The History Channel: From Hitler to Freemasons

[Kurando]

Many of the important people were Freemasons, such as Hitler himself, and there are links between Freemasons in Germany and that of America, where is where Bush Jr's grandfather comes into place as his masonic lodge assisting Hitler.

This goes into other areas such as members of the Russian Communist party and others were Freemasons and received funding and finincal support for various things.

Also, why would those at the bottom know about the things at the top? The whole charity work can be seen as a front, while those at the top know what is really going on.

It is certainly true that many important people were Freemasons during the historical period 1939-1945. However, I have never heard any evidence whatsoever that Hitler (or any high ranking member of the Nazi party) was a Freemason. And I challenge you to document your statement from a reliable source. Nothing personal, but you are misinformed about this, and once you research it please have the character to stand corrected.

I get your point about "people at the top" not telling the "people on the bottom" what's actually happening, but it would be rather hard to fight a war without soldiers. Wouldn't the run-of-the-mill Masons (like myself) be soldiers? Also, it's hard to get people to fight unless you tell them what they're fighting for; by no means would it be imposible to manipulate me, but I certainly wouldn't fight in a Pseudo-Masonic war against people of a different attitudes or religions for the purpose of controling the world.

More importantly, as far as I can tell, (based on 15 years of experience), there are no "people at the top or bottom" in freemasonry; everyone is consider a brother and an equal. For example, I would not be at all intimidated to sit in lodge with a Prime Minster, a famous person, or whomever; I would just see them as a brother and an equal, and that's how they'd want to be seen. In 15 years I have never heard of a single case where someone at the "top" gave someone at the "bottom" an order. Moreover such a thing would be hard to justify because we don't follow leaders, rather, we follow our own principles, and the principles of the Masons whom I have had the honour of knowing lead us toward acts of charity and brotherhood, not toward acts of war, manipulation, or control.

[Sarmatian]

Moreover such a thing would be hard to justify because we don't follow leaders, rather, we follow our own principles, and the principles of the Masons whom I have had the honour of knowing lead us toward acts of charity and brotherhood, not toward acts of war, manipulation, or control.

Or that is what you want us to believe...

Hard to see the dark side is...

And now, seriously, have you ever had a chance to talk with a prime minister or someone powerful? Was there back-scratching ? And don't try to weasel out of the question, certainly your Org brothers are more important than some Masons...

[CountArach]

I would severely doubt that Hitler was a freemason on the grounds that Fascism and National Socialism saw the State as being the sole loyalty of the individual. Any outside loyalties were not tolerated except insofar as they were necessary for the survival of the regime. For an example see Franco's absolute obsession with rooting out Freemasonry in Spain.

[Adrian II]

I would severely doubt that Hitler was a freemason on the grounds that Fascism and National Socialism saw the State as being the sole loyalty of the individual.

Read Mein Kampf:

The general pacifistic paralysis of the national instinct of self preservation begun by Freemasonry in the circles of the so-called intelligentsia is transmitted to the broad masses and above all to the bourgeoisie by the activity of the big papers which today are always Jewish.

Hitler closed down the German lodges after 1933 and persecuted some of their leadership. In his eyes they represented yet another breed of 'rootless cosmopolitanism'. It was only in his talks with Hermann Rauschning that Hitler praised the Masonic model of organisation which, he said, he wanted to copy for the nazi party:

They are something of a priestly nobility. They developed an esoteric doctrine not merely formulated, but imparted through symbols and mysteries in degrees of initiation. The hierarchical organization and the initiation through symbolic rites, that is to say, without bothering the brain but by working on the imagination through magic and the symbols of a cult, all this has a dangerous element, and this element I have taken over.

Conspiracy theories are usually based on lies or misunderstandings which the believers never bother to check.

[CountArach]

Thank you Adrian, I was just going with an example I was more familiar with

[Kurando]

It was only in his talks with Hermann Rauschning that Hitler praised the Masonic model of organisation which, he said, he wanted to copy for the nazi party:

They are something of a priestly nobility. They developed an esoteric doctrine not merely formulated, but imparted through symbols and mysteries in degrees of initiation. The hierarchical organization and the initiation through symbolic rites, that is to say, without bothering the brain but by working on the imagination through magic and the symbols of a cult, all this has a dangerous element, and this element I have taken over.

Wow Adrian thanks for posting, that is extremely trippy, but thankfully it is also completely erroneous!

I say it's "trippy" because a few months ago I did some research on Hermann Rauschning after I read a weird quote atributed to Hitler on a totally unrelated topic... I had no idea that Rauschning's Conversations with Hitler had touched upon Freemasonry as well. But here's the deal:

It seems that even though Rauschning's work is still widely quoted both in print and on the net; the actual fact is that historians have long-since proven that the Conversations With Hitler document was [and is] a complete fake.

See the following commentaries from The Journal of Historical Review:
Conversations with Hitler Hoax
Swiss Historian Exposes Anti-Hitler Rauschning Memoir as Fraudulent

"Swiss historian Wolfgang Haenel spent five years diligently investigating the memoir before announcing his findings in 1983 at a revisionist history conference in West Germany. The renowned Conversations with Hitler, he declared are a total fraud."

It amazes me that a document which has been comprehensivly debunked is still so widely quoted. I guess it's a good case in point, as you said: "conspiracy theories are usually based on lies or misunderstandings which the believers never bother to check."

On the other hand, the quote you made from Mein Kampf is undesputedly atributed to Hitler, but it seems pretty shakey ground for any one to build a conspiricy upon.

[Hooahguy]

See the following commentaries from The Journal of Historical Review:

im not saying you are wrong or anything, but those links you gave i find are shady, since they are from the IHR, which is a notorious Holocaust denying organization.

[Adrian II]

Wow Adrian thanks for posting, that is extremely trippy, but thankfully it is also completely erroneous!

Easy now. I am not the one trying to prove a conspiracy. There seems to be doubt about Rauschning, that's right, though this Hänel fellow should keep better company if he, in turn, wants to be taken seriously. As a historian I wouldn't want to be associated with the site you linked to.

I guess in Rauschning's favour we should say that as a former nazi and Hitler admirer, he knew the regime from the inside. He wrote a very good analysis of it, Die Revolution des Nihilismus (1938), from which he quotes in his Parisian book Hitler m'a dit (1939). Even if the exact quotes from the latter are dubious, I wouldn't discard the book entirely.

And it doesn't refute my main point that Hitler hated freemasons. They were a popular scapegoat. Erich Ludendorff blamed them for losing WWI in 1918.