friends Willi Graf, Christoph Probst, and Alexander Schmorell were roughly the same age. Their professor, Kurt Huber, was older and had more to lose. Together they arrived at a conclusion that most of their countrymen had managed to avoid: silence was not neutrality. In the circumstances they were living through, silence was a form of participation.
They called themselves Die Weiße Rose. The White Rose.
What they had was a typewriter, a duplicating machine, and the stubbornness of people who have decided they can no longer look the other way. Starting in June of 1942, they began printing leaflets and distributing them by hand and by post. Six leaflets in total, over eight months.
“The real damage is done by those millions who want to survive. The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves.” — Sophie Scholl
The Leaflets
The first four leaflets were written for the educated classes — academics, professionals, people who might respond to arguments grounded in Aristotle, scripture, Goethe and Schiller. The fifth shifted its language deliberately, speaking more plainly to ordinary Germans who had their own reasons to be troubled by what was happening but hadn’t been given a vocabulary for it. The sixth, released after Germany’s catastrophic defeat at Stalingrad in early 1943, was addressed to everyone. It said plainly what most people knew but would not say: the regime was finished, and the German people bore some responsibility for what had been done in their name.
None of the leaflets called for armed revolt. They called for conscience. They asked people to think, to refuse, to stop lending their cooperation — however passive, however reluctant — to a system that was destroying everything around it.
What Happened to Them
On February 18, 1943, Sophie and Hans were at the university distributing the final leaflet when they were spotted by a janitor. Not a committed Nazi. Not a true believer. Just a man who considered the leaflets litter and turned them in without much apparent reflection on what would follow. Within the week, Sophie, Hans, and Christoph Probst had been tried before the infamous judge Roland Freisler — a man whose courtroom was less a proceeding than a performance — and executed by guillotine. They were killed on February 22, 1943.
In the months that followed, most of the group was hunted down. Willi Graf was held and tortured for seven months before he was finally executed. Professor Huber was killed that July. They were in their twenties, most of them. Some younger.
The man who turned them in was not a fanatic. He was just someone who didn’t want the trouble. Sophie had written about exactly that kind of person — and history proved her right.
The Aftermath
Their deaths did not end the movement. The sixth leaflet was smuggled out of Germany and eventually reached the Allied forces. The Royal Air Force printed millions of copies and dropped them over German cities from the air. Resistance groups across Europe took note. The White Rose had become something that couldn’t be executed — an example.
Eighty years on, Sophie and Hans Scholl are among the most honoured figures in modern German history. Streets, schools and public squares carry their names. A 2003 survey named them among the greatest Germans of all time. They did not topple the regime. They did not win the war. But they demonstrated something history has confirmed again and again: speaking truth at personal cost changes the shape of what comes after, in ways that can’t always be predicted and can’t always be measured.
Part Two: Alberta, 1905 — Born with One Hand Tied
The Broken Promise at the Start
September 1, 1905. Alberta becomes a province of Canada. It is a moment of genuine celebration — the culmination of years of settlement, of breaking ground on the prairies, of building towns and railways and communities in a landscape that did not make any of it easy.
It is also, from the very beginning, an arrangement with a serious problem baked into it.
When the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia entered Confederation in 1867, they retained control of their natural resources. This was understood as a fundamental element of provincial sovereignty — the principle that the wealth beneath the ground belonged to the people who lived on top of it. When British Columbia joined in 1871, it kept its resources too. Same for Prince Edward Island in 1873.
Alberta and Saskatchewan, created in 1905 out of the Northwest Territories, were treated differently. The federal government in Ottawa retained control of their Crown lands and natural resources. The official justification was that the federal government had spent heavily on western settlement and needed the revenue from those lands to recoup its investment. The less official reality was that Ottawa was not about to hand over control of potentially enormous wealth to brand new provinces it didn’t yet fully trust.
Alberta was born a province, but it was not born an equal one. The wealth beneath its soil — the soil its people farmed and its ranchers grazed — belonged to Ottawa.
For 25 years, this is how things stood. Alberta grew. Its population expanded. Towns became cities. The province built schools, roads, and institutions. And all the while, the resources under that ground — the coal, the oil that hadn’t yet been discovered in its full scale, the agricultural lands — were administered from a city two thousand miles to the east.
1930: The Natural Resources Transfer
It took until December 14, 1929 — and the formal signing of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement in 1930 — for Alberta to finally gain control of its own natural resources. Twenty-five years after becoming a province, Alberta was granted what every other province had held from the beginning.
There was no apology. There was no acknowledgment that the original arrangement had been unjust. There was simply a transfer, framed as a correction, with the federal government retaining various rights and obligations that would continue to complicate the relationship for decades to come. The 1930 agreement has been called a belated act of fairness. It is perhaps more accurately described as the partial correction of a deliberate inequality.
The significance of this history is easy to underestimate if you weren’t raised with it. But it sits at the foundation of Alberta’s political psychology in ways that still matter. The province started behind, by design, and the people who built it knew it. That knowledge didn’t make them bitter exactly — Albertans aren’t really a bitter people — but it made them watchful. Skeptical of federal intentions in ways that have turned out, often enough, to be warranted.
The National Energy Program and Other Lessons
The 1980 National Energy Program is the sharpest wound in Alberta’s modern political memory. Imposed by the Trudeau government over the explicit objections of the Alberta government and the clear opposition of the province’s population, the NEP effectively capped the price Alberta could receive for its oil, redirected revenue to Ottawa, and drove investment out of the province at a speed that left real damage in its wake. It was, by any fair reading, an act of federal expropriation — not through legislation that said so plainly, but through the accumulation of measures that amounted to the same thing.
The slogan of the time — “Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark” — was not the expression of a civilized sentiment. But it came from somewhere real. It came from the experience of a province that had built something, watched it flourish, and then watched a federal government help itself to the proceeds without much visible concern for the people it was taking from.
Decades later, the pattern has repeated itself in different forms. Pipeline projects cancelled or delayed under federal pressure. Environmental regulations that apply differently to Alberta’s resource economy than to the economic activities of other provinces. An equalization formula that transfers tens of billions out of Alberta while remaining, for all practical purposes, beyond the province’s ability to reform through legitimate political channels. A recurring sense, shared across partisan lines, that when Alberta’s interests conflict with the preferences of central Canada, central Canada tends to win.
The grievance is not that Alberta wants to be selfish. The grievance is that the arrangement has never quite been fair, and the people who benefit from the unfairness have little incentive to change it.
Part Three: The Case for Courage
What Sophie Scholl Understood That We Keep Forgetting
Alberta in 2025 is not Germany in 1943. That comparison, if made carelessly, dishonours the people who actually lived under that regime and died at its hands. But Sophie Scholl’s insight about silence — about the damage done not by the fanatics but by the millions of ordinary people who simply want to be left alone — is not an insight that belongs only to extreme circumstances.
In any political system, at any level of severity, the people who benefit from an unfair arrangement rely on the silence of those who are harmed by it. The silence doesn’t have to be coerced. It can be comfortable. It can be the silence of people who are busy, or tired, or skeptical that speaking will make any difference, or simply unwilling to absorb the social cost of being the person who says the thing out loud.
That is the silence Sophie was writing about. And it is a silence that Albertans — those who believe their province has been dealt with unfairly, who believe the current federal arrangement does not serve their interests, who believe the story of 1905 and 1930 and 1980 is a story that should be better known and more honestly told — might recognize in themselves.
Do What You Can
The White Rose was not founded by extraordinary people in the conventional sense. Hans and Sophie Scholl had been members of the Hitler Youth as children, like most German kids of their generation. They came to their convictions gradually, through reading and conversation and the accumulating weight of what they were seeing around them. What made them different from the janitor who turned them in was not talent or courage that was somehow innate. It was a decision. A willingness, at a specific moment, to stop being passive about something they knew to be wrong.
I’m not asking anyone to be a martyr. That’s not what this is. What I’m saying is that the principle applies at every scale — that participation in the civic and political life of your community, your province, your country is not optional if you actually care about the outcome. That sharing accurate information, having honest conversations with your neighbours, showing up to something, supporting people who are doing the harder work — these things matter. They accumulate. They change what is possible.
Alberta’s story — from the unfair terms of 1905, through the betrayal of the NEP, through the ongoing inequities of equalization and federal energy policy — is a story that deserves to be told clearly and heard widely. Not out of grievance for its own sake, but because you cannot build something better on a foundation of things you haven’t been honest about.
The White Rose put their words on paper and distributed them by hand, at the cost of everything. We have tools they couldn’t have imagined. The question is whether we’ll use them.
Building Our Nation
Alberta was built by people who showed up. Homesteaders who broke ground on land that didn’t ask permission before throwing a blizzard at them. Roughnecks who worked in conditions that would stop most people before they’d started. Families who came from other countries with one suitcase and a willingness to start over, and who built something here that was worth building.
That spirit is the inheritance. It is not guaranteed to carry forward automatically. It has to be chosen, repeatedly, by each generation that comes after.
The independence movement in Alberta — whether you think that means full separation, or a renegotiated Confederation, or simply the kind of fierce provincial assertion that forces Ottawa to take the province seriously — is, at its best, an expression of that spirit. It is the refusal to be the silent observer. It is the decision to take seriously the question of what kind of future this province is building and to have some say in the answer.
We are not the White Rose. We face nothing like what they faced. But we carry the same basic obligation that they took seriously in Munich in 1942 — the obligation of citizens who know something is wrong to say so, clearly and without apology, and to keep saying it until something changes.
“I choose my own way to burn.” — Sophie Scholl
Alberta has been burning steadily for over a century — through drought and boom and bust and pipeline fights and federal overreach and all the rest of it. That fire is not going out.
The question is whether we tend it with intention, or leave it to chance.
Join us. Let’s build our nation.
Bruce Scholl
Unscrew the News
unscrewthenews.com
© 2025 Unscrew the News · Permission granted to share freely with attribution
