|
|
| Zeile 152: |
Zeile 152: |
| | Hitler’s anti-Masonic attitude spread along with his invading armies, prompting Sven | | Hitler’s anti-Masonic attitude spread along with his invading armies, prompting Sven |
| | Lunden, a correspondent with the American Mercury, to proclaim that “there is only one | | Lunden, a correspondent with the American Mercury, to proclaim that “there is only one |
| − | group of men whom the Nazis and the Fascists hate more than the Jews. They are the | + | group of men whom the Nazis and the Fascists hate more than the Jews. |
| − | Freemasons.”2 Though an intriguing declaration, to be sure, Lunden was wrong; the | + | |
| | + | They are the |
| | + | Freemasons.”2 |
| | + | |
| | + | Though an intriguing declaration, to be sure, Lunden was wrong; the |
| | Nazis did not hate Freemasons more than Jews. In fact, Nazis didn’t hate Freemasons at | | Nazis did not hate Freemasons more than Jews. In fact, Nazis didn’t hate Freemasons at |
| | all; the Nazis hated “Freemasonry,” but not necessarily “Freemasons.” The ideology | | all; the Nazis hated “Freemasonry,” but not necessarily “Freemasons.” The ideology |
| Zeile 167: |
Zeile 171: |
| | 2 Sven G. Lunden, “Annihilation of Freemasonry,” American Mercury, February, 1941, | | 2 Sven G. Lunden, “Annihilation of Freemasonry,” American Mercury, February, 1941, |
| | 184-190. | | 184-190. |
| − | 2
| |
| − | membership, either past or present, with a fraternity that, in the words of Alfred
| |
| − | Rosenberg, “work[ed] for the loosening of state, national and social bonds.”3
| |
| − | I first stumbled across the idea of studying Freemasonry in the Third Reich while
| |
| − | writing my masters thesis. I was reading Robert Herzstein’s The War that Hitler Won
| |
| − | and came across the cartoon in Figure A1. Note that in the caption, Herzstein identified
| |
| − | the symbol above Stresemann’s head as the Star of David; however, closer inspection
| |
| − | revealed that the symbol wasn’t the Star of David, but the compass and the square;
| |
| − | symbol of the Freemasons (to which Stresemann belonged). Now, separately, the
| |
| − | subjects of Nazi Germany and Freemasonry occupy entire bookshelves of printed
| |
| − | material and thousands of hours of movies and documentaries, but surprisingly there is
| |
| − | practically nothing that examines the two together. Survey texts on the Third Reich and
| |
| − | the Holocaust mention Freemasonry, but only in passing.4 Often the most information
| |
| − | that can be found in secondary literature comes from books about the Christian churches
| |
| − | under Hitler,5 which is both misleading and unfair. Though requiring its members to
| |
| − | 3 By “social” he means “racial.” Alfred Rosenberg, Myth of the Twentieth Century: An
| |
| − | Evaluation of the Spiritual-Intellectual Confrontations of Our Age (Torrence, CA: Noontide
| |
| − | Press, 1982), 47.
| |
| − | 4 Michael Burleigh’s recently published The Third Reich: A New History (New York:
| |
| − | Hill and Wang, 2001), for example, devotes only two paragraphs (one for German Freemasonry
| |
| − | and one for Freemasonry in France) of its near 1000 pages to the topic. Ian Kershaw’s twovolume
| |
| − | study of Hitler has a half-dozen references to Freemasons throughout its almost 2000
| |
| − | pages, most of which are only cursory. Richard Evans three volume study of Nazi Germany
| |
| − | devotes less than a paragraph to Freemasonry, again only mentioned in passing.
| |
| − | 5 Ernst Christian Helmreich, German Churches Under Hitler (Detroit: Wayne State
| |
| − | University Press, 1979), Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (New York:
| |
| − | McGraw Hill, 1964) and John Conway, Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945 (New
| |
| − | York: Basic Books, 1968) offer the most information. Christine Elizabeth King occasionally
| |
| − | mentions connections between the Freemasons and non-mainstream churches in The Nazi State
| |
| − | and the New Religions: Five Case Studies in Non-Conformity (New York: E. Mellon Press,
| |
| − | 1982).
| |
| − | 3
| |
| − | believe in God, Freemasonry is not, nor has it ever claimed to be, a religion. General
| |
| − | histories of Freemasonry likewise suffer from the same dearth.6 Of all the available
| |
| − | literature on the Freemasons in Nazi Germany, what is scholarly isn’t in English and
| |
| − | what is in English isn’t scholarly. Additionally, with the exception of Ralf Melzer’s
| |
| − | Konflikt und Anpassung, everything had been published by a Masonic publisher.7 Next
| |
| − | to Melzer, only Helmut Neuberger’s Freimaurerei und Nationalsozialismus was written
| |
| − | by an author who was not also a Freemason, though Neuberger’s work was published by
| |
| − | a Masonic press.8 Their two contributions represent the scholarly literature available,
| |
| − | and both are only available in German. In English, there are a about a dozen or so short
| |
| − | articles published since the end of the war, all written by Freemasons and published in
| |
| − | Masonic journals. The earliest was a report from the Masonic Service Association’s
| |
| − | Committee on European Freemasonry on its six-week fact-finding mission in 1945.9 In
| |
| − | 6 In 1962, Friedrich John Böttner, a Mason, published Zersplitterung und Einigung: 225
| |
| − | Jahre Geschichte der deutschen Freimaurer, (Hamburg: “Absalom zu den drei Nesseln” lodge
| |
| − | press, 1962), which gave a history of Freemasonry in Germany from its founding until 1958, but
| |
| − | devoted just a single page of its 300 pages to the Third Reich. Two years later, Manfred
| |
| − | Steffens, also a Mason, published Freimaurer in Deutschland; Bilanz eines Vierteljahrtausends
| |
| − | (Flensberg: C. Wolff, 1964), which again devoted very little of its considerable length to the
| |
| − | Third Reich. Robert Freke Gould, in his multivolume history of Freemasonry, devotes almost a
| |
| − | hundred pages to the history of Freemasonry in Germany, and then ends it with a single sentence
| |
| − | stating that in 1932 [sic] Hitler suppressed the lodges and ended Masonic activity in Germany.
| |
| − | 7 Ralf Melzer, Konflikt und Anpassung: Freimaurerei in der Weimarer Republik und im
| |
| − | “Dritten Reich” (Vienna: Braumüller, 1999). An article-length summary of Melzer’s work was
| |
| − | published in 2004 in Art DeHoyos and S. Brent Morris, eds., Freemasonry in Context: History,
| |
| − | Ritual and Controversy (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004).
| |
| − | 8 Helmut Neuberger, Freimaurerei und Nationalsozialismus: die Verfolgung der
| |
| − | deutschen Freimaurerei durch völkische Bewegung und Nationalsozialismus 1918-1945
| |
| − | (Hamburg: Bauhütten, 1980). In 2001, Neuberger published an updated and condensed version
| |
| − | of his book, Winkelmass und Hakenkreuz: Die Freimaurer und das Dritte Reich (Munich:
| |
| − | Herbig, 2001).
| |
| − | 9 “Freemasonry in Europe: Report of the Committee sent abroad in August, 1945, by the
| |
| − | Masonic Service Association to ascertain the conditions and needs of the Grand Lodges and
| |
| − | Brethren in the Occupied Countries” (Washington: Masonic Service Association, 1945). The
| |
| − | 4
| |
| − | 1959, Irvine Wiest presented a paper at the annual meeting of the Society of Blue Friars
| |
| − | writing a history of Freemasonry under the Nazis based exclusively on the documents of
| |
| − | the Nuremberg Trials.10 Following publication of Neuberger’s dissertation in 1980, Ars
| |
| − | Quator Coronatorum, the journal of the most exclusive Masonic research lodge in the
| |
| − | world, published two articles on Freemasonry in the Third Reich, one simply repeated
| |
| − | what had already been published, the other was more devoted to a ritual history and said
| |
| − | little about the Nazis at all.11 It wasn’t until Alain Bernheim published “German
| |
| − | Freemasonry and its Attitude Toward the Nazi Regime” and “Blue Forget-Me-Not:
| |
| − | Another Side of the Story” that there was something in English that used primary
| |
| − | sources and didn’t simply repeat what previous authors had already stated.12 Bernheim
| |
| − | excursion began on August 12, 1945 and ended on September 28. It must have been a whirlwind
| |
| − | of a tour because in that time the participants visited Sweden, Finland, France, Norway,
| |
| − | Denmark, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium and Austria (essentially
| |
| − | everywhere that wasn’t under Soviet occupation). The Masonic Service Association undertook
| |
| − | the mission to ascertain how the US lodges could best help the lodges of war-torn Europe, but
| |
| − | concluded the best course of action was for the lodges to support government aid agencies and
| |
| − | programs already in place in order to avoid resentment that would surely arise if the association
| |
| − | only helped other Masons.
| |
| − | 10 Irvine Wiest, “Freemasonry and the Nuremberg Trials” (paper read at the Fifteenth
| |
| − | Annual Consistory of the Society of Blue Friars, Washington, D.C., February 22, 1959),
| |
| − | available online from website of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, accessed January 3, 2011,
| |
| − | http://www.grandlodgescotland.com/index.php?option
| |
| − | =com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid=126.
| |
| − | 11 Eric Howe’s “The Collapse of Freemasonry in Nazi Germany, 1933-1935” Ars
| |
| − | Quatuor Coronatorum vol. 95 (1982), is a reader’s digest version of Neuberger, though
| |
| − | Neuberger is not listed among the four footnotes included in the paper; in “The Masonic Union
| |
| − | of the Rising Sun” Ars Quatuor Coronatorum vol. 97 (1984) J. A. Jowett gives the history of this
| |
| − | short-lived lodge including its forced closure, but devotes half of the six-page article to ritual
| |
| − | comparison between the Rising Sun and other regular lodges. By admission of the author the
| |
| − | entire article is based on two booklets published by the Rising Sun.
| |
| − | 12 Alain Bernheim, “Freemasonry and its Attitude Toward the Nazi Regime” The
| |
| − | Philalethes (Feb 97), available from Available from Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry,
| |
| − | accessed January 3, 2011, http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/bernheim12.html. In “The
| |
| − | Blue Forget-me-not: Another Side of the Story,” Bernheim had an interesting run in with a
| |
| − | flawed memory of Freemasonry and Nazi Germany. A small group within German Freemasonry
| |
| − | 5
| |
| − | later published “Tarnung und Gewalt: Karl Höde, die Freimaurer und die Nazis” further
| |
| − | supporting the arguments he made in his previous article, but unfortunately not available
| |
| − | in English.13 In 2002, an edited volume on European and American Freemasonry
| |
| − | included a chapter on the persecution of Freemasonry, although the article on
| |
| − | Freemasonry and Nazism examines the response of American Freemasons to Nazi
| |
| − | persecution of German Freemasonry, rather than a study of the persecution itself.14
| |
| − | Minimizing the already scant amount of available material is the unfortunate fact
| |
| − | that nearly all these authors are mired in debate over whether Freemasons ought to be
| |
| − | classified as victims or collaborators. While all authors acknowledge the persecution of
| |
| − | German Freemasons, only Bernheim and Melzer point out that the majority of
| |
| − | Freemasons, both as institutions and individuals, actually tried to align with the regime,
| |
| − | failing at the institutional level but succeeding remarkably as individuals. Bernheim
| |
| − | tempers his argument with the statement: “This paper is not, in any way, written against
| |
| − | wanted to induct Bernheim into the order of the Blue Forget-me-not, so named for the a flower
| |
| − | that the group claimed was used during the war as a secret symbol of Freemasons who vowed to
| |
| − | continue to meet and work as Freemasons, despite being outlawed. After doing some research,
| |
| − | Bernheim had to inform the order that the flower was not a secret symbol of clandestine
| |
| − | Freemasonry. It was used by Freemasons, but not officially, and then not until the war ended.
| |
| − | Additionally, the Nazi Winterhilfswerk sold Blue Forget-me-not pins in March, 1938 to raise
| |
| − | money. Some lodges used the flower, but the flower was not a Masonic symbol. The article is
| |
| − | available from Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry, accessed January 3, 2011,
| |
| − | http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/bernheim3.html;
| |
| − | 13 Alain Bernheim, “Tarnung und Gewalt: Karl Hoede, die Freimaurerei, die Nazis,”
| |
| − | R.E.F.O.R.M. Jahrbuch 03 (2001), 47-57.
| |
| − | 14 Aaron T. Kornblum, “The New Age Magazine’s Reportage of National Socialism, the
| |
| − | Persecution of European Masonry, and the Holocaust” in R. William Weisberger, Wallace
| |
| − | McLeod and S. Brent Morris, eds. Freemasonry on Both Sides of the Atlantic: Essays
| |
| − | Concerning the Craft in the British Isles, Europe, the United States and Mexico (Boulder, CO:
| |
| − | East European Monographs, 2002). In his footnotes, Kornblum suggests Melzer’s book over
| |
| − | Neuberger’s, which is surprising given that Melzer is less kind in his treatment of Masonic
| |
| − | reaction to persecution than Neuberger.
| |
| − | 6
| |
| − | Germany or German Freemasonry. On the contrary, it is meant as an expression of
| |
| − | gratitude toward a handful of German brethren who, in my eyes, saved the honor of
| |
| − | German Freemasonry during the most difficult period of its history, and as a contribution
| |
| − | to a better understanding between Masons.”15
| |
| − | The debate carries on because, to a degree, both sides are right. The Nazis
| |
| − | relentlessly attacked Freemasonry as an institution both before the seizure of power and
| |
| − | continuing until the last lodge shut down in 1935. Some lodge brothers lost their jobs,
| |
| − | others lost money and possessions that they had invested in the lodges, and some even
| |
| − | spent time in a concentration camp. At the same time, cries of collaboration are equally
| |
| − | valid. Many Freemasons willingly joined the Nazi party and its affiliates. One lodge
| |
| − | brother joined the Schutzstaffeln (SS) and then helped it shut down his former lodge;
| |
| − | others served as informers for the Gestapo and Sicherheitsdienst (SD – Security
| |
| − | Service). Many lodges officially barred Jews, adopted “Aryan clauses,” and openly
| |
| − | sought “coordination” with the regime. Hitler even appointed a Freemason, Hjalmar
| |
| − | Schacht, first as president of the Reichsbank and then as Minister of Economics. As for
| |
| − | the Symboliches Großloge von Deutschland (SGvD - Symbolic Grand Lodge of
| |
| − | Germany), the lodge that had been praised in many of these short articles for openly
| |
| − | criticizing Hitler, it was deemed “irregular” (not officially recognized) and looked down
| |
| − | upon by mainstream German Freemasonry at the time. Even Freemasons outside of
| |
| − | German disputed the legitimacy of the SGvD.16
| |
| − | 15 Bernheim, “Freemasonry and its Attitude Toward the Nazi Regime.”
| |
| − | 16 For example, Arthur Schramm, a German-American Freemason who maintained
| |
| − | correspondence with the German grand lodges, rejected the SGvD as Masonic. Arthur
| |
| − | 7
| |
| − | Rather than grab one end or the other in this victim-collaborator tug of war, I
| |
| − | hope to make a new departure by exploring why Freemasons acted the way they did and
| |
| − | trying to ascertain what motivated tens of thousands of men to abandon the lodges and
| |
| − | seek to align with the very regime that was out to get them? Or, for the few who didn’t,
| |
| − | why did they risk continued persecution instead of simply denouncing the lodges and
| |
| − | moving on? The answer, I argue, is that the men in the lodges who sought to align with
| |
| − | the regime were cut from virtually the same cloth as the men outside the lodges who
| |
| − | sought to align. They came from the demographics that increasingly supported the
| |
| − | Nazis throughout Weimar and into the 1930s,17 as well as serving in those professions
| |
| − | that willingly “worked toward the Führer.” Or, as Peter Fritsche more bluntly put it,
| |
| − | “Germans became Nazis because they wanted to become Nazis and because the Nazis
| |
| − | spoke so well to their interests and inclinations.”18 The one obstacle to an otherwise
| |
| − | perfect match between former lodge members and the Nazi Party was the fact that these
| |
| − | men had belonged, or continued to belong to the lodges. Freemasons were thus unique
| |
| − | among the “victims” of National Socialism.
| |
| − | The Nazis targeted dozens of groups, but one cannot lump all these groups into
| |
| − | Schramm, “Freemasonry in Germany” (speech delivered at a meeting of the Liberal Arts Lodge,
| |
| − | No. 677, Westwood California, May 7, 1931); Hans-Heinrich Solf also challenges the validity of
| |
| − | the SGvD, calling it “more or less irregular” in comparison to the “perfectly respectable
| |
| − | Hamburg Grand Lodge” after its exile to Chile. Hans-Heinrich Solf, “The Revival of
| |
| − | Freemasonry in Postwar Germany,” ArsQuatuor Coronatorum 97 (1984), 5.
| |
| − | 17 The two most significant studies of German voting, Richard Hamilton’s Who Voted
| |
| − | for Hitler? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982) and Thomas Childers, The Nazi
| |
| − | Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919-1933 (Chapel Hill, NC: University
| |
| − | of North Carolina Press, 1983) both concluded that while the petite bourgeoisie made up the
| |
| − | backbone of the NSDAP in its infancy, the party swelled to become the largest party in Germany
| |
| − | by 1932 because of increasing support from the upper and upper-middle classes; the very
| |
| − | demographic to which the majority of Freemasons belonged.
| |
| − | 18 Peter Fritsch, Germans into Nazis (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 8.
| |
| − | 8
| |
| − | one, label it “victims” and move on. Every group shared the forms of persecution (theft,
| |
| − | slander, imprisonment, murder) with at least one other group, so separating victims by
| |
| − | what they suffered is insufficient as well as insulting. Instead, motive and endgame are a
| |
| − | better way to separate one victim group from another. Holocaust scholar, Yehuda
| |
| − | Bauer, for example, distinguished between victims of persecution, victims of genocide
| |
| − | and victims of holocaust by focusing on the purpose or intended outcome of
| |
| − | persecution.19
| |
| − | Victims of persecution were pursued until the members of that group severed ties
| |
| − | with the group and its ideology, choosing instead to conform to the Nazi standard.
| |
| − | Bauer puts political and religious groups (communists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and
| |
| − | Freemasons) into that group. The most important difference between victims of
| |
| − | persecution and victims of genocide or holocaust was that their status as a target was not
| |
| − | dependant on race, biology or “blood.” For communists the problem was political, for
| |
| − | Jehovah’s Witnesses it was religious and for Freemasons it was ideological; all three of
| |
| − | which are voluntary and controllable by the victim. Victims of genocide and holocaust
| |
| − | included Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the mentally disabled: groups whose
| |
| − | “threat” lay in their blood and could therefore “taint” the blood of good, Aryan Germans
| |
| − | through marriage and children. Classification lay with the persecutor. What separated
| |
| − | genocide from holocaust, according to Bauer, is that victims of genocide were pursued
| |
| − | until their racial/ethnic community was destroyed, which, though necessitating mass
| |
| − | 19 Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust (New Haven: Yale, 2001), 1-13. Bauer
| |
| − | differentiates between “holocaust” and “Holocaust.” The former is the attempt at completely
| |
| − | eradicating a racial group, the Holocaust is the specific instance of the former.
| |
| − | 9
| |
| − | murder, did not necessitate the murder of all members.20 That fate is what remained
| |
| − | solely for the Jews; complete, total and utter extinction, not only in Germany, but
| |
| − | worldwide.21
| |
| − | Freemasons are thus unique in that they were among the Nazis’ ideological
| |
| − | enemy, but what set Freemasons apart from other non-racial groups? Like Freemasons,
| |
| − | communists could, and did, leave the Communist Party to avoid persecution; some even
| |
| − | joined the Nazi Party.22 In fact, when former Freemasons were denied membership in
| |
| − | the party they pointed out that former communists were being allowed to join, so why
| |
| − | not them?23 What separated Freemasons from communists was education and class.
| |
| − | Communism appeals primarily to uneducated workingman, whereas Freemasonry
| |
| − | appealed to the educated social elite. Former Freemasons thus had skills to offer, not
| |
| − | just party dues. As doctors, lawyers and professors, Freemasons could serve as
| |
| − | legitimizers and perpetuators of Nazi ideology. Furthermore, as bourgeoisie, former
| |
| − | Freemasons shared the Nazis’ detest of communism.
| |
| − | Freemasons differed from Witnesses in several ways; first, religious affiliation,
| |
| − | and the changing thereof, had to be registered with the government. Freemasonry was a
| |
| − | social organization and thus not a part of ones official identity. Freemasons could join
| |
| − | 20 Bauer, for example, points out that Nazis distinguished between varying degrees of
| |
| − | Gypsy blood as well as separating nomadic and sedentary Gypsies, ruthlessly pushing both out
| |
| − | of Germany, but allowing the sedentary Gypsies outside of Germany to continue to live so long
| |
| − | as their status as an community had been destroyed, see Rethinking, 60-62.
| |
| − | 21 Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust, 12.
| |
| − | 22 Bauer states that the number of ex-communists in the Nazi Party numbered in the
| |
| − | millions, Rethinking the Holocaust, 11.
| |
| − | 23 January 19, 1939, SD Lagebericht for 1938. United States Holocaust Memorial
| |
| − | Museum, Record Group 15.007M, Records of the Reichsicherheitshauptamt (RSHA), reel 5,
| |
| − | folder 30.
| |
| − | 10
| |
| − | or leave the lodges without government paperwork, which meant that when the Nazis
| |
| − | took power they had complete lists of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany, but not of
| |
| − | Freemasons. This is one reason why the Gestapo tried so hard to acquire membership
| |
| − | lists from lodge administrators; without them there was little proof of a man’s
| |
| − | membership. This ability to change one’s spots has another facet; religion plays a much
| |
| − | larger role in a person’s identity than do their club memberships. As for the Jehovah’s
| |
| − | Witnesses, they too had the possibility of denouncing the church and escaping
| |
| − | persecution, which a few did,24 but to denounce one’s religion under persecution is to
| |
| − | jeopardize one’s salvation. For most Witnesses, persecution for their belief was
| |
| − | preferable to escape by denying the faith. It was choosing the higher calling. In
| |
| − | Freemasonry, the bonds of ideology and belief are nowhere near as strong as bonds of
| |
| − | faith, and that assumes that the individual joined the lodge for the ideology in the first
| |
| − | place (which most didn’t). Whereas the minority of Witnesses forsook ideology, it was
| |
| − | the minority of Freemasons who stuck to it and risked continued persecution. Severing
| |
| − | the mental connections to a lodge was almost as easy as severing the physical ones. A
| |
| − | third area that greatly separates Freemasons from Witnesses is nationalism. A Witness
| |
| − | is forbidden to salute the flag, serve in the army, or do anything that might be construed
| |
| − | as violating the Second Commandment. This was one of the reasons the Nazis hounded
| |
| − | the Witnesses in the first place. Freemasons, on the other hand, were intensely national,
| |
| − | very patriotic, and many of them had already served in the military, as officers no less.
| |
| − | There is one other group that warrants comparison and shows the uniqueness of
| |
| − | 24 Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust, 11.
| |
| − | 11
| |
| − | the lodges and helps explain the difficult path the Freemasons had to follow to achieve
| |
| − | compromise; the university student Korps (fraternities). These college fraternities
| |
| − | shared a great deal in common with the lodges; they are equally as old, equally as
| |
| − | exclusive, and both declared themselves to be politically and religiously neutral. As
| |
| − | professionals, many Freemasons belonged to the Korps during their days at the
| |
| − | university, introducing them to the world of voluntary associations and social
| |
| − | exclusivity. Members in both the Korps and the lodges held their membership dear
| |
| − | (some even held concurrent membership in both), but belonging to a Korps or lodge was
| |
| − | not as defining as political or religious affiliation, leaving a willingness to abandon the
| |
| − | association if necessary. After the seizure of power, the Korps responded like the
| |
| − | lodges; some sought coordination while others resisted it as long as possible, eventually
| |
| − | choosing to close down rather than align.25 Where they did differ, however, was that
| |
| − | Nazis accepted the coordination of the Korps, but not of the lodges. The difference was
| |
| − | institutional; as an organization the Korps had something to offer the regime; the lodges
| |
| − | did not. The lodges numbered doctors, lawyers, and businessmen among its members,
| |
| − | but the party already had associations for doctors, lawyers and businessmen. True, the
| |
| − | party had a student association, the Nationalsocialistische Deutesche Studentenbund
| |
| − | (NSDStB – National Socialist German Student League), but that’s exactly the point, by
| |
| − | absorbing the already existing Korps the NSDStB made its job that much easier. There
| |
| − | was no Nazi equivalent to the Masonic lodges, thus to accept them was to incorporate an
| |
| − | entirely new organization that, in its previous incarnation, held a worldview completely
| |
| − | 25 For a brief but succinct study of the German Korps and the Nazi regime see R.G.S.
| |
| − | Weber, The German Student Corps in the Third Reich (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986).
| |
| − | 12
| |
| − | opposite National Socialism.
| |
| − | Freemasons are thus a unique victim group to study because not only was
| |
| − | cooperating with the regime possible, it was desirable; however, because of the history
| |
| − | and ideology of the fraternity the regime only wanted to accept the members and not the
| |
| − | organization. As an organization made up of the very demographics that the Nazis
| |
| − | sought to co-opt, Freemasons were in a unique position among non-racial victims of
| |
| − | persecution to essentially negotiate the terms of their dissolution. Conversely the regime
| |
| − | had to decide how strict to be in enforcing its policies, choosing either shutting out very
| |
| − | skilled and influential men, or maintaining ideological integrity. A study of the
| |
| − | Freemasons will explore the dance between regime and lodge, examining how the
| |
| − | Freemasons tried to reconcile their membership, and how the Nazis sought a way to
| |
| − | reject Freemasonry while still accepting the Freemason.
| |
| − | In addition to making a scholarly contribution to the history of Freemasonry in
| |
| − | Nazi Germany, an examination of the persecution of Freemasonry in the Third Reich
| |
| − | will also contribute to the growing literature on nature of Nazi Terror and persecution.
| |
| − | In the fifty years since the fall of the Third Reich the history of Nazi persecution has
| |
| − | already gone through numerous changes and reevaluations, many of which are more than
| |
| − | a simple tweaking or fine tuning of previous theories. For the first two decades
| |
| − | following the end of WWII, Nazi Germany, and thus Nazi Terror, was depicted as a
| |
| − | well-oiled machine; it was German efficiency put to the most nefarious use. Hitler was
| |
| − | 13
| |
| − | undisputed,26 the regime was absolute, and the Gestapo was everywhere.27 Former
| |
| − | cabinet minister Hjalmar Schacht described it as a situation in which “there was no
| |
| − | freedom of assembly. There was no freedom of speech. There was no freedom of
| |
| − | writing. There was no possibility of discussing things even in a small group. From A to
| |
| − | Z one was spied upon, and every word which was said in a group of more than two
| |
| − | persons was spoken at the peril of one's life.”28
| |
| − | Over the next decade the “well oiled machine” argument gave way to one of
| |
| − | power struggle; the “strong dictator/weak dictator” argument. Scholars demonstrated
| |
| − | that the Nazi government, like all governments, was anything but smooth and efficient,
| |
| − | implicating more people than just the “Hitler Gang.”29 Continuing into the 1980s,
| |
| − | 26 For studies that argue for Hitler as the “evil genius” whose personality and skill at
| |
| − | oratory mesmerized a nation while the Gestapo terrorized those who weren’t entranced, see H.
| |
| − | R. Trevor-Roper, The Last Days of Hitler (London: Macmillan, 1947); Alan Bullock, Hitler: A
| |
| − | Study in Tyranny (New York: Harper & Bros., 1953); William Shirer The Rise and Fall of the
| |
| − | Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (London: Simon & Schuster, 1960); and Joachim Fest,
| |
| − | Hitler (London: Widenfeld and Nicholson, 1974).
| |
| − | 27 For discussion of the Nazi police state, see Edward Crankshaw, Gestapo: Instrument
| |
| − | of Tyranny (New York: Putnam, 1956); Gerald Reitlinger’s SS: Alibi of a Nation (New York:
| |
| − | Viking, 1957), though he says the SS was not alone in being responsible for the Holocaust,
| |
| − | Reitlinger does limit responsibility to government agencies and powerful men; and Helmut
| |
| − | Krausnick, Hans Buchheim, Martin Broszat and Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Anatomy of the SS State
| |
| − | (London: Collins, 1968). In a short article Robert Gellately confirms that during the regime and
| |
| − | shortly after, the Gestapo built up this myth through careful manipulation of the press, see
| |
| − | “Denunciations in Nazi Germany” in F. C. DeCoste and Bernard Schwartz, eds., The
| |
| − | Holocaust’s Ghost: Writings on Art, Politics, Law and Education (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada:
| |
| − | University of Alberta Press, 2000). In Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, Brace &
| |
| − | Co., 1951) Hannah Arendt argues that Hitler, along with Stalin, were the only two men to ever
| |
| − | successfully establish a totalitarian state, and that in Germany the terror of the secret police was
| |
| − | absolute.
| |
| − | 28 Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal:
| |
| − | Proceedings Volumes (Blue Set), vol. 12, 452-53. Full text available online from the Avalon
| |
| − | Project at Yale Law School, accessed January 3, 2011,
| |
| − | http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp.
| |
| − | 29 William Sheridan Allen in The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single
| |
| − | German Town, 1922-1945 (New York: F. Watts, 1984) shows how Nazism was built up at the
| |
| − | 14
| |
| − | scholars demonstrated that disharmony in the upper echelons of Nazi Germany also
| |
| − | existed among the general populace. While Aryan middle-class men were generally
| |
| − | happy with the new regime, the working class, women and the churches were not.30
| |
| − | More recent scholarship has examined the degree to which the regime and the
| |
| − | population negotiated cooperation through a mixture of voluntary and compulsory
| |
| − | means. Professor Eric Johnson’s decade long research project on the Gestapo in Krefeld
| |
| − | has shown that contrary to popular perception, the Gestapo was not omnipotent,
| |
| − | omniscient and omnipresent, and in fact the Gestapo relied on the general public to
| |
| − | police themselves more than they did on an army of agents, focusing the attention of
| |
| − | agents toward specific groups that posed a more serious threat to the regime than an
| |
| − | average German making jokes about Goering’s weight.31 Of course, target groups like
| |
| − | received more attention from the police, but for the general public who didn’t belong to
| |
| − | any suspect group the Gestapo mostly left them alone; the Terror wasn’t terrible for
| |
| − | municipal level, rather than being wholly handed down from above. His thesis was taken even
| |
| − | further by Anthony McElligot in Contested City: Municipal Politics and the Rise of Nazism in
| |
| − | Altona, 1917-1937 (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1998). Furthermore, enough
| |
| − | time had lapsed since the end of the war that German scholars were able to contribute to the
| |
| − | growing literature. In The Hitler State: The Foundation and Development of the Internal
| |
| − | Structure of the Third Reich (New York: Longman, 1981) Martin Broszat refers to Nazi
| |
| − | Germany as a “polyocracy” rather than a totalitarian dictatorship. Albert Speer’s memoir Inside
| |
| − | the Third Reich (New York: Macmillan, 1970) likewise reveals the infighting between
| |
| − | departments and upper level government figures. Ralf Dahrendorf attacks Nazi Germany as a
| |
| − | matter of socio-political structure, arguing that Nazi Germany was less a question of what Hitler
| |
| − | had, as it was a question of what German society lacked, see Society and Democracy in Germany
| |
| − | (New York: Doubleday, 1967). Karl Dietrich Bracher also approaches Nazi Germany
| |
| − | structurally in The German Dictatorship: The Origins, Structure and Effects of National
| |
| − | Socialism (New York: Praeger, 1970), arguing that a combination of existing factors and
| |
| − | conditions, coupled with Hitler’s skill at manipulation, led to the Nazi state.
| |
| − | 30 See Ian Kershaw, Popular Opinion and Political dissent in the Third Reich (New
| |
| − | York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Detlev Peukert, Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity,
| |
| − | Opposition and Racism in Everyday Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987).
| |
| − | 31 Eric Johnson, Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews and Ordinary Germans (New York:
| |
| − | Basic Books, 1999).
| |
| − | 15
| |
| − | everyone. Other scholars have demonstrated that the Nazis employed “carrot-and-stick”
| |
| − | methods more than they did terror and intimidation.32 Some groups didn’t even require
| |
| − | any “stick” and “coordinated” more-or-less on their own shortly after the seizure of
| |
| − | power.33 A study of Freemasons in the Third Reich will contribute by examining a
| |
| − | previously overlooked group that aptly illustrates the interaction between this unique
| |
| − | group of Germans and the Nazi government, showing that the degree a group suffered
| |
| − | persecution rested on a number of factors: was the group deemed a racial threat? If not,
| |
| − | did the group or its members have something specific to offer the regime? If so, could
| |
| − | the group as a whole simply be “coordinated”? If not, how are the individual members
| |
| − | to be dealt with in comparison to the organization? Lastly, were the members of the
| |
| − | targeted group willing to take the necessary actions to avoid persecution? The reaction
| |
| − | of Freemasons shows how answering these questions led to compromise and conflict
| |
| − | 32 Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in the Third Reich (New
| |
| − | York: Oxford University Press, 2001) shows how the public were well aware of the existence
| |
| − | and operation of the camps, which served a dual purpose. One one hand it built support among
| |
| − | the populace by showing that the regime was a regime of action, working to imprison criminals,
| |
| − | asocials and other elements of society that most citizens would be happy to see locked up. The
| |
| − | second purpose was to show the populace what happens to those who challenge the regime or
| |
| − | refuse to conform to its standards. Adam LeBor and Roger Boyes, Surviving Hitler: Choices,
| |
| − | Corruption and Compromise in the Third Reich (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000) makes
| |
| − | similar argument but throws in economic factors, demonstrating that by supporting thre regime
| |
| − | one could benefit financially, while challenging the regime, or being numbered among its
| |
| − | enemies, lead to loss of livelihood and property.
| |
| − | 33 Michael Kater’s, Doctor’s Under Hitler (Chapel hill: University of North Carolina
| |
| − | Press, 1989) describes how the medical profession aligned with the regime for social, economic
| |
| − | and political reasons; Steve Remy, The Heidelberg Myth: the Nazifacation and Denazifacation
| |
| − | of a German University (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002) does the same for German
| |
| − | academia, showing that universities took the initiative in coordinating with the regime and then
| |
| − | using their status as intellectuals to put an academic seal of approval on Nazi ideology; Ingo
| |
| − | Müller, Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
| |
| − | 1991) explores the gradual steps by which the entire German legal system, from law schools to
| |
| − | aging judges justified upholding the racial and persecutory laws of the Third Reich and, like the
| |
| − | medical and academic professions, began preempting the regime.
| |
| − | 16
| |
| − | from both the lodges and the government, providing a reinterpretation of how Nazi
| |
| − | persecution and cooperation worked, especially in regards to non-racial groups. It will
| |
| − | show that Nazi Terror was not uniform, persecution (at least for non-racial enemies)
| |
| − | could be mitigated or even totally escaped, and that the degree to which an individual
| |
| − | could lessen or avoid persecution relied on a system of give-and-take with the regime.
| |
| − | The more a specific group or individual had to offer, the more likely the regime would
| |
| − | make concessions, either at the institutional or individual level. In the case of
| |
| − | Freemasons, they had everything to offer; knowledge, reputation, wealth, skill,
| |
| − | experience and influence. The only drawback was association with a group whose
| |
| − | ideology was fundamentally opposite that of National Socialism, which was the reason
| |
| − | why the regime was unwilling to allow a general “coordination” of Freemasonry while
| |
| − | still leaving the door open for individual Freemasons.
| |
| − | At this point it is necessary to establish boundaries and define “Freemasonry,” at
| |
| − | least as far as this study is concerned. When the Nazis took power and began
| |
| − | investigating Freemasons they soon thereafter opened investigations into Winkellogen or
| |
| − | “lodge-like” organizations like the Schlaraffia, Rotary Club, Druid Order, International
| |
| − | Order of Odd Fellows, and Independent Order of B’nai B’rith (IOBB).34 Although these
| |
| − | other societies were referred to as “lodge-like” and had similar hierarchies, rituals and
| |
| − | vocabularies as the Freemasons, they are not actually “Masonic” organizations. It was
| |
| − | not uncommon for a member of these “lodge-like” organizations to also hold
| |
| − | 34 NSDAP circular, January 31, 1934, National Archives and Recored Administration
| |
| − | (NARA) Captured German Records (non-biographical records - Schumacher Collection)
| |
| − | National Archives Microfilm Publication T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 17
| |
| − | membership in a Masonic lodge, the significance of which will be discussed in a later
| |
| − | chapter. Nevertheless, these organizations and societies did not call themselves
| |
| − | “Masonic” and were not recognized by any of the nine German grand lodges. My scope
| |
| − | then is limited to those lodges that identified themselves, and were in turn identified by
| |
| − | other lodges, as Masonic, which by 1933 numbered just over 70,000 members in over
| |
| − | 700 lodges scattered throughout Germany (see Fig. A2).
| |
| − | The one exception is the SGvD. This particular lodge will receive more attention
| |
| − | in a later chapter, but for now it is enough to say that while not recognized by other
| |
| − | German grand lodges, the members of the SGvD considered themselves Freemasons,
| |
| − | called themselves Freemasons, and were recognized as Freemasons by other Grand
| |
| − | Lodges outside Germany. Even Nazi reports bounce the SGvD back and forth between
| |
| − | classification as a part of mainstream Freemasonry and a fringe group, unsure of where
| |
| − | exactly they belonged. Additionally, though other German grand lodges scorned and
| |
| − | rejected the SGvD in its day, postwar Freemasonry both inside and outside Germany
| |
| − | held up the SGvD as the poster child of Masonic victimization and courageous
| |
| − | resistance. Thus if the enemies and critics of the SGvD are willing to identify it as
| |
| − | “Masonic” then so shall I.
| |
| − | The archival material for this study came primarily from three sources. The
| |
| − | Bundesarchiv (BArch) and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM)
| |
| − | provided many of the documents produced by the Nazi bureaucracy, in particular the
| |
| − | records of the Schutzstaffeln (SS), the Reichsicherheitshauptampt (RSHA – Reich
| |
| − | Security Main Office), the Reich Chancellery and the Main Archive of the
| |
| − | 18
| |
| − | Nationalsocialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP – National Socialist German
| |
| − | Workers Party).35 As the Nazis debated among themselves as to the fate of former lodge
| |
| − | members the files piled up, giving me a glance at how the government struggled with
| |
| − | this problem from within. These archives also provided and documentation seized from
| |
| − | the German grand lodges, as well as correspondence between the grand lodges and the
| |
| − | government, providing a glimpse into the links between lodge and party. The third
| |
| − | source, the Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussicher Kulturbesitz (Secret State Archives
| |
| − | Prussian Cultural Heritage – GstA PK) provided the documents generated within the
| |
| − | lodges as the fraternity struggled with the same problem the regime was dealing with.
| |
| − | The Bundesarchiv and USHMM provided a fair amount of material on mainstream
| |
| − | Freemasonry, so I used the Secret State Archive primarily for the papers of the SGvD
| |
| − | and its Grandmaster, Leo Müffelmann. After the archives, the internet demonstrated
| |
| − | how powerful a tool it could be in research, allowing me to examine the records of the
| |
| − | Nuremberg Trials, the Eichmann Trial, German legal texts and the Shoah Foundation, all
| |
| − | without having to step out my front door.36
| |
| − | Structurally, this study is organized into seven chapters. Chapter II provides a
| |
| − | brief history of Freemasonry in Germany with an emphasis on the kind of men who
| |
| − | joined the fraternity and the reasons why they did so, showing first that by the seizure of
| |
| − | power the majority of German Freemasons belonged to the very demographics the most
| |
| − | 35 Respectively found in BArch NS19, R58, R43 and NS26. Other record groups
| |
| − | consulted include the Part Chancellery (NS6), the Personnel Staff, Reichsführer-SS (NS19), the
| |
| − | Sturmabteilung (NS23), the Special Staff Reichsleiter Rosenberg (NS30) and the Ministry for
| |
| − | People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda (R55).
| |
| − | 36 Eighteen interviews from the Shoah Foundation were consulted as part of this study, a
| |
| − | list of which can be found in the References section.
| |
| − | 19
| |
| − | actively supported the Nazi Party and would therefore have been welcomed by the Nazis
| |
| − | were it not for each man’s membership in the lodges. Second, Chapter II will show that
| |
| − | many joined out of ambition, opportunism and as part of bourgeoisie joiners culture,
| |
| − | helping to why the men joined such an organization in the first place, and how they
| |
| − | could be willing to so easily discard it, even after decades of membership. The lodges
| |
| − | provided social and professional benefits. Once the Hitler came to power and banned
| |
| − | Freemasonry, the party and its auxiliaries supplanted the lodges as a vehicle for social
| |
| − | status and career ambition, former members simply had to find a way in.
| |
| − | Chapter III, then, explores the reaction of the various branches of Freemasonry
| |
| − | between the seizure of power and the final dissolution of German Freemasonry in 1935,
| |
| − | illustrating the lengths the lodges went to reach a compromise with the regime as
| |
| − | institutions. Hitler’s desire to Nazify all aspect of society, coupled with the success of
| |
| − | the Christian Churches to be accepted with complete assimilation, gave the lodges hope
| |
| − | of achieving some degree of autonomy while still demonstrating loyalty to the regime
| |
| − | and the nation. Criticism of National Socialism was limited to a small minority of
| |
| − | Freemasons, who were in fact already ostracized by the mainstream. Such
| |
| − | overwhelming gestures from the lodges created a conundrum for the regime. On one
| |
| − | hand the regime very much wanted to accept individual Freemasons (and in many cases
| |
| − | Freemasons were already in significant party and government positions), but on the other
| |
| − | hand the party saw no possibility of simply absorbing the lodges and accepting
| |
| − | Freemasons en masse. In addition, the small handful of Freemasons who were dedicated
| |
| − | to the fraternity, critical of the regime, or both, demonstrated the danger of allowing
| |
| − | 20
| |
| − | individual masons to either enter (or remain) within the party and civil service, thus
| |
| − | Chapter IV looks at the actions of the party in trying to decide how to accept the
| |
| − | Freemason, reject Freemasonry, and keep out those who had been critical of National
| |
| − | Socialism. Demonstrating the difficulty the regime had in trying to decide who was a
| |
| − | true “Freemason,” one who joined the lodges and adopted the ideology, and who was
| |
| − | simply a man that joined the lodge for some reason other than sincere belief. By looking
| |
| − | at Freemasons in the party, civil service and military this chapter shows how the Nazis
| |
| − | tried to find a balance between party ideology and practicality.
| |
| − | Chapter V examines the party seizure of lodge property, showing the limits of
| |
| − | Nazi persecution of Freemasonry. Because Freemasonry was not a racially-defined
| |
| − | group, the regime never took the war to the individual Freemason. Instead the regime
| |
| − | ruthlessly shut down and looted every lodge building in the country, but never once
| |
| − | touched the personal and private wealth of the members, which could be considerable.
| |
| − | Chapter VI provides a brief biography of Hjalmar Schacht as an individual case study of
| |
| − | the preceding chapters, showing what kind of man became a Freemason, why he became
| |
| − | a Freemason, and then how that same man put Freemasonry aside without much fight
| |
| − | once membership became a liability more than an asset. Chapter VII is the epilogue and
| |
| − | conclusion where we will briefly explore the rebirth of Freemasonry in postwar
| |
| − | Germany, showing how quickly those who dropped the fraternity in the 1930s then
| |
| − | returned to it once the Nazi threat was over, and then rewrote their history, imagining
| |
| − | themselves as victims of Nazi tyranny.
| |
| − | 21
| |
| − | CHAPTER II
| |
| − | WHO WERE THE FREEMASONS, REALLY?
| |
| − | In the eyes of Hitler and the Nazis, Freemasons were the quintessential
| |
| − | cosmopolitans, humanitarians, and liberals, embracing the ideology that “all that has a
| |
| − | human face is equal.”1 The Nazis sought to remold social on national-racial grounds,
| |
| − | creating the Volksgemeinschaft, but Freemasons, according to Nazi propaganda, rejected
| |
| − | the Volksgemeinschaft by dismissing national or racial identity in favor of the
| |
| − | “brotherhood of all men,” religious identity in favor of “the religion to which all men
| |
| − | agree,” and social/racial identification in favor of meeting “upon the level.” By rejecting
| |
| − | racial discrimination, the Nazis asserted that the lodges opened themselves up to Jewish
| |
| − | infiltration and influence.2
| |
| − | Nazi propaganda accusing Freemasons of humanitarianism was pretty easy to
| |
| − | generate since Freemasons willingly acknowledged their desire to break down national,
| |
| − | social and religious barriers within the lodges. Accusations of Jewish influence,
| |
| − | however, were a little harder to sell. Though France had adopted the epithet “Jews and
| |
| − | Freemasons” (as opposed to “Jews” and “Freemasons”) by 1880, the phrase was absurd
| |
| − | in pre-WWI Germany, given the history of Jews and the lodges.3 In fact, the acceptance
| |
| − | 1 Speech by Julius Streicher on June 26, 1925 in the Bavarian Diet, document M-30 in
| |
| − | the Red Set, vol. VIII, 16-18. Streicher was speaking of the German education system,
| |
| − | criticizing the curriculum for teaching “the Freemason principle” of humanitarianism.
| |
| − | 2 A general report on Freemasonry in Germany, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 3 The epithet “Jews and Freemasons” actually began in France where Catholicism was
| |
| − | strong and the political/religious enemies of “Jews” and “Freemasons,” were easy targets,
| |
| − | especially since Jews had so much more success in getting into French lodges, facilitating the
| |
| − | belief that the two were in cahoots. In 1880, E.H. Chabouty, a Catholic priest, wrote Franc22
| |
| − | of Jewish members is what first led to the division between Old Prussian and
| |
| − | Humanitarian lodges, with further divisions following later.4 “Jews and Freemason” did
| |
| − | not gain acceptance in Germany until after WWI, when Germany lay prostrate at the
| |
| − | hands of nations where Jews and Freemasons were most established, especially Great
| |
| − | Britain and the United States.5 The chaos of post war Germany provided fertile ground
| |
| − | for enemies of the Jewish community and the lodges to point to both as colluding
| |
| − | members in a traitorous conspiracy to stab Germany in the back, topple the kaiser, and
| |
| − | install a new liberal-democratic government. The first German edition of the Protocols
| |
| − | Maçon et Juifs (Freemasons and Jews), which claimed that the two were intimately connected in
| |
| − | a quest to take over the world, beginning with the French Revolution. The proof lay in the
| |
| − | revolution’s battle cry; “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” Those three words not only sum up the
| |
| − | fundamental philosophies of Freemasonry, but also ensured the full emancipation of the Jews in
| |
| − | France. The conspiracy theories of Chabouty’s book birthed the term because it made almost no
| |
| − | distinction between Jew and Freemason, painting the two groups as coworkers in the common
| |
| − | cause of world revolution, Jacob Katz, Jews and Freemasons in Europe, 1723-1939 (Cambridge:
| |
| − | Harvard University Press, 1970), 157-9.
| |
| − | 4 In 1906, the same year that the first attacks of the Jews as a race appeared in the lodges,
| |
| − | Freemason Karl Heinrich Löberich formed the Freimaurerbund zur aufgehenden Sonne
| |
| − | (Masonic Brotherhood of the Rising Sun), which wholeheartedly accepted Jews and harshly
| |
| − | criticized the Old Prussian and Humanitarian lodges for letting religion and politics, the two
| |
| − | subjects Freemasonry most vehemently avoided, enter the lodges and cause such discord.
| |
| − | Additionally, Löberich lowered the admittance fees and monthly dues for his lodge, making it
| |
| − | possible for men of lower social status to join, again arguing that the older lodges failed to
| |
| − | properly adhere to the concept of the “brotherhood of all men,” Stefan-Ludwig Hoffmann, The
| |
| − | Politics of Sociability: Freemasonry and German Civil Society, 1840-1918 (Ann Arbor, MI:
| |
| − | University of Michigan Press, 2007), 162. It should be noted, however, that for the Freemasons,
| |
| − | “Jewishness” was a matter of faith, not race or blood. When the lodges refused to admit a Jew it
| |
| − | meant the candidate had never been baptized; however, following baptism the candidate was no
| |
| − | longer considered a Jew and was welcomed into the lodges, The further development of
| |
| − | Freemasonry up to right before the national census, no date (though most likely sometime
| |
| − | around 1933), (BArch) R58/6113 part 1, 294.
| |
| − | 5 Katz, Jews and Freemasons, 175-8; A Nazi anti-Freemasonry tract from 1944 included
| |
| − | images of the coat-of-arms of the British Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons, showing that
| |
| − | not only did it contain an image of the Ark of the Covenant, but Hebrew letters as well, Erich
| |
| − | Schwarzberg, Freimaurerei als politische Geheimwaffe des jüdisch-englischen Imperialismus
| |
| − | (Frankfurt am Main: Welt-Dienst Verlag, 1944) 15-16. Schwarzburg was also quick to point out
| |
| − | that a Jewish Freemason designed the emblem.
| |
| − | 23
| |
| − | of the Learned Elders of Zion played a key role in creating the Dolchstosslegende and
| |
| − | including Freemasons as major players.6 The Protocols seemed to have an answer for
| |
| − | everything; the document explained why the war broke out, why each side chose the
| |
| − | allies it did, why the Central Powers lost, and why the postwar world looked the war it
| |
| − | did. Even the kaiser in exile used the Protocols to prove that his throne had been stolen
| |
| − | by Jews and Freemasons.7 Since the document was first published before the war, its
| |
| − | uncanny accuracy gave the Protocols an aura of prophetic authenticity. All one had to
| |
| − | do was simply believe them, and be exonerated of any guilt for the way things had
| |
| − | turned out.
| |
| − | During the Weimar Republic the conspicuous presence of Jews and Freemasons
| |
| − | in the Weimar government, lent further support to the accusations made by the
| |
| − | Protocols. Chancellor Gustav Stresemann was a Freemason with ties to Jewish
| |
| − | community, making it easy for critics to point to Stresemann as a living example of how
| |
| − | Jews and Freemasons rose to prominence in the wake of the war, the destruction of the
| |
| − | 6 Ludwig Mueller von Hausen, using the pseudonym Gottfried zur Beek, published the
| |
| − | first German translation of the Protocols in 1920 and added his own emphasis on the role of
| |
| − | Freemasonry in the Jewish Conspiracy and cementing the epithet “Jews and Freemasons.”
| |
| − | Additionally, zur Beek’s translation reworded the Protocols to be more applicable to the events
| |
| − | surrounding WWI. The original Protocols (and all pre-WWI translations) refer to “universal”
| |
| − | war culminating in “an association of nations,” suggesting that the Elders will expand their
| |
| − | control over world governments after those governments have been sufficiently weakened by
| |
| − | numerous wars which will ravage the earth. Zur Beek, however, capitalized on the recent past
| |
| − | and replaced “universal war” with “world war” and “an association of nations” with “League of
| |
| − | Nations,” focusing attention specifically on the Great War, the Treaty of Versailles, and the
| |
| − | establishment of the League of Nations. For a brief but concise history of the protocols see
| |
| − | Binjamin Segel, Lie and a Libel: A History of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Lincoln, NE:
| |
| − | University of Nebraska Press, 1995). For more discussion of the anti-Masonic additions by zur
| |
| − | Beek see Katz, Jews and Freemasons, 180-1 and Hoffmann, Politics of Sociability, 284-285.
| |
| − | 7 Segel, A Lie and a Libel, 61.
| |
| − | 24
| |
| − | Kaiserreich and the establishment of democracy.8 Furthermore, Stresemann strongly
| |
| − | advocated Germany trying to gain admission to the League of Nations. Other prominent
| |
| − | Freemasons advocated the same.9 Most anti-Masonic propaganda accused the fraternity
| |
| − | of trying to establish some kind of world government through their world brotherhood.
| |
| − | It is easy to see why Hitler had a field day when Stresemann, a Freemason with ties to
| |
| − | the Jews, strongly advocated Germany’s participation in the first world-government
| |
| − | organization.10 “All of Germany” Hitler declared, “ is being delivered to the Freemasons
| |
| − | through the League of Nations.”11
| |
| − | In their own eyes, Freemasons saw themselves as the moral elite of society.
| |
| − | Discarding petty quibbles over race, nation and religion, Masonic brethren meet in
| |
| − | lodges as social equals and sought to make the world a better place through selfimprovement
| |
| − | and sociability. The German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte praised
| |
| − | Freemasonry as a forum where men gain a complete and rounded education by
| |
| − | associating with men of other professions and backgrounds.12 In society, Fichte argued,
| |
| − | men devoted themselves to a single skill or profession, thus limiting their knowledge and
| |
| − | 8 Adolf Hitler, Clemens Vollnhalls, ed. Hitler: Reden, Schriften, Anordnungen, Februar
| |
| − | 1925 bis Januar 1933. (New York: K.G. Saur, 1992), vol. II/2, 706, taken from speech to
| |
| − | NSDAP February 29, 1928. At the time of this particular speech, Wilhelm Marx was chancellor.
| |
| − | As a member of the Catholic Center it is doubtful that Marx was a Freemason, as Hitler accused
| |
| − | in the speech; however, the fact that Stresemann was a Mason made it easier to believe that there
| |
| − | were others in high office.
| |
| − | 9 An article in Deutsche Freiheit, a German newspaper in Paris, September 2, 1938, ran
| |
| − | a story about Hjalmar Schacht and other Freemasons who had formed a group called the
| |
| − | Bluntschli-Auschuss, which stated that the goals of the league closely mirrored those of
| |
| − | Freemasonry, BArch R58/6103b part 1, 14.
| |
| − | 10 Hitler, Reden, Schriften, vol. II/2, 706
| |
| − | 11 Speech at an NSDAP meeting in Munich, February 29, 1928. Hitler, Reden, Schriften,
| |
| − | Anordnungen, Vol. II/2, 706.
| |
| − | 12 Scott Abbot, Fictions of Freemasonry: Freemasonry and the German Novel (Detroit:
| |
| − | Wayne State University Press, 1991), 19.
| |
| − | 25
| |
| − | experience. By joining a lodge, minds are expanded and ideas shared. Despite Masonic
| |
| − | rhetoric of internationalism and humanitarianism, however, Freemasons remained loyal
| |
| − | to their respective kings and countries, and were in fact told to do so by Masonic
| |
| − | teaching (Freemasonry is even referred to as the “kingly art”).13 At the same time the
| |
| − | Nazis pointed to prominent Freemasons as proof of a global Jewish-Masonic conspiracy,
| |
| − | Freemasonry pointed to many of those same individuals as proof that Freemasons are the
| |
| − | best sorts of people, leaders figures in government, economics and culture,
| |
| − | demonstrating how “enlightened” men can change the world for the better.
| |
| − | So according to both Freemasons and Nazis, famous Freemasons provide
| |
| − | evidence of the value (for the former) and danger (for the latter) of Freemasonry. In
| |
| − | Nazi propaganda, men like Voltaire, the Marquis de Lafayette, Gustav Stresemann,
| |
| − | Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt show how Freemasons have always served
| |
| − | the enemies of the German people. German Freemasons responded by pointing to
| |
| − | Frederick the Great, Blücher, Goethe, Mozart and Alfred von Tirpitz to show that
| |
| − | Freemasons have always been the vanguard in the protection of Germany and
| |
| − | advancement of German culture.
| |
| − | What both sides miss, however, is that these giants of history represent the
| |
| − | exception more than the rule, especially in the twentieth century. By the time the Nazis
| |
| − | 13 The Regius Manuscript, one of the oldest Freemasonic documents and a founding
| |
| − | source of Masonic teaching and lore, orders Masons “And to his liege lord the king, To be true to
| |
| − | him over all thing” [sic]. Another passage states, “When thou meetest a worthy man…Do him
| |
| − | reverence after his state” [sic]. Both of these quotes come in addition to the manuscripts
| |
| − | assertion that the craft guild itself was established by a king and first filled with the children of
| |
| − | the nobility. A copy of the manuscript was included as an appendix to Christopher Hodapp,
| |
| − | Freemasonry for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Press, 2005).
| |
| − | 26
| |
| − | came to power German Freemasonry boasted a little over 70,000 members, only a
| |
| − | handful of whom became as influential as Hjalmar Schacht, Stresemann and Tirpitz. At
| |
| − | the same time, however, while all Freemasons didn’t become men of exceptional
| |
| − | influence they were far from being average. Thus to fully understand why German
| |
| − | Freemasons acted the way they did in response to Nazi persecution it is essential to look
| |
| − | past the diabolical image portrayed by the Nazis and the saintly image presented by the
| |
| − | lodges and understand who German Freemasons really were, both in relation to other
| |
| − | European Freemasons and within German politics and society.
| |
| − | Since the founding of speculative Freemasonry in 1717, the majority of lodge
| |
| − | members, both in Germany and throughout Europe, came from the social elite, primarily
| |
| − | nobles, wealthy merchants and educated professionals. Speculative Freemasonry
| |
| − | actually began because operative masons (i.e. actual stonemasons) stood in need of
| |
| − | money and so allowed wealthy relatives of current lodge members to join the lodges and
| |
| − | begin paying dues.14 Among these first non-operative masons were doctors,
| |
| − | shipwrights, customs clerks, and, of course, landed gentry. By 1730, just thirteen years
| |
| − | after the founding of the first Grand Lodge, there were more speculative members than
| |
| − | operative.15 In Scotland, the Dundee lodge had over one hundred members, none of
| |
| − | whom was an operative stonemason.16 In place of business deals, guild regulation and
| |
| − | the sharing of trade secrets, lodge meetings served the dual purpose as a forum for
| |
| − | 14 Margaret Jacob, The Origins of Freemasonry: Facts & Fictions (Philadelphia:
| |
| − | University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 5, 12-13.
| |
| − | 15 See Margaret Jacob, Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in
| |
| − | Eighteenth Century Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 32-46.
| |
| − | 16 Jacob, Origins of Freemasonry, 84.
| |
| − | 27
| |
| − | intellectual discussion as well as “a good deal of merrymaking;” every monthly
| |
| − | meeting’s business and ritual activities were succeeded by a sumptuous feast and
| |
| − | copious amounts of alcohol.17 There were also special celebrations for Masonic holidays
| |
| − | such as St. John the Baptist’s Day; the day on which the first Freemasonic Grand Lodge
| |
| − | was founded in London in 1717. The craftsman’s guild had been supplanted by an
| |
| − | social club for elite men. Women were able to gain entrance into a few lodges once
| |
| − | Freemasonry spread to the continent, but the overwhelming majority of Freemasons
| |
| − | were, and still are, men.18
| |
| − | Since Freemasonry developed in post-Reformation and post-Civil War England,
| |
| − | lodge members were Protestant and, if not Whigs, were at least Whiggish.19 When
| |
| − | Freemasonry transferred onto the continent in the mid eighteenth century it did so
| |
| − | through trade routes into the Low Countries and through aristocratic social channels into
| |
| − | France. Thus members continued to come from the nobility, professions, merchant class
| |
| − | and mid-to-upper civil service. Exclusivity in the lodges was maintained through the
| |
| − | payment of dues, which were required upon initiation and granting of all subsequent
| |
| − | degrees, in addition to monthly membership dues.20 The high cost of membership
| |
| − | 17 David Blackbourn, History of Germany, 1780-1918: The Long Nineteenth Century
| |
| − | (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003), 26; Jacob, Origins, 20;
| |
| − | 18 Jacob, Living the Enlightenment, 120-143. The lodges that admitted women were
| |
| − | mostly in Belgium and France.
| |
| − | 19 Jacob, Origins of Freemasonry, 85.
| |
| − | 20 Hoffmann provides a good illustration of the financial burden of belonging to a lodge.
| |
| − | At the turn of the twentieth century the average laborer in the United States, for example, made
| |
| − | around $500 a year, while the entrance fee into the lodges was $200 with an annual fee of $50.
| |
| − | In Germany lodge members spent 500 marks a year on membership at a time when the working
| |
| − | class barely made 1000 marks a year. Hoffmann, Politics of Sociability, 107, 118-119. See also
| |
| − | Jacob, Origins of Freemasonry, 20-21, 76-77 for similar examples in Belgium, France and
| |
| − | 28
| |
| − | ensured farmers and servants were excluded, as well as lower civil servants (clerks) and
| |
| − | small merchants. Not even artisans could afford to be lodge members, meaning that,
| |
| − | ironically, stonemasons could not afford to join the fraternity that had once exclusively
| |
| − | belonged to them.
| |
| − | Due to harsh condemnation by the Catholic Church, lodge members on the
| |
| − | continent continued to come primarily from one of Europe’s Protestant sects.21
| |
| − | Officially, a Freemason could come from any religion, so long as he believed in God. In
| |
| − | practice, Freemasons remained overwhelmingly Christian, though Jews were able to join
| |
| − | the lodges in small numbers.22 On even rarer occasion, Hindus and Muslims (from the
| |
| − | ruling caste, of course) were able to join lodges in the colonies.23 Politically,
| |
| − | Freemasons in the Low Countries followed similar trends as their English brethren,
| |
| − | preferring limited or constitutional monarchs, but in France many of the English nobles
| |
| − | who transplanted the fraternity were Jacobites and thus supported a strong monarch over
| |
| − | a constitutional one.
| |
| − | Freemasonry made it to Germany shortly after arriving on the continent. In 1737
| |
| − | the first German lodge, Absalom, was established in the port city of Hamburg, having
| |
| − | been set up by English, Dutch and Swedish merchants. Soon after, more lodges cropped
| |
| − | England, where likewise the fees and dues of lodge members stood at over half the yearly wages
| |
| − | of working men.
| |
| − | 21 In 1738, Pope Clement XII issued the Papal decree “In Eminenti,” condemning
| |
| − | Freemasonry by name as a surrogate religion and thus heretical.
| |
| − | 22 Masonic pocketbooks and almanacs vary from country to country in their religious
| |
| − | tone. Some are overtly Christian (France), others make no mention of religion (Pennsylvania) at
| |
| − | all. When I say overtly Christian I mean they contained poetry or short passages that were
| |
| − | explicitly Christian. They all used the Christian calendar, but also included the Masonic one.
| |
| − | Some included Saints Days, others not. See Jacob, Origins of Freemasonry, 30-32.
| |
| − | 23 In 1777, for example, the Nabob of Carnatica in India was admitted as a Freemason.
| |
| − | See Jacob, Origins of Freemasonry, 38.
| |
| − | 29
| |
| − | up in other port cities like Hanover, as well as Frankfurt am Main. German lodges
| |
| − | received charters from Grand lodges in England, France, and even Sweden, making
| |
| − | Germany almost as diverse in Masonic lodges as it was in political states. Freemasonry
| |
| − | entered Prussia, with royal patronage at that, on the evening of June 14, 1738, when
| |
| − | Frederick the Great joined Absalom, forging a very strong chain between German
| |
| − | Freemasonry and the royal family. After Frederick, all but two of Prussia’s kings joined
| |
| − | the lodges, though not all remained active and participating brethren. Germany
| |
| − | Freemasonry thus perpetuated the social exclusivity that defined the lodges previously.24
| |
| − | Despite the similarities with other European lodges, German Freemasonry had
| |
| − | some unique characteristics that play a role in the interaction between the lodges and the
| |
| − | Nazi regime. First of all, although German Freemasons shared the social and religious
| |
| − | characteristics of other European Freemasons, politically they were staunch supporters
| |
| − | of the crown. True, English lodges had noble members and Grandmasters too, but the
| |
| − | Prussian kings and nobles were far more authoritarian; a characteristic that transferred
| |
| − | into the relationship between crown and lodge.
| |
| − | Another key difference lay in lodge administration. Unlike Britain, France,
| |
| − | Sweden and the Netherlands, Germany never had a single, national Grand Lodge. For a
| |
| − | time the first German Grand Lodge, Große Mutterloge zu den drei Weltkugeln (Grand
| |
| − | Mother Lodge of the Three Globes, established in 1740), remained the only German
| |
| − | Grand Lodge, but in 1764 another Grand Lodge, the Großeloge Royal York zur
| |
| − | Freundschaft (Grand Lodge Royal York of Friendship), was established for those
| |
| − | 24 Hoffmann, Politics of Sociability, 20.
| |
| − | 30
| |
| − | following additional rites that the drei Weltkugeln didn’t recognize. Personality disputes
| |
| − | within the drei Weltkugeln led to the creation of a third Grand Lodge, the Große
| |
| − | Landesloge der Freimaurer in Deutschland (National Grand Lodge of Freemasons in
| |
| − | Germany), in 1769.25 In 1798, the Prussian monarchy issued an edict that gave these
| |
| − | three Grand Lodges a monopoly on the granting of charters and the establishment of all
| |
| − | new lodges in Prussia, strengthening the relationship between lodge and crown;
| |
| − | however, the names of all lodge brothers had to be given to the police and updated
| |
| − | yearly.26
| |
| − | The French Revolution dealt a serious blow to the image and prestige of
| |
| − | Freemasonry throughout Europe, though naturally the lodges in some countries suffered
| |
| − | more than others. In the wake of the revolution, the first major, non-papal,
| |
| − | conspiratorial attacks against the fraternity flooded the literary marketplace, pointing out
| |
| − | that many of the republican and democratic ideas to come out of the revolution were
| |
| − | already in practice in the lodges.27 Enemies of both the revolution and the lodges
| |
| − | quickly pointed out that the cry of “liberty, equality, fraternity” had already been
| |
| − | expressed in the lodges and accused Freemasonry as being the source of the revolution.
| |
| − | As centers of Enlightenment thinking the lodges definitely played a roll in hastening the
| |
| − | 25 For a more detailed account of the founding of the three “Old Prussian” Grand
| |
| − | Lodges, see Robert Freke Gould, Gould’s History of Freemasonry Throughout the World (New
| |
| − | York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936).
| |
| − | 26 Hoffmann, Politics of Sociability, 162; Gould, History of Freemasonry, 118.
| |
| − | 27 Practices such as equal voting, equal taxation, a written constitution, and the election
| |
| − | of leaders were examples of the links that anti-Masons and counterrevolutionaries saw between
| |
| − | the lodges and the revolution. Abbé Barruel wrote the first of these anti-Masonic conspiracy
| |
| − | theories suggesting that the roots of the Jacobins lay in the lodges. See Jacob, Origins of
| |
| − | Freemasonry, 51 and Jacob, Living the Enlightenment, 22.
| |
| − | 31
| |
| − | revolution, but were not the cause of it.28 Since the lodges included both those who
| |
| − | would benefit and suffer from democratic reforms the social and political tension outside
| |
| − | the lodges crept in, despite the fraternity’s taboo against political discussion within the
| |
| − | lodge.29 As a consequence of the French Revolution the number of nobles in the
| |
| − | fraternity, German lodges included, began dwindling, leaving the merchants,
| |
| − | professionals and academics as the bulk of membership.30 By the mid-nineteenth
| |
| − | century Freemasonry was occasionally referred to as the “Internationale of the
| |
| − | Bourgeoisie.”31
| |
| − | From the Revolutions of 1848 through unification under Bismarck, German
| |
| − | Freemasons continued to be much more conservative than their French, English or Dutch
| |
| − | brethren. They supported the monarchy, rejected radical democratic reforms, absolutely
| |
| − | abhorred socialism and Marxism, and above all were nationalists who supported German
| |
| − | unification. For these reasons, Bismarck found it advantageous to form a temporary
| |
| − | alliance with the National Liberal Party, which would have been the primary party for
| |
| − | any politically active Freemasons, and began pushing progressive legislation through in
| |
| − | an attempt to stave off the rising threat from socialism and communism, as well as
| |
| − | advancing his wars of unification.32 The Liberal Party also proved a useful ally during
| |
| − | the Kulturkampf. Freemasons, having been officially condemned by the Church and
| |
| − | 28 Jacob, Origins of Freemasonry, 23.
| |
| − | 29 Ibid, 80.
| |
| − | 30 Robert Beachy “Club Culture and Social Authority” in Frank Trentmann, ed.,
| |
| − | Paradoxes of Civil Society: New Perspectives on Modern German and British History (New
| |
| − | York: Berghahn Books, 2000), 163.
| |
| − | 31 Hoffmann, Politics of Sociability, 53.
| |
| − | 32 Hjalmar Schacht, for example, was a member of the National Liberal Party, and this
| |
| − | was before he became the Hjalmar Schacht. Schacht, Confessions of the “Old Wizard” (Boston:
| |
| − | Houghton Mifflin, 1956), 86.
| |
| − | 32
| |
| − | consisting mostly of Protestants, were useful allies in the Reichstag against the Catholic
| |
| − | Centre Party.33
| |
| − | Bismarck’s turn against the National Liberal Party in 1879 was a blow to German
| |
| − | Freemasons, who had strongly supported Bismarck’s policies up to that point. The death
| |
| − | of Wilhelm I in 1888, however, was an even bigger blow. Wilhelm I, had been a
| |
| − | devoted member of the fraternity, but the new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, had absolutely no
| |
| − | interest in the fraternity, despite his father’s best efforts. With the ascension of Wilhelm
| |
| − | II, Freemasonry lost its royal patronage and was, at the close of the nineteenth century,
| |
| − | an almost wholly bourgeois institution. It is worth noting that while both Bismarck and
| |
| − | Wilhelm II despised Freemasonry they both belonged to a Korps while at university, so
| |
| − | it wasn’t fraternities in general that they disliked.34 Other than the age of its members
| |
| − | and the presence of a university, the difference between Korps and lodge is one of
| |
| − | nationalism; the Korps (and even more so in the case of the Deutsche Burschenschaften)
| |
| − | were distinctly German (that is they were formed in the German states and had no ties
| |
| − | outside German-speaking Europe), and the only university fraternity that wasn’t
| |
| − | distinctly German, the Student Orders (discussed below), didn’t survive long and was
| |
| − | repeatedly accused to being covertly Masonic. Freemasonry, on the other hand, was an
| |
| − | 33 For an accessible overview of German politics in the latter half of the nineteenth
| |
| − | century see both Mary Fulbrook’s Concise History of Germany (New York: Cambridge, 1990),
| |
| − | 95-145 and Peter Wende’s more recent A History of Germany (New York: Palgrave McMillan,
| |
| − | 2005) 75-122. Neither one specifically mentions Freemasonry, but both discuss the
| |
| − | demographics of German liberals and identify them socially and ideologically with the
| |
| − | demographics of the lodges. The moderate liberals who favored monarchy were of the same
| |
| − | professions as the lodge members (lawyers, professors, doctors and civil servants), whereas the
| |
| − | democratic liberals that wanted sweeping reform came from the professions just outside lodge
| |
| − | membership (artisans, small businessmen, farmers and laborers).
| |
| − | 34 Weber, German Student Corps, 22.
| |
| − | 33
| |
| − | imported fraternity that had ties between international lodges, so it’s easier to see how
| |
| − | Bismarck and Wilhelm could view the Korps with approval and the lodges with
| |
| − | skepticism, a pattern repeated by Hitler and the Nazis a half-century later.
| |
| − | From the dawn of the twentieth century until the outbreak of WWII, European
| |
| − | Freemasonry in general continued to consist of professionals, businessmen, bankers and
| |
| − | senior civil servants. The Belgian lodge Les Frères Réunis, for example, contained 50
| |
| − | men, among which were the town mayor and two deputy mayors, the police
| |
| − | commissioner, six medical doctors, three architects, three businessmen, a chocolatier,
| |
| − | three clerks, two officers, three engineers, one members of parliament, the porter at a
| |
| − | school for girls, fourteen working the legal system as judges or lawyers, one law school
| |
| − | dean and “almost all the professors at the Textile School.”35 An SD report on the Grand
| |
| − | Lodges in Greece showed similar demographics; of over 300 men listed, a full third were
| |
| − | military officers and another third were categorized as “special positions of influence”
| |
| − | (medical doctors, bankers and businessmen). About 20% were lawyers or politicians,
| |
| − | 15% were professors, and the remainders were categorized as civil servants, or working
| |
| − | in the press.36 A collection of SD files on Freemasons in Yugoslavia show
| |
| − | demographics similar to those in France and Greece.37
| |
| − | 35 Letter from NSDAP Landesgruppe Belgien to the Sicherheitspolizei, August 9, 1940,
| |
| − | reporting on the recent closing of the lodge Les Frères Réunis. United States Holocaust
| |
| − | Memorial Museum, Record Group 65.010M, “Selected Records Related to Anti-Masonic
| |
| − | Measures in Belgium,” Reel 1, part 2, folder 526.
| |
| − | 36 Report on the activities of Sonderkommando Rosenberg in Greece, United States
| |
| − | Holocaust Memorial Museum, Record Group 11.001M, “Selected Records from the Osobyi
| |
| − | Archive in Moscow,” Sub-group 01, “Reichsicherheitshauptamt (RSHA), Berlin,” Reel 131,
| |
| − | folder 9.
| |
| − | 37 Ibid.
| |
| − | 34
| |
| − | In Germany, Masonic lodges also followed these trends, drawing its members
| |
| − | from the professions, business civil service and occasionally the military. In addition to
| |
| − | doctors, lawyers and professors, Freemasons worked as school principals,38
| |
| − | veterinarians,39 post inspectors,40 army officers, and one even served as a general in the
| |
| − | army medical corps.41 The grandmaster of the Große Landesloge was Lt. Col. Kurt von
| |
| − | Heeringen. Although it was less common, Freemasons occasionally came from artistic
| |
| − | circles. In 1939, the SD-South office submitted a report of former Freemason who
| |
| − | continued to work in “positions of influence.” According to the report, the Nuremberg
| |
| − | Conservatory of Music and Theater had three professors of music, five concert directors,
| |
| − | two opera singers, two stage actors and a concert pianist, all of whom were former
| |
| − | Freemasons. The report also listed an architect who, at the time of the report, was not
| |
| − | only a former Freemason, but also working for the party.42 What should be noted is that
| |
| − | while Freemasons permeated the Nuremberg Conservatory, making it reasonable to
| |
| − | suspect a similar Masonic sprinkling in other artistic schools, none of the famous
| |
| − | modern artists of the Weimar Republic were Freemasons. There was not a single
| |
| − | 38 After the closing of the lodges the SD frequently submitted reports of former
| |
| − | Freemasons still serving in positions that the SD deemed “influential.” United States Holocaust
| |
| − | Memorial Museum, Record Group 15.007M, “Records of the Reichsicherheitshauptamt
| |
| − | (RSHA),” Reel 5, folder 32. Dr. Carl Happich was administrator of the Elizabethan Pedagogical
| |
| − | Academy. USHMM, RG-15.007 Reel 5, folder 33, Herr Bunnemann of Marburg was also listed
| |
| − | as a school administrator.
| |
| − | 39 USHMM, RG-11.001M, Reel 72, folder 310, The meister of the Stettin lodge Temple
| |
| − | of Peace was veterinarian Dr. Auerbach.
| |
| − | 40 USHMM, RG-15.007, Reel 5, folder 33. A 1939 SD list of former Freemasons who
| |
| − | are still in influential positions in government list Walter Baumgarten as a post inspector in
| |
| − | Erfurt who previously had been General Post Inspector.
| |
| − | 41 Ibid. The same report for Erfurt listed Walter Wulfinghoff as “holding significant
| |
| − | positions in the OKH” and Johannes Bluhm as Generaloberarzt.
| |
| − | 42 USHMM, RG-15.007 Reel 5, folder 32.
| |
| − | 35
| |
| − | Bauhaus architect, modern filmmaker or DaDa artist who also belonged to the lodges,
| |
| − | suggesting that while artistically inclined, German Freemasons clung to traditional art
| |
| − | and were culturally conservative, something the Nazi Party could look upon favorably.
| |
| − | Gestapo interrogation reports also reveal a little more about what kind of men
| |
| − | belonged to the lodges in twentieth century Germany. Robert Pehl was born in 1870 in
| |
| − | Grabow. At the time of his interrogation (1935) he was married with two children (both
| |
| − | in their mid to late 30s) and worked as a head teacher in Essen. In 1908 he joined the
| |
| − | lodge Glückauf zum Licht, a small lodge of around 25 active brethren, though Pehl
| |
| − | claimed that well over a hundred came and went throughout any given year. Pehl
| |
| − | remained an active brother until the lodge closed in 1933, by which time he was serving
| |
| − | as its Meister vom Stuhl, the highest administrative position in a local lodge. Pehl gave
| |
| − | his religious affiliation as “non-denominational” and claimed that with the exception of a
| |
| − | one-month relationship with the Social Democratic Party, he was apolitical. That brief
| |
| − | relationship, he argued, came about accidently. In 1919, Pehl was elected as president of
| |
| − | the Hansabund in Essen. The Hansabund, Pehl claimed, acted on behalf of the
| |
| − | Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland (SPD – Social Democratic Party of Germany),
| |
| − | and after finding this out four weeks into the job, Pehl resigned as president.43
| |
| − | 43 The police files of all three men discussed here, Pehl, Dinger and Kress, came from
| |
| − | the same folder in USHMM, Record Group 37.001, “Selected Records from the Nordheim-
| |
| − | Wesfäliches Hauptstaatsarchiv Relating to Freemasons,” folder 1. Unfortunately of all the
| |
| − | reports I gathered at the USHMM, most of them were about Freemasonry in foreign countries,
| |
| − | hence all the general information about lodges in Belgium and Greece and so little over
| |
| − | Germany. Part of that was because, as the Report on Karl Dinger indicates, many lodges burned
| |
| − | or otherwise destroyed their records after the seizure of power.
| |
| − | 36
| |
| − | Karl Dinger was another former Freemason living in Essen. He was born in
| |
| − | 1882 in Solingen, and at the time of his interrogation worked as a manager in a printing
| |
| − | office. Dinger was married and had one child, aged 28. He joined the Freie Forschung
| |
| − | und Duldsamkeit lodge in Essen in 1924 and remained active until the lodge the lodge
| |
| − | voluntarily closed in 1933. Upon joining he served as First Warden, and in 1930 became
| |
| − | meister. The report had no information regarding membership in any political party, but
| |
| − | Freie Forschung und Duldsamkeit was a daughter lodge of the Zur Sonne Grand Lodge
| |
| − | in Bayreuth. Zur Sonne was a Humanitarian lodge and therefore if Dinger was not left
| |
| − | of center, then at least he was left of Old Prussian. As for his religious affiliation the
| |
| − | report didn’t specify a denomination other than to say “evangelical.”
| |
| − | Under the files on Pehl and Dinger was an incomplete file on Fritz Kress of
| |
| − | Krefeld. Though incomplete there is enough information to tell that Kress was born in
| |
| − | 1877 in Krefeld, was married, religiously classified as “evangelical,” and belonged to the
| |
| − | lodge Eos, which a letter included later in the file identifies as an Old Prussian lodge.
| |
| − | In the cases of all three men there are notable similarities. All were born in the
| |
| − | late nineteenth century. All three were Protestant and married. Pehl and Dinger’s
| |
| − | records show that they had small families and started having children at about the same
| |
| − | age as well (Pehl at 28, Dinger at 26). Both men worked in respectable jobs that, while
| |
| − | not glamorous or politically influential, afford a comfortable living (comfortable enough
| |
| − | to afford lodge dues). Both Kress and Pehl belonged to additional organizations outside
| |
| − | the lodge; Pehl in the Hansabund and Kress in the German Red Cross. Pehl and
| |
| − | Dinger’s records also show that both joined the lodges at approximately the same age
| |
| − | 37
| |
| − | (Pehl was 38, Dinger was 42). In a separate file there was a eulogy delivered at the
| |
| − | funeral of Julius Hiller, the meister of a lodge in Dortmund who died in 1934. Hiller too
| |
| − | joined the fraternity at 36.44 Hjalmar Schacht joined at 31, but he was not the youngest
| |
| − | Freemason in this study.45 That honor goes to Alfred Arndt, a bank director in Breslau,
| |
| − | who joined Zu den drei Totengerippen in Breslau at the ripe old age of 26.46 There were
| |
| − | some men who joined while in college, but for the most part the social clubs and
| |
| − | associations of college life provided more than enough to satisfy the social needs of
| |
| − | students.47 A report published by the SD in 1934 shows that Pehl, Dinger and Kress
| |
| − | were fairly typical Freemasons in regards to age, profession and habit of being joiners.
| |
| − | The average age was 35 at the time of joining, came from the professional elite, and
| |
| − | joined before WWI.48 Looking at the similarities in the demographics of twentieth
| |
| − | 44 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Record Group 68.041, “Selected Records
| |
| − | from the Collection Hauptstaatsarchiv NSDAP,” Reel 5. Documents for lodges outside
| |
| − | Germany show similar trends, though in some French lodges men as young as 24 were admitted,
| |
| − | but since the German lodges were more traditional and conservative it can be assumed that most
| |
| − | German Masons were at least in their 30s when they joined, see USHMM, RG-11.001M, Reel
| |
| − | 11, folder 790.
| |
| − | 45 Schacht, Confessions of the “Old Wizard,” 105. The documents for Yugoslavian
| |
| − | lodges, cited previously, also showed most men joining the lodges in their 30s, the age at which
| |
| − | young men finished professional schooling and embark on their careers.
| |
| − | 46 USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel 43, Folder 532.
| |
| − | 47 In his study of the German student Korps and National Socialism, Weber twice
| |
| − | mentions that some members of the Student Orders in the early nineteenth century held
| |
| − | membership in the lodges as well, a fact that brought down on the orders accusations of
| |
| − | revolutionary ideology. In the 1930s, one of the largest associations of student fencing
| |
| − | fraternities, the Kösener Senioren-Convents-Verband (KSCV), faced a forced closure for its
| |
| − | refusal to expel Jewish and Masonic membership from its ranks, Weber, The German Student
| |
| − | Corps in the Third Reich, 12 and 142.
| |
| − | 48 The report was titled “Direktoren und Aufsichtsraete usw. weiche als Mitglieder von
| |
| − | Freimaurerlogen, des Rotary-Klubs, des Deutschen Herrenklubs und der Schlaraffia festgestellt
| |
| − | wurden.” (Directors and Administrators that have been discovered to have been members of the
| |
| − | Masonic lodges, Rotary Club, German Gentlemen’s Clubs or the Schlaraffia) and was
| |
| − | alphabetized by last name. Unfortunately, the report was passed around piecemeal and I could
| |
| − | only get my hands on “A” and “C;” however, those lists had the names of 80 men, scattered all
| |
| − | 38
| |
| − | century Freemasons begs the question, “why, then, did they join?” In the nineteenth
| |
| − | century the nobles joined for the mystery and exclusivity as well as a way for noble and
| |
| − | the aristocracy to be both authoritarian and democratic; nobles meeting “on the level”
| |
| − | with commoners, yet still recognized as political superiors.49 Only the wealthiest and
| |
| − | most influential men could join the lodge, ensuring social respectability, while the myths
| |
| − | and lore of Freemason added a romantic and mystical element.50 For non-nobles, the
| |
| − | lodges were centers of philosophical and intellectual debate, as well as providing
| |
| − | opportunities to network with other professionals and businessmen.51 German
| |
| − | sociologist Jürgen Habermas likened the lodges in Germany to English coffee houses or
| |
| − | French salons; institutions that helped create a public sphere in the midst of authoritarian
| |
| − | society.52 The rising middle-class had brains and money, but not political power.
| |
| − | Freemasonry thus provided a way for them to get involved in politics indirectly, and all
| |
| − | in a strictly non-political forum, making Freemasonry non-threatening to the nobles.
| |
| − | over Germany and effectively provided a nice sample of the complete list. Each entry included
| |
| − | the man’s name, occupation, birth date, address, date of lodge degree conferrals and a list of
| |
| − | every other registered organization to which the individual belonged. “C” was found in
| |
| − | USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel 42, folder 519 and “A” was found in USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel
| |
| − | 43, folder 532.
| |
| − | 49 Abbot, Fictions of Freemasonry, 20-22.
| |
| − | 50 Anderson’s Constitutions, the first written attempt at penning the history of the lodges
| |
| − | went so far as to argue that Freemasonry began in the Garden of Eden and identifying Adam as
| |
| − | the first Freemason. See James Anderson, The Constitutions of the Free-Masons: containing the
| |
| − | History, Charges, Regulations, &c. of that most Ancient and Right Worshipful Fraternity, in
| |
| − | 1723. The copy referenced for this study was transcribed by Dr. Paul Royster at the University
| |
| − | of Nebraska-Lincoln as an electronic edition of Benjamin Franklin’s 1734 edition of Anderson’s
| |
| − | original work. It can be found at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libraryscience/25, accessed
| |
| − | January 6, 2011.
| |
| − | 51 The Berlinische Monatsschrifte, for example, a major Enlightenment journal, was
| |
| − | edited by Friedrich Gedlike and Johann erich Biester, both of whom belonged to the drei
| |
| − | Weltkugeln grand lodge in Berlin.
| |
| − | 52 Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry
| |
| − | into a Category of Bourgeoisie Society (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989), referenced in Abbott,
| |
| − | Fictions of Freemasonry, 23.
| |
| − | 39
| |
| − | Masonic pocketbooks and almanacs frequently included the addresses and meeting dates
| |
| − | of foreign lodges, showing not only that lodge brothers did a lot of traveling, but were
| |
| − | able to extend their professional and business circle outside their own country. The
| |
| − | expansion of the fraternity followed the trade routes.
| |
| − | Membership in the lodges also had a very practical benefit; association with
| |
| − | influential men in business, politics and culture. In 1792, the philosopher Johann
| |
| − | Gottlieb Fichte told a friend that the lodge was ideal “as a means to acquire
| |
| − | acquaintances and helpful connections…for this purpose I recommend it strongly.”53
| |
| − | Robert Beachy has argued that by the nineteenth century ambition and opportunism
| |
| − | served as the primary reason for joining, concluding that “the lodges increasingly
| |
| − | attracted ambitious members of the mercantile and liberal professions, who joined less
| |
| − | for ideological reasons than the practical advantages of lodge affiliation.”54 Beachy also
| |
| − | cited the twentieth century sociologist Ernst Manheim, who called Freemasonry a
| |
| − | Hanseatic League for its members. The benefits of association weren’t limited to the
| |
| − | bourgeoisie. Karl Gotthelf von Hund created a new “higher” order within Freemasonry
| |
| − | (Strict Observance), “to gain access to the richest courts of Europe.”55
| |
| − | When the French Revolution chased out most nobles and philosophers, ambition
| |
| − | remained a major factor in motivating men to seek entrance into the lodges. For the
| |
| − | rising generation it was a way to expand one’s business as well being a rite of passage;
| |
| − | only the social elite were allowed in the lodges, so admission was a way of saying to the
| |
| − | 53 As quoted in Abbott, Fictions of Freemasonry, 18.
| |
| − | 54 Beachy “Club Culture and Social Authority,” 159.
| |
| − | 55 Abbot, Fictions of Freemasonry, 31.
| |
| − | 40
| |
| − | applicant, “you’re in.” This was especially true for Jewish communities in Europe,
| |
| − | particularly in Germany. Jews had always faced stiff opposition to admission into the
| |
| − | Old Prussian lodges because membership in the fraternity signified social and cultural
| |
| − | assimilation.56 As we will see, this trend continued into the twentieth century.
| |
| − | At the same time men joined the lodges out of ambition they also joined to be
| |
| − | joiners. Lodge members often held membership in other social clubs as well as
| |
| − | professional organizations, and that’s excluding membership in political parties.
| |
| − | Voluntary association was (and remains) an important part of being bourgeoisie.
| |
| − | Professionals form associations and societies to carve out an area of “professionalism”
| |
| − | and ensure a quality and standard of work within that specific discipline. Most
| |
| − | Americans, for example, would not trust a doctor or lawyer who had not been admitted
| |
| − | to the American Medical Board or American Bar Association. At the same time,
| |
| − | however, the associations also serve to rank professionals, establishing an unofficial
| |
| − | hierarchy.57 Freemasonry was one such organization that identified status rather than
| |
| − | skill.
| |
| − | Gestapo and SD files on Freemasons all over Europe showed that, true to form,
| |
| − | they often belonged to other voluntary associations, some professionally oriented, others
| |
| − | purely social. In Les Frères Réunis, Robert Henneton was president of the Society of
| |
| − | French-Belgian Reserve Officers as well as president of the Freethinkers of Tournai, to
| |
| − | which his lodge brother Jean Baar also belonged. Another lodge member, named
| |
| − | 56 Hoffmann, Politics of Sociability, 98-99; Katz, Jews and Freemasons in Europe, 211.
| |
| − | 57 Konrad Jarausch, “The Perils of Professionalism,” German Studies Review, Vol. 9,
| |
| − | No. 1 (Feb. 1986), 107-137.
| |
| − | 41
| |
| − | Heylmann, was president of the Young Liberal Guards. Fernand Vercauteren, a
| |
| − | professor of medieval history, belonged to the Belgian Academy of Archaeology, the
| |
| − | Belgian Committee for International History Research, the Utrecht Historical Society,
| |
| − | the Hand History Society in Berlin and was director of the Tournai Institute for Social
| |
| − | History.
| |
| − | In Germany, Max Meyer a professor at the Nuremberg Hindenberg-Hochschule
| |
| − | also belonged to the International Statistics Office.58 Robert Pehl belonged to the
| |
| − | Hansabund and Fritz Kress to the Red Cross. The entire seven-man Supreme Council of
| |
| − | the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in Germany were composed of German Jews,
| |
| − | five of which also belonged to the Independent order of B’nai B’rith.59 A 1939 SD
| |
| − | report from the North-West office reported that of the fifty-two members of the regional
| |
| − | Protestantenverein, thirty-two were also former Freemasons.60 There were even
| |
| − | organizations that double-dipped; like the Amis de Rabelais – the International
| |
| − | Freemasonic Doctor’s Association.61 In addition to professional, religious and political
| |
| − | associations, German Freemasons also belonged to purely social organizations like the
| |
| − | Schlaraffia, the Rotary Club, the Druid Order, the International Order of Odd Fellows,
| |
| − | 58 SD-South, 1939 first quarter report on activities of former Freemasons. USHMM,
| |
| − | RG-15.007M, Reel 5, folder 32.
| |
| − | 59 Overview of the Current Freemason Situation, December 20, 1935. USHMM, RG-
| |
| − | 15.007M, Reel 5, folder 28. Since these men are German Jews they lie outside the scope of this
| |
| − | study; however, their simultaneous membership in the Masonic lodges and other fraternal
| |
| − | organizations provides support for the claim that then men who joined Freemasonry tended to be
| |
| − | members of other organizations as well.
| |
| − | 60 SD-Northwest Situation report for first quarter, 1939. USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel
| |
| − | 5, folder 32, PDF 139.
| |
| − | 61 This association was mentioned in an SD report on Freemasonry in Greece. Given
| |
| − | that the Freemason in question was Greek, and the organization had a French name, it seems
| |
| − | likely that calling the association “international” was more than just rhetoric. USHMM, RG-
| |
| − | 11.001M Reel 131, folder 9.
| |
| − | 42
| |
| − | and Kegel Klubs.62 The alphabetical list published by the SD in 1934 showed that over
| |
| − | ninety percent of the men listed belonged to at least one other professional or social
| |
| − | organization. Most belonged to two or three, though Eduard Cordes of Hamburg
| |
| − | belonged to six. The grand prize, however, went to Heinrich Arnold, a lawyer in
| |
| − | Dresden, who belonged to eighteen different clubs, societies and associations.
| |
| − | Ironically, the only one he didn’t belong to was the Masonic lodges. Arnold’s name
| |
| − | was included on the list because he as a member of the Rotary Club, the only one of his
| |
| − | eighteen associations that the Nazis viewed a dangerous.63
| |
| − | German Freemasons actually received their first lessons in joiner-culture while at
| |
| − | university. Those Freemasons alive at the time of Hitler’s appointment as chancellor
| |
| − | would have attended university around the turn of the century when a university
| |
| − | education in Imperial Germany was more than just an issue of learning or preparing for a
| |
| − | career; it was a tool of social ranking and establishment. Prior to the mid-nineteenth
| |
| − | century simply being able to attend was a sign of social status; fees, primary education
| |
| − | and social pressures kept the lower classes out. For the propertied elite, a university
| |
| − | education was expected of them as part of their social standing. For the professions and
| |
| − | civil service elite a university education was necessary to maintain the social status
| |
| − | currently held by the family. Sons were expected to attain an education at least equal to
| |
| − | 62 SD-Northeast Situation report for first quarter, 1939. USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5,
| |
| − | folder 33. Due to the number of members who also belonged to these organizations, the SD
| |
| − | began investigating each of them as well and SD documents and reports throughout the 1930s
| |
| − | contain sections for each club, usually following the section on Freemasonry.
| |
| − | 63 “Direktoren und Aufsichtsraete usw. weiche als Mitglieder von Freimaurerlogen, des
| |
| − | Rotary-Klubs, des Deutschen Herrenklubs und der Schlaraffia festgestellt wurden,” list for
| |
| − | names starting with “A,” USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel 43, folder 532.
| |
| − | 43
| |
| − | that of their fathers.64 For the lower-middle class, college represented the doorway to a
| |
| − | job in the civil service, which though not guaranteeing social mobility, made possible an
| |
| − | upward trend for succeeding generations.65 By the late nineteenth century, however, the
| |
| − | success of the lower-middle class in the drive to upward mobility, coupled with
| |
| − | educational reforms, increased the number of university students to the point that social
| |
| − | exclusivity no longer rested on simply attending a university. The new social distinction
| |
| − | became membership in a Korps. One historian described them as “embrac[ing] the sons
| |
| − | of prominent citizens and officials of a given locality. Socially the members were
| |
| − | snobbish, and, politically, they were loyal to the bureaucratic monarchies whose service
| |
| − | they expected to enter.”66
| |
| − | For students from lower-middle class families, money was incredibly tight and so
| |
| − | the student lived in austerity and focused intently on completing his education as quickly
| |
| − | as possible in order to take the civil service exams and gain employment. For the sons
| |
| − | of nobles and professionals, however, money wasn’t as big an issue and so the university
| |
| − | experience was as much about social leisure as education. Thus, membership in a Korps
| |
| − | became a symbol of one’s social and financial status in the university hierarchy. One
| |
| − | historian called the period from 1870 to 1914, “the heyday of exclusiveness in student
| |
| − | social life, which centered upon the dueling fraternities and was characterized by
| |
| − | repeated expressions of concern from student organizations about letting ‘inappropriate’
| |
| − | 64 Charles McClelland, State, Society and University in Germany, 1700-1914 (New
| |
| − | York: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 251-252.
| |
| − | 65 Konrad Jarausch, Students, Society and Politics in Imperial Germany: The Rise of
| |
| − | Academic Liberalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 100-133.
| |
| − | 66 Rolland Ray Lutz, “The German Revolutionary Student Movement, 1819-1833,”
| |
| − | Central European History, Vol. 4, No. 3 (September 1971), 216.
| |
| − | 44
| |
| − | students (those of working class or Jewish background) into the university or student
| |
| − | fraternities.”67 Another scholar referred to the Korps as “the student fraternities for the
| |
| − | sons of the higher echelons of society,” and the “epitome of respectability.”68
| |
| − | German university fraternities came in several varieties, three of which are of
| |
| − | particular significance. The Landsmannschaften were locally organized, apolitical,
| |
| − | allowed Jews to join, and tended to function more like what Americans today expect
| |
| − | from college fraternities (harsh initiation rituals, revelry, etc).69 The Burschenschaften
| |
| − | arose as nationalist (or at least pan-German) associations in the wake of Napoleon’s
| |
| − | defeat, created by students who had fought Napoleon as members of the Free Corps.
| |
| − | They had written codes, increasingly prohibited Jews from joining, and styled
| |
| − | themselves as a Christian-German society. They also pushed for increased liberalism in
| |
| − | Germany and many student leaders in the early Burschenschaften took part in the
| |
| − | Revolution of 1848.70
| |
| − | Finally, there were the Student Orders that, though short-lived, deserve some
| |
| − | attention. The Orders enjoyed a brief career, appearing in reaction to the harsh and
| |
| − | arbitrary treatment of students in the Landsmannschaften and then dying at the same
| |
| − | time the Burschenschaften appeared, and for much the same reason. Each
| |
| − | Landsmannschaft was organized on a religious and regional foundation and had no
| |
| − | connection to Landsmannschaften at other universities, even if the members were of the
| |
| − | 67 McClelland, State, Society and University in Germany, 245.
| |
| − | 68 Weber, German Student Corps in the Third Reich, 22, 47.
| |
| − | 69 For the Landsmannschaften, “Jewish” was a religious identifier and could be changed
| |
| − | by baptism.
| |
| − | 70 Lutz, “The German Revolutionary Student Movement,” 241.
| |
| − | 45
| |
| − | same sect or from the same region. The Orders, on the other hand, communicated
| |
| − | between chapters and collected its members from those rejected by the
| |
| − | Landsmannschaften. Furthermore, while activity in the Landsmannschaften stopped
| |
| − | when the student completed his studies, membership in the Orders perpetuated beyond
| |
| − | the university. These characteristics, coupled with the fact that the Orders referred to
| |
| − | their chapters as “lodges” led to accusations that the Orders were part of a Masonic
| |
| − | conspiracy to export revolutionary ideas into Germany through the universities. Though
| |
| − | members of the Orders embraced the French Revolution, and some were indeed
| |
| − | Freemasons, the Orders had no official connection to either. Still, the same surge of
| |
| − | pan-Germanism that birthed the Burschenschaften also killed the Student Orders.71
| |
| − | After Napoleon’s defeat and throughout the nineteenth century, membership in either a
| |
| − | Landsmannschaften or the Deutsche Burschenschaften symbolized elitism within
| |
| − | elitism.
| |
| − | A university education was an essential part of joining the social elite, fraternities
| |
| − | were an essential part of a university education, and by the turn of the twentieth century
| |
| − | the core of university students were the sons of Protestant fathers who worked as
| |
| − | professionals or in the civil service elite.72 Since the majority of German Freemasons
| |
| − | were professionals it is reasonable to argue that most of them had probably belonged to a
| |
| − | Korps while completing their studies. The Korps sought to “establish the student as an
| |
| − | educated, refined gentleman and to assist him to develop the qualities of self-reliance
| |
| − | 71 Weber, German Student Corps in the Third Reich, 2-13.
| |
| − | 72 McClelland states that sons from the educated and professional class made up almost
| |
| − | 75% of the student body by the beginning of WWI, McClelland, State, Society and University in
| |
| − | Germany, 244.
| |
| − | 46
| |
| − | and answerability for his actions at all times.”73 Freemasonry likewise taught its
| |
| − | members to “live faithfully, to make one’s actions lawful, and to unite brothers within
| |
| − | certain boundaries.”74 By the time German students finished their university education
| |
| − | they had already been baptized into the world of sociability through association, as had
| |
| − | their fathers and grandfathers before them. Family tradition added to the already heavy
| |
| − | weight of social pressure since the father of professionals were often professionals
| |
| − | themselves who had also gone to college and joined a Korps. Since the Korps
| |
| − | experienced ended at graduation, membership in the Masonic lodges was a way to
| |
| − | perpetuate one’s identity as part of society’s social and economic elite.
| |
| − | What we have then is a fraternity of professional and well established men who
| |
| − | normally joined the lodges sometime in their mid-thirties and joined before the First
| |
| − | World War. By the time of the seizure of power, are in their fifties, have solid and
| |
| − | respectable jobs and are used to joining organizations and associations outside of church
| |
| − | and political parties for the purpose of socializing and, more importantly, of sustaining
| |
| − | or furthering their careers. The Protocols, one of the earliest and most savage attacks on
| |
| − | Freemasonry acknowledged the role of joiner-culture in the popularity of the lodges,
| |
| − | admitting that most Freemasons joined out of curiosity mixed with ambition.75 An
| |
| − | NSDAP report published shortly after the seizure of power admitted that many
| |
| − | Freemasons joined “for purely economic reasons and do not subscribe to the
| |
| − | philosophical and ideological tenets of the fraternity,” though the report still condemned
| |
| − | 73 Weber, German Student Corps in the Third Reich, 32.
| |
| − | 74 Abbott, Fictions of Freemasonry, 24.
| |
| − | 75 Sergei Nilus, translated by Victor Marsden, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
| |
| − | (Reedy, WV: Liberty Bell Publications, 1922), 42-48 (Protocol XV).
| |
| − | 47
| |
| − | such Freemasons for fostering economic favoritism (Günstlingswirtschaft).76 One report
| |
| − | simply stated, “Most members, have no idea of what they have gotten themselves
| |
| − | into.”77 Even Hitler during the later war years admitted his suspicion that most
| |
| − | Freemasons joined out of curiosity or opportunism than out of sincere belief in the tenets
| |
| − | of Freemasonry.78
| |
| − | Religiously these men were almost all Protestants, and politically they straddled
| |
| − | the center.79 In other words, they belong to the very same demographics that most
| |
| − | strongly supported Hitler after the Great Crash of 1929. During the declining years of
| |
| − | Weimar, when politics in Germany began to polarize, Freemasons would naturally have
| |
| − | tended toward the far right rather than the far left, as thousand of other non-Masonic
| |
| − | professionals, academics, civil servants and businessmen did. In the late 1920s and early
| |
| − | 1930s, some Freemasons began leaving the lodges and joined the Nazi Party. Others
| |
| − | began looking for a way to reconcile Freemasonry and National Socialism, hoping to
| |
| − | retain lodge membership and support the far right. Only a small minority rejected the
| |
| − | Nazis, but it should be noted that those who did also rejected the far left.
| |
| − | 76 A General Report on Freemasonry in Germany, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 77 RFSS-SD Situation report for May and June 1934, BArch R58/229.
| |
| − | 78 Adolf Hitler, H.R. Trevor-Roper, ed. Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private
| |
| − | Conversations (New York: Enigma Books, 2008), 214.
| |
| − | 79 Of the two most prominent Freemasons of Weimar, Gustav Stresemann and Hjalmar
| |
| − | Schacht, Stresemann stood right of center and belonged to the Deutsche Volkspartei (DVP –
| |
| − | German People’s Party) while Schacht stood left of center and was a founding member of the
| |
| − | Deutsche Demokratische Partei (DDP), though he later left the party when it supported a policy
| |
| − | attacking private property. Though politically liberal, Schacht continued to support the
| |
| − | monarchy.
| |
| − | 48
| |
| − | CHAPTER III
| |
| − | LODGE CLOSURES AND REACTIONS
| |
| − | The Old Prussian lodges stood the best chance of making some kind of
| |
| − | compromise due to their national character, historic ties to the monarchy and anti-
| |
| − | Semitic restrictions and therefore made the most effort to actively cooperate with the
| |
| − | regime; however, some Humanitarian lodges also made overtures to the Nazis. The only
| |
| − | group that spoke out against the Nazis unequivocally were the irregular lodges, which
| |
| − | had less than two thousand members at their peak.1 But even in the SGvD, members
| |
| − | who disliked National Socialism still found it preferable to communism. An
| |
| − | examination of the reaction of lodge members not only shows how quickly Freemasons
| |
| − | quit the lodges (supporting the argument that they joined for reasons other than
| |
| − | ideology), but it also shows how quickly the lodges gravitated toward the party as the
| |
| − | new primary association for personal and professional enrichment.
| |
| − | The Old Prussian lodges were the most adamant in their attempts to cooperate
| |
| − | with the new regime. Throughout Weimar, the Old Prussian lodges had been trying to
| |
| − | distance themselves from the accusations that Freemasonry was a revolutionary, liberal
| |
| − | brotherhood that bore partial responsibility for the loss of WWI. In 1922, amidst the
| |
| − | growing accusations that Freemasonry helped bring about Germany’s defeat in the war,
| |
| − | the Old Prussian lodges withdrew from the German Grand Lodge Association, stating,
| |
| − | 1 Irregular Freemasonry consisted primarily of the Masonic Union of the Rising Sun and
| |
| − | the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Germany. The former dissolved itself almost immediately after
| |
| − | the seizure of power, while the latter struggled on for a bit longer before going into exile in
| |
| − | Palestine, thus this chapter will focus on the SGvD when speaking of irregular Freemasonry.
| |
| − | 49
| |
| − | “There is a border which strongly differentiates humanitarian from Old Prussian national
| |
| − | Freemasonry. We, the three Old Prussian Grand Lodges, refuse to take part in the
| |
| − | general humanitarian fraternization movement between people and the world.”2
| |
| − | The September 1930 elections showed that the nation was polarizing politically
| |
| − | in the wake of the 1929 crash. In response, all three Old Prussian lodges began
| |
| − | amending rituals and terminology, as well as weakening ties with foreign Masonic
| |
| − | bodies, in order to appear more national and shake off the stigmas placed on them in the
| |
| − | 1920s.3 The Große Landesloge urged its daughter lodges to avoid any future
| |
| − | connections with lodges of a “different teaching” (i.e. Humanitarian or irregular). A
| |
| − | member of a Große Landesloge daughter lodges told the Gestapo that previously, visits
| |
| − | between Old Prussian and Humanitarian brethren were quite common, but shortly before
| |
| − | the seizure of power the Große Landesloge enacted a ban on associating with
| |
| − | Humanitarian lodges as a precautionary measure brought on by “an awakening of the
| |
| − | Christian conscience of the Old Prussian lodges.”4 After the seizure of power the Old
| |
| − | Prussian lodges went into high gear, breaking all ties with Jews, internationalism, and
| |
| − | even Freemasonry itself. “The most urgent task of the order,” one meister wrote, “is that
| |
| − | 2 As quoted in Bernheim, “German Freemasonry”; The further development of
| |
| − | Freemasonry up to right before the national census, no date, BArch R58/6113 part 1, 294.
| |
| − | 3 The further development of Freemasonry up to right before the national census, no
| |
| − | date, BArch R58/6113 part 1, 294, describes the actions of the Große Landesloge, which added
| |
| − | “German-Christian” to its official name and began removing Hebrew words from lodge rituals.
| |
| − | “The situation of Freemasonry after the taking of power by National Socialism,” no date, BArch
| |
| − | R58/6167 part 1 and a letter from the Große Landesloge to Totenkopf und Phönix, December 16,
| |
| − | 1930, BArch R58/6163 part 1, 158, reveal similar steps taken by the other Grand lodges.
| |
| − | 4 Personal statement of Paul Theodore Ott, provided to the Gestapo during interrogation,
| |
| − | September 4, 1935. USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel 44, folder 548.
| |
| − | 50
| |
| − | our order be seen as non-Masonic.”5 First, all three Grand Lodges changed their names,
| |
| − | becoming Christian-National Orders and claiming to have totally separated from
| |
| − | Freemasonry. The drei Weltkugeln became the National Christian Order of Frederick
| |
| − | the Great, the Royal York zur Freundschaft became the German Christian Order of
| |
| − | Friendship, and the Große Landesloge became the German Christian Order of the
| |
| − | Templars.6 The drei Weltkugeln also pressured its current grandmaster, Karl Habicht, to
| |
| − | resign and replaced him with Dr. Otto Bordes. Habicht had been a close friend and
| |
| − | advisor to Gustav Stresemann and the grand lodge wanted a new Grand Master that had
| |
| − | less of an internationalist reputation and didn’t consort with former Weimar statesmen
| |
| − | who were married to Jews.7
| |
| − | Because the legal foundations of the lodges stemmed from a 1798 edict by the
| |
| − | king, any official changes had to have the approval of the Prussian government. To that
| |
| − | end the lodges began correspondence with Hitler, Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick and
| |
| − | Prussian Minister-president Hermann Goering. To Hitler they sent a simple telegram,
| |
| − | congratulating him on his appointment and paying homage, but also reminding Hitler of
| |
| − | the longstanding relationships between the Old Prussian lodges and the Prussian
| |
| − | 5 Letter either to or from Totenkopf und Phönix, May 11, 1933, BArch R58/6163 part 1,
| |
| − | 130.
| |
| − | 6 The former Royal York zur Freundschaft was sometimes also referred to as the German
| |
| − | Christian order of Workmen, which, combined with the Große Landesloge reference to
| |
| − | Templars, seem poor choices for names since they still use terms associated with communism
| |
| − | and Judaism. Preliminary impact of the decree of Prussian Minister-president Goering of January
| |
| − | 16, 1934 regarding the altering of lodge statutes, January 27, 1934, BArch R58/6117 part 1, 115;
| |
| − | NSDAP circular for Bavaria, February 1936, Schumacher T580, 267 I. All three were
| |
| − | eventually ordered by Goering to revert to their previous identity as Masonic lodges and drop the
| |
| − | new names, thus for the sake of continuity and simplicity I will continue to refer to the Old
| |
| − | Prussian lodges by their lodge names.
| |
| − | 7 The situation of Freemasonry after the taking of power by National Socialism, no date,
| |
| − | BArch R58/6167 part 1.
| |
| − | 51
| |
| − | government.8 As a backup plan, the grandmasters of the drei Weltkugeln and Royal York
| |
| − | zur Freundschaft lodges had a meeting with Ludwig Müller, probing the possibility of
| |
| − | recognition as religious organization should the legal overtures fail.
| |
| − | In his letters to Frick, Bordes blatantly admitted that the changes had been made
| |
| − | “to meet the requirements of Gleichschaltung in the National Socialist state.”9 The new
| |
| − | order, Bordes claimed, had absolutely nothing to do with Freemasonry and thus the party
| |
| − | had nothing to fear from either the order or its members. Bordes also argued that the
| |
| − | identifier “Freemason” was a term “passed down after the war” and not really indicative
| |
| − | of the ideology of its members. Furthermore, Bordes pointed out, in the 200 year history
| |
| − | of the convent (the term used in place of “lodge”) Jews had never been admitted. After
| |
| − | assuring Frick that the members of the new order were wholly aligned with the National
| |
| − | Socialist worldview he closed with a very poignant “we are not Freemasons!” and then
| |
| − | pleaded for the party to “provide a way for 20,000 servants of the Fatherland…to help
| |
| − | build the Nazi State.”10 The letter also contained copies of the order’s statutes, which
| |
| − | essentially put in print what the lodge had previously supported in practice; Jews were
| |
| − | officially excluded from membership. In fact, not only were Jewish men banned, but
| |
| − | men who were married to Jews as well. The only exceptions granted were for Jewish
| |
| − | 8 Ibid.
| |
| − | 9 Bordes to Frick, April 12, 1933, Schumacher, T580, 267 I. The Grandmaster of the
| |
| − | Old Prussian lodges were Dr Karl Habicht (drei Weltkugeln, replaced by Bordes), Lieut.-Col.
| |
| − | Kurt von Heeringen (Große Landesloge) and Oskar Feistkorn (Royal York zur Freundschaft).
| |
| − | 10 Bordes to NSDAP, April 12, 1933, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 52
| |
| − | men who had served at the front during the Great War. The statutes defined a Jew as
| |
| − | any man with one or more Jewish grandparents.11
| |
| − | During the meeting with the soon-to-be Reich Bishop, Bordes, along with Oskar
| |
| − | Feistkorn, grandmaster of Royal York zur Freundschaft, promised Müller that “the
| |
| − | majority of our members would stand on National Socialist ground…all of them are
| |
| − | ready to work together with the NSDAP for the good of the Fatherland.”12 The offer
| |
| − | made an impression on Müller who promised that he would have a talk with Goering
| |
| − | about the matter. Bordes summed up the meeting in a letter to a friend, commenting that
| |
| − | “this meeting gives us hope, which has been lacking recently from all the bad news we
| |
| − | get from the Brown House in Munich.”13 The Große Landesloge did not attend the
| |
| − | meeting, preferring instead to “go its own way.”14 Since the seizure of power the Große
| |
| − | Landesloge argued that pressuring the government too much too soon could backfire,
| |
| − | suggesting that it was safer to play dead than to push the issue preemptively or
| |
| − | prematurely.15 The drei Weltkugeln and Royal York zur Freundschaft countered that
| |
| − | even if the government rejected the new orders, at least they, unlike the Große
| |
| − | Landesloge, could say they went down fighting.16
| |
| − | 11 Statutes of the German-Christian Order, September 6, 1933, BArch R58/6163 part 1,
| |
| − | 155. The definition of “Jew,” as well as the rules regarding mixed marriage and exceptions for
| |
| − | service at the front are similar to the policies later defined by the Nazis in dealing with Jews.
| |
| − | 12 National-Christian Order of Frederick the Great to Martin Kob, May 6, 1933, BArch
| |
| − | R58/6163 part 1, 131.
| |
| − | 13 Ibid.
| |
| − | 14 Ibid.
| |
| − | 15 Preliminary impact of the decree of Prussian Minister-president Goering of January
| |
| − | 16, 1934 regarding the altering of lodge statutes, January 27, 1934, BArch R58/6117 part 1, 115.
| |
| − | 16 Feistkorn to National Christian Order of Frederick the Great, June 23, 1933, BArch
| |
| − | R58/6163 part 1, 168; The further development of Freemasonry up to right before the national
| |
| − | census, no date, BArch R58/6113 part 1, 294.
| |
| − | 53
| |
| − | The Old Prussian lodges remained cautiously optimistic, trusting that their
| |
| − | overtures to the government would yield fruit, and they had reason to believe it would.
| |
| − | The Christian churches, like the lodges, were targeted by Nazi propaganda as ideological
| |
| − | opponents to National Socialism.17 The Catholic Church received a double dose of
| |
| − | abuse because not only did it have an ideology counter to National Socialism, but a
| |
| − | political opponent as well (Catholic Center Party). All of these churches however, were
| |
| − | able to survive without having to be fully absorbed as a Nazi auxiliary. Instead, the
| |
| − | churches made their peace with the regime through compromise. The Catholic Church
| |
| − | signed the Concordat in 1933, establishing separate ideological spheres for Catholic and
| |
| − | Nazi ideology, each promising non-interference to the other. True, the Catholic bishop
| |
| − | von Galen was one of the most outspoken critics of Hitler and Nazi regime, but he was a
| |
| − | rare exception.18 For the Protestant Churches, the Nazis established the Deutsche
| |
| − | 17 The Catholic Church received the most attacks because the Nazis saw it as an
| |
| − | institution that, like Freemasonry, broke down racial barriers. Rosenberg, for example, referred
| |
| − | to the clergy as “splendid Germans” that had been waylaid by Catholic doctrine, wanting to
| |
| − | purge the church of “Syrian superstition” (i.e. Semitic influence), but at the same time fail to
| |
| − | recognize that the church itself is an institution that rejects nationalism and racial distinction, see
| |
| − | Rosenberg, Myth of the Twentieth Century, 135-136. Others tied the Churches international ties
| |
| − | to Germany’s defeat in WWI, since France, Poland and Italy all stood to gain from Germany’s
| |
| − | defeat, see Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and their
| |
| − | Influence on Nazi Ideology (New York: New York University Press, 1992),182. Theodore
| |
| − | Fritsch even accused Catholics of aligning with Freemasons against Germany, see King, Nazi
| |
| − | State and the New Religions, 19. Reinhard Heydrich, on several occasions, included Catholics as
| |
| − | one of the major enemies of Reich, often alongside Freemasons, see The Persecution of the
| |
| − | Catholic Church in the Third Reich: Facts and Documents (London: Burnes & Oates, 1940), 290
| |
| − | and Reinhard Heydrich, “Fighting Enemies of the State,” VB, April 29, 1936.
| |
| − | 18 For examples of Catholic leaders and figures that wholly embraced National
| |
| − | Socialism, joining the party and the SA and the SS, see Kevin Spicer’s, Hitler’s Priests: Catholic
| |
| − | Clergy and National Socialism (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2008). The
| |
| − | church has also come under heavy attack, both for the Pope’s refusal to condemn Nazi atrocities
| |
| − | during wartime, and for allegedly helping ODESSA aid the escape of Nazi war criminals to
| |
| − | South America. See Simon Wiesenthal, Justice not Vengeance (New York: Grove Widenfeld,
| |
| − | 1989).
| |
| − | 54
| |
| − | Evangelische Kirche (German Evangelical Church), also in 1933, as a Nazified umbrella
| |
| − | organization for all Protestant Churches under Reichsbishop Ludwig Müller. Even most
| |
| − | of the smaller non-mainstream churches (Seventh-day Adventist, Latter-day Saints, New
| |
| − | Apostolic Church, for example), were able to continue under the regime. The Jehovah’s
| |
| − | Witnesses and Church of Christ-Scientist were the only two Christian churches that did
| |
| − | not survive after the seizure of power.
| |
| − | Thus when Bordes and Feistkorn met with Müller in 1933 they had reason to be
| |
| − | optimistic, especially after Müller’s warm reception to the idea. The churches posed an
| |
| − | ideological threat to National Socialism, and indeed were investigated by the Gestapo.
| |
| − | In fact, both the Gestapo and the RSHA combined investigations of Freemasons and the
| |
| − | churches under the same sub-offices (Figs. A3 and A4). However, only those churches
| |
| − | that absolutely refused any sort of compromise (Jehovah’s Witnesses) or had teachings
| |
| − | that were central to the faith but completely unacceptable to the regime (Church of
| |
| − | Christ – Scientist) had to close. The rest were able to compromise and survive.19 By
| |
| − | changing to more formal religious organizations, the lodges sought to gain the same
| |
| − | concessions afforded the churches that likewise conformed and adopted pieces of
| |
| − | National Socialist ideology. The Große Landesloge even sent a letter to its daughter
| |
| − | lodges requesting that they stop panicking over the future of the order and spreading
| |
| − | rumors of imminent closure. The Große Landesloge reassured its members that the
| |
| − | 19 Jehovah’s Witnesses, as part of their faith, refused to salute the flag, give the “Heil
| |
| − | Hitler” salutation, or do anything else that they saw as violating the second commandment and
| |
| − | putting graven images before God. This, of course, was seen as treasonous by the ultranationalist
| |
| − | Nazis. As for Christian Science, the regime labeled them an occult group rather than
| |
| − | a church, based on the Christian Science doctrine of faith healing, see King, Nazi State and the
| |
| − | New Religions, Chapter I covers the Witnesses and II deals with Christian Science.
| |
| − | 55
| |
| − | order stood on solid legal ground and that only the Ministry of the Interior could force a
| |
| − | closure, which was something that the ministry “will not do.”20 Rumors floated around
| |
| − | that Herman Goering’s father-in-law was a Mason and suggested that through his
| |
| − | daughter, the father-in-law could influence positive action from Goering, perhaps
| |
| − | prompting the promise that Goering would not order the closure.21
| |
| − | Unfortunately the governmental silence was just the calm before the storm.
| |
| − | Hitler spurned the congratulatory telegram, Frick rejected Bordes plea, the offer to
| |
| − | Müller fizzled, and Goering never attended the scheduled meeting. When the grand
| |
| − | lodges finally did sit down with Goering in 1934 the meeting did not go well. Goering
| |
| − | banged his fist on the table and shouted, “You damned pigs, I need to throw you and this
| |
| − | Jew-band in a pot!...there is no room for Freemasonry in the National Socialist State.”22
| |
| − | He rejected the Christian Orders and ordered them to revert back to Masonic lodges.
| |
| − | Without government protection the lodges stood little chance of surviving and
| |
| − | members began leaving the lodges in droves. The loss of so many members put some of
| |
| − | the smaller daughter lodges under financial strain, forcing them close simply because
| |
| − | they lacked the funds to remain open. The Totenkopf und Phönix lodge, for example,
| |
| − | implored all of its members, even those who disapproved of the name change, to stay
| |
| − | 20 Letter from German-Christian Order to all departments (not for publication!), June 15,
| |
| − | 1933, BArch R58/6163 part 1, 165. The emphasis appeared in the original text.
| |
| − | 21 Preliminary impact of the decree of Prussian Minister-president Goering of January
| |
| − | 16, 1934, regarding the altering of lodge statutes, January 27, 1934, BArch R58/6117 part 1, 115.
| |
| − | 22 Preliminary impact of the decree of Prussian Minister-president Goering of January
| |
| − | 16, 1934, regarding the altering of lodge statutes, January 27, 1934, BArch R58/6117 part 1,
| |
| − | 115; The situation of Freemasonry after the taking of power by National Socialism, no date,
| |
| − | BArch R58/6167 part 1.
| |
| − | 56
| |
| − | because the lodge needed their dues to stay open, appealing to each member’s sense of
| |
| − | community and duty to each other.23
| |
| − | The grand lodges limped on until May 1935, when Frick ordered all remaining
| |
| − | lodges be closed voluntarily by the end of July or be closed forcibly by the police.24
| |
| − | Realizing that institutional coordination was a dream, the Old Prussian lodges finally
| |
| − | threw in the towel. All three passed resolutions promising to close by the deadline and
| |
| − | left each daughter lodge to begin the process on its own. When the Freiberg lodge
| |
| − | Cornerstone called its last meeting on July 22, they simply appointed the meister as
| |
| − | liquidator and then adjourned. The meeting lasted less than thirty minutes.25 In August
| |
| − | a letter from the Bavarian Political Police stated quite simply, “Freemasonry in Germany
| |
| − | is completely smashed.”26
| |
| − | Like their Old Prussian counterparts, the Humanitarian lodges also came under
| |
| − | attack in the 1920s and 1930s as tools of the Jewish conspiracy and bearing
| |
| − | responsibility for the war’s loss, but the Humanitarian lodges were in a more difficult
| |
| − | position because of their history of admitting Jewish members and having stronger ties
| |
| − | with foreign lodges (the Humanitarian lodges received their charters from French or
| |
| − | English lodges rather than from Prussia). This, however, did not dissuade the
| |
| − | Humanitarian lodges from taking steps similar to the Old Prussian lodges after the 1930
| |
| − | 23 Letter from the St. John lodge Totenkopf und Phönix, April 13, 1933, BArch
| |
| − | R58/6163 part 1, 136.
| |
| − | 24 Bavarian Political Police to local police and government, July 17, 1935, Schumacher,
| |
| − | T580, 267 I; “Now the Freemason: not voluntary, but compulsory liquidation” in Danziger
| |
| − | Volkstimme, August 28, 1935, R58/6117 part 1, 78.
| |
| − | 25 Report of the last meeting of the former lodge Zum Fuerstenstein in Freiburg, July 22,
| |
| − | 1935, BArch R58/6103b part 1, 77.
| |
| − | 26 Bavarian Political Police to local police and government, August 29, 1935,
| |
| − | Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 57
| |
| − | elections, to distance themselves from foreign. The Bayreuth grand lodge Zur Sonne, for
| |
| − | example, let its membership in the International Freemason League expire.27
| |
| − | The most blatant overture, however, came on August 21, 1931, when
| |
| − | Grandmaster Richard Bröse of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg sent a personal letter to
| |
| − | Hitler, applauding his efforts and claiming that many of the men in the lodges were
| |
| − | sympathetic to the Nazi cause. Surely, Bröse implored, there must be a place for such
| |
| − | men in the party? Continuing with the letter, Bröse offered Hitler open access to the
| |
| − | lodge’s library and archives, commenting that the lodge’s 200-year history had to have
| |
| − | something of benefit to the Reich. Then, Bröse proposed the immediate closure of his
| |
| − | lodge and urged all other Grandmasters to follow suit. In concluding, Bröse again
| |
| − | implored Hitler to accept former Freemasons into the party because they were indeed
| |
| − | loyal and true patriots.28 In October, Rosenberg, not Hitler, responded to Bröse’s letter,
| |
| − | retorting that the letter simply proved the fickle and sneaky nature of Freemasons, who
| |
| − | so quickly switched their loyalties. If Bröse was so willing to discard Freemasonry for
| |
| − | National Socialism, would he likewise discard National Socialism for something else?
| |
| − | “Now,” Rosenberg charged, “we see every Freemason as a traitor.”29
| |
| − | Undaunted, Bröse responded to Rosenberg and so began a duel of letters between
| |
| − | the two. In response to Rosenberg’s accusation that Freemasons waffled in their
| |
| − | 27 The further development of Freemasonry up to right before the national census, no
| |
| − | date, BArch R58/6113 part 1, 294.
| |
| − | 28 Richard Bröse, Grandmaster of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg, to Hitler. Origionally
| |
| − | published in Hamburger Logenblattes, reprinted in Die Alten Pflichten, 1 Jahrgang, Nr. 12,
| |
| − | September 1931, GStA PK, 5.1.11 - Records of the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Germany, Nr. 48
| |
| − | – Issues of Die Alten Pflicthen
| |
| − | 29 “Freimaurerei und Nationalsozialismus” by Leo Müffelmann , Die Alten Pflichten 3
| |
| − | (December 1931), 2 Jahrgang , GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 48.
| |
| − | 58
| |
| − | loyalties, Bröse stated that Freemasons don’t waffle, but stay loyal to Germany and to
| |
| − | tradition.30 Rosenberg retorted that Bröse ought to read Freimaurerische Weltpolitik
| |
| − | (written by Rosenberg himself) to understand that Freemasonry had no national loyalty.
| |
| − | Bröse responded suggesting the Rosenberg ought to read Die Vernichtung der
| |
| − | Unwahrheiten über die Freimaurerei (The Destruction of the Falsehoods about
| |
| − | Freemasonry).31
| |
| − | What made this exchange significant is both its content and its date. For the
| |
| − | lodges to send letters like this to Hitler after he assumed power would be
| |
| − | understandable, but this letter was written a full two years before Hitler assumed power.
| |
| − | True, the Nazis had been making unbelievable strides, both in popular opinion and at the
| |
| − | polls, but a Nazi government was far from being a forgone conclusion. Bröse’s overture
| |
| − | could be driven partly by opportunism, but to suggest a complete closure of the
| |
| − | Hamburg lodge, and call on all other lodges to do the same is more than just hedging
| |
| − | one’s bets. Arguments erupted in lodges across the country as word of the letter spread.
| |
| − | Some condemned Bröse, but did so on grounds that he abused his office, not that his
| |
| − | political views were wrong. Others supported Bröse and political tensions in the lodges
| |
| − | began to rise, despite Freemasonry’s taboo against party politics within the lodge. Karl
| |
| − | Dinger recalled that within his own lodge, “ politics slowly absorbed each member” until
| |
| − | the lodge no longer played an important role in the lives of the lodge brothers and
| |
| − | 30 Ibid.
| |
| − | 31 This was the very same book that Bruno Schüler cited when submitting his resignation
| |
| − | as a Freemason. The same author of Destruction of Falsehoods, Professor Heinrich Junker, also
| |
| − | wrote Der Nationalsozialistische Gedankenkreis: Eine Aufklärung für Freimaurer (The National
| |
| − | Socialist Circle of Thought: An Explanation for Freemasons) (Leipzig: Verein Deutscher
| |
| − | Freimaurer, 1931).
| |
| − | 59
| |
| − | members began leaving because of political disagreements with other lodge members.
| |
| − | In the last days of the lodge, only a dozen men regularly attended.32
| |
| − | After the seizure of power the Humanitarian lodges found their options limited.
| |
| − | Most saw the handwriting on the wall and simply closed their doors. Robert Pehl and
| |
| − | Karl Dinger, for example, both began shutting down their respective lodges almost
| |
| − | immediately after Hitler’s appointment. Pehl even did so without informing the general
| |
| − | lodge membership so as to avoid arguments and protest.33 When questioned by the
| |
| − | Gestapo about his actions, Dinger replied “that to continue operating would be seen in
| |
| − | opposition to the government. So rather than try to reconcile the Old Charges with our
| |
| − | duties as citizens we began closing down…”34 After the lodge closed, Dinger said he
| |
| − | simply went on with his life and never looked back.35
| |
| − | Pehl and Dinger were meisters of daughter lodges and responded by closing
| |
| − | down. Some of the Humanitarian Grand Lodges, however, tried to conform to the new
| |
| − | regime. On April 13, the Großloge Deutscher Brüderkette (Grand Lodge of the German
| |
| − | Chain of Brothers), headquartered in Leipzig, posted a notice officially announcing a
| |
| − | dissolution of all ties to Freemasonry, an abandonment of all Freemasonic statutes, laws
| |
| − | and rituals, and the adoption of a new name; Christian Order of the German Cathedral.
| |
| − | The purpose of this new lodge was “to strive for moral-religious strengthening of
| |
| − | 32 Police report on Karl Dinger, February 4, 1936, USHMM, RG-37.001, Folder 1.
| |
| − | Dinger even claimed that the only reason he became meister was because all other worthy
| |
| − | candidates had left the lodge out of disinterest or political conflict.
| |
| − | 33 Police report on Robert Pehl, October 30, 1935, USHMM, RG-37.001, Folder 1.
| |
| − | Police report on Karl Dinger, February 4, 1936, USHMM, RG-37.001, Folder 1; letter from
| |
| − | lodge “Hansa” to its members, April 19, 1933 Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 34 Police report on Karl Dinger, February 4, 1936, USHMM, RG-37.001, Folder 1.
| |
| − | 35 Ibid.
| |
| − | 60
| |
| − | German men on Christian grounds” and to “foster German identity and consciousness.”
| |
| − | Most importantly, point five of the notice required members to be “men of Aryan
| |
| − | descent and Christian confession. Jews and Marxists may not be members of the
| |
| − | order.”36 All daughter lodges had two weeks to either accept the changes or close. The
| |
| − | National Grand Lodge of Saxony, headquartered in Dresden, was the largest of the
| |
| − | Humanitarian Grand Lodges and also tried to adapt to the new regime, renaming itself
| |
| − | the German-Christian Order of Saxony, with the accompanying clauses and statutes that
| |
| − | banned Jews and communists from joining and emphasized the nationalist ideology of
| |
| − | the order’s members.37 Those Humanitarian lodges that tried to survive suffered from
| |
| − | the same problems afflicting the former Old Prussian grand lodges. Membership loss
| |
| − | led to financial problems,38 and when Goering rejected the Old Prussian attempts to
| |
| − | reorganize that too carried over, as did Frick’s August deadline for final closure.
| |
| − | After the closure, former lodge brothers of the Humanitarian lodges, like their
| |
| − | Old Prussian brethren, wasted little time joining or forming new social organizations.
| |
| − | The SD and Gestapo feared that these new organizations served as the foundation for the
| |
| − | “work of Freemasonry” to continue clandestinely.39 A kegel club in Elbing, for
| |
| − | 36 Official notice of the Großloge Deutscher Brüderkette, April 13, 1933, Schumacher,
| |
| − | T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 37 Memo from OKW to OKH, OK der Kriegsmarine, Reichsminister of Air Defense and
| |
| − | Commander of the Luftwaffe regarding Masonic lodges and lodge-like organizations, August 28,
| |
| − | 1939, BArch R43II 1308, 62-71.
| |
| − | 38 The treasurer of the Christian Order of the Cathedral in Bremen, for example,
| |
| − | chastised members for not paying their dues. He acknowledged that, yes, there was an economic
| |
| − | depression going on, but asserted that one could always find a way to pay one’s dues, Witte to
| |
| − | members, May 1, 1933, Schumacher, T580, 267I. Karl Dinger’s lodge had always had money
| |
| − | problems and the member exodus exacerbated those problems, Police report on Karl Dinger,
| |
| − | February 4, 1936. USHMM, RG-37.001, Folder 1.
| |
| − | 39 Elbe SD Situation report, June 5, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 61
| |
| − | example, consisted of twenty members, all of whom were former high-degree Masons.
| |
| − | The club continued to call itself Hansa (the name of the former lodge) and, after its
| |
| − | lodge building was seized, met in a private room in a local restaurant. With the
| |
| − | exception of the waiter, nobody was allowed to enter the room whenever the club held
| |
| − | meetings. An investigation by the Gestapo even reported that the club began to adorn
| |
| − | the walls with Freemason paraphernalia and suspected that the club was merely a front.40
| |
| − | The Elbing kegel club, however, proved to be the exception to the rule. Investigations of
| |
| − | other organizations joined by former Freemasons stated that nothing suspicious was
| |
| − | happening.41 The Gestapo and SD had simply displaced Freemasons, rather than
| |
| − | removing them.42
| |
| − | This behavior on the part of former Freemasons, both Humanitarian and Old
| |
| − | Prussian, reinforces the argument that most of the men who joined did not do so out of
| |
| − | ideology, but did so for ambition, opportunity, or simply for social exclusivity. They
| |
| − | enjoyed the social aspect of association, which also brought with it economic
| |
| − | opportunities. For the men to so quickly leave the lodges and then join other groups
| |
| − | shows a continuation of the joiner behavior. Those groups like the Elbing kegel club,
| |
| − | 40 1938 RSHA II 111 Situation report, January 19, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel
| |
| − | 5, Folder 30.
| |
| − | 41 SD North-West Situation report for first half of 1939, July 1939, USHMM, RG-
| |
| − | 15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 33; The situation of Freemasonry after the taking of power by National
| |
| − | Socialism, no date, BArch R58/6167 part 1. SD Subsection Schleiswig-Holstein monthly report
| |
| − | for August, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 42 Bavarian Political Police to police and government, April 27, 1936, Schumacher,
| |
| − | T580, 267 I; April and May Situation report for SD South-East, Breslau, June 5, 1939, USHMM,
| |
| − | RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 33. Similar processes between some of these organizations and the
| |
| − | regime took place. The Schlaraffia, for example, had two branches, one accepting Jews and the
| |
| − | other not. The party debated allowing the latter to continue while closing the former, but, like
| |
| − | the lodges, decided to shut them all down. The Rotary Club also nearly avoided closure.
| |
| − | 62
| |
| − | who appeared more mysterious and possibly threatening, simply retained the exclusivity
| |
| − | of Freemasonry. The men had formed strong bonds of friendship (as well as business
| |
| − | contacts), and if they couldn’t meet as Freemasons, fine, they’d meet as something else,
| |
| − | just as long as they could keep meeting. Adorning walls with Masonic memorabilia was
| |
| − | more than likely done out of nostalgia than subversion, like at veteran’s reunions. The
| |
| − | men come wearing various pieces of their old uniforms, but that doesn’t necessarily
| |
| − | mean they want to re-enlist.
| |
| − | In the SGvD we see one of the few examples of Freemasons, like SGvD
| |
| − | Grandmaster Leo Müffelmann, who belonged out sincere belief in Masonic ideology
| |
| − | rather than ambition or social needs.43 Sadly, Müffelmann’s dedication to ideology is
| |
| − | what made him such an outspoken critic of, and therefore target of, the Nazi Party. The
| |
| − | irregular lodges, in particular the SGvD, were the only branch of German Freemasonry
| |
| − | that didn’t attempt to “coordinate.” In fact, right up until it closure the Grandmaster of
| |
| − | the SGvD, Dr. Leo Müffelmann, repeatedly condemned National Socialism, virtually
| |
| − | guaranteeing closure after Nazis came to power. Part of the difference in attitude
| |
| − | between the SGvD and the other grand lodges had to do with age. Comparatively
| |
| − | speaking, the SGvD was a newborn, having only been founded in 1930, and as such had
| |
| − | no ties or traditions involving the government. Because it was so young it remained the
| |
| − | smallest of the German grand lodges, having a little over 550 members at its founding
| |
| − | 43 Alain Bernheim, in the preface to his first article on German Freemasonry under the
| |
| − | Nazis, admitted that it was only a “handful” of Freemasons who remained true to the ideology.
| |
| − | 63
| |
| − | and only growing to 800 at the time of closure, 679 of whom were considered active.44
| |
| − | The SGvD had twenty-five daughter lodges, five of which were located in Berlin along
| |
| − | with the lodges Grandmaster, Dr. Leo Müffelmann, even though the lodge was officially
| |
| − | registered in Hamburg.45 The SGvD stood very much in the shadow of the both the Old
| |
| − | Prussian lodges and the Nazi Party.
| |
| − | Müffelmann and the others founders formed the lodge in response to the growing
| |
| − | politicization of all other German lodges as well as the treatment of Jews within those
| |
| − | lodges. Because of its criticism of mainstream German Freemasonry the SGvD had to
| |
| − | get its charter from the Grand Orient of France, which was not recognized by most
| |
| − | European lodges and hence gave the SGvD its label as “irregular.” Criticizing the
| |
| − | hypocrisy of the other German lodges, Müffelmann and his followers called for a
| |
| − | renewed and literal interpretation of the Old Charges. In its constitution the SGvD
| |
| − | specifically stated that it accepted men regardless of race, class, religious confession or
| |
| − | political leaning and fostered true brotherhood, humanitarianism, and social justice.46 In
| |
| − | response to the political polarization, the SGvD council planned to hold a lecture in 1931
| |
| − | entitled, “The Duty of Freemasons in Politically Charged Times.”47
| |
| − | 44 Membership report as of February 28, 1933, GStA PK, 5.1.11, No 27 – Lodge meeting
| |
| − | minutes.
| |
| − | 45 The only other city to have more than one SGvD lodge was Dresden, which had two.
| |
| − | 46 GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 3 – General Ground Rules, pg. 1.
| |
| − | 47 Grand Council meeting, October 18, 1931, Schwerin, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 27; “The
| |
| − | duty of Freemasons in politically charged times” no author, written in answer to the topic
| |
| − | suggested in the council meeting of October 1931, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 20. Müffelmann’s
| |
| − | personal papers contained a draft of the speech, which said, essentially, that Freemasons are
| |
| − | encouraged to be politically active as individuals, but that as an institution the lodge must remain
| |
| − | neutral. It isn’t known if or the speech was ever delivered.
| |
| − | 64
| |
| − | From its birth until its death just three years later the SGvD struggled to gain new
| |
| − | members.48 Müffelmann once sent a letter to the lodge treasurer, Adolf Bünger, joking
| |
| − | that membership remained so low that perhaps the SGvD should try Hitler’s recruiting
| |
| − | tactics.49 Alongside finding new members, Müffelmann tried desperately to gain
| |
| − | acceptance for the SGvD, both within Germany and in Europe. His efforts often met
| |
| − | with frustration. Mainstream German Freemasonry spurned the SGvD as did Germanspeaking
| |
| − | lodges in the United States.50 Müffelmann tried to gain acceptance by applying
| |
| − | to L’association Maconnique Internationale (AMI – International Masonic Association),
| |
| − | one of the largest international Freemason organizations. In the opening line of a letter
| |
| − | to friend and fellow council member, Eugen Lenhoff, Müffelmann bluntly stated, “we
| |
| − | must get in the AMI.”51 Unfortunately the SGvD’s application was met with a curt
| |
| − | rejection and no explanation of why.52 When Müffelmann succeeded in getting into the
| |
| − | Universal League of Freemasons he threw all his energy into planning the organization’s
| |
| − | annual conference, which was scheduled to be held in Berlin in 1933. He even
| |
| − | cancelled his vacations because “there is just so much to do.”53 With the Nazi Party
| |
| − | 48 In a letter to Überle, dated October 27, 1932, Müffelmann commented that the new
| |
| − | grandmasters in some of the other lodges were strongly supportive of National Socialism and
| |
| − | “will not look favorably on us at all.” The letter GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 23 – Private papers of
| |
| − | Leo Müffelmann.
| |
| − | 49 Müffelmann to Adolf Buenger, December 21, 1932, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 21 –
| |
| − | Private papers of Leo Müffelmann.
| |
| − | 50 Arthur Schramm, “Freemasonry in Germany” (speech delivered at a meeting of the
| |
| − | Liberal Arts Lodge, No. 677, Westwood California, May 7, 1931).
| |
| − | 51 GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 20 – Private Papers of Leo Müffelmann, Müffelmann to
| |
| − | Lenhoff, January 26, 1932.
| |
| − | 52 Letter from L’Association Maconnique Internationale, May 30, 1932, GStA PK,
| |
| − | 5.1.11, Nr. 27.
| |
| − | 53 Müffelmann to Eugen, March 25, 1933, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 25 – Private Papers of
| |
| − | Leo Müffelmann.
| |
| − | 65
| |
| − | reaching its peak in the elections of 1932, Lenhoff bemoaned that the conference might
| |
| − | have to be cancelled. Hitler’s distaste for Freemasonry was well known, and with the
| |
| − | Nazi Party now the largest party in the Reischstag a gathering of international
| |
| − | Freemasons in Berlin seemed a losing prospect. The SGvD had already had a few runins
| |
| − | with the Nazis. In July of 1932, Müffelmann received word that the party had been
| |
| − | sending threatening letters to one of the daughter lodges. He told the lodge meister to
| |
| − | simply disregard it, asking “where would it lead us if we responded to every rabblerousing
| |
| − | postcard that the Nazis wrote?” The Nazis, Müffelmann concluded, should be
| |
| − | treated like the Tannenbergbund; ignored.54 Müffelmann rejected Lenhoff’s suggestion
| |
| − | of cancellation outright, saying that he refused to sit around and wait for one party or
| |
| − | another to ban Freemasonry, telling Lenhoff that the conference would go on as
| |
| − | scheduled. Unfortunately the conference was eventually cancelled, though Müffelmann
| |
| − | claimed the cancellation was due to economic hardship caused by the Great
| |
| − | Depression.55
| |
| − | Despite being the most tolerant and cosmopolitan of the German lodges, the
| |
| − | SGvD was still not immune to political division. Articles in the SGvD’s journal, Die
| |
| − | Alten Pflichten (The Old Charges), discussed the political situation in Germany, and
| |
| − | most articles on politics castigated the parties at both extremes, calling them “bearers of
| |
| − | 54 Erich Ludendorff and his wife, Matilde, established the Tannenbergbund in 1925, after
| |
| − | relations with the NSDAP starting going south in the wake of the Beer Hall Putsch. The
| |
| − | organization had an extreme-right ideology and was strongly anti-Masonic. Ludendorff wrote
| |
| − | his two major anti-Masonic books for the Tannenbergbund. Müffelmann to Matthes, July 27,
| |
| − | 1932, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 22.
| |
| − | 55 Müffelmann to Erna Oloff, August 2, 1932, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 22 – Private papers
| |
| − | of Leo Müffelmann.
| |
| − | 66
| |
| − | barbarism and coercion,” and the “mortal enemies of democracy.”56 As editor of Die
| |
| − | Alten Pflichten, Müffelmann made his opinion of the radical and reactionary movements
| |
| − | in Germany known by allowing such articles to be published. The Bröse letter, however,
| |
| − | exacerbated existing tensions and prompted Müffelmann to respond personally. He told
| |
| − | the SGvD council that the letter would probably cause a split in the Grand Lodge of
| |
| − | Hamburg and to prepare for an influx of members.57 Then, the very next issue of Die
| |
| − | Alten Pflichten carried Müffelmann’s, “Freemasonry and National Socialism,” as its
| |
| − | main article, taking up half of the entire issue. The article was more of a compilation
| |
| − | than an original piece; Müffelmann revisited previous articles and letters published by
| |
| − | Freemasons, adding his own comments at the end, but made it very clear where he stood
| |
| − | regarding Hitler and the Nazis.58
| |
| − | Müffelmann began with the Bröse letter, reprinting the letter in its entirety and
| |
| − | simply commenting afterward, “How is this possible, that one who rose so high could
| |
| − | fall so low?” Nationalism, Fascism and Bolshevism, Müffelmann declared, were “all a
| |
| − | step backwards towards the primitive, but done through the most modern of ideas.”59
| |
| − | 56 Dr. Josef Loewe, “Kulturkrisis und Freemasonry,” Die Alten Pflicthen 12 (September,
| |
| − | 1931), 1 Jahrgang, GStA PK 5.1.11, Nr. 48; Br. Condenhove-Kalergi, “Stalin & Co.,” Die Alten
| |
| − | Pflichten 3 (December, 1931), 2 Jahrgang, Nr. 3, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 48.
| |
| − | 57 Grand Council meeting, October 18, 1931, GStA PK, Nr. 27.
| |
| − | 58 Leo Müffelmann “Freimaurerei und Nationalsozialismus,” Die Alten Pflichten 3
| |
| − | (December, 1931), 2 Jahrgang, Nr. 3, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 48.
| |
| − | 59 Müffelmann, “Freimaurerei und Nationalsozialismus.” Interestingly, historians
| |
| − | debated whether Nazism was “modern” or “reactionary” from the end of WWII until Burleigh
| |
| − | and Whippermann published their synthesis, The Racial State in the 1980s, in which they argued
| |
| − | that the Nazi regime was both modern and reactionary by using modern methods to achieve an
| |
| − | imagined utopia in the past. Müffelmann already understood this long before Burliegh and
| |
| − | Whippermann, he just never had as wide a readership.
| |
| − | 67
| |
| − | The goal of Freemasonry, he said, was to fight all three alongside any other group that
| |
| − | condemned such radicalism, even the Catholic Church.
| |
| − | As could be expected, both Bröse’s letter and Müffelmann ’s article generated
| |
| − | quite a stir among the members of the SGvD. One brother interpreted Müffelmann ’s
| |
| − | article as political encouragement, urging members to support parties that opposed
| |
| − | fascism and communism. Müffelmann ended his article with “the struggle has begun”
| |
| − | and this brother interpreted that as a call to political action. He wrote to the Grand
| |
| − | Lodge expressing his concern that Müffelmann had broken one of the cardinal rules of
| |
| − | the Old Charges and introduced party politics into the lodge. In the reply (which
| |
| − | surprisingly did not come directly from Müffelmann) the brother was told that
| |
| − | Müffelmann’s call to arms was not urging political action, but calling for struggle
| |
| − | against the fascist and Bolshevik worldview. The letter concluded that it would certainly
| |
| − | be easier to follow the example of the Old Prussian lodges and abandon the true
| |
| − | teachings of Freemasonry, but that the right path was seldom the easy one.60
| |
| − | Br. Überle, another member of the SGvD, wrote “Dictator or Grandmaster?” an
| |
| − | article he submitted to Müffelmann for publication in Die Alten Pflichten. It was a
| |
| − | scathing rebuke of both Bröse and the Grand Lodge of Hamburg - Bröse for taking his
| |
| − | office as Grandmaster too far, and the grand lodge for not beating Überle to the
| |
| − | chastisement. Müffelmann, and all those to whom he sent the article for review, rejected
| |
| − | the article as an emotional rant. One review expressed surprise at Überle’s article
| |
| − | 60 Letter to Gaston Dermine, March 24, 1932, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 21.
| |
| − | 68
| |
| − | because he had been informed that Überle himself held membership in the NSDAP.61
| |
| − | Although rejected for publication, copies of Überle’s article still circulated among the
| |
| − | brethren and caused arguments. Müffelmann even had to plan a special trip to Manheim
| |
| − | to try and smooth feathers there that had been ruffled by its readers.62
| |
| − | Überle graciously accepted his rejection. Others, however, were not so easily
| |
| − | refused. At the same time Müffelmann sent Überle’s article for review he also sent out
| |
| − | an article by Br. Max Zucker, who wrote a response to the Müffelmann’s “Freemasonry
| |
| − | and National Socialism,” as well as the previous articles condemning all radical
| |
| − | ideologies. In his article, “Enemies and Comrades,” Zucker attacked Müffelmann for
| |
| − | bringing politics into the lodge, but more importantly for being too presumptuous and
| |
| − | assuming that his status as Grandmaster gave authority to speak for the entire lodge in
| |
| − | political matters. Furthermore, Zucker was upset that Müffelmann suggested any kind of
| |
| − | alliance with the Catholic Church, stating that other than sharing some of the same
| |
| − | enemies, Freemasonry and the Church had absolutely nothing in common. Finally,
| |
| − | although Zucker agreed that Bröse’s letter was “grotesque” and that Freemasons ought
| |
| − | to dismiss a great deal of National Socialist rhetoric as derisive slander, Bolshevism was
| |
| − | far worse and the two shouldn’t just be lumped together. He continued, asserting that
| |
| − | 61 Fritz Bensch to Müffelmann, February 1932; “Mozart” to Müffelmann , February 13,
| |
| − | 1932; Müffelmann to Raoul Koner, February 11, 1932; Eugen Wahl to Müffelmann , February
| |
| − | 11, 1932; Liebermann to Muff, February 11, 1932; Raoul Koner to Muff, February 10, 1932,
| |
| − | GStA PK 5.1.11, Nr. 20.
| |
| − | 62 Müffelmann to Council, February 9, 1932, GStA PK 5.1.11, Nr. 20.
| |
| − | 69
| |
| − | many Europeans wanted the “tightly knit program” and that while National Socialism
| |
| − | may not be good for Freemasonry, Bolshevism was bad for everybody.63
| |
| − | Zucker’s reviews came back just as negative as Überle’s, calling the article a
| |
| − | polemic and asserting that it would do much more damage than good. Surprisingly,
| |
| − | Müffelmann actually wanted to print Zucker’s article. Perhaps Müffelmann thought
| |
| − | that the rebuttal ought to be printed in the interests of fairness. In the end, however,
| |
| − | Müffelmann agreed with the reviewers that with lodge tensions already strained
| |
| − | publication would just cause more problems.64 Zucker didn’t take the rejection as well
| |
| − | as Überle, criticizing Müffelmann again, this time for stifling discussion on a
| |
| − | controversial issue.65
| |
| − | Zucker was not the only member of SGvD to express such views. Curt Porsig,
| |
| − | wrote to Br. Matthes, the meister of his lodge, stating that anti-Masonic sentiment was
| |
| − | on the rise and that Freemasonry, in response, needed to clearly express loyalty to Volk
| |
| − | and Fatherland, as well as distance itself from left-wing groups. Matthes then wrote to
| |
| − | Müffelmann, stating that many of the brethren felt the same as Porsig and suggested that
| |
| − | the SGvD forbid it members from belonging to either the SPD or the Reichsbanner and
| |
| − | condemn both as hostile to the state. Müffelmann’s rejected the idea and disagreed that
| |
| − | 63 Max Zucker to Muff, January 22, 1932, GStA PK 5.1.11, Nr. 20; Max Zucker,
| |
| − | “Kampfgegner und Kampfgenossen,” GStA PK, Nr. 23.
| |
| − | 64 Müffelmann to Council, February 9, 1932, GStA PK 5.1.11, Nr. 20.
| |
| − | 65 Max Zucker to Müffelmann, July 21, 1932, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 23.
| |
| − | 70
| |
| − | the SPD and Reichsbanner were hostile groups, especially considering that both stood in
| |
| − | opposition to the Nazis, which Müffelmann absolutely considered a threat to the state.66
| |
| − | Other members went even further than Zucker, Prosig or Matthes. In an
| |
| − | exchange of letters, Müffelmann learned from council member Alfred Dierke that one
| |
| − | brother, named Ramms, left the SGvD entirely to secure a job in a National Socialist
| |
| − | auxiliary. Müffelmann was shocked, commenting, “and to think this was the Ramms that
| |
| − | we thought was one of our great comrades-in-arms.”67 There was even a Jewish member
| |
| − | of the SGvD lodge Jerusalem that supported the Nazis. Dr. Emmanuel Propper, the
| |
| − | meister of the Jerusalem lodge, commented in a letter to Müffelmann that it was
| |
| − | “amusing that a professor at the Hebrew University and son-in-law of an almost
| |
| − | chauvinistic Zionist leader is a National Socialist. Oh well, the Jews are a paradoxical
| |
| − | people.”68
| |
| − | These examples show that even in the most humanitarian and tolerant branch of
| |
| − | German Freemasonry one not only found dissenting opinions, but that the majority
| |
| − | leaned toward the political right. Müffelmann recognized the stress placed on the lodge
| |
| − | by politics. Among his private papers is the draft of an article, presumably written by
| |
| − | him and possibly intended for a future issue of Die Alten Pflichten, that discussed the
| |
| − | increasing propaganda attacks against Freemasonry. The attacks were becoming more
| |
| − | of a concern because they had an impact on the brethren, convincing them that one could
| |
| − | 66 Curt Porsig to Matthes, July 10, 1932; Matthes to Müffelmann, July 19, 1932;
| |
| − | Müffelmann to C. Matthes, 27 July 1932, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 22.
| |
| − | 67 Müffelmann to Alfred Dierke, February 23, 1933, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 24 – Private
| |
| − | Papers of Leo Müffelmann.
| |
| − | 68 Dr. Emmanuel Propper to Müffelmann, November 13, 1932, from Jerusalem,
| |
| − | regarding the exit of Prof. Bodenheimer, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 22.
| |
| − | 71
| |
| − | not simultaneously be a patriotic German and a Freemason. Müffelmann then declared
| |
| − | that those Freemasons who insisted on clinging to racial, class-based or ultra-national
| |
| − | ideologies needed to quit the lodges and stop camouflaging themselves as Freemasons.69
| |
| − | After Hitler became chancellor, Müffelmann and the SGvD had more reason to
| |
| − | be concerned than any other grand lodge. In an effort to calm his fellow brethren,
| |
| − | Müffelmann sent a letter to the SGvD council and to each of the twenty-five daughter
| |
| − | lodges shortly after Hitler’s appointment, acknowledging the fears that so many brethren
| |
| − | expressed, but urging them to keep calm and not let rumor and speculation turn into
| |
| − | panic.70 While Old Prussian and Humanitarian lodges scrambled to get into Hitler’s
| |
| − | good graces, Müffelmann watched it unfold, shaking his head as influential and
| |
| − | distinguished men groveled at the feet of the “Bohemian Corporal.” Müffelmann must
| |
| − | have thought to himself that this was the very reason why he broke away and formed the
| |
| − | SGvD in the first place; because German Freemasonry has forsaken the Old Charges in
| |
| − | favor of racism, class struggle or nationalism. During a meeting of the SGvD council in
| |
| − | late February, shortly after sending his letter urging calm, Müffelmann reported that the
| |
| − | Old Prussian and Humanitarian lodges were doing everything in their power to appear
| |
| − | nationalist. “Now,” he concluded, “only the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Germany is
| |
| − | international.”71
| |
| − | On March 28, Müffelmann received a letter from the Hamburg Vereinregister
| |
| − | ordering the closure of the SGvD down and informing him that the registrar had already
| |
| − | 69 “Aus deutscher Freimaurerei,” author unknown, no date, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 22.
| |
| − | 70 Müffelmann to Council and Bauhütten, February 22, 1933, GStA PK 5.1.11, Nr. 52 –
| |
| − | Lodge Correspondence and Meeting Minutes.
| |
| − | 71 Council minutes, February 28-March 1, 1933, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 27.
| |
| − | 72
| |
| − | recorded the lodge as officially closed.72 As if to rub salt in the wound, the SGvD
| |
| − | received another letter four days later, this time from the AASR Supreme Council,
| |
| − | stating that it too was closing down and that all SGvD ties to the AASR were severed as
| |
| − | of April 1.73 Still, that was not the end of the bad news. At the same time Müffelmann
| |
| − | also received a disconcerting report from one of his daughter lodges; on March 27, the
| |
| − | police conducted a search of Zu den drei Sphinxen in reaction to numerous tips from
| |
| − | informers of suspicious activity within the lodge.74 Not only were there NSDAP
| |
| − | members within the SGvD, but police informers as well.
| |
| − | With international ties falling apart, local authorities ordering closure, the police
| |
| − | conducting lodge raids and lodge members turning, Müffelmann and the SGvD council
| |
| − | decided that there was little left to be done but to carry out what was already recorded by
| |
| − | the state as a fait accompli. On June 10, under the direction of the council and treasurer,
| |
| − | the SGvD closed.75 Some lodge members expressed their confusion and frustration at
| |
| − | the decision to close the lodge. One member sent a personal letter to Müffelmann
| |
| − | demanding answers, accusing the council of acting in haste and not putting up fight.
| |
| − | Why, he asked, doesn’t the lodge simply reorganize or try to preserve some kind of
| |
| − | foundation so that it can be reestablished at a future date? “To go to sleep is easy,” he
| |
| − | said, “but to wake up is hard.”76 If Müffelmann responded there was no record of such
| |
| − | among his papers. In September, Müffelmann was arrested and sent to the Sonnenberg
| |
| − | 72 Müffelmann to daughter lodges, March 29, 1933, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 8 – Reports on
| |
| − | the Closing of the SGvD.
| |
| − | 73 Supreme Council AASR to lodges, April 3, 1933, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 52.
| |
| − | 74 Zu den drei Sphinxen to Müffelmann , March 27, 1933, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 24.
| |
| − | 75 Abwicklungstelle der frueheren SGvD, May 15,1933, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 8.
| |
| − | 76 Letter to Müffelmann, March 30, 1933, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 25.
| |
| − | 73
| |
| − | concentration camp. He was released in November and emigrated to Palestine where he
| |
| − | joined the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Germany in Exile. His time in the camp, however,
| |
| − | had taken its toll and Müffelmann died in 1934.77
| |
| − | The Nazis suspected that the end of the lodges had not spelled the end of
| |
| − | Freemasonry and so continued to investigate former Freemasons, as well as the
| |
| − | organizations the joined. Government and police reports clear up to the beginning of
| |
| − | war, however, show that Freemasons, despite some bitterness at the dissolution of
| |
| − | Freemasonry, supported Nazi policies. Quarterly reports from regional SD offices all
| |
| − | over Germany reported favorable reactions from former Freemasons to the Anschluss as
| |
| − | well as the annexation of both the Sudetenland in 1938 and the remainder of
| |
| − | Czechoslovakia in 1939.78 Those who did criticize the Anschluss and annexation of the
| |
| − | Sudetenland did so on economic grounds, fearing that the addition of Czech territory and
| |
| − | industry threatened existing German companies.79 Lodge reactions to Kristallnacht was
| |
| − | mixed, while condemning the violence and the harm the pogrom cause to Germany’s
| |
| − | economy and image, former Freemasons supported Jewish dispossession and legal
| |
| − | marginalization.80
| |
| − | 77 Bernheim, “German Freemasonry and its Attitude Toward the Nazi Regime.”
| |
| − | 78 One report pointed out that even though the Anschluss increased Catholic influence in
| |
| − | Germany, former Freemasons still supported it. Situation report for 1938, RSHA office II 111,
| |
| − | January 19, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 30; April-May 1938 Situation report
| |
| − | from II/1 central office, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 28; Northeast Situation report,
| |
| − | April 4, 1939; SD report on Freemasonry, April 14, 1939; April report from SD-East; SD
| |
| − | Southeast Situation report, April 14, 1939; 1939 quarterly report from SD-Northwest, USHMM,
| |
| − | RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 31.
| |
| − | 79 First quarter report from Breslau SD on Freemasonry, April 14, 1939, USHMM, RG-
| |
| − | 15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 31.
| |
| − | 80 1938 RSHA II 111 Situation report, January 19, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel
| |
| − | 5, Folder 30.
| |
| − | 74
| |
| − | Former Freemasons also supported Germany’s claims to Danzig and the Polish
| |
| − | Corridor, even through the use of force.81 Once war broke out, former Freemasons
| |
| − | continued to make positive comments regarding Germany’s foreign policy, including the
| |
| − | Nazi-Soviet Pact, and also sought to join the military and take part in the campaign.82
| |
| − | By the end of 1939, SD offices across the country had “nothing new to report” in regards
| |
| − | to former Freemasons, one report even stating that “it may be presumed that the majority
| |
| − | of individual Freemasons, like the rest of the public, are caught up in the weight of
| |
| − | recent events and are willing to be subject to political necessity.”83
| |
| − | Sadly, some former Freemasons didn’t cooperate, acquiesce or criticize, instead
| |
| − | choosing the most drastic response possible. One Freemason in Uelzen committed
| |
| − | suicide, claiming that continual harassment by the party courts was more than he could
| |
| − | bear.84 Walter Plessing, a Freemason in Lubeck, also committed suicide, but for a very
| |
| − | different reason. Plessing had left the lodges in mid 1933 and successfully joined both
| |
| − | the party and the Sturmabteilung (SA – Storm Troopers); however, when the party
| |
| − | implemented a policy of dismissing all former Freemasons who joined the party after the
| |
| − | 81 January-June SD-Northeast Situation report, July 3, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M,
| |
| − | Reel 5, Folder 33; Semiannual SD Situation report for Northwest, July 1939, USHMM, RG-
| |
| − | 15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 82 SD Subsection Südhannover-Braunschweig situation report, January-August,
| |
| − | USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 83 SD Situation report for Southeast, September 3, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel
| |
| − | 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 84 Unfortunately the documents mention him in passing and doesn’t say why the
| |
| − | individual was taken to court. There were no men ever specifically charged with “being a
| |
| − | Freemason,” so this individual must have been part of another group that was persecuted. RFSS
| |
| − | in-house letter, October 29, 1938, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 14, Folder 198.
| |
| − | 75
| |
| − | seizure of power, Plessing was stripped of both memberships. Heartbroken, Plessing
| |
| − | committed suicide in 1934. In his will, he left everything to Hitler.85
| |
| − | What then can be said of lodge reaction to persecution and dissolution? In
| |
| − | general, the majority of Freemasons, though upset about the dissolution of the fraternity,
| |
| − | nevertheless supported the Nazi party ends, if not its means. All three Old Prussian
| |
| − | grand lodges sought coordination. Only two of the Humanitarian lodges did so, but one,
| |
| − | the Grand Lodge of Saxony, was the largest of the Humanitarian lodges. If we include
| |
| − | the Grand Lodge of Hamburg too (the lodge to which Bröse belonged) then the
| |
| − | coordinating Humanitarian lodges represented over 65% of Humanitarian membership,
| |
| − | meaning the majority of Humanitarian lodges also sought to align with the regime. Only
| |
| − | the SGvD remained critical as an institution, but while its administration rejected
| |
| − | National Socialism its members did not. Some belonged to the party, others
| |
| − | sympathized, and even those who criticized the Nazis still favored National Socialism to
| |
| − | communism. If the SGvD, the most humanitarian and tolerant of the German grand
| |
| − | lodges, acted this way, and its grandmaster was anti-Nazi, what can be said of the lodges
| |
| − | in which the leadership led the charge for coordination?
| |
| − | The speed with which the majority of grand lodges tried to coordinate with the
| |
| − | regime shows that ideology was not the primary reason for joining the lodges. If so,
| |
| − | members would not have sought coordination so assertively, nor would they have begun
| |
| − | to do so as early as they did. Furthermore, the degree to which the lodges sought
| |
| − | coordination shows that in the wake of the crash and the increase of Nazi influence, the
| |
| − | 85 Howe, “Collapse of Freemasonry.”
| |
| − | 76
| |
| − | lodges recognized that Freemasonry was one its way out and National Socialism was on
| |
| − | its way in. Lodge reaction, then, shows the extent to which Freemasons as a group
| |
| − | adjusted to align with the regime.
| |
| − | The existence of Masonic Vertrauensmänner (V-Men, informers) also shows just
| |
| − | how much opportunism played a role in motivating men to both join and abandon the
| |
| − | lodge. Karl Busch, an informer for the Gestapo in Bielfeld, provides one such example.
| |
| − | He was a party member (No. 1,482,111) and started spying for the regime as early as
| |
| − | August, 1933. During his debriefings, Busch continually expressed his desire to help
| |
| − | bring the lodges down, so much so that the debriefer commented in his report that
| |
| − | “without a doubt, Busch’s intentions are sincere and honest.” The report also pointed
| |
| − | out that as a wealthy man, Busch sought no monetary gain for his efforts, only the
| |
| − | opportunity to put his time and talents towards the movement. Busch even requested to
| |
| − | be made a speaker or lecturer for the party, but the report nixed that idea, saying “what
| |
| − | normal requires ten lines to say, he needs ten pages. Still, his ideas are in the right place
| |
| − | and his principles are unswervingly opposed to the lodges.” 86 Another lodge informer
| |
| − | was previously a 33rd degree Mason of the Scottish Rite, a position that takes years, if
| |
| − | not decades, to achieve.87
| |
| − | How, then, could men turn against the lodges so quickly? Opportunism and
| |
| − | ambition provide one answer. The lodges provided social connection, business contacts
| |
| − | 86 SD report on former Freemason Karl Busch, V-Man in Bielfeld, August 2, 1934,
| |
| − | USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel 43, folder 533.
| |
| − | 87 This informant was mention in an in house letter from the RFSS II 111-4 to SS
| |
| − | Sturmbannführer Ehrlinger, October 29, 1938, RG-15.007M, Reel 14, Folder 198. His name
| |
| − | was not given.
| |
| − | 77
| |
| − | and an elite status. After the seizure of power it was the party that could offer those
| |
| − | things. In the case of Karl Busch, family pressure and tradition most likely played a big
| |
| − | role in his joining the lodges in the first place. The SD report on Busch mentioned that
| |
| − | Hugo Busch, Karl’s father and namesake, was also a Freemason.88 Men who joined the
| |
| − | lodges for the social status or to further there careers would be willing to quickly drop
| |
| − | the fraternity for National Socialism if they saw that those two needs could be better met
| |
| − | through party membership. Perhaps Busch’s turn against the lodges was as much about
| |
| − | his family as it was about the fraternity. Another explanation for such drastic changes of
| |
| − | heart could be backpedaling; being overly zealous for the party and against the lodges in
| |
| − | the attempt to atone for or cover up one’s previous lodge membership.
| |
| − | The case of Paul Theodore Ott offers another reason why men turned against the
| |
| − | lodges so quickly; they were offended by someone in the lodge and wanted revenge. Ott
| |
| − | joined the Große Landesloge lodge Zu den drei goldenen Schlüsseln in 1912 (age 36).
| |
| − | He was in the lumber industry and by WWI was, by his own admission, a very wealthy
| |
| − | man. During the war, Ott claimed to have purchased almost 1 million marks worth of
| |
| − | war bonds, all of which he lost. His business interests took a hit, and soon he and his
| |
| − | wife were living on public assistance. He quit the lodge in 1932 out of economic
| |
| − | hardship and the fact that he wanted to join the NSDAP. Before leaving the lodge,
| |
| − | 88 SD report on the Freemason Spancken, August 20, 1934, USHMM, RG 15.007M,
| |
| − | Reel 43, folder 533. In the previous chapter we saw the pressure put on college students to equal
| |
| − | or better their fathers in terms of education and career, so it would make sense that the sons of
| |
| − | Freemasons would also be put under pressure to follow in their father’s social footsteps as well
| |
| − | as his collegiate and occupational ones. By way of analogy, think of the pressure some parents
| |
| − | place on their children here in the United States to attend a specific college and study a specific
| |
| − | subject because of family tradition.
| |
| − | 78
| |
| − | however, he asked for a loan to help him get back on his feet. In response, Grandmaster
| |
| − | von Heerigen sent him a kind letter and a money order for twenty Reichsmark (RM).
| |
| − | Needless to say, Ott was deeply insulted, but that was just the beginning. After leaving
| |
| − | the lodge, Ott received a letter from the lodge stating that his dues had been in arrears
| |
| − | and owed the lodge RM 160. When Ott explained that he was living on welfare and
| |
| − | couldn’t possible afford to pay, the lodge slapped a lien on him (Zahlungbefehl). “The
| |
| − | much-vaunted charity of the lodges,” Ott wrote, “is just a store front for suckers.” Ott
| |
| − | described a lavish celebration to which the lodge once invited him. Brother’s from all
| |
| − | over the country came in as guests of the Grandlodge. The event, Ott estimated, cost
| |
| − | between twenty and thirty thousand marks, yet they could only spare him twenty. Since
| |
| − | Ott left the lodge before the seizure of power he couldn’t be used as a V-Man, but his
| |
| − | statement to the Gestapo is dripping with bitterness. Of the over 70,000 Freemasons in
| |
| − | Germany, Ott cannot possibly be the only one to feel slighted, providing the Gestapo
| |
| − | with a very willing man to serve as an informer.89
| |
| − | Whatever the reason, these men show how easily a association that had existed
| |
| − | for decades could be tossed aside. True, these extreme cases of former Freemasons
| |
| − | actively working with the regime against the lodges was the exception more than the
| |
| − | rule, but so too were cases like Leo Müffelmann, who openly criticized National
| |
| − | Socialism and died as an indirect result of his opposition. The majority lay in the
| |
| − | middle, having sentimental ties to the lodges, but still willing to discard them without
| |
| − | too much prompting.
| |
| − | 89 Gestpo file on Paul Theodor Ott, USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel 44, folder 548.
| |
| − | 79
| |
| − | By way of comparison, the student Korps also tried to survive under pressure
| |
| − | from the new regime. When the NSDStB appeared in 1926 it tried to gain recognition
| |
| − | and acceptance as a legitimate college association but had trouble because of it political
| |
| − | underpinnings. The Korps (like the Masonic lodges) remained aloof from political and
| |
| − | religious issues, but as politics polarized in the wake of the crash, more students were
| |
| − | joining the NSDStB, and by 1933 the NSDStB had administrative control of Germany’s
| |
| − | student fencing associations. After the seizure of power, Gleichschaltung in the student
| |
| − | Korps was simply a tidying up process, putting into law what was already in practice.
| |
| − | The more nationalist Deutsche Burschenschaften threw out its Jewish and Masonic
| |
| − | membership and was eventually incorporated into the NSDStB. The Kösener Senioren-
| |
| − | Convents-Verband (KSCV – Kösen Senior-Convents Association), on the other hand,
| |
| − | held out against pressure to expel Jews and Freemasons. When the moment of truth
| |
| − | finally came, the KSCV dissolved itself rather than compromise, closing its doors in
| |
| − | October 1935, just two months after the last Masonic lodge in Germany shut down.
| |
| − | Some of these students continued to meet and practice swordplay as they were wont to
| |
| − | do in the KSCV. Historian R.G.S. Weber argued that the continued meetings were
| |
| − | examples of defiance and resistance to the Nazi regime, much in the same way that the
| |
| − | Nazis saw the continued presence of the lodges, even as Christian Orders, as a
| |
| − | semblance of Freemasonry and therefore a sign of resistance;90 however, there is another
| |
| − | possibility that Weber overlooks, which explains both the behavior of the KSCV and the
| |
| − | Masonic lodges. To continue to meet may have been a gesture of resistance, but it could
| |
| − | 90 Weber, German Student Corps in the Third Reich, 102-141.
| |
| − | 80
| |
| − | also have been a group of fencing buddies whose club had been shut down and wanted
| |
| − | to continued fencing, but without having to join a Nazi sponsored club. The clandestine
| |
| − | clubs thus continued out of political disinterest rather than cloaked hostility. Likewise
| |
| − | with the Masonic lodges. The men had been members of a particular lodge for years,
| |
| − | and even decades. When the lodges were dissolved they joined new groups (Schlaraffia,
| |
| − | kegel clubs, etc.) out of a desire to keep meeting as friends, but without having to start
| |
| − | each meeting with the Horst Wessel Lied.
| |
| − | It is also interesting to note that when the lodges changed to German-Christian
| |
| − | Orders they started referring to individual chapters as “convents.” Only two other
| |
| − | groups used that particular term. One was, obviously, the nunneries of the Catholic
| |
| − | Church, the other was the university Korps. The lodges were seeking to redefine
| |
| − | themselves as university fraternities, but without the university. The Burschenschaften
| |
| − | succeeded in coordination with the regime, and perhaps the lodges thought by becoming
| |
| − | a national-Christian fraternity like the Burschenschaften they could be extended the
| |
| − | opportunity to coordinate like the Burschenschaften. But as discussed in the
| |
| − | introduction, the student Korps had something to offer the Nazis that the lodges did not.
| |
| − | The Korps had a strict honor code, were rooted in the German university, and
| |
| − | incorporating them would make the job of the NSDStB much easier. The lodges, on the
| |
| − | other hand, had their roots in a foreign country, held a cosmopolitan ideology, and had
| |
| − | no direct equivalent in any of the NSDAP’s auxiliaries. Even after becoming Christian
| |
| − | Orders the lodges had nothing to offer; the Christian churches had made their peace with
| |
| − | 81
| |
| − | National Socialism, so if men wanted to associate in a national Christian order they
| |
| − | could simply go to church.
| |
| − | The lodges were left with no other alternative but to close down, however, while
| |
| − | the party rejected Freemasonry as an organization the door was still open to individuals.
| |
| − | The new problem, at least for the party, was striking the right balance between
| |
| − | ideological purity and practical necessity; letting Freemasons work with the regime
| |
| − | without appearing to sacrifice party integrity. In the next chapter we will see how the
| |
| − | regime tried to find this delicate balance in allowing former Freemasons to serve in the
| |
| − | party, civil service and military.
| |
| − | 82
| |
| − | CHAPTER IV
| |
| − | DEFINING “FREEMASON”
| |
| − | While the Freemasons maintained that the name changes and reorganization were
| |
| − | done in the name of genuine nationalist support the regime remained understandably
| |
| − | skeptical. Thus when scores of former Freemasons sought admission into the party and
| |
| − | its auxiliaries the Nazis stood at an impasse: on one hand these men were educated
| |
| − | professionals whose skills were essential to the success of the regime, but on the other
| |
| − | hand these men belonged to an organization that, according to the party, fostered
| |
| − | internationalism and was manipulated by the Jews. The majority of former lodge
| |
| − | members seeking entrance had most likely joined Freemasonry in the first place for
| |
| − | social and professional reasons, but the example of Leo Müffelmann demonstrated that
| |
| − | some in the lodges truly believed in the ideology, and while the regime could make
| |
| − | allowances for the former it dreaded accidently letting in the latter.1 For example, the
| |
| − | SD had a letter from the former Totenkopf und Phönix lodge to one of its members,
| |
| − | stating “We have gathered here in the new form but in the old spirit…we have closed
| |
| − | down, but at the same time, we haven’t.” The letter continued to explain how words and
| |
| − | terms may have changed, but the laws and principles behind the terms remained.2 Such
| |
| − | correspondence had lead to the rejection of the Christian Orders and the dissolution of
| |
| − | 1 RFSS-SD Situation report for May-June, 1934, BArch R58/229; letter to Consul
| |
| − | Reiner, NSDAP Verbindungsstab, January 20 1934, Schumacher, T580 267 I.
| |
| − | 2 Totenkopf und Phoenix to Br. Kaemmler, June 28, 1933, BArch R58/6163 part 1, 166.
| |
| − | The SD had another letter from the a former member of the Große Landesloge that said “If we
| |
| − | must put it down for a time, we will take it up again later,” see “The situation of Freemasonry
| |
| − | after the taking of power by National Socialism,” no date, BArch R58/6167 part 1.
| |
| − | 83
| |
| − | Freemasonry, but while the regime had given its final answer to the lodges as an
| |
| − | institution the matter of individual Masons posed a different problem; to ban all former
| |
| − | Freemasons was foolish, but there still had to be some kind of straining process to weed
| |
| − | out Freemasons who, the Nazi Party was so certain, would try to join the party and its
| |
| − | auxiliaries with the intention of either destroying it from within, or acting to help other
| |
| − | “questionable” Freemasons get in as well. The party needed a happy medium, but the
| |
| − | problem came in trying to codify what separated “true” Freemasons (like Müffelmann),
| |
| − | from the social joiners. Time and time again the party establish the limits of
| |
| − | “acceptable” only to redefine those limits a year or two later, making them more
| |
| − | inclusive. In less than a decade the party went from a total ban on Freemasons in the
| |
| − | party, civil service or military, to granting amnesty to the majority of former
| |
| − | Freemasons.
| |
| − | The issue of Freemasons belonging to the party started in the 1920s. In 1926,
| |
| − | Hitler established the Untersuchung und Schlichtungs-Ausschuss (USCHLA -
| |
| − | Committee for Investigation and Settlement) as a sort of party court to help settle
| |
| − | internal disputes between party offices and avoid embarrassing either the party or the
| |
| − | Fuehrer.3 After the seizure of power he added Reich to the title and it became the
| |
| − | RUSchlA. Two of the issues that RUSchlA had to deal were whether or not former
| |
| − | Freemasons should be allowed in the party as new members, and if former Freemasons
| |
| − | discovered in the party already had to be expelled. By the early 1930s the RUSchlA
| |
| − | 3 Initially abbreviated USCHLA, the “Reich” portion was, of course, added as the party
| |
| − | grew large enough to actually spread across the country, becoming the RUSchlA, see Shirer, The
| |
| − | Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 122, 221.
| |
| − | 84
| |
| − | urged a total ban, though allowing Hitler to grant exceptions.4 The Völkischer
| |
| − | Beobachter (VB) echoed the general ban in an article titled “No Freemasons in the
| |
| − | NSDAP.”5 As for the exceptions, Hitler stated that he only granted those in “very rare
| |
| − | cases” to “men whose entire lives bear witness to their indisputably nationalist
| |
| − | feelings.”6
| |
| − | The policy, however, was much easier to announce than enforce and enforcement
| |
| − | varied by region. Some local offices began either admitting ex-Masons, or refusing to
| |
| − | throw out former lodge members already in the party, while others strictly adhered to the
| |
| − | policy. Those Freemasons denied admission appealed on the basis that if other
| |
| − | Freemasons were being allowed to remain, why should they be excluded? Walter Buch,
| |
| − | head of the RUSchlA from 1927 until the end of WWII, pointed out the paradox in an
| |
| − | RUSchlA newsletter regarding Freemasons in the party. His letter reiterated the policy
| |
| − | of banning all Freemasons, but argued that the acceptance of “honorable” (ehrbar)
| |
| − | Germans who formerly belonged to the lodges and have forsaken lodge membership is
| |
| − | “un-refusable.”7 The question, however, remained; what defined “honorable?” Some
| |
| − | former Freemasons, Buch argued, joined for social benefits, seeking a sense of
| |
| − | 4 Transcript from a USCHLA newsletter about Freemasons in the party, Schumacher,
| |
| − | October 26, 1931, T580, 267I.
| |
| − | 5 “Keine Freimaurer in der NSDAP,” VB, May 26, 1933.
| |
| − | 6 Hitler, Table Talk, 214. This was a similar law passed for mischlinge in the armed
| |
| − | forces. As a rule, mischlinge were excluded but could receive an exemption from Hitler to
| |
| − | continue serving. During the course of the war Hitler granted thousands of these exemptions,
| |
| − | some to men that were half-Jewish under the Nuremberg Laws. If Hitler was willing to make
| |
| − | such an exception for men of mixed race, surely the plight of non-Jewish Freemasons couldn’t
| |
| − | be that difficult, see Brian Mark Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial
| |
| − | Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas
| |
| − | Press, 2002).
| |
| − | 7 Transcript from a USCHLA newsletter about Freemasons in the party, October 26,
| |
| − | 1931, Schumacher, T580, 267I. One of Buch’s assistants was Hans Frank.
| |
| − | 85
| |
| − | community like they found in the trenches of WWI. Others joined for the economic and
| |
| − | social benefits of lodge membership. Some joined because simply because they were
| |
| − | joiners. Only a few joined out of sincere belief in the Masonic ideology so detested by
| |
| − | the Nazis.
| |
| − | Buch suggested that the party out to make distinctions between former Old
| |
| − | Prussian, Humanitarian and irregular members. Since the fracturing of German
| |
| − | Freemasonry occurred over national/racial issues it was a good place to start in deciding
| |
| − | who was “honorable.”8 Additionally he proposed allowing exceptions on a greater scale
| |
| − | than only to those with Hitler’s personal endorsement. The process should begin at the
| |
| − | local recruiting level. All former Freemasons, whether applying for new membership or
| |
| − | already found within the party, had to sign an Erklärung, a declaration of complete and
| |
| − | total disassociation with the fraternity, both physically and ideologically. Genuine
| |
| − | Freemasons, Buch argued, held their lodge loyalties above all else, including the nation,
| |
| − | and thus would never willingly sign the Erklärung, a sample of which Buch included
| |
| − | with the newsletter:9
| |
| − | “I hereby swear on my honor and conscience, that by my withdrawal I have forsaken my
| |
| − | previously performed oath to the lodge___________________, as well as any and all
| |
| − | sympathies and associations.”
| |
| − | Signed
| |
| − | 8 Ibid.
| |
| − | 9 Ibid.
| |
| − | 86
| |
| − | Buch hoped that by granting a little bit of leeway to the party’s rigid “No Freemason”
| |
| − | policy it could continue to keep out undesirable, ideologically-driven Freemasons while
| |
| − | allowing the rest to join or continue membership in the party.
| |
| − | Buch was not the only party official that saw problems in the policy towards
| |
| − | Freemasons. Alfred Rosenberg received a letter from Eric Hollenbach, a party officer in
| |
| − | Berlin, arguing that not only should some former Freemasons be allowed to join the
| |
| − | party, but also echoing Buch’s argument that it was wrong to lump Old Prussian and
| |
| − | Humanitarian Freemasons into the same pile. The party, according to Hollenbach, had
| |
| − | been listening too much to the anti-Masonic propaganda of “dear old Ludendorff.” 10 In
| |
| − | regards to Jews, the Old Prussian lodges were quite clear in their refusal to officially
| |
| − | admit Jewish members, proudly boasting that in 200 years they had never admitted a
| |
| − | single Jew into the lodge.11 As for proving their loyalty to Germany, Freemasons fought
| |
| − | bravely in both the Franco-Prussian War, as well as the trenches of WWI. The bottom
| |
| − | line was that most German Freemasons considered themselves just that; German
| |
| − | Freemasons, placing their national identity ahead of their lodge identity.
| |
| − | Hollenbach continued, arguing that the party suffered from ignorance of the
| |
| − | fundamental tenets of Freemasonry, leading to the policy of labeling anything Masonic
| |
| − | as untouchable, and turning all lodge brothers into dyed-in-the-wool Freemasons. He
| |
| − | said the “spirit of objection,” to Freemasonry (Geist der Einwendung) had grown too
| |
| − | 10 Hollenbach to Rosenberg, March 9, 1932, Schumacher, T580, 219. In one of his most
| |
| − | stinging anti-Masonic books, The Destruction of Freemasonry through Revelation of their
| |
| − | Secrets (English edition, Los Angeles: Noontide Press, 1977), Ludendorff claimed that through
| |
| − | Freemasonry, German men actually become “artificial Jews” - Jews in everything but blood.
| |
| − | 11 Helmreich, German Churches Under Hitler, 398.
| |
| − | 87
| |
| − | large and created an unfair portrayal of good, nationalist Germans who just happened to
| |
| − | also be lodge members. Hollenbach pointed out that within the Prussian lodges, the drei
| |
| − | Weltkugeln in particular, there had been numerous sub-groups that had expressed the
| |
| − | goal of making the Old Prussian lodges wholly German-Christian institutions,
| |
| − | completely prohibiting Jews (even as visiting brothers) and basing the groups ideology
| |
| − | on German nationalism rather than the “brotherhood of all men.” At the end of the letter
| |
| − | Hollenbach argued that over ten thousand German-Christian Freemasons had expressed
| |
| − | the willingness to discard all secretiveness, fully disclose the workings of the lodges and
| |
| − | try to rebuild bridges between the fraternity and the party. As his last point, Hollenbach
| |
| − | stated that the Old Prussian lodges had the same goals as National Socialism, and by coopting
| |
| − | them rather than persecuting them the party could gain the support of 60,000
| |
| − | influential men.12 Hollenbach’s numbers are a bit inflated. By 1933 the Old Prussian
| |
| − | lodges only had about 50,000 members. Still, Buch and Hollenbach made it quite clear
| |
| − | that to dismiss Freemasons en masse was a foolish idea, suggesting that through a little
| |
| − | work the party could separate the “honorable” from the rest. Both suggested using the
| |
| − | three branches of Freemasonry as the dividing line. Bröse’s letter to Hitler demonstrated
| |
| − | that some in the Humanitarian lodges supported the Nazis as well, so division by branch
| |
| − | was insufficient. The party needed a more defined distinction.
| |
| − | The first step towards a new distinction came shortly after the seizure of power
| |
| − | as more Freemasons sought entrance into the party, knowing their lodges couldn’t
| |
| − | remain open much longer and not willing to wait on the fate of the Christian Orders.
| |
| − | 12 Hollenbach to Rosenberg, March 9, 1932, Schumacher, T580, 319.
| |
| − | 88
| |
| − | Buch issued a mandate on May 15th; no Freemasons (this is, men who currently held
| |
| − | membership in a lodge) could join or remain in the party; however, former Freemasons
| |
| − | who had left the lodges before the seizure of power (with documentary evidence to
| |
| − | prove it) and had signed the Erklärung could join/remain in the party, but were to be
| |
| − | barred from leadership positions.13 Inquiries from the SA regarding the membership of
| |
| − | current and former Freemasons yielded a similar decree. In November the SA issued a
| |
| − | general memo stating that “according to the will of the Fuehrer, there shall be no
| |
| − | objection to former Freemasons who left the lodges before January 30 simply joining the
| |
| − | party; however, they shall be excluded from leadership positions.”14
| |
| − | Despite invoking the Fuehrer, the memo, and Buch’s decree, failed to settle the
| |
| − | issue. Just five days after the issuance of the SA memo, a letter from Herr Kassenwart,
| |
| − | the head of the party office in Hartmannsdorf, to the RUSchlA asked for clarification
| |
| − | regarding the membership applications of Freemasons, pointing out that some of the
| |
| − | surrounding towns were not following established policy and asking if Hartmannsdorf
| |
| − | could thus be a little more selective in its own enforcement.15 Part of the confusion
| |
| − | stemmed from an inconsistent definition of what a Freemasons was. To Buch and the
| |
| − | SA, Freemasons were men who currently belonged to a lodge, yet a General Report on
| |
| − | 13 An original copy of the mandate was unavailable, but it is referenced and quoted by a
| |
| − | an half dozen other documents in Schumacher file 267 I, such as the 22 May 1933 letter from
| |
| − | Stuertz to Dortmund; letter of 10 June 1933 from the Dortmund USCHLA to the party lawyer in
| |
| − | Dortmund, Herr Lüsebrink; letter from Dortmund USCHLA to the Munich USCHLA dated 13
| |
| − | June 1933; a letter dated 7 June 1933 from deputy Gauleiter Emil Stuertz to Dortmund NSDAP
| |
| − | office; and a 27 May letter from the Dortmund to Stuertz.
| |
| − | 14 SA General Memo, November 6, 1933, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 15 Letter dated November 11, 1933, Schumacher, T580, 267 I. It’s worth pointing out
| |
| − | that Kassenwart didn’t ask for the lax offices to be punished or forced to tighten up, but instead
| |
| − | asked if he could relax the rules.
| |
| − | 89
| |
| − | Freemasonry published by the party in 1934 stated, “A Freemason is always first and
| |
| − | foremost a Freemason [emphasis original].”16 The statement caused confusion because
| |
| − | it used the same word to describe two very different things; and person and an ideology.
| |
| − | A less confusion rendition would have been “A member of the Masonic lodges is always
| |
| − | first and foremost a follower of Masonic ideology.” To Buch, men who left the lodges
| |
| − | and signed the Erklärung absolved themselves of any further ideological ties and thus
| |
| − | made them ineligible to join the party, but were still denied leadership positions as
| |
| − | punishment for joining the lodges in the first place. The deluge of letters requesting
| |
| − | clarification came because party officials understood statements like that to mean
| |
| − | membership at any time forever marked the individual as a Freemason, even if they left
| |
| − | the lodges, and thus ineligible for party membership.
| |
| − | The same issues regarding former Freemasons in the party spilled over into the
| |
| − | civil service where thousands of Freemasons were employed. As party and government
| |
| − | melded together, belonging to the latter necessitated belonging to the former, meaning
| |
| − | that former Freemasons not only came into the party, but held leadership positions as
| |
| − | well. Once again the party found itself trying to decide how to define and deal with
| |
| − | Freemasons. To keep them was wise in terms of practicality, foolish in terms of party
| |
| − | policy and ideology. To dismiss them was the exact reverse. In April 1933, the
| |
| − | government passed the Law on the Reestablishment of the Civil Service. In addition to
| |
| − | dismissing all Jews, the law left the door wide open for further dismissals of “civil
| |
| − | servants whose previous political activities afford no assurance that they will at all times
| |
| − | 16 A General Report on Freemasonry in Germany, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 90
| |
| − | give their fullest support to the national State, can be dismissed from the service.”17
| |
| − | Though conservative in comparison to their European counterparts, Freemasonry in
| |
| − | Germany carried a liberal stigma and many former Freemasons at one time belonged to
| |
| − | the Deutsche Demokratische Partei (DDP – German Democratic Party). As a weedingout
| |
| − | tool the party applied Buch’s idea of the Erklärung and expanded it into a full-page
| |
| − | form that, when completed, provided a socio-political resume and lodge curriculum vitae
| |
| − | of the individual (Fig. A5). Unlike religious association, lodge membership was never
| |
| − | officially recorded, so to avoid letting anyone slip through the net all civil servants were
| |
| − | required to fill out a copy by September 1 of that year, and all new hires had to fill one
| |
| − | out as well. A week later the Berliner Tageblatt printed a friendly reminder to all civil
| |
| − | servants to complete the Erklärung.18 Authority to grant exceptions for individuals
| |
| − | whose Erklärung was questionable initially rested only with Hitler, but was gradually
| |
| − | delegated to others.19
| |
| − | In January 1934, the party issued a general report stating that Hitler had become
| |
| − | concerned with party integrity (if it can be called that), especially in the admission of
| |
| − | new members, after reminding the party of the need to maintain unity and racial purity
| |
| − | the report turned to the question of Freemasonry, reminding readers that the Third Reich
| |
| − | 17 “Law on the Reestablishment of the Civil Service,” April 7, 1933, available from the
| |
| − | Austrian National Library Historical Legal Texts Online (ALEX), available from
| |
| − | http://alex.onb.ac.at/alex.htm (accessed May 23, 2011).
| |
| − | 18 Reich und Preussicher Ministerium des Innern (RuPrMdI – Reich and Prussian
| |
| − | Ministry of the Interior) circular regarding Freemasons in the Civil Service, July 10, 1935,
| |
| − | BArch R58/6117 part 1, 71; “Membership in the Lodges, an Investigation into the Civil Service”
| |
| − | in Berliner Tageblatt, July 17, 1935, BArch R58/6117 part 1, 80.
| |
| − | 19 In 1935 Hitler gave the ministers of finance and the interior power to make decisions
| |
| − | regarding former Freemasons in the civil service, see Führer Decree over the Hiring and Firing
| |
| − | of Civil Servants, February 1, 1935. Another decree in September then extended the authority to
| |
| − | Deputy Führer Hess as well on September 24, 1935. Both decrees available from ALEX.
| |
| − | 91
| |
| − | had no place for secret societies, but that former Freemasons who had signed the
| |
| − | Erklärung and had not “discovered their National Socialist heart” after Jan 30th could be
| |
| − | party candidates; however, they were to be excluded from holding office because any
| |
| − | exposure to Freemasonry might affect their actions within the party. Any
| |
| − | “camouflaged” Freemasons (those who tried to hide their membership or refuse to sign
| |
| − | the Erklärung) are to be turned over to the party court.20 A party circular sent to all
| |
| − | Gauleiter later in the month as a reaffirmation of the declarations made at the beginning
| |
| − | of the year.21 One party circular from the Bavarian party office even include a sample
| |
| − | “Dear John” letter to be sent to any party member who would have to be expelled
| |
| − | because of ties to Freemasonry, explaining that his admission had been a mistake and his
| |
| − | membership was hereby annulled.22 The courts, naturally, received appeals for
| |
| − | reinstatement by former party members and civil servants who had been dismissed
| |
| − | because of lodge membership.23
| |
| − | In 1935, due to these requests and petitions, Chairman von Moltke of the
| |
| − | Bavarian Gaugericht sent out a newsletter answering questions concerning Freemasons
| |
| − | and “lodge-like” organizations. Von Moltke tried to settle the issues, but in settling
| |
| − | some questions he only generated others. To the existing requirements for allowing
| |
| − | Freemasons into the party (leaving before 1930 and signing the Erklärung) he added two
| |
| − | 20 General Party Report Circular #12, January 8, 1934, Schumacher, T580, 267 I. It is
| |
| − | unclear if “party court” meant the RUSchlA or some other part of the Third Reich’s legal
| |
| − | system.
| |
| − | 21 NSDAP circular, January 31, 1934, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 22 NSDAP circular, February 18, 1936, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 23 1938 RSHA II 111 Situation report, January 19, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel
| |
| − | 5, Folder 30.
| |
| − | 92
| |
| − | more; candidates must never have gone above the third degree nor held a position of
| |
| − | authority in the lodge.24 Those who qualified could join the party, but not hold office.
| |
| − | Those Freemasons already in party offices must resign. Then Moltke threw all of his
| |
| − | carefully crafted clarification out the window in his next line, “exceptions can be made
| |
| − | only through investigation by the SS Security Main Office and personal endorsement by
| |
| − | a Gauleiter, the Führer makes the final decision.”25 Moltke’s attempts only served to
| |
| − | generate a new flood of letters from former Freemasons to Gauleiter, asking for personal
| |
| − | endorsement.
| |
| − | The problem of throwing out qualified men over previous lodge membership still
| |
| − | plagued the new policy. In mid 1937, the party even drafted a decree that would have
| |
| − | officially allowed former Freemasons to fill certain municipal positions (mayor,
| |
| − | community association leadership, etc.) “in emergencies,” but still bar them from more
| |
| − | prestigious regional and federal positions (judge, ambassador or representative).26 The
| |
| − | document never became official, but its existence alone is significant, showing what
| |
| − | kind of ideas the party was toying with in order to solve the dilemma of former
| |
| − | Freemasons in the party and civil service. The SD echoed such sentiment, lamenting,
| |
| − | 24 The justification for remaining below the third degree ties in with the difference
| |
| − | between “Red” and “Blue” Freemasonry. The Blue lodges, the ones that only worked the first
| |
| − | three degrees, had few ties outside the country; national grand lodges granted charters that
| |
| − | enabled a lodge to work the first three degrees. Red Freemasonry, the lodges that went above
| |
| − | the first three, had much more international connections and thus fell under suspicion. The
| |
| − | Protocols added further fuel to the fire, asserting that the majority of Freemasons were unaware
| |
| − | of the true purpose of the lodges and that only a select group knew the truth. Since the Red
| |
| − | lodges were fewer in number, as were the number of Freemasons with higher degrees, the Nazis
| |
| − | assumed that the elite spoken of in the Protocols must also be the elite within the lodges; those
| |
| − | that went above the first three degrees.
| |
| − | 25 Munich Gaugericht circular, August 17, 1935, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 26 Unsigned document, April 22, 1937, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 93
| |
| − | “as intellectuals, with above average education, they are put in [important] positions
| |
| − | because of their knowledge…wherever there is a shortage of qualified people they make
| |
| − | themselves irreplaceable.27 The SD also noted that “a strengthening of Freemasonic
| |
| − | influence has proven that the edicts [concerning them] are not consistent and at the same
| |
| − | time are not even being carried out at all.”28 The reasoning was simple; Freemasons
| |
| − | were competent, educated and useful employees. One SS report acknowledged the
| |
| − | continued presence of former Freemasons in public office but frankly admitted, “they are
| |
| − | proving to be well suited to the jobs and removal really isn’t possible.”29 Another stated
| |
| − | that Freemasons remain “because there is no suitable replacement,” or it that keeping
| |
| − | them was “more desirable for political reasons.”30
| |
| − | The failure to effectively remove Freemasons from the party and civil service
| |
| − | presented another problem; promotions. It was one thing to allow a former Freemason
| |
| − | to hold office, but another altogether to allow him to climb the ladder. To solve the issue
| |
| − | decisively, Hitler issued the decree over the Promotion of Civil Servants and the Ending
| |
| − | of Civil Service in July 1937. Essentially, it gave power to Hitler and few others the
| |
| − | power to hire, fire, stall or promote civil servants arbitrarily. Civil servants could be
| |
| − | forced into retirement instead of promoted. If their services were again required they
| |
| − | could be forced out of retirement and reinstated, but of course, without granting the
| |
| − | 27 Monthy SD reports, lodge chronicles, RFSS-SD Year Report for 1937, Section II 111,
| |
| − | “Situation of Former German Freemasons,” BArch R58/6113 part 1, 11.
| |
| − | 28 Ibid, 13.
| |
| − | 29 1939 first-quarter situation report from SS-Northwest, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 5,
| |
| − | Folder 31.
| |
| − | 30 Undated, August Situation report for subsection Thuringen, USHMM, RG-15.007M,
| |
| − | Reel 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 94
| |
| − | earned promotion. Furthermore, all promotions had to pass through the Head of the
| |
| − | Party Chancellery, Martin Bormann, for approval.31
| |
| − | When Germany annexed Austria in 1938 (an act that was supported by
| |
| − | Freemasons in both countries) all the old troubles from the party’s previous struggles
| |
| − | over Freemasons in party and government threatened to return. Austria, like Germany,
| |
| − | had a good number of Freemasons, many of who served in important political offices.32
| |
| − | Faced with the possibility of having to repeat in Austria the chaos suffered in
| |
| − | Germany,33 Hitler, on April 27, 1938, granted amnesty to all Freemasons that had never
| |
| − | gone above the third degree, never served in a leadership position in the lodges, and left
| |
| − | the fraternity before the seizure of power.34 They were not guaranteed party
| |
| − | membership, but their former ties to the lodges no longer served as an impediment to
| |
| − | joining. German Freemasons greeted the announcement with jubilation, especially those
| |
| − | in the Old Prussian lodges. Ever since 1933 the lodges had tried to demonstrate their
| |
| − | nationalist leanings and loyalty to the Fatherland, and though the initial attempts and
| |
| − | 31 Fuehrer Decree Over the Promotion of Civil Servants and the Ending of Civil Service,
| |
| − | July 10, 1937, available from ALEX.
| |
| − | 32 A 1939 SD report from Austria stated that numerous Freemasons still served in state
| |
| − | and party offices, and until hearing otherwise from party courts, would be allowed to remain in
| |
| − | their positions. Obviously the party in Austria was as hesitant to throw out former Freemasons
| |
| − | as the party in Germany. SD report from Austria for April and May, June 4, 1939, USHMM,
| |
| − | RG-15.007M Reel 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 33 The RSHA declared in a their yearly report that Hitler decreed the amnesty
| |
| − | specifically to facilitate the creation of the Greater German Empire. 1938 RSHA II 111 Situation
| |
| − | report, January 19, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 30.
| |
| − | 34 BArch R43II 1308a, 59-61 provides a list of positions that qualified as “leadership”
| |
| − | and included everyone from past meisters to secretaries. Basically anyone who was anything
| |
| − | other than a run-of-the-mill member was considered a “leader.” Other notices and memorandum
| |
| − | made provisions for Volksdeutche in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, setting the lodge-exit
| |
| − | date appropriate to the date of annexation or incorporation into the Reich, BArch R43II/820c,
| |
| − | 42-45.
| |
| − | 95
| |
| − | changing into Christian Orders failed, the amnesty finally gave Freemasons the chance
| |
| − | to participate as members of the Volksgemeinschaft. Shortly before the amnesty even the
| |
| − | SS began to admit that former lodge brothers “have shed their previous connections to
| |
| − | Freemasonry and are now ready to work for the building up of the nation.”35 About a
| |
| − | year after the decree the RSHA commented that many Freemasons took advantage of the
| |
| − | “generosity of the National Socialist state” and could be found “striving earnestly to be
| |
| − | full-fledged members of the greater-German Volksgemeinschaft.”36 One SD report
| |
| − | tempered the good news with a warning; some Freemason circles are spreading rumors
| |
| − | that the amnesty was the first step in a general reevaluation of the status of Freemasons
| |
| − | in the Reich, expecting the party “will one day see their complete mistake.”37 Some
| |
| − | Freemasons, however, rejected the amnesty, arguing that they had broken no laws and
| |
| − | thus did not stand in need of amnesty.38
| |
| − | A year later on 6 June, 1939, Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior, reaffirmed
| |
| − | Hitler’s April 27 decree and extended the amnesty to include the civil service.39 Any
| |
| − | Freemason already in the civil service who had been born before August 1, 1917, could
| |
| − | remain in the civil service so long as they signed the Erklärung.40 Former Freemasons
| |
| − | 35 Letter to Ehrlinger, October 29, 1938, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 14, Folder 198.
| |
| − | 36 1939 first quarter situation report of section II 111, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5,
| |
| − | Folder 31.
| |
| − | 37 1938 Year Report, and April-May 1938 situation report from II/1 central office,
| |
| − | USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 28.
| |
| − | 38 April-May 1938 situation report from II/1 central office. USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel
| |
| − | 5, Folder 28.
| |
| − | 39 SD-Southeast Situation report, July 3, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 5, Folder
| |
| − | 33.
| |
| − | 40 Though the actual date may seem a bit arbitrary, the political situation in Germany at
| |
| − | the end of July 1917 was not. With the war turning against Germany, many in the Reichstag
| |
| − | suggested greater democracy through the expansion of suffrage in order to gain more public
| |
| − | 96
| |
| − | in honorary positions were not under scrutiny, though future honorary appointments
| |
| − | would be. The amnesty also declared that Freemasons in the civil service were eligible
| |
| − | for raises and promotion on a case-by-case basis, so long as they met the above criteria.41
| |
| − | The amnesty even had something to offer those Freemasons who had gone above the
| |
| − | third degree or held leadership position in the lodges. Such individuals were promised
| |
| − | that they “would not suffer or incur any disadvantages” so long as they left the lodges
| |
| − | before Hitler assumed power. Even if a lodge member left after January 30, 1933, he
| |
| − | could be permitted in the civil service upon receiving a special dispensation from
| |
| − | Hitler.42 The amnesty, one SD report stated, allowed the party to makeup for misjudging
| |
| − | former lodge members, while at the same time allowing lodge brothers to atone for
| |
| − | becoming Freemasons.43 The compromise was complete. The two amnesty decrees
| |
| − | covered almost every possible combination of Masonic degree, civil service status, and
| |
| − | date of lodge membership termination, and the statement “exceptions permitted” took
| |
| − | care of the rest. After announcing the amnesty, the party was, of course, swamped with
| |
| − | new applications.44
| |
| − | As with all previous attempts at settlement, the amnesty solved some problems
| |
| − | but created others. Each time the party compromised to accommodate one group of
| |
| − | former Freemasons it raised the hopes of another group. Freemasons who been
| |
| − | support for continuing the war effort, thus the summer of 1917 is a time when liberal-democracy,
| |
| − | something inseparably associated with Freemasonry and hated by National Socialism, became
| |
| − | closely tied to war policy, see Fritz Fischer, World Power or Decline (New York: Norton, 1974),
| |
| − | part I, thesis 7.
| |
| − | 41 Reichsministerium des Innern (RMdI – Reich Interior Ministry) circular, June 6, 1939,
| |
| − | Schumacher, T580, 218. The circular also specified what constituted a “leadership” position.
| |
| − | 42 RMdI circular, June 6, 1939, Schumacher, T580, 218.
| |
| − | 43 SD-Elbe Situation report, July 3, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 44 1938 Year Report, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 5, Folder 29.
| |
| − | 97
| |
| − | hopelessly excluded under the previous limits, now lay just outside them. And since the
| |
| − | party had re-drawn the line in the sand so many times already, it was not unreasonable to
| |
| − | assume that continued pressure could get them to redraw it again.45 Even the SD
| |
| − | recognized that “the recent amnesty has made it possible for Freemasons, even those
| |
| − | above the third degree and in leadership positions, to be allowed into the NSDAP,”
| |
| − | despite the amnesty specifically excluding such men.46 The Thüringen SD office went
| |
| − | so far as to provide a list of six former high-degree Freemasons in Thüringen who
| |
| − | continued to hold party membership, political office, military commissions or
| |
| − | combination of all three, in an effort to demonstrate the problems of policy
| |
| − | enforcement.47
| |
| − | The cases of Bruno Schüler and Alfred Westphal provide specific examples of
| |
| − | the problems encountered sorting out the party-civil service-lodge triangle.48 Schüler
| |
| − | joined both the fraternity and the party in the early 1920s. In 1932, he decided that it
| |
| − | was impossible to hold membership in both and abandoned Freemasonry in favor of
| |
| − | National Socialism. Schüler wrote a letter to Richard Foller, meister of his lodge, Zu
| |
| − | 45 1938 April-May situation report of Central Office II/1, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel
| |
| − | 5, Folder 27; 1938 Yearly Report, USHMM RG-15.007M Reel 5, Folder 29; January 19, 1939,
| |
| − | 1938 Situation report for II 111 (Freimaurerei), USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 5, Folder 30; July
| |
| − | 3, 1939, SD-Northeast Situation report from January to June 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel
| |
| − | 5, Folder 30;
| |
| − | 46 July 1939, SD Süd Situation report for the first half of 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M
| |
| − | Reel 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 47 August Situation report for Unterabschnitt Thuringen. USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 5,
| |
| − | Folder 33. The six men; Karl Schulz, Gorndorf; Rudolf Bley, Eisenach; Dr. Konrad Hoefer,
| |
| − | Eisenach; Walter Baumgarten, Erfurt; Walter Wulfinghoff, Erfurt; Johannes Bluhm, Erfurt.
| |
| − | 48 Schüler and Westphal were not the only cases in Westphalia. Among the documents
| |
| − | for both men are references to three other former Freemasons, Dr. Hollo, Mr. Nitschke and Mr.
| |
| − | Appel, all of whom belonged to the party and held positions of leadership. Dortmund NSDAP to
| |
| − | Munich USCHLA, June 13, 1933, Schumacher T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 98
| |
| − | den alten Linde, explaining why he was leaving. Schüler expressed his deep regard for
| |
| − | both the fraternity and the close relationships he forged within it, stating that he had
| |
| − | believed Old Prussian Freemasonry, being nationalist-minded, could eventually align
| |
| − | with the party; however, after careful consideration, Schüler concluded that such a
| |
| − | compromise was impossible and he must choose one over the other.49 Schüler
| |
| − | represented the type of man that Buch and Hollenbach did not want to see tossed out
| |
| − | merely because he had once belonged to a lodge.
| |
| − | The May RUSchlA decree would have solved Schüler’s problems…if he had
| |
| − | only been a general party member. Unfortunately for Schüler, he had recently been
| |
| − | appointed Staatskommissar in Dortmund, and therefore still found himself in hot water.
| |
| − | Schüler considered himself a Nazi and had no desire to lose his position simply because
| |
| − | he used to belong to a Masonic lodge. He gathered the documentation required by the
| |
| − | RUSchlA to retain membership, but also began a campaign to retain his position as
| |
| − | Staatskomissar.50 Josef Wagner, Gauleiter of Westphalia, sent a letter to the RUSchlA
| |
| − | in support of Schüler’s campaign. As evidence, Wagner dropped a bomb of an
| |
| − | explanation for Schüler’s membership in the lodges: Schüler became a Freemason at
| |
| − | Wagner’s request in order to act as a spy. Wagner claimed that he wanted primarysource
| |
| − | information on the fraternity, untouched by either Nazi or Freemasonic
| |
| − | propaganda machines and asked Schüler to join the fraternity long enough to secure the
| |
| − | information. “Everything in Schüler’s case,” Wagner argued, “is in absolute order.”51
| |
| − | 49 Schüler to Foller, February 24, 1932, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 50 Notice of membership termination, May 31, 1933, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 51 Letter from Wagner to Dortmund USCHLA, May 31, 1933, Schumacher T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 99
| |
| − | As for Schüler, he must have made an excellent spy. Foller’s response to Schüler’s letter
| |
| − | of resignation ended, “we will always have loyal thoughts towards you.”52
| |
| − | If Wagner was telling the truth, then Schüler’s case was exceptional indeed and
| |
| − | illustrates the problem of Nazi policy regarding Freemasons. The policy was clear; no
| |
| − | ex-Masons were allowed in leadership positions, but Schüler entered the fraternity at the
| |
| − | party’s request. How could the party reward faithful members by expelling them for
| |
| − | carrying out orders? At the same time, by granting an exception for Schüler the party
| |
| − | would be violating its own policy and establishing precedent. Ever since the seizure of
| |
| − | power, men like Schüler, who had one foot in the party and another in the lodges, forced
| |
| − | the party to re-evaluate its policy toward Freemasons. The RUSchlA’s attempts to solve
| |
| − | the problem had merely displaced it.
| |
| − | At the same time Schüler made his case to the party, his fellow Zu den alten
| |
| − | Linde brother and party member, Alfred Westphal, also scrambled to prove his loyalty to
| |
| − | the Nazi movement in spite of his long membership as a Freemason. Westphal stopped
| |
| − | attending lodge functions in December of 1931, a year earlier than Schüler, but his
| |
| − | official membership still remained in question. A letter from the RUSchlA to Bochum
| |
| − | Deputy Gauleiter Emil Stuertz pointed out that Westphal’s name still appeared in the
| |
| − | Freemason almanac under the general membership listings. Westphal, like Schüler, also
| |
| − | held a government job, he was Kreisleiter der Beamtenabteilung in Bochum and also
| |
| − | 52 Foller to Schüler, March 3, 1932, Schumacher, T580, 267I.
| |
| − | 100
| |
| − | served on the city council. The RUSchlA accordingly requested Westphal’s immediate
| |
| − | resignation in accordance with policy.53
| |
| − | Stuertz appealed on Wetsphal’s behalf, arguing that the listing was a mistake and
| |
| − | that Westphal had the support of Gauleiter Wagner. Westphal, Stuertz claimed,
| |
| − | officially broke ties with Freemasonry in 1931 and had signed an Erklärung.
| |
| − | Additionally, Westphal had performed exceptionally in his duties as a civil servant.
| |
| − | Stuertz’s appeal naturally stated his support for the May 15th decree; former Freemasons
| |
| − | must not be put in positions of leadership, but he also argued “it may be impossible, that
| |
| − | party members who have held office for years in the movement, should now be
| |
| − | dismissed because of a long-forsaken membership in a Freemasonic lodge.”54 Stuertz
| |
| − | closed with a statement that there were no reasonable grounds for Westphal’s dismissal.
| |
| − | Obviously party policy was not reason enough.
| |
| − | The dangers of setting these kinds of precedents were not lost on the party.
| |
| − | Three days after Stuertz’s appeal on behalf of Westphal, the head of the Dortmund
| |
| − | RUSchlA wrote a response to Stuertz, reaffirming the original party policy and quoting
| |
| − | lines from the May 15th decree, which stated that no Freemasons were to be admitted
| |
| − | into the party and that any party members found to have been Freemasons must be
| |
| − | withdrawn from office regardless of what position they held. The letter concluded with
| |
| − | a warning that applying the policy in pieces, letting some Freemasons stay while kicking
| |
| − | 53 Dortmund USCHLA to Stuertz, May 27, 1933, Schumacher, T580, 267 I. The letter
| |
| − | specified that in addition to providing written evidence of separation as well as signing an
| |
| − | Erklärung, the individuals name must also be stricken from Masonic records. Westphal had only
| |
| − | met the first two requirements.
| |
| − | 54 Stuertz to Dortmund NSDAP office, June 7, 1933, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 101
| |
| − | out others, rendered the whole policy invalid.55 This letter helps illustrate the extent of
| |
| − | the confusion over the policy, even in regards to the provisions of the May 15th decree.
| |
| − | Stuertz interpreted it as typical political double-speak; the party stood firm on its policy,
| |
| − | but recognized that the policy may not be completely enforceable.56 Conversely, the
| |
| − | Dortmund RUSchlA took the decree at face value.57 Once again, the party could not
| |
| − | agree on the issue of former Freemasons, and that could only work in the former lodge
| |
| − | members’ favor.
| |
| − | At the same time as the party dealt with Schüler and Westphal, rumors began
| |
| − | circulating that President Hindenburg was a Freemason. Supposedly, Hindenburg
| |
| − | joined the Hannover Lodge Blühende Tal as member #1002. Considering the strong
| |
| − | historical ties between German Freemasonry and the aristocracy it was not a stretch of
| |
| − | the imagination to believe that Hindenburg could have been a Freemason, and a rumor
| |
| − | like this, if true, would have dealt a crippling blow the party. The party, therefore,
| |
| − | quickly launched a thorough investigation. Fortunately for the Nazis, the rumor turned
| |
| − | out to be false. There was no such lodge chartered in Hannover; however, the report
| |
| − | also made excuses for Hindenburg, suggesting that even if he did join a lodge, it would
| |
| − | have obviously been for reasons of protocol, like the Prussian aristocracy of old. That
| |
| − | the party included this justification suggests that even the investigators themselves
| |
| − | 55 Dortmund USCHLA to Lüsebrink, June 10, 1933, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 56 Letter from Stuertz to Dortmund NSDAP office regarding A. Westphal, June 7, 1933,
| |
| − | Schumacher, T580, File 267 I.
| |
| − | 57 Letter from the head of the Dortmund USCHLA to Lüsebrink. Schumacher, June 10,
| |
| − | 1933, T580, File 267 I.
| |
| − | 102
| |
| − | weren’t totally convinced. They had only proved Hindenburg didn’t belong to that
| |
| − | lodge, not that he never belonged to any lodge.58
| |
| − | There are two possible explanations for the existence of this rumor: first, it
| |
| − | derived from a case of mistaken identity coupled with over-exaggeration. In the mid
| |
| − | 1920s, a lodge in Munich extended an invitation to Hitler, Ludendorff, and the Munich
| |
| − | Chief of Police, Ernst Pöhner, to come to the lodge and discuss some sort of
| |
| − | reconciliation between the party and the fraternity. Hitler refused the offer, but
| |
| − | Ludendorff and Pöhner accepted. When they arrived they signed the guest book as was
| |
| − | customary. Due to the close wartime relationship between Ludendorff and Hindenburg
| |
| − | it is not difficult to imagine how Ludendorff’s signature in a Masonic guest book could
| |
| − | snowball into a rumor that Hindenburg was a Freemason.
| |
| − | The second possible genesis of the rumor may have actually come from an
| |
| − | overzealous anti-Freemason named Dr. Engelbert Huber. Huber had published several
| |
| − | tracts and pamphlets attacking the lodges and had approached the party, asking to be
| |
| − | made a speaker, lecturer, or some other party expert on Freemasonry. In 1934 the SD
| |
| − | submitted a twenty-two page report explaining why Huber should not be granted a
| |
| − | position. The twenty-two pages were filled with comments and observations that
| |
| − | suggested bringing Huber on board would make him a liability more than an asset. One
| |
| − | particular section of the report claimed Huber had suggested to Otto Bordes that he and
| |
| − | the grandmaster from the other Old Prussian lodges write a formal statement of defense
| |
| − | (Verteidigungsschrift) for the lodges in which they would indentify the late President
| |
| − | 58 NSDAP main office to all Gauleiter, October 28, 1932, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 103
| |
| − | Hindenburg as a Freemason. According to the SD report, Bordes and the other two
| |
| − | grandmasters complied and signed their name to the defense. Though this explanation
| |
| − | has more documentary evidence that the previous it seems just as farfetched; an anti-
| |
| − | Freemason giving advice to the lodges on how to preserve their fraternity? The SD
| |
| − | source for this fantastic story was a statement by Friedrich Hasselbach, another prolific
| |
| − | anti-Masonic author, who claimed that Huber told him about the whole thing afterwards.
| |
| − | Perhaps Huber had some sinister plan to use the rumor to discredit Freemasonry, but in
| |
| − | the eyes of the party the result could only be disastrous. If true (or believed),
| |
| − | Hindenberg’s membership would add an aura of respectability and legitimacy to the
| |
| − | lodges. If false, Huber had smeared the President’s reputation. Either way, the party
| |
| − | wanted no part of it, though they did launch the study to disprove the rumor.59
| |
| − | Though Hindenburg’s membership in the lodges was a myth, other hig-profile
| |
| − | politicians actually did come from the lodges. Arthur Greiser, a Great War veteran,
| |
| − | FreiKorps member, president of the Danzig Senate and eventual Gauleiter over
| |
| − | Wartheland was an ex-Freemason. He left the lodges in the 1920s and rose within the
| |
| − | party despite attacks regarding his former lodge membership. As a Gauleiter, Greiser
| |
| − | had a reputation for being ruthless in his duties, and always being fiercely loyal to Hitler,
| |
| − | who had personally intervened and allowed him to hold the position.60
| |
| − | Karl Hoede provides yet another example of Freemasons gaining entrance into
| |
| − | the party, despite the numerous roadblocks. Hoede was in the Stahlhelm and the SA, but
| |
| − | 59 Report on Dr. Engelbert Huber, September 26, 1934, USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel
| |
| − | 43, folder 533.
| |
| − | 60 Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1936-1945: Nemesis (New York: Norton, 2000), 250-251.
| |
| − | 104
| |
| − | had to leave both when they found out he was a former Freemason. He was likewise
| |
| − | kicked out of the military for his connection to the lodges. By profession, Hoede was a
| |
| − | doctor, a useful addition to any group, military or otherwise. Hoede submitted an
| |
| − | application to the NSDAP on 14 July 1939, and was quickly rejected because of his
| |
| − | previous ties to Masonry. He appealed and eventually received Hitler’s personal
| |
| − | endorsement. On August 4, 1942, Hitler declared that Hoede’s membership in the party
| |
| − | was effective immediately and without reservation.61
| |
| − | In 1939, the RSHA reported that in Nuremberg alone there were dozens of
| |
| − | former Freemasons in positions of authority, some of who had gone above the third
| |
| − | degree. One former Mason, an architect, even designed a number of buildings for the
| |
| − | party.62 The Breslau SD for the same time period reported that a former Freemason was
| |
| − | serving as a party judge (Parteirichter) despite previous decrees specifically barring
| |
| − | former Freemasons from serving in the courts, even if they had been accepted into the
| |
| − | party or civil service. 63 Even Dr. Otto Bordes, Grandmaster of the drei Weltkugeln,
| |
| − | secured membership only a month after the seizure of power.64 Each of these men
| |
| − | demonstrated that Buch and Hollenbach were right; most former lodge members were
| |
| − | 61 Bernheim never stated exactly why Hoede was rejected so many times prior to 1939.
| |
| − | It could have been the increased need for doctors once war broke out, or it could simply have
| |
| − | been his previous applications ended up in the hands of hard-line party officers instead of more
| |
| − | lenient men like Buch or Stuertz, see Bernheim, “Tarnung und Gewalt” for a more detailed
| |
| − | account of Hoede’s history with Freemasonry and the Party.
| |
| − | 62 1939 first quarter situation report of section II 111, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5,
| |
| − | Folder 31.
| |
| − | 63 First-quarter report from SD-Breslau on Freemasons, 14 April 1939, USHMM, RG-
| |
| − | 15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 31.
| |
| − | 64 The situation of Freemasonry after the taking of power by National Socialism, no date,
| |
| − | BArch R58/6167 part 1.
| |
| − | 105
| |
| − | not dyed-in-the-wool Freemasons and presented useful additions to the party and
| |
| − | government once their lodge membership was overlooked.
| |
| − | There were, of course, cases in which a former Freemason exemplified the fears
| |
| − | that Nazis had regarding Freemasons. Franz Scupin, deputy mayor of Mankerwitz,
| |
| − | provided one such case of what Htiler called a “camouflaged” Freemason. In 1936 the
| |
| − | party found that he had been a Freemason. Scupin was dismissed from his position
| |
| − | when refused to sign the Erklärung, claiming that signing the Erklärung violated his
| |
| − | oath as a Freemason. The Masonic oath really acted as a catch-22. By refusing to sign
| |
| − | the Erklärung, Freemasons actually demonstrated a degree of loyalty that the party
| |
| − | expected from its members. The SS, for example, had the motto “My Honor is Loyalty.”
| |
| − | At the same time by signing the Erklärung, members demonstrated their willingness to
| |
| − | coordinate, but also demonstrated how willing they were to break oaths. After Scupin’s
| |
| − | removal, the Bavarian Political Police sent a general letter throughout the country,
| |
| − | pointing to Scupin as proof that you could take the man out of Freemasonry, but you
| |
| − | could not always take Freemasonry out of the man.65 Scupin however, like Müffelmann,
| |
| − | embodied the exception more than the rule.
| |
| − | When Hitler granted amnesty in 1938, most Freemasons applauded, although
| |
| − | some still felt cheated. One such man, a Herr Überle, a 33° mason living in Karlsruhe,
| |
| − | remarked to a colleague that he couldn’t understand the reason why January 30 became
| |
| − | the pivotal date for leaving the lodges, claiming that he never knew the party was so
| |
| − | anti-Masonic until after the seizure of power. He further commented that he only joined
| |
| − | 65 Letters from Bavarian Political Police to police and government, February 1, 1936 and
| |
| − | April 27, 1936, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 106
| |
| − | the fraternity for business reasons and left immediately after discovering Hitler’s distaste
| |
| − | of Freemasons. Überle concluded that if only March 15 had been chosen instead, the
| |
| − | Reich would have avoided punishing undeserving Germans.66 Another example, Fritz
| |
| − | Kress, expressed his own anger in correspondence with the German Red Cross. Kress, a
| |
| − | resident of Krefeld received a card from the Red Cross, asking for an explanation of his
| |
| − | lodge membership or else face expulsion. “I belonged to a Christian lodge,” Kress
| |
| − | argued in his response, “not one of the other ones. My loyalty is beyond reproach
| |
| − | because I was not in one of the other lodges, and I resent that the amnesty only covered
| |
| − | Freemasons up to the third degree. I resent being treated as a second class citizen.”67
| |
| − | Reactions to the amnesty within the party were mixed. Even before the amnesty,
| |
| − | some party members and supporters chafed at the lax enforcement of party policy
| |
| − | towards Freemasons. Albert Wilhelm Porsiel wrote a letter to the SS in which he
| |
| − | bitterly resented the fact there were Freemason “scoundrels” who dared wear the
| |
| − | emblem of an SS-supporter while still being a member of the lodge. “I spilled my blood
| |
| − | at the front line,” Porsiel exclaimed, “not for Jews and Freemasons, but for Germany.”68
| |
| − | After the amnesty, resentment continued. Some party members took offense to the idea
| |
| − | that Freemasons had suddenly become cleansed and only calmed down once they
| |
| − | learned that the amnesty had restrictions and still barred Freemasons from holding
| |
| − | office, at least officially. Other critics complained that the amnesty stole employment
| |
| − | 66 Undated SD-Southwest Situation report, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 67 Some of the Old Prussian lodges followed the Swedish Rite, which had four additional
| |
| − | degrees after the standard three. Letter from Kress to German Red Cross, May 20, 1938,
| |
| − | USHMM, RG-37.001 Folder 1.
| |
| − | 68 Porsiel to Grosse, May 19, 1935, BArch R58/6103a, part 1, 61.
| |
| − | 107
| |
| − | and promotion opportunities by giving them to newly admitted Freemasons.69 Still
| |
| − | others objected that Freemasons never put down their Masonic oaths, thus letting them
| |
| − | in the party was allowing an enemy in the back door.70 Criticism based on conspiracy
| |
| − | theories were in the minority, most party members who objected to allowing ex-Masons
| |
| − | to join did so out of adherence to the party worldview, or out of jealousy. Some party
| |
| − | members, however, simply did not care. A party report stated with a degree of shock
| |
| − | “complete indifference in party circles stood in contrast to critical attitudes.”71 [original
| |
| − | emphasis]
| |
| − | When war broke out the debate over former Freemasons in the party and civil
| |
| − | service started all over again for former Freemasons in the military, its auxiliaries, and
| |
| − | civil defense organizations. Many German Freemasons had fought in the First World
| |
| − | War, and many of those had served as officers. With Hitler spouting rearmament
| |
| − | rhetoric as part of the Nazi program the SD noted that many Freemasons preempted draft
| |
| − | notices, hoping to “document their loyalty to the Fatherland with their enlistment.”72
| |
| − | Many former Freemasons had served as officers in WWI, but of course, the idea of
| |
| − | “international Freemasons” leading the armies of the Third Reich was not exactly what
| |
| − | the regime had in mind when building the Wehrmacht. At the same time, however, the
| |
| − | military had the same problem as the civil service; Freemasons were qualified, capable
| |
| − | 69 April-May 1938 situation report from II/1 central office, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel
| |
| − | 5, Folder 28.
| |
| − | 70 Situation report for 1938, RSHA office II 111, January 19, 1939, USHMM, RG-
| |
| − | 15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 30.
| |
| − | 71 1938 Year Report, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 5, Folder 28.
| |
| − | 72 September 1, 1939, SD-Northeast Situation report for August, USHMM, RG-15.007M
| |
| − | Reel 5, Folder 33.
| |
| − | 108
| |
| − | and, in some cases, already in. For example, the Reichsführer-SS (RFSS) commented
| |
| − | that purging the German Red Cross of Freemasons is undesirable because the majority of
| |
| − | Red Cross doctors were Freemasons.73 Otto Bernsdorf, a former high-level Freemason
| |
| − | made ripples when he appealed to an old WWI comrade, General Wilhelm Keitel, to pull
| |
| − | some strings in the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW – Supreme Command of the
| |
| − | Armed Forces) and get him a commission.74 In June of 1936, army recruiters began
| |
| − | asking for official clarification of policies regarding Freemasons in the military as early
| |
| − | as 1936 due to the number of Freemasons trying to serve. With their hands still full
| |
| − | dealing with Freemasons in the party, the Bavarian Political Police (under jurisdiction of
| |
| − | the SS) said the problem should be turned back to the military and dealt with “through
| |
| − | the established channels,” leaving the military to decide on its own.75
| |
| − | The military decided to follow similar policies as the civil service and party,
| |
| − | including the use of an Erklärung, though the military’s qualifications were a bit more
| |
| − | strict. Whereas the party limited membership to men who left the lodges before the
| |
| − | seizure of power and had never gone above the third degree, the military set the second
| |
| − | degree as the maximum and said former Freemasons had to have left before January 10,
| |
| − | 1932. The army stated that advancement to the third degree “could not be in accord with
| |
| − | the strict sense of honor of a German officer,” and that “those already in the third degree
| |
| − | have sunk deeply into the liberal-Freemason philosophy,” making possible, for example,
| |
| − | 73 Letter from RFSS regarding handling requests for information from the German Red
| |
| − | Cross, February 26, 1939, BArch R58/6164 part 1, 4.
| |
| − | 74 Summary of a telephone conversation with a Captain Braun (Sacharbeiter for the
| |
| − | Freemason question in the OKH), October 21, 1939, BArch R58/6164 part 1, 38-39.
| |
| − | 75 June 30, 1936, Bavarian Political Police, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 109
| |
| − | the field lodges of WWI.76 For those former Freemasons who met the requirements, the
| |
| − | military, like the civil service, had a long list of positions for which they were still
| |
| − | barred, including serving as pilots, military court officers, seconds-in-command to any
| |
| − | unit, or any position that dealt with matters concerning personnel or dealing with
| |
| − | personnel information and decision-making. 77 The military, like the civil service, feared
| |
| − | that allowing just one former Freemason into a personnel office would lead to a deluge
| |
| − | of exceptions and special considerations being handed out to his former lodge brethren.78
| |
| − | It is worth noting, however, that all discussion of Freemasons in the military was limited
| |
| − | to their service as officers and leaders. There was almost no comment about them
| |
| − | serving as enlisted men. Of course, the majority of Freemasons were a bit long in the
| |
| − | tooth to be dodging bullets and storming bunkers, and most Freemasons, being
| |
| − | professionals in civilian life, were probably too proud to accept anything less than a
| |
| − | commission, but the fact remains that there were no restrictions regarding enlisted
| |
| − | service, just as there were fewer restrictions one general membership in the party.
| |
| − | Former Freemasons only ran into trouble when they sought leadership.
| |
| − | 76 Masonic lodges all over Europe are quite proud of the stories of the field lodges,
| |
| − | which allowed enemy POWs to attend lodge meetings with their captors. To Freemasons, the
| |
| − | field lodges were examples of the “brotherhood of all men,” demonstrating that even in the midst
| |
| − | of war, men could serve their country and still be true brothers. Memo from Erich Ehlers (head
| |
| − | of IIB1 in the RSHA) regarding the use of former Freemasons in the Wehrmacht (both as
| |
| − | officers and civil service), March 18, 1940, BArch R58/6164 part 1, 21-30.
| |
| − | 77 OKW memo regarding mobilization of former officers and staff who were
| |
| − | Freemasons, September 9, 1939, BArch R43II 1308a , 59-61; Memo from OKW to OKH, OK
| |
| − | Kriegsmarine, Reichsminister of Air Defense and Commander of the Luftwaffe, regarding
| |
| − | Freemason lodges and lodge-like orgs, August 28, 1939, BArch R43II 1308, 62-71.
| |
| − | 78 Memo from OKW to OKH, OK Kriegsmarine, Reichsminister of Air Defense and
| |
| − | Commander of the Luftwaffe, regarding Freemason lodges and lodge-like orgs, August 28, 1939,
| |
| − | BArch R43II 1308, 62-71; “Overview of the current position of Freemasonry,” December 20,
| |
| − | 1935, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 5, Folder 28.
| |
| − | 110
| |
| − | The SS faced similar problems with Freemasons seeking membership. An article
| |
| − | in Der Schwarze Korps, the official journal of the SS, noted that any soldiers or civilians
| |
| − | wishing to join one of the branches of the SS must fill out a questionnaire. One of the
| |
| − | questions asked if the candidate had ever belonged to a Freemasonic lodge. Answering
| |
| − | “yes,” however, did not automatically disqualify the candidate. There were enough
| |
| − | applications that Heydrich himself had to step in and clarify that former Freemasons
| |
| − | were only to be admitted in the most exceptional of cases where the individual had a
| |
| − | long history of loyalty and service to the party. Like other party administrators,
| |
| − | Heydrich realized that a complete shut out was not the answer and would deny the SS
| |
| − | useful members, but at the same time he wanted to stress that exceptions were made on a
| |
| − | case-by-case basis, specifically to avoid the exceptions being seen as setting precedent.79
| |
| − | One former Freemason, who was even the meister of the zur könglichen Eiche lodge in
| |
| − | Hamlin, left his lodge, joined the SS, and returned at the head of the SS group tasked
| |
| − | with forcibly closing the very lodge to which he had previously belonged.80 Another
| |
| − | former Freemason, Dr. Heinrich Bütefish, was also able to join the SS, despite the
| |
| − | RSHA describing him as one whose “mentality was geared to international
| |
| − | cooperation.”81 Thus even the most ardent and zealous Nazi auxiliary admitted former
| |
| − | 79 Letter to the SS Court regarding a clemency petition of former SS member Dr. Kurt
| |
| − | Huschke, May 9, 1939, BArch R58/6164 part 1, 11.
| |
| − | 80 Neuberger, Winkelmass und Hakenkreuz, 258.
| |
| − | 81 Heinz Hoehne, The Order of the Death’s Head: The Story of Hitler’s SS (New York:
| |
| − | Penguin, 2000), 142.
| |
| − | 111
| |
| − | Freemasons, though to be sure there were also rejections of applications from former
| |
| − | Freemasons.82
| |
| − | The amnesty, as it did with Freemasons entering the party, affected policy
| |
| − | regarding Freemasons in the military. The OKW decreed that in accordance with the
| |
| − | amnesty, any Freemason who had never gone above the third degree, nor served in a
| |
| − | position of authority in the lodges, could be used in war service and could even be
| |
| − | accepted into the officer corps, with restrictions. Those who had served in lodge
| |
| − | leadership, or went above the third degree, but left the lodges before January 30 would
| |
| − | be examined on a case-by-case basis.83 Those who left the lodges after January 30 and
| |
| − | went above the 3rd degree were strictly prohibited.84 The Luftwaffe implemented similar
| |
| − | restrictions, although the Kriegsmarine refused to be so strict.85
| |
| − | Masonic terminology caused a bit of problem in enforcement. The Masonic 3rd
| |
| − | degree is “Master Mason,” the administrative head of a daughter lodge is Meister vom
| |
| − | Stuhl, and “master” was commonly used to refer to both. Two soldiers were about to be
| |
| − | thrown out of the military because when the men declared that they had been “masters”
| |
| − | the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH – Army High Command) thought the men meant
| |
| − | 82 Dr. Huschke had applied for an exemption and been denied; however, he was denied
| |
| − | on grounds that the officer reviewing his case did not have the proper authority or protocol to
| |
| − | make the decision and was forwarding the case to Heydrich at the same time he issued the
| |
| − | denial. Letter to the SS Court regarding a clemency petition of former SS member Dr. Kurt
| |
| − | Huschke, May 9, 1939, BArch R58/6164 part 1, 11.
| |
| − | 83 Memo from Erich Ehlers (head of IIB1 in the RSHA) regarding the use of former
| |
| − | Freemasons in the Wehrmacht (both as officers and civil service), March 18, 1940, BArch
| |
| − | R58/6164 part 1, 21-30.
| |
| − | 84 OKW memo regarding mobilization of former officers and staff who were
| |
| − | Freemasons, September 9, 1939, BArch R43II 1308a , 59-61.
| |
| − | 85 Summary of a telephone conversation with a Captain Braun (Sacharbeiter for the
| |
| − | Freemason question in the OKH), October 21, 1939, BArch R58/6164 part 1, 38-39.
| |
| − | 112
| |
| − | Meister vom Stuhl, rather than 3rd degree holders. The office of the RFSS had to send a
| |
| − | page long explanation to the OKH, differentiating between the various “masters” of
| |
| − | Freemasonry, leading to a brief exchange of letters over whether or not these men were
| |
| − | 3rd degree and could stay, or were former lodge administration and had to go.86
| |
| − | For those who met the qualifications or received an exception their war duties
| |
| − | were limited. Any officer of the new Wehrmacht, argued the OKW, was more than just
| |
| − | a civil servant. He was a leader of men and therefore had to be more rigid in his
| |
| − | worldview and held to a higher standard than a civil servant. Additionally, the
| |
| − | Wehrmacht recognized that the amnesty applied to former Humanitarian lodge members
| |
| − | as well as Old Prussian, leaving open the possibility for pacifism, internationalism and
| |
| − | humanitarianism to creep in.87 To that end, officers who were former Freemasons were
| |
| − | relegated to positions far from the frontlines (Heimatdienststellen). Part of this
| |
| − | restriction was precautionary (again citing the WWI field lodges), but part was wholly
| |
| − | justifiable on the ground that any Freemason veterans would have been in their forties
| |
| − | and fifties and relegated to the rear based on general army regulations.88 Furthermore,
| |
| − | the ban on former Freemasons serving as commanding officers or seconds, personnel
| |
| − | officers (especially regarding promotions, enlistment, or, of course, granting exceptions
| |
| − | to petitioning Freemasons), be used in training officers; serve on military attorneys and
| |
| − | 86 The exchange took place over the winter of 1942-1943 regarding Reserve Officer
| |
| − | Oberleutnant Franz Wagner and Soldat Richard Huber. USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel 48, folder
| |
| − | 589.
| |
| − | 87 Memo from Erich Ehlers (head of IIB1 in the RSHA), March 18, 1940, regarding the
| |
| − | use of former Freemasons in the Wehrmacht (both as officers and civil service), BArch
| |
| − | R58/6164 part 1, 21-30.
| |
| − | 88 Memo from Erich Ehlers (head of IIB1 in the RSHA), March 18, 1940, regarding the
| |
| − | use of former Freemason in the Wehrmacht (both as officers and civil service), BArch R58/6164
| |
| − | part 1, 21-30.
| |
| − | 113
| |
| − | pilots remained in effect. The great fear was that a single Freemasons in a decisionmaking
| |
| − | position could help other Freemasons enter, eventually overwhelming the system
| |
| − | from within. Considering the number of Freemasons already in such positions, the fear
| |
| − | was a little too late.89
| |
| − | By 1940 the need for competent officers strained the available manpower pool
| |
| − | and the OKW toyed with the idea of relaxing its restrictions on Freemasons further.
| |
| − | Despite OKW documents stating previously that the amnesty made further compromises
| |
| − | unnecessary, the OKW considered allowing those who had reached the 4th degree, and
| |
| − | thus made to the jump to “high-level” Freemasonry, to serve as long as they left the
| |
| − | lodges before Jan 30th. The OKW could justify the decision on grounds that the 4th
| |
| − | degree in one system was equivalent to the 3rd degree in another, opening a loophole by
| |
| − | which some “high-level” Freemasons could sneak in. Of course, this loophole was
| |
| − | double-edged and pushed the limits of which degrees were considered acceptable or
| |
| − | unacceptable. Additionally, this would put more pressure on the party to make a similar
| |
| − | concession regarding membership in the party and civil service. With this in mind the
| |
| − | OKW ultimately decided to reject the proposal in general, but leave the possibility of
| |
| − | exceptions open for very rare cases.90 In June 1942, however, a memo from the Chief of
| |
| − | the OKW, General Hermann Reinecke, said that due to the war situation, former
| |
| − | 89 OKW memo regarding mobilization of former officers and staff who were
| |
| − | Freemasons, September 9, 1939, BArch R 43II 1308a , 59-61; RFSS-SD Year Report for 1937,
| |
| − | Situation of former German Freemasons, BArch R58/6113 part 1, 11.
| |
| − | 90 Memo from Erich Ehlers (head of IIB1 in the RSHA) regarding the use of former
| |
| − | Freemasons in the Wehrmacht (both as officers and civil service), March 18, 1940, BArch
| |
| − | R58/6164 part 1, 21-30.
| |
| − | 114
| |
| − | Freemasons could be used as replacement officers at the front in exceptional cases.91
| |
| − | Once again, necessity and practicality trumped ideology.
| |
| − | Paramilitary organizations weren’t as strict as the Wehrmacht. In 1939, long
| |
| − | before the fortunes of war produced the need for manpower, the Reichluftschutzbund
| |
| − | (Reich Aerial Defense League) issued a letter to all fifteen of its Landesgruppen laying
| |
| − | down the guidelines for the admission and use of former Freemasons in accordance with
| |
| − | the amnesty decrees. The letter stated that any former Freemason could join the
| |
| − | Reichluftschutzbund without regard to degree, date of exit or office held. Those wanting
| |
| − | to hold office within the Reichluftschutzbund had to jump through a few more hoops, but
| |
| − | the letter mentioned several former Freemasons who were already in positions of
| |
| − | authority and could remain as long as the completed an Erklärung and got a letter of
| |
| − | approval from the appropriate gauleiter (with an underlined emphasis on gau).
| |
| − | Obviously some men were trying to sneak by with only the approval of lower-ranked
| |
| − | authorities.92
| |
| − | Over the course of the Third Reich the policies regarding former Freemasons in
| |
| − | the party civil service and government followed a rollercoaster of a career. In 1933,
| |
| − | Freemasons were to be banned from the party and the government. By 1939, Hitler
| |
| − | granted an amnesty that was already pretty much a fait accompli. The main reason for
| |
| − | the compromise was the fact that former Freemasons were simply too valuable to reject
| |
| − | because of an old association. Even the SS acknowledged several times that the policy
| |
| − | 91 OKW memo regarding the use of former Freemasons, June 17, 1942, USHMM, RG
| |
| − | 15.007M, Reel 48, folder 589.
| |
| − | 92 Letter from the executive committee of the Reichluftschutzbund to all Landesgruppen,
| |
| − | October 17, 1939, USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel 48, folder 589.
| |
| − | 115
| |
| − | of removing Freemasons was not only impractical, but also unnecessary. Furthermore,
| |
| − | Freemasons had been pushing for years to work with the party, regardless of the fate of
| |
| − | the lodges and Christian Orders. With the threat of war looming at the beginning of
| |
| − | 1939, the RSHA office in charge of Freemasonry reported, “many Freemasons are
| |
| − | worried that in case of war, all Freemasons will be put in camps to halt their corruptive
| |
| − | influence. They fear that they won’t be able to show their patriotism and point out that
| |
| − | many former communists and Centre folk now proudly wear the Party badge, while the
| |
| − | majority of Freemasons are not allowed the same opportunity.”93 Freemasons wanted in,
| |
| − | and the party was hesitant to throw them out. By looking at the way in which the party
| |
| − | tried to decide where to draw the line we can see the party’s struggle in balancing
| |
| − | ideology with practicality. First, all Freemasons were banned, but then men like Buch
| |
| − | argued a blanket policy was excessive, suggesting instead separating Old Prussian from
| |
| − | Humanitarian. Bröse’s letter, however, showed that there were Nazi-minded men in the
| |
| − | Humanitarian lodges and division by branch was insufficient. Buch then suggested the
| |
| − | Erklärung as a means of straining out the “honorable” men, regardless of what lodges
| |
| − | they belonged to. Next, the line was drawn according to when an individual left the
| |
| − | lodges, arguing that those who left before the seizure of power did so honestly while
| |
| − | those who left after did so to hurriedly put as much distance between themselves and the
| |
| − | lodges. In 1935, Gaurichter Moltke added the restriction limiting exceptions to those of
| |
| − | the third-degree or lower. Finally, Hitler’s declaration of amnesty came in 1938. At
| |
| − | every step along the way, “exceptions permitted” accompanied each new policy, paving
| |
| − | 93 RSHA office II 111 Situation report for 1938, January 19, 1939, USHMM, RG-
| |
| − | 15.007M Reel 5, Folder 30.
| |
| − | 116
| |
| − | the way for the next policy shift. What little restrictions remained (barring from office)
| |
| − | were enforced so sporadically that “enforcement” isn’t even the right word. Those in
| |
| − | charge of carrying out the policy recognized the value of keeping the men, even if they
| |
| − | had belonged to a Masonic lodge, and either refused to carry out the order or
| |
| − | campaigned vigorously to keep the man in his office.
| |
| − | 117
| |
| − | CHAPTER V
| |
| − | LOOTING LODGES, LOOTING LIMITS
| |
| − | The plundering of wealth from enemies and conquered nations played a major
| |
| − | role in the sustainability and perpetuation of the Nazi state. Historian Götz Aly argued
| |
| − | that a “state sponsored campaign of grand larceny” not only garnered public support for
| |
| − | the aggressive policies of the regime and its persecution of minority elements in society,
| |
| − | but eventually became the driving force behind the regime. The financial benefits of
| |
| − | conquest and plunder kept the regime afloat and maintained the standard of living. As
| |
| − | the cost of war increased, plunder became even more essential to ensure the regime’s
| |
| − | continued existence. In other words, the Nazis went on campaign to loot and rob, but
| |
| − | looted and robbed to be able to go on campaign.1 British scholar Adam Tooze takes
| |
| − | Aly’s argument further. Whereas Aly paints Nazi war and plunder as work in progress,
| |
| − | essentially snowballing, Tooze argues that plunder and conquest, though justified by
| |
| − | ideology, were the driving forces behind Hitler’s plan for waging war and had been his
| |
| − | intention since the seizure of power.2
| |
| − | As an organization composed mainly of the well-to-do, it is not surprising that
| |
| − | lodges often had respectable, if not substantial, inventories of property and liquid wealth.
| |
| − | One lodge building, for example, was a two-story building and was large enough to
| |
| − | include two temple rooms, a museum, business offices, a library, a theater, three storage
| |
| − | 1 See Götz Aly, Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War and the Nazi Welfare State
| |
| − | (New York: Metropolitan, 2007).
| |
| − | 2 Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy
| |
| − | (New York: Viking, 2006).
| |
| − | 118
| |
| − | rooms, and a guest room.3 The Royal York zur Freundschaft grand lodge building in
| |
| − | Berlin and shows just how “grand” these grand lodges could be (Fig. A6). When
| |
| − | completed, the spacious lodge building sat amidst almost 3 acres of manicured garden
| |
| − | overlooking the Spree. It must have been quite a sight, in 1934 a young couple taking a
| |
| − | carriage ride through the city passed by the lodge. The woman exclaimed, “What’s a
| |
| − | palace doing here?” She was then informed the estate was not a palace, but the former
| |
| − | Royal York zur Freundschaft grand lodge building, now owned by the Allgemeine
| |
| − | Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft.4 Not only were the exteriors beautiful, but the interiors as
| |
| − | well. Furniture, artwork, and interior architecture made the lodge buildings into
| |
| − | beautiful, museum-esque structures, reflecting the standard of living of the lodge
| |
| − | members; a tempting target for a regime that financed itself on the plundered wealth of
| |
| − | its enemies. As a club for the social elite the lodges already had a reputation for
| |
| − | possessing wealth. In some cases, however, the party got an inside view. One SA
| |
| − | Standart, for example, knew very well what kind of wealth the lodges possessed; the
| |
| − | Standart had been renting rooms in the lodge building for its own meetings for months.
| |
| − | As it was for all of Hitler’s other targets, the beginning of troubles and the first
| |
| − | step toward property confiscation for Freemasons came with the Order of the Reich
| |
| − | 3 Although this lodge was a Belgian lodge, it was not unique in its wealth and splendor.
| |
| − | Grand lodges all over Europe, Germany included, possessed lodges like this one. USHMM, RG-
| |
| − | 65.010M Reel 1, part 2.
| |
| − | 4 SD report, “Vermögensverschiebung bei der Großloge Royal York zur Freundschaft,”
| |
| − | September 19, 1934, USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel 43, folder 533. This anecdote not only
| |
| − | prvodies further evidence of the splendor of the lodges, but also shows how fast the party
| |
| − | worked to capture that splendor. It was just a year after the seizure of power and already the
| |
| − | grand lodge building of one of the Old Prussian lodges had been confiscated and sold.
| |
| − | 119
| |
| − | President for the Protection of People and State. The Reichstag Fire Decree, as it is
| |
| − | more commonly known, suspended basic rights and civil liberties and allowed for the
| |
| − | confiscation of property of any group in the name of safety and security and without due
| |
| − | process. More specific decrees soon followed. On May 26 the Law over the
| |
| − | Confiscation of Communist Property gave the government power to seize all assets of
| |
| − | the communist party and its affiliates. No explanation was given of what constituted an
| |
| − | affiliation. Then in July the Law for the Recovery of Property of Enemies of the State
| |
| − | and Volk stretched the May 26 law to include the Social Democratic Party, as well as its
| |
| − | help and affiliates, leaving the final decision of what constituted ”help” or “affiliate” to
| |
| − | the Minister of the Interior.5 Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick finally exercised that
| |
| − | power in October of 1934, officially declaring the lodges as “hostile to the state.”6 The
| |
| − | lodge attempts at changing to Christian Orders and coordinating with the regime failed,
| |
| − | leaving the regime free to plunder the lodges as Reichsfeinde.
| |
| − | Though financial gain was not the only motive for seizing lodge property it was
| |
| − | the most obvious, both inside Germany and, once war broke out, in the ret of Europe. A
| |
| − | letter from Alfred Rosenberg to Martin Bormann during the Balkan Campaign even
| |
| − | mentioned that the only places in the Balkans that had anything worth confiscating were
| |
| − | 5 Law for the Recovery of Property of Enemies of the State and Volk, July 14, 1933,
| |
| − | available from ALEX; An article in the Danizger Volkstimme covered the lodge closings and
| |
| − | confiscations, specifically citing the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Recovery Decree as the legal
| |
| − | grounds upon which the lodge closures and confiscations were being carried out, “Now the
| |
| − | Freemason: not voluntary, but compulsory liquidation,” Danziger Volkstimme, August 28, 1935,
| |
| − | BArch R58/6117 part 1, 78.
| |
| − | 6 USHMM, “Freemasonry under the Nazi Regime,” Holocaust Encyclopedia.
| |
| − | http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007187. Accessed January 6, 2011.
| |
| − | 120
| |
| − | the Masonic lodges.7 When confiscation were carried out it was done under the
| |
| − | administration of two men: one from the federal customs office, the other from the
| |
| − | lodge, usually either the meister or the lodge treasurer.8 Lodge wealth came in several
| |
| − | forms. First of all, some lodges possessed substantial cash reserves. Lodges not only
| |
| − | had bank accounts for lodge administration, but also for charity funds, funeral funds,
| |
| − | insurance policies and even pension funds for the families of deceased brethren. The
| |
| − | Symbolic Grand Lodge of Germany, the smallest of all German Freemasonic bodies,
| |
| − | possessed RM 13,000 in liquid assets at the time of its closure.9 The Flammenden Stern,
| |
| − | a daughter lodge of the drei Weltkugeln had RM 15,000 in its accounts at the time of
| |
| − | closure.10
| |
| − | Of course, not all lodges had wealth. One Essen lodge, Freie Forschung und
| |
| − | Duldsamkeit, had to rent rooms from another Essen lodge just to be able to hold its
| |
| − | monthly meetings. None of the property within the lodge building belonged to Freie
| |
| − | Forschung, and the lodge’s archives were limited to membership records and meeting
| |
| − | minutes, which occupied a single drawer in the building’s office cabinet. The meister of
| |
| − | Freie Forschung once commented, that, despite its name, the lodge did not even possess
| |
| − | a library. Previously the lodges had made numerous attempts at purchasing books, but
| |
| − | 7 Rosenberg letter to Bormann, April 23, 1941, replying to Bormann’s letter of April 19,
| |
| − | 1941, document 071-PS, Red Set, vol. III, 119.
| |
| − | 8 Gestapo to RFSS, June 5, 1935, BArch R58/6140a, 174; Report of the last meeting of
| |
| − | the former lodge Zum Fuerstenstein in Freiburg, July 22, 1935, R58/6103b part 1, 77.
| |
| − | 9 GStA PK, 5.1.11 – Symbolic Grand Lodge of Germany, Nr. 31 – Meeting Minutes of
| |
| − | the Grand Council, pg 3-4.
| |
| − | 10 SD memo, September 6, 1934, BArch R58/6103a, part 2, Page 252.
| |
| − | 121
| |
| − | the plans always fell through due to a lack of funds.11 Despite high membership dues
| |
| − | required of its members, rent, insurance payouts, funeral expenses and delinquent dues
| |
| − | continually strained whatever liquid assets the lodge possessed. Freie Forschung,
| |
| − | however, was the exception and in general lodges had a building to meet in and enough
| |
| − | funds to operate.
| |
| − | For those lodges with enough wealth to steal, the seizure of liquid assets was not
| |
| − | without its snags. Insurance policies, for example, provided one lucrative source of
| |
| − | income, but upon closure many of the lodges expressed to the government the desire to
| |
| − | be allowed to either maintain their Masonic insurance policy, or have it converted into
| |
| − | private insurance. This posed a two-sided problem for the government, which estimated
| |
| − | that most Freemasons would not be able to afford the premiums if the group policy
| |
| − | converted to private insurance, resulting in the mass cancellations of policies and dealing
| |
| − | a serious blow to the economy. At the same time, however, if the lodges were allowed
| |
| − | to keep their Masonic group-policy that allowed semblances of a banned organization to
| |
| − | remain officially intact, and even to continue to meet. The practical economics
| |
| − | problems, however, outweighed the possible ideological ones. One lodge in Bavaria, for
| |
| − | example, was allowed to maintain its insurance policy but all administration meetings
| |
| − | 11 Police report on Karl Dinger, February 4, 1936, USHMM, Record Group 37.001,
| |
| − | “Selected Records from the Nordhein-Wesfaeliches Hauptstaatsarchiv Relating to Freemasons,”
| |
| − | Folder 1. Another lodge, Zum Friedenstempel in Friedland, rented a private room in a restaurant
| |
| − | for its meetings and had less than RM 1000 in the bank at the time of closure, see Report on the
| |
| − | liquidation of Zum Friedenstempel in Friedland, no date, BArch R58/6113 part 1, 163. Other
| |
| − | lodges had no such problem acquiring books. The lodge Alexius had over 800 books in its
| |
| − | inventory at the time of closure, BArch R58/6103a, part 1, 32.
| |
| − | 122
| |
| − | had to include a police representative to oversee the meeting and ensure that discussion
| |
| − | never veered from payments and premiums.12
| |
| − | After bank accounts, real estate stood next on the list of lodge assets. Every
| |
| − | grand lodge oversaw dozens, if not hundreds, of daughter lodges. Two reports; one from
| |
| − | the SD and another from the Gestapo, provide a glimpse of the potential wealth that
| |
| − | could be gained by confiscation lodge real estate. Each document reports the selling of a
| |
| − | building formerly belonging to the drei Weltkugeln. The first building, formerly the
| |
| − | meetinghouse of Durch Nacht am Licht, was expected to fetch around 17,000 RM. The
| |
| − | second, formerly belonging to Zur Bestaendigkeit und Eintracht in Aachen, had already
| |
| − | sold for 19,000 RM.13 The drei Weltkugeln was the largest of the German grand lodges,
| |
| − | boasting over 180 “Blue” daughter lodges scattered throughout the country.14 Even if
| |
| − | each of the daughter lodges didn’t have its own building it is not exaggerating to
| |
| − | estimate that drei Weltkugeln and its daughter lodges owned well over 200 buildings.
| |
| − | With 200 buildings, each selling for 15,000 RM, generates 3 million RM from real estate
| |
| − | sales alone.
| |
| − | 12 Bavarian Political Police to local police and government, April 4,1936, Schumacher,
| |
| − | T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 13 Letter from Gestapo to RFSS, June 7, 1935, BArch R58/6140a, 165.
| |
| − | 14 There are a myriad of different rites within Freemasonry, but all lodges share the first
| |
| − | three degrees (Apprentice, Fellow, Master) in common. Some rites halt at the third, others go on
| |
| − | to four, ten, or in the case of the Scottish Rite, thirty-three additional degrees. The first three
| |
| − | degrees are referred to as “St. john” or “Blue” degrees, and the lodges that work only the first
| |
| − | three degrees are therefore designated “Blue Lodges.” Lodges that carry on past the first three
| |
| − | degrees are sometimes referred to as “Red” lodges. Some grand lodges, like the drei Weltkugeln,
| |
| − | had daughter lodges that were both Blue and Red. For a more detailed description of the various
| |
| − | rites and degrees, see S. Brent Morris, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Freemasonry (New York:
| |
| − | Alpha Books, 2006), Chapters 8 and 9; Hodapp, Freemasonry for Dummies, part III.
| |
| − | 123
| |
| − | Next, assuming that most drei Weltkugeln lodges had around 15,000 in cash
| |
| − | reserve (as Flammenden Stern did) and add that to the value of real estate the total
| |
| − | comes to 45 million marks. Keep in mind, this total is only for the drei Weltkugeln and
| |
| − | does not include bank accounts and property sales of the other Old Prussian lodges, the
| |
| − | six Humanitarian grand lodges or the Symbolic Grand Lodge…and we still haven’t said
| |
| − | anything about the value of the property inside the lodges!
| |
| − | As for furniture, artwork and other lodge holdings, party and military leaders had
| |
| − | first pick of the litter, sometimes leading to some amusing anecdotes. One lodge
| |
| − | possessed a beautiful painting of Field Marshal Blücher that the party seized and
| |
| − | presented to General Blomberg as a gift for his fortieth birthday. The painting, however,
| |
| − | had one small problem; Marshal Blücher, who was Grand Master of his lodge in
| |
| − | Munster, was painted in full Masonic regalia. So before presenting the gift the party had
| |
| − | it “touched up,” removing all the Masonic items from the picture and leaving only a
| |
| − | beautiful portrait of a celebrated German war hero.
| |
| − | Hjalmar Schacht, who was both Minister of Economics, president of the
| |
| − | Reichsbank and a Freemason, received a photograph from some Masonic colleagues
| |
| − | showing the painting in its original state. Schacht sent the photo to Blomberg, thinking
| |
| − | that Blomberg would take it in good humor. Instead, Blomberg was actually quite
| |
| − | concerned and in turn sent the photos to Rudolph Hess, who had presented the painting
| |
| − | on behalf of the Führer. In response, Hess sent a two-page letter to Blomberg stating
| |
| − | that he had no knowledge of such alterations and stressed that the gift in no way changed
| |
| − | the Party’s current policy towards Freemasons. In fact, if the accusations were true the
| |
| − | 124
| |
| − | touch-up was a good deed because it took an excellent portrait of one of Germany’s
| |
| − | military heroes out of the hand of the Masons and gave it to the military, where it ought
| |
| − | to be. Hess’s biggest concern was that the party had paid good money for the work, and
| |
| − | being a Masonic painting it should have been confiscated without any compensation to
| |
| − | the lodge whatsoever. Such a gross misuse of party funds would, Hess promised, be
| |
| − | looked into forthwith.15
| |
| − | After property had been picked over according to the government and military
| |
| − | pecking-order, what remained was divided according to established protocols. Furniture
| |
| − | and benign art (i.e. art that lacked any Masonic symbolism or reference) was sold at
| |
| − | public auction. Objects made of precious metal (silverware, candelabra, etc.), were to be
| |
| − | melted down. Metal objects that were “wholly Freemason in character” (symbols,
| |
| − | jewels, etc.) were eventually to be sent to Alfred Rosenberg’s Hohe Schule.16 Eating
| |
| − | utensils made from non-precious metals were given to Nationalsocialistische
| |
| − | Volkswohlfahrt (NSV – National Socialist People’s Charity) charities and hospitals.17
| |
| − | Naturally, corruption followed the confiscations and the government was plagued
| |
| − | with party offices and individuals stealing from the Nazis at the same time they stole
| |
| − | from Nazi enemies. Under the provisions of the Recovery Law, revenue generated from
| |
| − | the sale of confiscated property was subject to taxes. By mid 1934 the Ministry of the
| |
| − | 15 Hjalmar Schacht, Confessions of “the Old Wizard,” 310-311.
| |
| − | 16 Rosenberg referred to the Hohe Schule as a “Seminary for National Socialism” to
| |
| − | promote research and education on ideological enemies. It was to be created after the war and
| |
| − | was based at the University of Munich in place of the Catholic Theology department. Bormann
| |
| − | to Rosenberg, 12 December 1939, document 131-PS, Red Series, vol. III, 184; Memo from
| |
| − | Hitler to all section of party and state, document 136-PS, Red Series, vol. III, 184.
| |
| − | 17 Bavarian Political Police to police and government, April 23, 1936, Schumacher,
| |
| − | T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 125
| |
| − | Interior noticed that despite the vast amounts of wealth being confiscated and sold, little
| |
| − | of it seemed to find its way into the treasury, thus the ministry issued a letter demanding
| |
| − | that the tax laws be satisfied.18 Even after this chastisement, government and police
| |
| − | authorities had problems getting local offices to follow confiscation policy. Some of it
| |
| − | may have been due to over-enthusiastic party members acting out of un-checked fervor
| |
| − | by, for example, destroying Masonic objects that could have been used otherwise, but
| |
| − | more often than not the problem was simple greed.
| |
| − | Himmler jumped into the fray through his control of all German police. Less
| |
| − | than a month after the Ministry of the Interior sent out a letter chastising party offices for
| |
| − | evading taxes, the Bavarian Political Police stated that anything confiscated from the
| |
| − | “disbanded anti-national organizations” (including Freemasonry) in Bavaria was under
| |
| − | police mandate. All future seizures and confiscations were to be immediately reported
| |
| − | and any party auxiliary or organization with interests in the confiscated property must
| |
| − | indicate so to the police, along with a suggestion of compensation.19 In other words,
| |
| − | Himmler wanted to act as a broker for the newly acquired property. Near the end of
| |
| − | 1934, the Bavarian Political Police reasserted its jurisdiction over confiscated property
| |
| − | by mailing out instructions and steps to be taken, specifically in relation to the seizing
| |
| − | and selling of Masonic lodge buildings.20 The SA and other auxiliaries largely ignored
| |
| − | the demands of the Bavarian Political Police just as they did the Ministry of the Interior,
| |
| − | 18 Letter from the Ministry of the Interior, May 19, 1934, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 19 SA special envoy in Bavaria to general SA leadership, June 11, 1934, Schumacher,
| |
| − | T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 20 Bavarian Political Police to police and government, November 8, 1934, Schumacher,
| |
| − | T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 126
| |
| − | prompting another letter from the police pointing out that confiscations were proceeding
| |
| − | without proper notification and paperwork. The letter even appealed to the Reichstag
| |
| − | Fire Decree as a reminder that the bureaucracy was in place and needed to be
| |
| − | respected.21 The problem persisted well into 1936 and the police sent out another
| |
| − | “reminder.”22
| |
| − | Not all property confiscated by the government was earmarked to generate
| |
| − | revenue, and though few German citizens had interest in purchasing lodge libraries or
| |
| − | archives such items were far from being worthless. Freemasonry had always been
| |
| − | shrouded in secrecy and the Nazis thought that perhaps, as a part of the “International
| |
| − | Jewish Conspiracy,” lodge records held information that could be useful in the Nazi
| |
| − | struggle against the Jews. While most lodge contents went to private homes, auction
| |
| − | blocks or the smelter, documents and archive materials went to the
| |
| − | Geheimenreichsarchiv where the police took pains to ensure that it remained under lock
| |
| − | and key.23
| |
| − | When Himmler entered the confiscation fray he did so out of both greed and
| |
| − | ideology. He wanted to act as a broker, but he also had a special interest in lodge rituals.
| |
| − | He was convinced high-degree Masonry involved a “blood ritual” in which “the
| |
| − | candidate cuts his thumbs and lets a little blood drop into a cup. Wine is then mixed in
| |
| − | the bowl. Next a bottle containing the blood of the other brothers (from when they first
| |
| − | 21 Bavarian Political Police to local government and police, December 11, 1934,
| |
| − | Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 22 Bavarian Political Police to police and government, April 23, 1936, Schumacher,
| |
| − | T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 23 Bavarian Political Police to local police and government, August 29, 1935,
| |
| − | Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 127
| |
| − | performed this ritual) is added to the cup. The candidate then drinks the liquid, thus
| |
| − | imbibing the blood of all Freemasons, including Jews. Thus the triumph of the Jews is
| |
| − | complete.”24 Himmler pointed to this ritual as the means whereby Jews use
| |
| − | Freemasonry to literally taint the blood of Aryans and desperately wanted proof of its
| |
| − | existence. The truth of the matter is that Freemasons do indeed have rituals that involve
| |
| − | drinking wine, but references to blood are symbolic, much like the rituals performed in
| |
| − | Christian churches. Nevertheless, the SS had interest in non-negotiable lodge property
| |
| − | in order to further their study of Freemasonry.
| |
| − | In 1935 the RFSS published guidelines to ensure the proper cataloging and
| |
| − | organization of ideological materials. The ritual rooms themselves were to be carefully
| |
| − | photographed before any materials were removed so as to preserve the lodge in its
| |
| − | “natural” state. Before the final removal of ideological property, lodge buildings were
| |
| − | frequently opened up to the public as living museums.25 The party set up such
| |
| − | “museums” in Berlin, Hannover, Nuremberg, Düsseldorf, and Erlangen among others.
| |
| − | Like the 1937 Degenerate Art exhibit, the Masonic lodge museums served as powerful
| |
| − | tools of propaganda, allowing the Nazis to exhibit genuine Masonic artifacts, but with
| |
| − | the skillful twist of the propaganda ministry, creating that most powerful form of
| |
| − | propaganda that contains enough truth to be considered authentic, but altered enough to
| |
| − | serve the needs of the party. Once the museums were closed, crates containing
| |
| − | ideological items were to be color-coded and shipped to the SD, which graciously
| |
| − | 24 Fundamentals of Freemasonry, no date, Schumacher, T580, 267 I; Bavarian Political
| |
| − | Police to local government and police, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 25 1938 Yearly Report, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 29.
| |
| − | 128
| |
| − | offered to cover the shipping costs.26 The SD wanted to gather all lodge libraries and
| |
| − | archives, merging them into one massive repository that could be used for further
| |
| − | research and study by “reliable” men.27 Previously, most Nazi anti-Masonic propaganda
| |
| − | relied on sensationalism, hearsay and questionable sources like the Protocols. The SS
| |
| − | took such care in confiscating Freemason archives because they wanted to establish a
| |
| − | more respectable standard of anti-Freemasonic literature.
| |
| − | For example, Dr. Günther Franz, professor at the Reichsuniversität in Strasbourg
| |
| − | published a lengthy article on the history of Freemasonry in which he criticized anti-
| |
| − | Masonic literature that portrayed Freemasonry as a kind of cult or crediting them with
| |
| − | too much influence. At the same time he also attacked Masonic history books written by
| |
| − | Freemasons as celebratory and wholly subjective. Franz stated that it was his duty to
| |
| − | write the history of Freemasonry as an objective, non-Masonic researcher, a task that
| |
| − | was only possible by the seizing of lodge records and libraries. Franz admitted that an
| |
| − | objective, primary-source-based history would destroy many myths and legends
| |
| − | treasured both by Masons and anti-Masons, but such was a necessary price to pay “in
| |
| − | order to be able to clearly ascertain the ominous influence of Freemasonry.”28 Note the
| |
| − | objectivity.
| |
| − | A booklet published by the German Culture Watch provides an example of the
| |
| − | kind of freelance, sensationalist and hearsay “scholarship” that the SS wanted to get
| |
| − | 26 RFSS to SD, May 28, 1936 and June 23, 1936, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 27 23 Sep 1935 from Bavarian Political Police to local government and police,
| |
| − | September 23, 1935, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 28 Addendum to June 1944 RSHA Information Report of the Freemason Question,
| |
| − | USHMM, RG-11.001M.01, Reel 11, folder 790.
| |
| − | 129
| |
| − | away from. The booklet, Hinter der Maske der Freimaurerei (Behind the Mask of
| |
| − | Freemasonry), by Richard Hannuschka, made attacks on Freemasonry that also
| |
| − | challenged some of the core beliefs of Christianity.29 By associating with Freemasonry,
| |
| − | Hannuschka argued, Christians expose themselves and Germany to the communist
| |
| − | revolutions that the Jews wrought in Russia and Spain.30 Citing the Decree for the
| |
| − | Protection of the German Volk (February 4, 1933) the Gestapo charged that the booklet
| |
| − | was confusing in its content and would only serve to throw the public into disorder. The
| |
| − | Gestapo then seized all copies of the booklet and banned any further publication.
| |
| − | Accusing Jews and Freemasons of trying to dominate the world was one thing, but
| |
| − | attacking Christian doctrine along with it went too far.31
| |
| − | Naturally, the publisher, Oscar Krueger, resented the ban, claiming that the
| |
| − | booklet’s goal was to help the regime in its struggle against the Jewish-Masonic
| |
| − | conspiracy. Krueger not only claimed that the book’s contents derived from scientific
| |
| − | research, but the book has already received glowing reviews from scores of Nazi
| |
| − | newspapers including the Völkisher Beobachter. Krueger thus demanded to know the
| |
| − | exact reason for the ban and not just an appeal to a broad law. After signing the letter
| |
| − | Krueger tried to pull rank by adding a postscript, “Member of the Old Guard since
| |
| − | 1922,” and claiming that both Goebbels and Hitler could personally attest to his loyalty
| |
| − | 29 In the booklet, Hanuschka argued that the Jewish god, Jehovah, was not the God of the
| |
| − | Old Testament, the heavenly father of Jesus as believed in many Christian sects, but rather
| |
| − | Jehovah is the demon Schaddai, whom Christians identify as the devil. Without going into too
| |
| − | much detail, the title “God Almighty” in the Old Testament is sometimes translated from the
| |
| − | Hebrew “El Shaddai.” In Exodus 6:2-3, El Shaddai is named Jehovah. It is as ridiculous as it
| |
| − | sounds.
| |
| − | 30 Official note of protest, May 17, 1935, BArch R58/907 Fiche #3, 103-104 .
| |
| − | 31 Letter from Gestapo to Verlag Deutsche Kulturwacht, May 11, 1935, BArch R58/907
| |
| − | Fiche #3, 91.
| |
| − | 130
| |
| − | and service to the party.32 Kreuger even retained an attorney to argue the legality of the
| |
| − | ban, but after an exchange of letters the Gestapo reasserted its previous decision and the
| |
| − | ban remained.
| |
| − | In place of party hacks like Rosenberg, senile old men like Ludendorff, and
| |
| − | overzealous party members like Krueger the new research was based on the documents
| |
| − | confiscated in the early years of the regime and written by scholars and academics; men
| |
| − | who had credentials and respectability in the field of research and scholarship. As a
| |
| − | result Freemasonry became an entire field of academic study. Beginning in the late
| |
| − | 1930s and continuing until war’s end, Nazi scholars published papers, attended
| |
| − | conferences and symposia, and held lectures on the history and influence of
| |
| − | Freemasonry in Europe and the world.33 RSHA Section VII (Research and Analysis)
| |
| − | held its own conference on the Freemason Question in 1942.34 One of the first products
| |
| − | 32 Letter from the Verlag to the Gestapo, May 14, 1935; Official note of protest, May 17,
| |
| − | 1935; Issue of the Deutsche Buchvertreter, Nr. 7, Dec 1, 1934, review of the booklet, BArch
| |
| − | R58/907 Fiche #3, 97, 103-104, 142-143.
| |
| − | 33 Dr. Franz Six, for example, taught a university seminar during the 1938-1939 winter
| |
| − | semester on the history and development of Freemasonry, which the SD reported as well
| |
| − | attended both by students and visitors, some of whom were themselves former Freemasons, 1938
| |
| − | RSHA II 111 Situation Report, January 19, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 30.
| |
| − | The report did not specify at which university the seminar was held; In September of 1941 the
| |
| − | SD held one of its first new research conferences in Aachen. The conference invited SS and SD
| |
| − | “Church Specialists” to meet and discuss their research; one of the scheduled papers was “The
| |
| − | Present Problem of Freemasonry” by SS-Hauptsturmführer Kolrep, see Conferences, 1933,
| |
| − | calling for the financing of military training of SA from Ministry of Interior Funds, document
| |
| − | 1850-PS, Red Set, vol. IV, 478; On June 25-26, 1942, the RSHA hosted the Congress of
| |
| − | Scholarly Researchers of Amt VII, a conference designed to bring together all research specific
| |
| − | to Freemasonry since the founding of the RSHA in 1939. The special guest and keynote speaker
| |
| − | was Prof. Georg Franz, who recommended publishing the conference proceedings as an edited
| |
| − | volume. This collection, Quellen und Darstellungen zur Freimauerfrage, grew to over three
| |
| − | volumes. Franz also suggested holding a follow-up conference the following year Document
| |
| − | dated April 15, 1942, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 23, Folder 298.
| |
| − | 34 By 1942, research on Freemasonry proved useful in painting Freemasonry as the
| |
| − | reason for the reversal of Germany’s war fortunes, pointing to the United Nations as a fulfillment
| |
| − | 131
| |
| − | of the new scholarship was book published by Dieter Schwarz in 1938, Freimaurerei:
| |
| − | Weltanschauung, Organisation und Politik, which Dr. Franz hailed as the foundational
| |
| − | work of the new scholarship.35
| |
| − | When war began, confiscation of lodge property outside Germany progressed
| |
| − | under the direction of the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR – Special Staff of
| |
| − | Reich Leader Rosenberg) in conjunction with the Wehrmacht. The official purpose of
| |
| − | the ERR was to “explore” lodge archives and libraries in search of material that could
| |
| − | aid in the ideological education of the party as well as scientific research on
| |
| − | Freemasons.36 In the Netherlands, for example, in 1940 the ERR confiscated the
| |
| − | Biblioteca Klossiana, a large and famous library purchased by Prince Hendrik and
| |
| − | presented to the Freemasons as a gift at the turn of the 20th century.37 As a measure of
| |
| − | of Masonic internationalism, after all, both President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill
| |
| − | were Freemasons. After Italy fell in 1943, propaganda accused Mussolini of reaping what he
| |
| − | had sown in refusing to crush Freemasonry in Italy, and even accused him of being a Freemason,
| |
| − | see SD Information Report on the Freemason Question for April and May, as well as Franz’s
| |
| − | supplement, USHMM, RG-11.001M.01, Reel 11, Folder 790.
| |
| − | 35 Schwarz wrote his book as part of a series of general text to by used by the SS in
| |
| − | ideological education. It was first published in 1938 and went through a new edition every year
| |
| − | until the end of the war. Heydrich wrote the preface for the first edition. The copy I used was
| |
| − | the 1944 edition. Dieter Schwarz, Freimaurerei: Weltanschaung, Organisation und Politik
| |
| − | (Berlin: Central Publishing House of the NSDAP, 1944). Franz’s comment comes from an
| |
| − | addendum to the June 1944 Information Report, prepared Franz, who at the same time as his
| |
| − | appointment as a professor was also an Obersturmführer in the SS. USHMM, RG-11.001M.01,
| |
| − | Reel 11, folder 790.
| |
| − | 36 Hitler Order, 1 March 1942, establishing authority of Einsatzstab Rosenberg,
| |
| − | documents 149-PS and 136-PS, Red Set, vol. III, 184 and 190. Rosenberg’s official title in his
| |
| − | new capacity was “Commissioner for the Supervision of the Entire Spiritual and Philosophical
| |
| − | Indoctrination and Education of the NSDAP.”
| |
| − | 37 Josefina Leistra, “A Short History of Art Loss and Art Recovery in the Netherlands”
| |
| − | in The Spoils of War, ed. Elizabeth Simpson (New York: H.N. Abrams, 1997), 55. In “The Nazi
| |
| − | Attack on ‘Un-German-Literature,’ 1933-1945” in Jonathan Rose, ed. The Holocaust and the
| |
| − | Book: Destruction and Preservation (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001)
| |
| − | Leonidas E. Hill states that in addition to the Biblioteca Klossiana the libraries of ninety-two
| |
| − | Masonic lodges were also confiscated that same month, 30.
| |
| − | 132
| |
| − | its value the ERR pointed out that Freemasons in the United States had offered
| |
| − | $5,000,000 to purchase its collections.38 A letter from the ERR in the Netherlands to
| |
| − | Rosenberg in 1940, recounted the success of confiscations there, totaling 470 crates,
| |
| − | including hundreds of thousands of books that the ERR estimated to be worth between
| |
| − | 30 and 40 million Reichsmarks.39 Such a claim may sound a bit exaggerated, but
| |
| − | considering that Freemasonry itself was over 200 years old by the 1930s, and Masonic
| |
| − | libraries had books that dated back even further, the estimate seems less farfetched.40 By
| |
| − | 1941 the ERR had provided the Hohe Schule library with a half million volumes, all
| |
| − | confiscated and collectively worth a fortune. The seizure of lodge archives continued to
| |
| − | fuel the new research as it had in Germany.
| |
| − | Some property seized by the ERR served as both a source of wealth and anti-
| |
| − | Masonic education. The same report from the Netherlands mentioned a particular
| |
| − | acquisition: the Master-Hammer of the Grooten Oosten (Grand Orient), made of pure
| |
| − | gold, which some of its members had presented to the Grooten Oosten on its 60th
| |
| − | Anniversary. “It is a piece of high quality,” the report stated, “whose money-value alone
| |
| − | is estimated to be 3,000 RM.”41 Other ERR confiscations returned to pure wealthlooting.
| |
| − | A 1944 progress report of the ERR reported tremendous success with its recent
| |
| − | “M-Aktion;” The “M” stood for Möbel (furniture). The action was carried out in order
| |
| − | 38 Report on the Activities of the ERR in the Netherlands, document 176-PS, Red Set,
| |
| − | vol. III, 203.
| |
| − | 39 USHMM, RG 15.007M Reel 44, folder 554, has over 600 pages of lists of confiscated
| |
| − | books, organized by lodge. The lists are quite thorough, providing the title, author, publisher,
| |
| − | year and sometimes even the number of pages.
| |
| − | 40 Bormann letter to Rosenberg, document 176-PS, Red Set, vol. III, 184.
| |
| − | 41 Ibid.
| |
| − | 133
| |
| − | to help fight against Jews and Freemasons by “securing…all research material and the
| |
| − | cultural effects of the groups indicated and to dispatch them to Germany…for the
| |
| − | ideological instruction of the National Socialist Party.”42 It is difficult to understand
| |
| − | how tables, chairs and silverware could have contributed to the ideological instruction of
| |
| − | the party.
| |
| − | Some property was confiscated for entirely different reasons than generating
| |
| − | revenue or enhancing Nazi education. In the room Standart 159 had been renting, three
| |
| − | portraits adorned on of the walls; two of which depicted Kaiser Wilhelm I and King
| |
| − | Friedrich II, both in full Masonic regalia. But what really disturbed the men of Standart
| |
| − | 159 was the third picture that hung between the Kaisers; a portrait of the Führer. One
| |
| − | day the lodge brothers entered the lodge the day after an SA meeting took place and
| |
| − | found the Kaiser portraits flipped over to face the wall. The lodge complained to the
| |
| − | SA, arguing that such an act was disgraceful; after all, those men were Kaisers, the
| |
| − | “archetypes of love of the fatherland and honor.” At the next SA meeting the SA did not
| |
| − | flip the paintings; they simply took them. In place of the paintings the SA hung a note:
| |
| − | “Beware of hanging our Führer between two Freemasons again.”43 The lodge was
| |
| − | understandably outraged and wanted to recover the paintings, but without raising too
| |
| − | much of a fuss. The theft took place in April of 1934, long after the Nazi Party had
| |
| − | taken power. The lodge brothers knew that if they pushed the issue too much, perhaps
| |
| − | by going to the press, it might cause greater problems than a couple of stolen paintings.
| |
| − | 42 “Report of 8 August 1944, on confiscation up to 31 July 1944,” document L-188, Red
| |
| − | Set, vol. VII, 1022.
| |
| − | 43 Klussman to National Christian Order of Frederick the Great, April 20, 1934,
| |
| − | Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 134
| |
| − | In a letter to Prussian Minister-President Goering the lodges urged that the SA be
| |
| − | reprimanded, not only for stealing private property, but also for disgracing pictures of
| |
| − | the Kaisers. The whole matter, the letter argued, was shameful, so shameful in fact that
| |
| − | it really shouldn’t be brought to the attention of the public and could be resolved quietly,
| |
| − | “otherwise the foreign press might catch wind of it and harm Germany’s image.”44 This
| |
| − | may have been a subtle threat by the lodge, but with the Nazis securely in power is was
| |
| − | more than likely that the lodges simply wanted their paintings back with a guarantee that
| |
| − | the SA wouldn’t steal anything else, while at the same time recognizing that they were
| |
| − | not exactly in a position to make such demands.
| |
| − | Goering’s response was as brief as it was definitive: “The actions of the SA men
| |
| − | were, naturally, not to be seen as disdain for the Kaisers, but meant as a reactions against
| |
| − | an undeserving portrayal of these men.” Goering continued, stating that everyone knew
| |
| − | Freemasonry was a shady organization, so when SA men saw the Führer flanked by
| |
| − | Freemasons, of course they got angry, especially considering the Fuehrer’s well-known
| |
| − | opinion of Freemasonry. “It would have been better,” Goering concluded, “if the lodge
| |
| − | had just said nothing at all.”45 Goering had just rejected the lodge’s request, but also let
| |
| − | them know that he would turn a blind eye to any further problems. The only real action
| |
| − | taken as a result of this incident was a reprimand from the RUSchlA to the SA chastising
| |
| − | the SA for being stupid enough to rent rooms from Reichsfeinde.46 The SA would never
| |
| − | consider renting a synagogue for its meetings, so why did it rent a Masonic lodge?
| |
| − | 44 Drei Weltkugeln to Goering, April 23, 1934, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 45 Goering to drei Weltkugeln, May 4,1934, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 46 USCHLA in house letter, August 18, 1933, Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 135
| |
| − | Some lodges were temporarily confiscated for their own “protection.” An SD
| |
| − | report from 1934 asserted that the excitement over the seizure of power had led overzealous
| |
| − | party members in Mecklenberg, Schlesien and Schleiswig-Holstein to commit
| |
| − | “excesses” against local lodge buildings, a sort of Kristallnacht, but for Freemasons.
| |
| − | The police, therefore, “temporarily [took] over the building” to prevent further attacks.
| |
| − | The report was quick to state, however, that the building was returned shortly
| |
| − | thereafter.47
| |
| − | Though to modern readers the thought of Nazi “protective custody” is like hiring
| |
| − | the wolf to guard the sheep, some lodge meisters genuinely believed it. After all, the
| |
| − | Nazis were the government, and government would never just steal something. Wilhelm
| |
| − | Ludwig, who served as the lodge representative during the closure of his lodge, thought
| |
| − | that the material was being taken by the police for temporary safekeeping until the
| |
| − | liquidation was complete, at which point the property would be returned. When the
| |
| − | property was not returned Ludwig sent a letter to the police expressing his confusion
| |
| − | because, he thought, the Old Prussian lodges lay outside the various decrees against
| |
| − | Freemasonry, since they had converted into Christian Orders.48
| |
| − | With the government and police against them the lodges had little avenues left
| |
| − | open in trying to keep their property from being seized. There were, however, a few
| |
| − | alternatives to letting lodge property fall into Nazi hands. The most obvious method of
| |
| − | denying the Nazis their prize was to send it away, outside the reach of the government.
| |
| − | 47 RFSS-SD Situation report, May-June, 1934, BArch R58/229.
| |
| − | 48 Protest letter from Wilhelm Ludwig to Düsseldorf police, March 12, 1935, BArch
| |
| − | R58/6140a, 172.
| |
| − | 136
| |
| − | The Humanitarian lodge, Sun, packed up its records and shipped them off to the Grand
| |
| − | Orient of the Netherlands. The drei Weltkugeln sent some of its records to a daughter
| |
| − | lodge in Danzig, and the SGvD sent some of its records to France. The Große
| |
| − | Landesloge began sending documents abroad in 1932, before the Nazis even came to
| |
| − | power. Most of the records sent abroad, however, still ended up in Nazi hands once war
| |
| − | broke out and these countries fell under German control.49
| |
| − | A more drastic way to keep property out of Nazi hands was to simply destroy it.
| |
| − | The lodges never destroyed furniture, art or buildings, but many lodges burned or
| |
| − | otherwise destroyed their records before the police could confiscate them and use them
| |
| − | to track down lodge members.50 Overzealous police and party members exacerbated the
| |
| − | problem by destroying lodge archives and libraries, thinking they were doing Germany a
| |
| − | service by removing documents and books tainted by Masonic ideology. Destruction of
| |
| − | ideological property at the hands of the Nazis themselves became such a problem that
| |
| − | the government sent letters to party, police and other government leaders demanding that
| |
| − | the destruction of property stop and reminding them of the previously issued regulations
| |
| − | regarding seized records.51
| |
| − | Some lodge members tried to protect lodge property by hiding it. A lodge in
| |
| − | Münster buried many of its artifacts because they had once been the property of the
| |
| − | 49 The situation of Freemasonry after the taking of power by National Socialism author
| |
| − | unknown, no date, BArch R58/6167 part 1.
| |
| − | 50 Lodges kept detailed records of member’s names, addresses, occupations, Masonic
| |
| − | degrees, and lodge offices. Since lodge membership was not something that was recorded on
| |
| − | official identification papers (like religion), these lists were one of the few ways the regime
| |
| − | could identify current and former Freemasons. Workplan for SGvD lodge Landmerken in
| |
| − | Breslau, March and April, GStA 5.1.11, Nr. 27 – Lodge meeting minutes.
| |
| − | 51 Bavarian Political Police to police and government, January 28, 1935 Schumacher,
| |
| − | T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 137
| |
| − | famous Marshall Blücher, who had once been master of the Munster lodge. When the
| |
| − | war ended Brother E. Barrs, the man who buried the artifacts, dug them up and offered
| |
| − | them to a group of English Masons on occupying duty. The Canadian Army was using
| |
| − | metal detectors to search the city for hidden caches of weapons and Brother Barrs didn’t
| |
| − | know what might happen to the artifacts if they were discovered in that way. Ironically,
| |
| − | after years of hiding the artifacts from confiscation by one group, the lodge had to give
| |
| − | them away to prevent confiscation by another.52
| |
| − | Some property, like furniture and lodge buildings, was simply too big to bury and
| |
| − | members tried to deny the Nazis their prize by selling buildings and property to lodge
| |
| − | members. The buildings were put up for general sale, but to keep it within the circle of
| |
| − | brothers the asking price for a former member was significantly lower than the price
| |
| − | required of non-Mason buyers. The lodges claimed that the lower prices for former
| |
| − | members were in order to settle debts with members by deducting the amount owed
| |
| − | from the asking price. The Gestapo feared, and rightly so, that if the lodge remained in
| |
| − | the hands of former brothers it could still be used to carry on Masonic meetings in secret.
| |
| − | To combat this the government required reports on all current and future buyers of
| |
| − | confiscated Freemasonic property. Anyone with close ties to the lodge would be denied
| |
| − | the ability to make the purchase.53
| |
| − | 52 Leo Maris, “English Freemasonry in Germany 1921-1929, 1945-1971”, Ars Quatour
| |
| − | Coronatorum vol. 83 (1970), 277.
| |
| − | 53 Bavarian Political Police to local police and government, October 30, 1935; Bavarian
| |
| − | Political Police to police following up on October 30 letter, November 15, 1935. Both letters
| |
| − | from Schumacher, T580, 267 I.
| |
| − | 138
| |
| − | To try and skirt this new law the Zum Friedenstempel lodge in Stettin sold their
| |
| − | lodge building to a completely non-affiliated business. That way even though the lodge
| |
| − | lost its building it could at least benefit from the sale and deny the Nazis both the
| |
| − | building and the money from selling it. Unfortunately the Nazis responded with their
| |
| − | own loophole, stating that the sale was invalid since it was completed after the lodge’s
| |
| − | closure, and organizations that no longer exist cannot conduct business. The party then
| |
| − | re-confiscated the lodge and put it up for sale themselves.54
| |
| − | The closing of Alexius zur Beständigkeit in Bernberg provides a good example of
| |
| − | everything involved in lodge closures from property seizure and Masonic salvage
| |
| − | attempts to inter-party fighting and police corruption. Alexius was a daughter lodge of
| |
| − | the drei Weltkugeln. In May of 1935 it closed down and a few weeks later the lodge
| |
| − | property was inventoried and taken to the town hall where it was sealed in the cellar and
| |
| − | turned over to the Gestapo. Trouble arose when two of the police officials overseeing
| |
| − | the confiscation, Albert Bornemann and Arno Heilmann, were found entering the sealed
| |
| − | room without authorization.
| |
| − | The man who discovered them entering the sealed room, SS-Oberscharführer
| |
| − | Willi Grosse, accused the two of stealing lodge property either for themselves or for a
| |
| − | third party. The two men claimed they were only trying to “put things in order.” Both
| |
| − | men had “questionable” political histories, and Heilmann had even come under
| |
| − | suspicion before for looting during the liquidation of another lodge. Furthermore, the
| |
| − | 54 USHMM, Record Group 11.001M.04, “Records of the Gestapo in Stettin,” Reel 72,
| |
| − | folder 310.
| |
| − | 139
| |
| − | day after the incident, Heilmann was seen “engrossed in conversation” with a former
| |
| − | member of Alexius.55
| |
| − | As for the property in question, Bornemann said that he had “borrowed” three
| |
| − | books from those confiscated, which he returned in short order. The greater question,
| |
| − | however, involved the fate of a set of champagne glasses that had also gone missing,
| |
| − | along with a page of the confiscation inventory report. The missing material and
| |
| − | Heilmann’s conversation with the former lodge member led the SS to suspect that
| |
| − | Heilmann had made some kind deal to retrieve the glasses. Police Chief Ernst Faust
| |
| − | suspected that the glasses belonged to some secret lodge ritual that the lodge didn’t want
| |
| − | to see discovered (perhaps the notorious “blood ritual” that Himmler was so sure
| |
| − | existed).56
| |
| − | The investigation reached a rather anti-climactic conclusion. The surviving
| |
| − | documents are vague but suggest the glasses in question were the personal property of a
| |
| − | lodge member and were only being used by the lodge at the time of the liquidation. The
| |
| − | owner of the glasses had made an arrangement, at least with Heilmann, to retrieve them
| |
| − | from the town hall. Bornenmann’s roll in the whole affair was secondary, if he even
| |
| − | knew at all. The final report, written almost a year after the initial liquidation, declared
| |
| − | 55 Letter from Oberabschnitt Mitte of the Security Main Office of the RFSS to the SD
| |
| − | Main Office in Berlin, November 1935; Report regarding Alexius, November 3, 1935; Grosse
| |
| − | Statement, November 3, 1935; Explanation of the political dependency of both men (sent as
| |
| − | enclosure to letter from Oberabschnitt Mitte); Statement of city worker Karl Polland, November
| |
| − | 4, 1935; Memo regarding the Bornemann, Heilmann case, October 26, 1935; Grosse Statement,
| |
| − | November 3, 1935, BArch R58/6103a part 1, pgs. 8, 11, 13, 9, 15, 28, 13.
| |
| − | 56 Statement of Policehauptwachtmeister Ernst Faust, November 3, 1935, BArch
| |
| − | R58/6103a, part 1, 14.
| |
| − | 140
| |
| − | that “the handing over of the glasses was in complete accordance,” concluding that there
| |
| − | was no reason for further investigation.57
| |
| − | While the investigation over the missing glasses was going on the lodge building
| |
| − | itself presented another problem. It was a large, beautiful, two-floored structure with a
| |
| − | large conference room (the former temple), numerous offices, a library and manicured
| |
| − | garden (Fig. A7). The interior was no less richly furnished, containing all the furniture
| |
| − | one might expect in an elite social club (see Fig. A8). It even had a pool table.58 After
| |
| − | closure the city assumed ownership of the lodge.59 The Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF –
| |
| − | German Workers Front), the sprawling Nazi labor organization, expressed interest in the
| |
| − | building, but among the liquidation documents was a stack of short letters from local
| |
| − | citizens, addressed either to the party or the DAF, asking that the lodge be turned over to
| |
| − | someone else, most of them suggesting the SS.60
| |
| − | At first glance, the nearly seventy-five letters in the stack suggest that the
| |
| − | community was quite happy about the lodge closure and eager to see the building put to
| |
| − | the use of the National Socialist movement, after reading through the letters, however
| |
| − | one finds that most of the letters are carbon copies of each other and derive from five or
| |
| − | six templates, changing only the name of the sender. It is difficult to say definitively
| |
| − | what was happening, but since none of the letters are addressed to the SS, and the
| |
| − | 57 Letter from political police commander to political police in Dessau regarding the
| |
| − | confiscation of property from Alexius zur Beständigkeit, April 1, 1936, BArch R58/6103a, part 1,
| |
| − | 3.
| |
| − | 58 The confiscation inventory listed a billiard table and all the associated paraphernalia in
| |
| − | the first truckload. BArch R58/6103a, part 1, 93.
| |
| − | 59 Report on the confiscation of archive, library and other property of Alexius, no date,
| |
| − | BArch R58/6103a, part 1, 32.
| |
| − | 60 BArch R58/6103a, part 1, pages 49-85 contain the letters, averaging two letters per
| |
| − | microfilm page.
| |
| − | 141
| |
| − | majority suggest turning the building over to the SS, it appears that the SS was trying to
| |
| − | organize some kind of scheme to convince the DAF and party that the public wanted the
| |
| − | building turned over to them.
| |
| − | If this was the case, whoever was in charge of organizing the campaign, made a
| |
| − | mess of it. It made sense to send two identical letters, one to the DAF and one to the
| |
| − | party and indeed for each letter template there was one copy sent to the NSDAP and one
| |
| − | to the DAF. But the while the party received a single copy of one template it received
| |
| − | three copies of another. For another template the party and DAF received three copies
| |
| − | each! The letters were very brief, often only a couple sentences, and it seems difficult to
| |
| − | imagine that the recipient would not notice the exact same letter arriving from so many
| |
| − | “different” authors, especially considering most the letters were dated within two days of
| |
| − | each other.
| |
| − | Within the numerous copies, however, are a dozen or so unique letters that are
| |
| − | often longer than the templates. Some of these seemingly authentic letters advocate
| |
| − | turning the building over to the SS, but other suggest making it into a school, an
| |
| − | Hitlerjugend office, or simply say it should be turned over to the party. Whether the SS
| |
| − | included these distinct letters to lend an air of authenticity to the campaign, or whether
| |
| − | these longer letters were also templates of which additional copies didn’t survive is
| |
| − | unclear. The whole fiasco, however, demonstrates the kind of inter-party competition
| |
| − | for seized buildings that follow lodge liquidations.
| |
| − | The forced closing of the lodges and the subsequent seizure of lodge property
| |
| − | was a mix of greed and ideology, though definitely more the former than the latter. By
| |
| − | 142
| |
| − | seizing assets, and allowing the public to benefit from the confiscations through public
| |
| − | auctions and sales, the government not only alleviated its financial burden at the expense
| |
| − | of its enemies, but it also helped to gain support from the general public. Individuals
| |
| − | and groups benefitted by being able to purchase furniture, buildings, and pieces of art
| |
| − | that they otherwise may not have been able to afford, with the “legality” of the seizures
| |
| − | helping to assuage any guilt that may have pricked the benefactor’s conscience.
| |
| − | More importantly what was confiscated isn’t as significant as what wasn’t.
| |
| − | While the Nazis swarmed all over the wealth and property of Freemasonry like a pack of
| |
| − | vultures, not once did the party go after the private property of individual Freemasons.
| |
| − | In fact, looking at the case of Bernberg, an individual was able to recover his private
| |
| − | property after the lodge had been seized and locked up. The brother thought he would
| |
| − | have to recover his champagne glasses on the sly, but at the end of the investigation the
| |
| − | SS concluded that there was nothing wrong with the man simply recovering what was
| |
| − | his.
| |
| − | Property seizure played a key role in Nazi Germany. It funded wars, stabilized
| |
| − | the economy and generated public support. Freemasons had one foot on each side of the
| |
| − | equation; they were members of a demographic from which the regime needed support,
| |
| − | but also members of a demographic that offered a tempting target for Nazi plunder. By
| |
| − | confiscating lodge property, but leaving the wealth of individual Freemasons alone, the
| |
| − | regime was able to steal millions of dollars worth of cash, property and real estate, but
| |
| − | avoid turning the individual Freemasons into angry or bitter citizens.
| |
| − | 143
| |
| − | Gisela Wolters-Sajn, a Jewish child who hid under a false identity for much of
| |
| − | the 1930s, lived with a couple in Berlin as a refugee. She does not disclose their names,
| |
| − | but identifies the couple as part of the city’s elite with the husband being a Freemason.
| |
| − | Gisela recalled that after the Nazis closed down and destroyed the local lodge, they tried
| |
| − | to go after him directly, but his social standing as one of the city’s elite made it
| |
| − | impossible for the Nazis to touch him.61 As a Freemason he was a target; as a citizen he
| |
| − | was not.
| |
| − | 61 Wolters-Sajn, Gisela. Interview code 32275. Visual History Archive. USC Shoah
| |
| − | Foundation Institute. Accessed online at the USHMM on August 4, 2009.
| |
| − | 144
| |
| − | CHAPTER VI
| |
| − | THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. SCHACHT AND MR. HITLER
| |
| − | Robert Louis Stevenson’s famous short story, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and
| |
| − | Mr. Hyde, tells the tale of Henry Jekyll, a brilliant doctor who makes a Faustian bargain
| |
| − | out of a desire to do good for himself and mankind. As the story progresses, Jekyll
| |
| − | struggles more and more to contain Hyde, but learns that it is impossible. In the end,
| |
| − | Jekyll has to sacrifice himself in order to destroy Hyde.
| |
| − | Jekyll’s story is similar to that of Hjalmar Schacht, a Freemason and one of the
| |
| − | central figures of the Third Reich. Like Jekyll, Schacht collaborated with Hitler out of a
| |
| − | desire to restore Germany to its former glory, as well as serve Schacht’s own ambition.
| |
| − | In fact, Freemasonry and National Socialism are a Jekyll-and-Hyde of German
| |
| − | nationalism. Men flocked to both groups in hopes of gaining social status and furthering
| |
| − | their own ambitions, as well as out of patriotism. Both organizations sought the
| |
| − | betterment of Germany, but their means placed them at odds. Freemasonry improved
| |
| − | the nation through the individual; Nazism improved the individual through the nation.
| |
| − | Freemasons viewed Nazis as uneducated ruffians, while Nazis saw Freemasons as
| |
| − | Jewish puppets. Freemasonry saw education, humanitarianism and philanthropy as the
| |
| − | key to national health and improvement; National Socialism saw race and eugenics as
| |
| − | that same key.
| |
| − | If Hitler is the Hyde of German nationalism, Hjalmar Schacht qualifies as Jekyll.
| |
| − | Initially, Schacht viewed the party with contempt, but near the end of the 1920s, after
| |
| − | 145
| |
| − | Germany adopted the Young Plan, Schacht began to see the NSDAP as a party with the
| |
| − | right goals but the wrong methods and began sending out feelers to Hitler. After the
| |
| − | seizure of power, Schacht became a part of the Third Reich, serving in key government
| |
| − | positions and furthering his own career at the same time he was rebuilding his shattered
| |
| − | country. With Schacht’s help, Hitler gained the support of German big business, and
| |
| − | more importantly, Schacht provided Hitler with the money he needed for rearmament;
| |
| − | however, like Jekyll, Schacht learned that the monster he had unleashed could not be
| |
| − | tamed or controlled, leading to Schacht’s complete turn against the party and eventual
| |
| − | imprisonment for conspiring to overthrow it.
| |
| − | Hjalmar Schacht’s life and relationship to both the lodges and the party provide
| |
| − | an individual case study of middle-class German Freemasonry and its response to
| |
| − | National Socialism. Of course, Schacht went on to become much more than average, but
| |
| − | by the establishment of the Weimar Republic he was known and respected, but had yet
| |
| − | to become the “Old Wizard.” As a nationalist, educated, successful, middle-class
| |
| − | Protestant, Schacht personified the demographics of the Old Prussian lodges.1 He
| |
| − | embraced liberalism, but still maintain a healthy respect and desire for monarchy.
| |
| − | Schacht also had a twinge of anti-Semitism in him, which was shared by other Old
| |
| − | Prussian Freemasons. Through Schacht we will be able to see the many facets of the
| |
| − | history between he regime and the lodges; motivation through self-interest mixed with
| |
| − | 1 By the late 18th century, especially in Germany, most lodge members were middle and
| |
| − | upper-middle class. Initially the aristocracy played a large part in the lodges, and in France even
| |
| − | some on the social fringes joined. See Hoffman, Politics of Sociability, 20-21 and Jacob, Living
| |
| − | the Enlightenment, 8. As for Schacht’s nationalism, all of his biographers, and the Military
| |
| − | Tribunal at Nuremberg for that matter, believed Schacht when he said his actions were always
| |
| − | motivated by his desire for a stronger Germany, not because of National Socialist ideology.
| |
| − | 146
| |
| − | nationalism, flexibility in party policy enforcement, and the willingness of Freemason to
| |
| − | readily abandon a fraternity they loved so much. When Schacht began working for the
| |
| − | government he did so out of an honest belief that the Nazis were in the best interests
| |
| − | both of the nation, and of his own personal career. To his credit, Schacht never joined
| |
| − | the party, yet received honors and promotions, one after the other until his falling out
| |
| − | with Hitler in the late 1930s.
| |
| − | Though Hjalmar Schacht may have ended up an exceptional case of a former
| |
| − | Freemason in the Third Reich he certainly didn’t start out that way. In fact, a brief look
| |
| − | at his childhood and upbringing reveal that he trod the very same middle-class road
| |
| − | many other Freemasons did, making him a suitable case study. He was almost born an
| |
| − | American citizen. When Schacht’s mother, Constance von Eggers, became pregnant
| |
| − | with the future financial wizard both she and her husband, William Schacht, lived in
| |
| − | New York City. Schacht’s two older brothers were born American citizens, and even
| |
| − | Schacht’s father took American citizenship.2 Schacht’s full name, Hjalmar Horace
| |
| − | Greely Schacht, is indeed in tribute to the American Newspaper man and politician
| |
| − | whose interest in politics arose ironically, over the issue of currency and financial reform
| |
| − | in the United States following the chaos of the Civil War. Hjalmar Schacht, like his
| |
| − | namesake, advocated major currency reform in the wake of a disastrous conflict.
| |
| − | William lived in New York for several years, during which time he applauded the liberal
| |
| − | 2 Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal,
| |
| − | Nurember, 14 November 1945 – 1 October 1946 (Nuremberg, Germany: The Tribunal, 1947-
| |
| − | 1949), vol. XII, 417. These records are also referred to as the Blue Set and will be hereafter
| |
| − | referred to as such. The entire Blue Set can be found online line at the Avalon Project at Yale
| |
| − | Law School, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp, accessed January 13, 2011.
| |
| − | 147
| |
| − | philosophies of Horace Greely, and taught them to his children. Schacht recalled, “My
| |
| − | father, throughout his life, adhered to democratic ideals. He was a Freemason. He was a
| |
| − | cosmopolitan… I grew up among these ideas and I have never departed from these basic
| |
| − | conceptions of freemasonry and democracy and humanitarian and cosmopolitan ideals.”3
| |
| − | The family intended on staying the United States, but the pregnancy, coupled
| |
| − | with other health problems and the family’s longing to see Germany again, led William
| |
| − | to take the family back to Europe where Schacht was born on January 22, 1877, in the
| |
| − | town of Tinglev in Schleswig-Holstein. In his memoirs, Schacht repeatedly refers to the
| |
| − | poverty under which his parents struggled, claiming that the family’s finances were
| |
| − | tenuous for a long time after the marriage. At the same time, however, the brief family
| |
| − | history Schacht provides suggests that what he considered “poor” would have been quite
| |
| − | acceptable by other’s standards. His father’s side of the family did indeed come from
| |
| − | peasant stock along the German-Denmark border, but Schacht readily admitted that there
| |
| − | was an old saying about his family; “A Dithmarschen peasant thinks he’s a peasant!
| |
| − | He’s much more like a country squire.”4 Schacht’s great grandfather broke with family
| |
| − | tradition and became a shopkeeper, earning enough money to send his son (Schacht’s
| |
| − | grandfather) to college where he became a doctor. By the time William was born, the
| |
| − | family had, in Schacht’s words, “outgrown the peasant class.”5
| |
| − | As for Schacht’s mother, she came from the aristocracy. At the time of the
| |
| − | marriage her uncle was the Baron von Eggers. William Schacht must therefore have
| |
| − | 3 Blue Set, vol. XII, 419.
| |
| − | 4 Schacht, Confessions of the “Old Wizard,” 7.
| |
| − | 5 Ibid, 19.
| |
| − | 148
| |
| − | been more than a common peasant to be able to marry a woman of noble birth. Schacht
| |
| − | claimed that a few generations prior to his mother’s birth a foolish relative squandered
| |
| − | the family fortune, leaving little more to pass on than the hereditary “von.” At the same
| |
| − | time, when she travelled to America to marry William she travelled first class and in the
| |
| − | company of a maidservant. When she arrived, Constance and William enjoyed a
| |
| − | “perfectly ordinary middle-class marriage.”6
| |
| − | Upon returning to Germany, William worked in a number of different jobs. He
| |
| − | worked at different times as a schoolteacher, journalist, newspaper editor, factory
| |
| − | manager and bookkeeper; however, Schacht’s mother, worked in a shop to supplement
| |
| − | the family income. Having both parents working certainly lends credence to Schacht’s
| |
| − | assertion that his family struggled financially, but Schacht drops other hints that suggest
| |
| − | otherwise. The family income not only paid the rent and put food on the table (of which
| |
| − | Schacht said there was always plenty), the family could afford to send Schacht’s oldest
| |
| − | brother, and eventually Schacht too, to the Johanneum, a grammar school in Hamburg
| |
| − | that Schacht boasted was the finest in Hamburg and “famous throughout Germany.”7
| |
| − | Additionally, Schacht fondly remembers that his father was able to devote every evening
| |
| − | to teaching and playing with his children. A family that can afford the necessities of life,
| |
| − | education expenses, and still have time in the evenings, can’t be as “poor” as Schacht
| |
| − | claimed. When Schacht was eight his father got a new job with an insurance company
| |
| − | that he would keep for the next thirty years, retiring as the General Secretary of the
| |
| − | Berlin Office. They moved to a new part of Hamburg, staying in a building with “better
| |
| − | 6 Ibid, 2.
| |
| − | 7 Ibid, 29.
| |
| − | 149
| |
| − | class tenants” and furnishing their “sparse” flat with glass front bookcases, wall
| |
| − | paintings and lots of books. By the time Schacht began at the Johanneum the family was
| |
| − | doing just fine.8
| |
| − | At school, Schacht excelled at his studies, and though his family was on sound
| |
| − | financial footing he remembers that he was not allowed to join the sailing and rowing
| |
| − | clubs, which were reserved for the student from more elite backgrounds. So while he
| |
| − | was certainly not poor, he was also not elite, at least not yet. Perhaps his exclusion from
| |
| − | the school’s prestigious clubs left a bad taste in Schacht’s mouth, for in his adult years,
| |
| − | after establishing himself as a banker, we will see that Schacht showed particular
| |
| − | displeasure at being excluded from another elite club.
| |
| − | Throughout his schooling Schacht continued to take after those of his father.
| |
| − | Schacht considered himself a liberal and hoped that one day soon educated middle-class
| |
| − | men like he and his father would have chances at jobs that were at the time open only to
| |
| − | those of aristocratic privilege. When the Year of the Three Emperor’s witnessed the
| |
| − | quick death of Frederick III, Schacht lamented the emperor’s passing as the last real
| |
| − | opportunity for liberal reform (as well as the end of royal patronage for the lodges).
| |
| − | From that time until the end of WWI, Schacht referred to Germany’s liberals as a “lost
| |
| − | generation…sound enough in theory but in practice seldom have large numbers.”9 For
| |
| − | 8 When he was 15 (1892), Schacht purchased a bicycle for 250 marks, a sum that “not so
| |
| − | long since my mother had kept house for more than a month.” Schacht, Confessions of the “Old
| |
| − | Wizard,” 48. Although Schacht doesn’t specify whether “kept house” meant total income, or
| |
| − | simply the cost of monthly expenses, but either way it meant the family lived on an income
| |
| − | somewhere between 1,500 and 3,000 marks a year. In 1905, almost a decade later, the average
| |
| − | German famer earned around 550 marks a year, industrial workers almost 1,000, see A. V.
| |
| − | Desai, Real Wages in Germany, 1871-1914, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968).
| |
| − | 9 Schacht, Confessions of the “Old Wizard,” 33-34.
| |
| − | 150
| |
| − | Schacht, liberalism was the logical choice for an industrializing nation. Once when
| |
| − | speaking of his uncle, Schacht called him “one of those strictly logical sensible folk who
| |
| − | find it hard to understand that people do not always act according to reason,” continuing
| |
| − | with “as a result he belong to the Liberal political party.”10 Despite Schacht’s political
| |
| − | liberalism he still revered the monarchy; a trend maintained by most German
| |
| − | Freemasons. Schacht recalled the time he saw (not met, just saw), Emperor Wilhelm II,
| |
| − | and recalled being totally awestruck, exclaiming that the aura and majesty of the
| |
| − | emperor made a permanent impression on his mind. Schacht reacted similarly when first
| |
| − | saw the Iron Chancellor (again, not meeting, just seeing).
| |
| − | After completing his primary schooling, Schacht’s stellar performance on his
| |
| − | exams virtually guaranteed that he would be able to attend a university. While in
| |
| − | college, Schacht belonged to the group of students who got to enjoy their college years,
| |
| − | his father being able to provide him with a “modest monthly allowance.”11 During his
| |
| − | college career, Schacht attended five different universities all over the country in as
| |
| − | many years and changed major every term for his first seven terms, jumping from
| |
| − | medicine to literature, journalism and finally settling on economics. As one of his
| |
| − | optional subjects he chose to study Hebrew. Years later he and his family often joked
| |
| − | that Hebrew was a useful language to learn for one planning on embarking on a career in
| |
| − | banking and finance.
| |
| − | Schacht’s allowance must have been more than just modest, for his recollections
| |
| − | of college are full of picnics, drinking and dating rather than comments about the rigors
| |
| − | 10 Ibid, 33.
| |
| − | 11 Ibid, 52.
| |
| − | 151
| |
| − | of studying or working. Part of that can be attributed to his extraordinary intelligence,
| |
| − | but his extracurricular “activities” suggest more. While pursuing journalism he
| |
| − | interrupted his studies for a year to work at a small newspaper in Berlin as an unpaid
| |
| − | assistant; again living off his allowance. Schacht took another year off later to spend a
| |
| − | year in Paris because he wanted to learn French and attend lectures at the College Libre
| |
| − | des Sciences Social; again “arrang[ing] for my allowance.”12
| |
| − | As a hobby, Schacht dabbled in poetry and literature and wrote on and off for the
| |
| − | rest of his life. He never joined a Korps, but did become a member of the Academic and
| |
| − | Literary Union, which “fought no duels, but gave me satisfaction.”13 Schacht never says
| |
| − | that he was unable to join any of the prestigious clubs, like during his days in the
| |
| − | Johanneum, but his comment about the literary society above suggests that lack of
| |
| − | membership was due more to desire than ability.
| |
| − | After returning from his sojourn in Paris, Schacht went to Kiel to pursue his
| |
| − | doctorate in political economy, completing his thesis on English economics a year later.
| |
| − | After graduation, Schacht took a job with the Central Office for the Preparation of Trade
| |
| − | Agreements, the only job, Schacht points out, to which he ever applied. Every job he
| |
| − | held thereafter came by way of invitation. To feed his writing hobby (and supplement
| |
| − | his 100 mark per month income), Schacht wrote articles on economics for the Prussian
| |
| − | Year Book. In 1901 he transferred to the Handelsvertragsverein (Assoc. for Mercantile
| |
| − | Contracts), which put him in direct, daily contact with the most powerful bankers and
| |
| − | businessmen in the country. Part of job included editing the association’s bulletin and so
| |
| − | 12 Ibid, 67.
| |
| − | 13 Ibid, 58.
| |
| − | 152
| |
| − | Schacht felt it prudent to join the Berlin Press Union. Schacht declined an offer to run
| |
| − | for a position in the Reichstag, stating that he had little interest in party politics;
| |
| − | however, at the same time he served on the committee of the Young Liberals
| |
| − | Association, an auxiliary of the National Liberal Party.
| |
| − | His time at the Handelsvertragsverein really set his career in motion. In addition
| |
| − | to business contacts, Schacht shrewd business sense was earning him an annual salary of
| |
| − | 6,000 marks a year in addition to the 2,000 marks a year he earned publishing articles on
| |
| − | economics. In 1903 he accepted an offer with the Dresdener Bank (he was also courted
| |
| − | by AEG and Siemens), becoming a branch manager at the age of 32. The year before his
| |
| − | promotion, Schacht became a Freemason, joining the lodge Urania zur Unsterblichkeit
| |
| − | (a daughter lodge of Royal York zur Freundschaft) in Berlin. Schacht cited tradition as
| |
| − | his primary reason for joining. “Freemasonry runs in my family,” he stated, “my father
| |
| − | belonged to an American Lodge. My great-grandfather, Christian Ulrich Detlev von
| |
| − | Eggers, was one of the Masonic notables of the Age of Enlightenment.”14 While
| |
| − | Schacht claimed he joined out of tradition, one can’t help but notice that he joined the
| |
| − | lodges shortly after making the acquaintances of some very powerful men, and being
| |
| − | well on his way to becoming one himself. Schacht admitted that he was a very
| |
| − | ambitious man, but never hinted that his membership in the lodge was a doorway to, or
| |
| − | acknowledgement of, that ambition. Still, he had learned during his days in grammar
| |
| − | school and college the relationship between club membership and social status. When
| |
| − | his grammar school rowing club denied him membership it was because he was on the
| |
| − | 14 Ibid, 105.
| |
| − | 153
| |
| − | lower half of the social order. By his thirtieth birthday, and his joining the lodges, he
| |
| − | had climbed to the upper half.
| |
| − | Schacht’s connections with Freemasonry led to other associations. As an
| |
| − | administrator in one of the three “Big D” German banks, Schacht travelled all over the
| |
| − | world as a financial consultant. Even Chiang Kai Shek requested a consultation.15 On a
| |
| − | trip to Turkey, Schacht’s lodge provided him with the name of a Turkish Masonic
| |
| − | contact, in case Schacht wanted to attend a lodge meeting during his stay. Schacht made
| |
| − | the acquaintance of this brother and other Turkish Freemasons, who told him “all of the
| |
| − | Young Turks were Freemasons and their secret meetings took place under the protection
| |
| − | of the Lodge – the only place where they were safe from spies.”16 After returning from
| |
| − | the trip, Schacht and the two men from the bank who accompanied him founded a
| |
| − | German-Turkish Society, adding another club to Schacht’s already substantial list of
| |
| − | memberships.
| |
| − | When WWI broke out an army doctor rejected Schacht as medically unfit for
| |
| − | service due to “acute myopia;” however, Schacht still served the war effort as an
| |
| − | administrator in the Banking Commission for Occupied Belgium. During his time in
| |
| − | Belgium there was an incident that demonstrates Schacht’s attitudes toward exclusivity
| |
| − | and his own place within exclusive society. One evening, Schacht tried to enter the
| |
| − | Officer’s Club for an evening drink and was refused on the grounds that, while an
| |
| − | 15 Shek to Schacht, no date, Hoover Institution of War and Peace, Hjalmar Schacht
| |
| − | Private Papers, collection 73009.
| |
| − | 16 Schacht, Confessions of the “Old Wizard, 105-106. Schacht recounted the incident in
| |
| − | his memoirs for two reasons; first as an amusing anecdote, but more importantly as a comparison
| |
| − | to show the reader that the Old Prussian lodges “supported the idea of the preservation of the
| |
| − | state through the monarchy.”
| |
| − | 154
| |
| − | occupational administrator, he was still a civilian. Schacht became very bitter about the
| |
| − | incident, blasting the officer’s corps in his memoir for clinging so tenaciously to its
| |
| − | exclusiveness. Remember, in college, Schacht was excluded from joining the elite
| |
| − | rowing and sailing clubs, which he merely brushed off. That, however, was when
| |
| − | Schacht still hailed from the lower middle-class. In 1915, however, Schacht was a much
| |
| − | bigger fish, and not about to let military snobbery exclude him. Schacht went over the
| |
| − | heads of the officers at the club, contacting the Governor General, Colmar von der Goltz,
| |
| − | who Schacht knew before the war due to his banking contacts. Goltz invited Schacht to
| |
| − | dine with him that evening at the club as a personal guest, taking extra pains to seat
| |
| − | Schacht to his immediate right at the table.
| |
| − | In the wake of WWI, Schacht and the members of one of his social-business
| |
| − | clubs (but not his lodge) founded DDP as a party that “without being extremist, [is]
| |
| − | dissatisfied with the present conditions, a middle-class Left.” The chaos of defeat had
| |
| − | led to a communist surge in Germany and the DDP sought to prevent bitterness from
| |
| − | turning into Bolshevik Revolution. While supporting the DDP, however, Schacht still
| |
| − | considered himself a monarchist and would have gladly seen the return of the emperor
| |
| − | (albeit with some liberal concessions) instead of a republic. Schacht broke with the DDP
| |
| − | in 1924 over the Fürstenenteignung referendum, a Marxist petition advocating the
| |
| − | seizure and expropriation of royal houses and property.17 The DDP favored the measure,
| |
| − | while Schacht supported private property, revealing that while his politics may have
| |
| − | 17 SS report on Hjalmar Schacht, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 43 folder 533.
| |
| − | 155
| |
| − | leaned left, his economic opinions rested squarely on the right.18 In 1930, economic
| |
| − | disagreement led Schacht to quit his post as President of the Reichsbank over Germany’s
| |
| − | adoption of the Young Plan.19
| |
| − | As a man with an established reputation in banking and finance, Hitler always kept
| |
| − | Schacht in his peripheral vision. Schacht in turn was familiar with Nazi ideology, and
| |
| − | sympathetic with it in many areas; first, he hated both communism and the Treaty of
| |
| − | Versailles; second, he agreed with the concept of Lebensraum arguing that an industrial
| |
| − | power needed colonies for economic stability; third, Schacht strongly supported
| |
| − | rearmament and fourth, Schacht argued that Jews, as a community, should be considered
| |
| − | foreigners within Germany and subject to the laws governing foreigners in Germany.20
| |
| − | As a sign of his growing support, In November of 1932, Schacht, along with several
| |
| − | major industrialist like Thyssen and Krupp, sent a letter to President Hindenburg, urging
| |
| − | him to stop calling for so many elections and form a new cabinet in collaboration with
| |
| − | the Nazis and the German National People’s Party (DNVP) in order to squelch the
| |
| − | communists.21
| |
| − | Schacht met the future Führer for the first time during a New Year’s dinner party
| |
| − | 18 In one of the great ironies of Schacht’s life he remained an enemy to socialism while
| |
| − | his daughter, Inge, grew up to be an ardent socialist. She too earned a PhD in economics, but
| |
| − | unlike her father, leaned further left during her college years, joining the SPD along with her
| |
| − | husband. The liberal politics that the Schacht inherited from his father obviously passed down to
| |
| − | his children, though somewhat amplified. Edward Peterson, Hjalmar Schacht: For and Against
| |
| − | Hitler: A Political-Economic Study of Germany, 1923-1945 (Boston: Christopher Publishing
| |
| − | House, 1954), 242; SS report on Hjalmar Schacht, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 43 folder 533.
| |
| − | 19 SS report on Hjalmar Schacht, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 43 folder 533; Report by
| |
| − | SD Section I A 111, July 24, 1931, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 24, folder 304.
| |
| − | 20 Blue Set, vol. V, 376.
| |
| − | 21 Letter written November 1932 by Schacht, Krupp and others to the Reich President,
| |
| − | document 3901-PS, Red Set, vol. VI, 796.
| |
| − | 156
| |
| − | hosted by one of Schacht’s financial colleagues. Both Goering and Hitler attended.
| |
| − | Schacht’s first impression of Hitler was that “he was a man with whom one could
| |
| − | cooperate,” although very quickly Schacht learned of Hitler’s garrulousness, recalling
| |
| − | that he dominated “95 percent” of the dinner conversation;22 however, in all that
| |
| − | speaking, nothing Hitler said about national issues contradicted Schacht’s own personal
| |
| − | beliefs. Schacht even sent a letter to Hitler in August of 1932, commenting that “Your
| |
| − | movement is carried internally by so strong a truth and necessity that victory in one form
| |
| − | or another cannot elude you for long,” adding “Wherever my work may take me to in the
| |
| − | near future, even if you should see me one day within the fortress – you can always
| |
| − | count on me as your reliable assistant.”23 Two months later, Schacht wrote another letter
| |
| − | to Hitler, stating that “I am quite confidant that our present system is certainly doomed
| |
| − | to disintegration…I have no doubt that the present development of things can only lead
| |
| − | to your becoming chancellor.”24 In spite of all the praise he lavished on Hitler, Schacht
| |
| − | still had some reservations. While on business to the United States, Schacht read Mein
| |
| − | Kampf and said he found it “quite uninteresting” and demonstrative of Hitler’s lack of
| |
| − | understanding of the principles of economics.25 Schacht most likely offered his
| |
| − | expertise to Hitler out of a combination of opportunism mixed with fear of what might
| |
| − | happen should Hitler one day direct economic policy.
| |
| − | As Schacht began warming to the party, the party reciprocated. In 1932, future
| |
| − | 22 Testimony of Hjalmar Schacht, 20 July 1945, document 3725-PS, Red Set, vol. VI,
| |
| − | 464.
| |
| − | 23 Roger Stackelberg and Sally Anne Winkle, The Nazi Germany Sourcebook: An
| |
| − | Anthology of Texts (New York: Routledge, 2002), 117.
| |
| − | 24 Ibid, 118.
| |
| − | 25 Blue Set, vol. V, 375-6.
| |
| − | 157
| |
| − | Propaganda Minster Joseph Goebbels referred to Schacht as a man who “absolutely
| |
| − | shares our point of view. He is one of the few who stand immovable behind the
| |
| − | Fuehrer.”26 On the occasion of Schacht’s sixtieth birthday, the Völkischer Beobachter
| |
| − | printed an article about Schacht’s early dealings with the party, praising him for “never
| |
| − | fail[ing] to point at Adolf Hitler as the only possible leader of the Reich” and
| |
| − | proclaiming that “The name of Dr. Schacht will remain linked with the transition of the
| |
| − | German economy to the new National Socialist methods.”27
| |
| − | On March 17, 1933, Hitler asked Schacht to reassume the presidency of the
| |
| − | Reichsbank. Schacht accepted and held the post until 1939. Hitler wanted money for
| |
| − | rearmament and employment, but the current Reichsbank president, Hans Luther,
| |
| − | refused to grant Hitler more than 100 million marks. Hitler was upset that Luther
| |
| − | refused to cooperate, and gave him a choice; he could either become ambassador to
| |
| − | Washington and receive a generous pension, or Hitler would “break him.”28 Luther
| |
| − | chose the former and Schacht came in as his replacement. Nazi party member Gottfried
| |
| − | Feder, whose ideas were far more socialist, was also in the running for the position.
| |
| − | Schacht, though politically liberal, was ever the critic of liberal economics and accepted
| |
| − | the position partly out of self-interest and partly out wanting to keep radicals like Feder
| |
| − | out of power. Schact’s appointment ruffled feathers within the party with members
| |
| − | expressed outraged that Hitler selected an outsider for such an important position.
| |
| − | 26 Joseph Goebbels and Louis P. Lochner, ed. The Goebbels Diaries (London: H.
| |
| − | Hamilton, 1948), entry for November 21, 1932; “Extracts from the Imperial House to the Reich
| |
| − | Chancellery by Dr. Joseph Goebbels,” document 2409-PS, Red Set, vol. V, 83.
| |
| − | 27 “Dr. Schacht 60 years Old,” from Völkischer Beobachter 21 January 1937, document
| |
| − | EC-499, Red Set, vol. VII, 576.
| |
| − | 28 Hitler, Table Talk, 325.
| |
| − | 158
| |
| − | Schacht, however, was more than qualified for the position, and the Nazi party’s
| |
| − | economic and nationalist policies dovetailed with his own. He accepted the post and
| |
| − | became president of the Reichsbank for the second time, declaring in an early speech,
| |
| − | “the Reichsbank will always be nothing but National Socialist, or I shall cease to be its
| |
| − | manager.”29
| |
| − | Despite such rhetoric, Schacht never officially joined the party. His membership
| |
| − | in the Liberal Party and DDP demonstrated that his absence from the rolls of the NSDAP
| |
| − | was not based on a desire to stay out of party politics, and by 1930 Schacht admitted that
| |
| − | the Nazis were the party most closely aligned with his own ideology. The real reason
| |
| − | remains a mystery. Schacht’s first biographer, Dr. Franz Reuter, argued that Schacht
| |
| − | was willing to join the party, but was refused because Hitler thought Schacht served a
| |
| − | greater role as an “outsider,” rather than being seen as another party lackey.30 By
| |
| − | remaining aloof from the party, Schacht could show influential figures, especially
| |
| − | businessmen and industrialists, that National Socialism, though rhetorically opposed to
| |
| − | capitalism, was indeed friendly to big business. Many industrialists were leery of the
| |
| − | Nazis (after all, the ideology was called National Socialism) and the endorsement of a
| |
| − | well-known and respected banker as Schacht carried a lot of, shall we say, capital.31
| |
| − | The closest Schacht ever came to actually becoming a member occurred in 1937,
| |
| − | when the party awarded him the golden party emblem, “the highest honor the Third
| |
| − | 29 Blue Set, vol. XIII, 13.
| |
| − | 30 Peterson, For and Against Hitler, 128-9; Blue Set, vol. V, 121.
| |
| − | 31 Blue Set vol. V, 378; Peterson, For and Against Hitler, 134-5, supports the argument
| |
| − | that Schacht was a lure for banking and heavy industry. Schacht’s other biographers focus on
| |
| − | his economic decisions and don’t say much about why he never joined the party. He supported
| |
| − | the regime until the late 1930s, does it matter whether he officially joined or not?
| |
| − | 159
| |
| − | Reich has to offer,” for his long service.32 That recognition was not tantamount to
| |
| − | joining the party and Schacht claimed that he accepted for fear of reprisal if he refused.
| |
| − | Eltz-Rubenach, Minister of Traffic, had refused to receive the same award with Schacht
| |
| − | and was dismissed from his post.33 Schacht even appeared in numerous party
| |
| − | propaganda movies, including Triumph of the Will, wearing the pin of party
| |
| − | membership, but that was most likely a ruse to gain support from Germany’s banking
| |
| − | and industrial circles.34 Considering Leni Riefenstahl’s attention to detail it is
| |
| − | reasonable to suggest that she had him wear the pin for party effect, even if he wasn’t
| |
| − | officially a member. In the end it didn’t really matter, Schacht’s growing criticism of the
| |
| − | war and government policy led to the party demanding the return of the award in 1943.35
| |
| − | At his trial in Nuremberg, Schacht claimed that though he worked with the party, he was
| |
| − | never particularly close to Hitler, and only served under him for the good of Germany.36
| |
| − | In the meantime, Schacht’s status in the party skyrocketed. In August 1934,
| |
| − | Hitler appointed Schacht as Minister of Economics, though he still retained his position
| |
| − | as president of the Reichsbank. Less than a year later, in May of 1935, Schacht was
| |
| − | appointed General Plenipotentiary for the War Economy.37 With this appointment,
| |
| − | 32 “A Proclamation by Dr. Schacht on occasion of presentation of Golden Party Badge,”
| |
| − | from Frankfurter Zeitung, 9 February 1937, document EC-500, Red Set, vol. VII, 578.
| |
| − | 33 Peterson, For and Against Hitler, 251.
| |
| − | 34 Red Set, vol. II, 14.
| |
| − | 35 Blue Set, vol. V, 377.
| |
| − | 36 Blue Set, vol. V, 396.
| |
| − | 37 Directive from Bloomberg to Supreme Commanders of Army, Navy and Air Forces,
| |
| − | 24 June 1935, document 2261-PS, Red Set, vol. IV, 934; Statement of Governmental Positions
| |
| − | Held by Dr. Schacht, document 3021-PS, Red Set, vol. V, 737; Amos Simpson, Hjalmar Schacht
| |
| − | in Perspective (The Hague: Mouton, 1969), 179.
| |
| − | 160
| |
| − | Schacht essentially became “dictator” of the German economy.38 He controlled the
| |
| − | Reichsbank, set economic policy, and could use his authority as plenipotentiary to
| |
| − | influence business. Schacht’s appointment, however, raised a few objections. Though
| |
| − | seldom mentioning Schacht by name, many SD situation reports raised concerns about
| |
| − | Freemasons in influential economic positions, meaning that if war broke out, Germany’s
| |
| − | capability to successfully wage it rested in the hands of Freemasons, a group that the
| |
| − | party believed to be internationalist and pacifist.39 One report that did specifically
| |
| − | mention Schacht did so as evidence of ties between Freemasonry and the Jews, rather
| |
| − | than as an attack on Schacht. A Jewish man in Erfurt opened a clothing store. When a
| |
| − | local party member approached the mayor asking why the story hadn’t been shut down,
| |
| − | the mayor, who was also a party member, said there were no legal grounds to do so, and
| |
| − | besides that, the minister of economics (Schacht) encouraged small business was an
| |
| − | essential part of economic recovery, regardless of who owned the store. That, the report
| |
| − | concluded, proved Freemasons were “friends of the Jews.”40
| |
| − | Unfortunately, Schacht’s influence and standing with Hitler never transferred
| |
| − | over to any of his other associations, Freemasonry included. In 1935, just as the party
| |
| − | delivered its ultimatum to the lodges, Schacht appealed personally to Hitler, asking that
| |
| − | the lodges be allowed to remain open, but to no effect. Hitler listened politely to
| |
| − | 38 Blue Set, vol. V, 122. It was the prosecution that first called him economic “dictator,”
| |
| − | but as the head of the bank, economics ministry, and war-economy planning, the label was not
| |
| − | that far off.
| |
| − | 39 SD-Southeast situation report, July 3, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder
| |
| − | 33; RSHA II 111 situation report for 1938, January 19, 1939, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5,
| |
| − | Folder 30; Undated RSHA II 111 report, USHMM, RG-15.007M, Reel 5, Folder 31.
| |
| − | 40 SD report on Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, April 18, 1934, USHMM, RG 15.007M, Reel 43,
| |
| − | folder 533.
| |
| − | 161
| |
| − | Schacht’s request, but then but insisted that in the interests of National Socialism the
| |
| − | lodges had to be closed and were at liberty to do so voluntarily before the government
| |
| − | stepped in.41 Schacht never brought up the subject with Hitler again, although he often
| |
| − | had quarrels with other Nazi leaders over the treatment of former Freemasons, who
| |
| − | accused Schacht of sheltering Freemasons within the Reichsbank and Ministry of
| |
| − | Economics.42 Fredrich Karl Florian, a Gauleiter and member of the Reichstag, called the
| |
| − | Reichsbank “the gas station for international piggy banks” and almost wholly dominated
| |
| − | by Jews, while another critic in the party suggested that Schacht himself was a Danish
| |
| − | Jew.43 Others didn’t go so far as to accuse Schacht of being Jewish, but did think of him
| |
| − | as an elitist snob who was really good with money.44
| |
| − | For Schacht, the honeymoon didn’t last long. He first began to seriously doubt
| |
| − | the wisdom of his decision to align with the Nazis after the Night of the Long Knives.
| |
| − | Schacht abhorred such brutality and it proved to him that brute force and violent tactics
| |
| − | were not reserved only for the SA. Schacht’s creeping disillusion with the party did not
| |
| − | go unnoticed. Heinrich Himmler began to keep a careful eye on Schacht and even
| |
| − | recruited the Schacht family maid to spy on Schacht and conceal microphones in the
| |
| − | 41 Neuberger, Winkelmass und Hakenkreuz, 257.
| |
| − | 42 Peterson, For and Against Hitler, 244. The SD reports cited previously had pointed
| |
| − | out the number of Freemasons in banking circles, lending support to accusations that Schacht
| |
| − | played favorites. In reality, the connection was much less sinister. Freemasons only accepted a
| |
| − | certain kind of member and the banking industry included such men. The Nazis saw conspiracy
| |
| − | when in reality it was a matter of social and business association.
| |
| − | 43 Undated document, USHMM, RG-15.007M Reel 43 folder 533. criticize Schacht as a
| |
| − | conservative and the man securing a “throat-slitting” (as the document quotes him) for the
| |
| − | working people through the Young Plan. The accusation came from a “Reich Representative
| |
| − | Vetter,” most likely Heinrich Vetter, mayor of Hagen.
| |
| − | 44 Peterson, For and Against Hitler, 130.
| |
| − | 162
| |
| − | home.45 At the same time, the Gestapo and the Ministry of the Interior began
| |
| − | investigation Schacht’s lodge, Urania zur Unsterblichkeit for supposed “reactionary,
| |
| − | staatsfeindliche” actions.46
| |
| − | That same year, Schacht met Hans Bernd Gisevius, a Gestapo officer and fellow
| |
| − | critic of the regime, who informed Schacht of the maid-spy in his home.47 Gisevius and
| |
| − | Schacht began a long association in discussion and planning possible solutions to the
| |
| − | dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, and both Schacht and Gisevius later took part in the 1944
| |
| − | July Plot. At one point, Gisevius suggested that Schacht use his position as minister of
| |
| − | finance to create inflation and topple the German economy, thus also stopping
| |
| − | rearmament and Hitler, but Schacht refused.48 It is uncertain whether Schacht refused
| |
| − | because he did not want to bring to Germany the very economic ruin he had saved it
| |
| − | from in the 1920s, or if his pride and ego simply would not let him destroy the economy
| |
| − | he worked so hard to build.49 Most likely it was a combination of both. Schacht was
| |
| − | both a nationalist and an opportunist; to purposefully collapse the economy would have
| |
| − | been contrary to betray both his country and his ambition. Instead, Schacht preferred to
| |
| − | see the country prosper under Hitler, hoping to influence the general course of events,
| |
| − | than bring it all down to spite him.
| |
| − | 45 Ibid, 256.
| |
| − | 46 RFSS to Gestapo, September 14, 1934, BArch R58/6103a, part 2, 238-9; Prussian MdI
| |
| − | to the Gestapo, June 1, 1934, BArch R58/6103a, part 2, 240. The letter does not mention
| |
| − | whether Schacht specifically had anything to do with the increased interest in the Urania, but for
| |
| − | both Scahcht and his lodge to come under simultaneous suspicion has to more than coincidence.
| |
| − | 47 Peterson, For and Against Hitler, 256.
| |
| − | 48 Ibid, 256.
| |
| − | 49 Ulrich von Hassell, The von Hassell Diaries, 1938-1944: The Story of the Forces
| |
| − | Against Hitler inside Germany (London: H. Hamilton, 1948), 11.
| |
| − | 163
| |
| − | Schacht’s disillusionment grew to the point of open criticism. On August 18th,
| |
| − | 1935, Schacht publicly ridiculed Nazi persecution during a speech he made at the
| |
| − | German Eastern Fair held at Konigsberg. It was traditional for a member of the Ministry
| |
| − | of Economics to open the fair with a speech and Schacht used the opportunity to offer
| |
| − | his first public criticism of the Party. It was a calculated move on Schacht’s part. The
| |
| − | first several pages of the speech addressed the horrible economic conditions that the
| |
| − | Depression thrust upon Germany, thanks in large part to the Treaty of Versailles, which
| |
| − | he referred to as “the most stupid peace treaty of all times” and “far worse than
| |
| − | American lynch justice.”50 Schacht also made sure to pay homage to Hitler, praising his
| |
| − | “boundless courage, statesmanlike skill [and] unerring sense of responsibility.”51
| |
| − | Then Schacht went on the attack, castigating those who “heroically smear window
| |
| − | panes in the middle of the night, who brand every German who trades in a Jewish store
| |
| − | as a traitor, who condemn every former free-mason [sic] as a bum.”52 The audience was
| |
| − | shocked. Two SS officers, one of which worked directly under Himmler, got up and left
| |
| − | in the middle of Schacht’s comments.53 Though the speech was a slap in the face,
| |
| − | Schacht was careful. He did not couch his criticism in racial or social terms, but instead
| |
| − | played the economics card, arguing that Germany needed fast economic recovery and
| |
| − | 50 “Konigsberg Speech of President of the Reichsbank and acting Minister of Commerce,
| |
| − | Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, at the German Eastern Fair,” document EC-433, Red Series, vol. VII, 490.
| |
| − | During his trial at Nuremberg, the prosecution cited Schacht’s disdain for Versailles frequently
| |
| − | as evidence of his support for Nazi aggression.
| |
| − | 51 Königsberg Speech, Document EC-433, Red Set, vol. VII, pg. 488.
| |
| − | 52 Ibid, pg. 489. During his trial, Schacht testified that the Propaganda Ministry, not
| |
| − | having read the speech beforehand, was broadcasting it across the nation. Schacht also testified
| |
| − | that he used the Reichsbank printing press to generate 250,000 copies and have them distributed
| |
| − | to the 400 branches of the bank.
| |
| − | 53 Schacht, Confessions of the “Old Wizard,” 318.
| |
| − | 164
| |
| − | such attacks against businesses and successful businessmen, even if they were Jews or
| |
| − | Freemasons, were counterproductive. Schacht later followed a similar tactic in his
| |
| − | criticism of the Nuremberg Blood Laws, attacking them on economic rather than
| |
| − | ideological grounds.54
| |
| − | Schacht quickly followed his critique with a statement that he agreed with the
| |
| − | goals of these attackers, just not their methods. He even turned on his own beloved
| |
| − | fraternity, stating “there is no place in the Third Reich for secret societies, regardless of
| |
| − | how harmless they are” (And this was the same year he had personally appealed to
| |
| − | Hitler on behalf of the lodges).55 Schacht then returned to the questions of money and
| |
| − | rearmament to complete his remarks. In spite of Schacht’s criticism, the entire speech
| |
| − | had the general theme of trusting the government in all things (economic, political and
| |
| − | social), rather than try to take matters into one’s own hands. It was a clever and
| |
| − | relatively safe way to criticize the more brutal tactics of the Nazi Party while applauding
| |
| − | and supporting the party in general. Schacht never criticized the party administration or
| |
| − | policy and focused on those who acted outside the law and on individual initiative.
| |
| − | When Schacht finished speaking and sat down, Gauleiter Erich Koch leaned over to him
| |
| − | and said “Mönchlein, Mönchlein, du gehst einen schweren Gang” (Brother, brother,
| |
| − | you've a hard road ahead of you).56
| |
| − | Schacht never suffered any form of punishment for his speech. Goebbels and
| |
| − | 54 Otto D. Tolischus, “Nazis told to End Anti-Jewish Acts,” New York Times, November
| |
| − | 5, 1935.
| |
| − | 55 Königsberg Speech, Document EC-433, Red Set, vol. VII, pg. 489.
| |
| − | 56 Schacht, Confessions of the “Old Wizard,” 318. Apparently, that same quote was said
| |
| − | to Martin Luther after he nailed his thesis to the church door in Wittenberg. The appropriate
| |
| − | English idiom would be “You’ve stirred up a hornets nest.”
| |
| − | 165
| |
| − | Himmler were not particularly happy with his comments, especially when reports on the
| |
| − | speech appeared in foreign papers, but Schacht escaped any sort of backlash for his
| |
| − | criticism. Part of this was because Schacht’s delivery was so perfectly diplomatic; he
| |
| − | scorned the persecution of Freemasons, but supported the closing of the lodges. He
| |
| − | supported the marginalization of Jews, but not outside the law. Another reason Schacht
| |
| − | escaped punishment was because of his standing. As Minister of Economics he held a
| |
| − | position too powerful to be dismissed simply because of a few negative comments at a
| |
| − | speech in Konigsberg. Under the Nazi regime, average German citizens, so long as they
| |
| − | had no still-existing ties to communism, Judaism, or any of the Reich’s other enemies,
| |
| − | were indeed able to criticize the government and government policy, not in public of
| |
| − | course, but the Gestapo had their hands full with other problems and simply did not have
| |
| − | the time or manpower to go chasing down every citizen who supposedly uttered a
| |
| − | discouraging word about Hitler or the regime. If “ordinary” Germans could criticize the
| |
| − | Party without reproach, surely cabinet ministers could get away with it too.
| |
| − | If Hitler heard about the incident, he never said anything to Schacht about it and
| |
| − | the two remained on good terms for most of the 1930s. Hitler even made jokes about
| |
| − | how useful it was to have a Freemason as minster of economics because Schacht’s time
| |
| − | as a Mason had trained him in the ways of “Jewish banking” and thus prepared him to
| |
| − | beat international Jewish capitalism at its own game. Hitler also remarked that Schacht’s
| |
| − | performance proved that “even in the field of sharp finance a really intelligent Aryan is
| |
| − | more than a match for his Jewish counterpart.”57 Though on another occasion, during
| |
| − | 57 Hitler, Table Talk, 326.
| |
| − | 166
| |
| − | one of Hitler’s many dinner discussions, he praised Schacht’s financial prowess in
| |
| − | establishing Germany’s exports, though in the same breath accused Schacht of lacking
| |
| − | character because he was a Freemason.58
| |
| − | Schacht’s service in the Ministry of Economics continued for the next several
| |
| − | years without incident, though tensions between Schacht and other government leaders,
| |
| − | especially Hermann Goering, increased. As head of the Four-Year Plan, Goering
| |
| − | constantly butted heads with Schacht over who really had the final say in economic
| |
| − | matters. Hitler gave both men the task of facilitating rearmament and get the nation on a
| |
| − | war economy, creating a power-struggle that relied heavily on each man’s personal
| |
| − | relationship with the Führer, but although Schacht had a better grasp of economic
| |
| − | principles, Goering’s ties to Hitler were stronger than Schacht’s. Schacht favored
| |
| − | rearmament, but only to the point of parity with the rest of Europe and for the purpose of
| |
| − | national defense. When he learned that Hitler wanted to build an army for aggressive
| |
| − | war, Schacht objective on both political and economic grounds, while Goering fully
| |
| − | supported the idea.
| |
| − | Furthermore, Schacht and Goering fought over the necessity of autarky. Taking
| |
| − | his lessons from the shortages of WWI, Goering wanted to make Germany as selfsufficient
| |
| − | as possible. Schacht, on the other hand, argued that goods could be obtained
| |
| − | through foreign trade at a fraction of the cost of developing the goods internally or
| |
| − | creating Ersatz substitutes.59 Unfortunately, Hitler supported autarky as strongly as
| |
| − | 58 Ibid, 497-8.
| |
| − | 59 Simpson, Schacht in Perspective, 180-81.
| |
| − | 167
| |
| − | Goering, wanting to prevent the shortages of the previous war at any cost.60 In August,
| |
| − | 1937, not wanting to be subordinate to Goering, Schacht resigned both as Minister of
| |
| − | Economics and Plenipotentiary for the War Economy. It took over two months to
| |
| − | procure the official release, and Hitler refused to let him depart the government
| |
| − | altogether, making him Minister Without Portfolio.61
| |
| − | Although the feud with Goering cost Schacht two of his positions he still
| |
| − | maintained the presidency of the Reichsbank. In 1938, Schacht received reappointment
| |
| − | for another four years, though he only served one before being dismissed. It is ironic
| |
| − | that just as Freemasons were on their way into Nazi confidence (the first amnesty decree
| |
| − | was issued that very year), Schacht was on his way out. The press also started turning
| |
| − | against the Old Wizard, calling him a “Jüden- und Logenknecht,” stating that in his
| |
| − | earlier years of service, Schacht had been able to use “lodge intrigue” to get what he
| |
| − | wanted in financial matters, but that recently he and the “Schacht Band” had become too
| |
| − | powerful and needed to go.62
| |
| − | As a humorous side note and testament to Schacht’s abilities in finance (or least
| |
| − | his ability to remain sane under Hitler’s economic demands), Schacht’s successor as
| |
| − | Minister of Economics, Rudolf Brinkmann, suffered a nervous breakdown shortly after
| |
| − | assuming the post. When Brinkmann failed to appear to work one day he was found
| |
| − | 60 See Aly, Hitler’s Beneficiaries. Aly spends the first couple chapters explaining
| |
| − | Hitler’s desire to never let the home front feel the pinch of war, and thus never turn against the
| |
| − | war.
| |
| − | 61 Testimony of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, 11 July 1945, document, 3724-PS, Red Set, vol.
| |
| − | VI, 463.
| |
| − | 62 Article in Deutsche Freiheit, German newspaper in Paris, September 2, 1938, BArch
| |
| − | R58/6103b part 1, 14.
| |
| − | 168
| |
| − | directing an invisible orchestra in a Berlin bar. Additionally, he promised to pay all his
| |
| − | clerks 1000 marks a month and in the days just before his mental collapse had begun
| |
| − | writing some of his orders and memos in verse.63
| |
| − | The speed at which Schacht went from willing collaboration to plotting Hitler’s
| |
| − | removal from office was quite rapid. In the early 1930s Schacht heaped praise on the
| |
| − | regime, but by the beginning of WWII he referred to National Socialism as “a truly
| |
| − | bestial Weltanschauung.”64 When he did make the final leap from cautious supporter to
| |
| − | clandestine conspirator, it was over the pace of rearmament and economic stability, the
| |
| − | very reasons he went to work for the Nazis in the first place. Schacht worked with the
| |
| − | Nazis out of the belief that it was best for both himself and Germany, when that belief
| |
| − | eroded, so too did his support of the party. Schacht even divorced his first wife because
| |
| − | of his growing mistrust for the party. She was an ardent Nazi supporter and would
| |
| − | sometimes share in public the criticisms of the regime and its leaders that Schacht had
| |
| − | spoken to her in confidence. When she refused to stop, he divorced her.65
| |
| − | The Blomberg-Fritsch affair, coupled with Schacht’s dismissal from office, led to
| |
| − | the final break with the party and Hitler. Some pieces of the scandal were genuine, but it
| |
| − | was quite obvious that Hitler was cleaning house. Schacht testified at Nuremberg that
| |
| − | the affair was the first time he suspected Hitler wanted rearmament for the purpose of
| |
| − | waging aggressive war. Schacht held Fritsch as “the finest character in the whole army”
| |
| − | 63 Hassell, von Hassell diaries, 41.
| |
| − | 64 Peterson, For and Against Hitler, 250; Blue Set, vol. XII, 472. Schacht also claimed
| |
| − | to he only used the “Heil Hitler” salutation and referred to Hitler as “Führer” is official, written
| |
| − | correspondance, but never in everyday speech. Unfortunately, such a claim is nearly impossible
| |
| − | to prove.
| |
| − | 65 Schacht, Confessions of the “Old Wizard,” 106.
| |
| − | 169
| |
| − | and “not willing to overdo armaments, and he certainly would never have agreed to an
| |
| − | aggressive war.”66 It was at this point that Schacht made the final step from critic to
| |
| − | conspirator. After the Fritsch-Blomberg affair, Schacht approached various officials
| |
| − | such as Admiral Raeder, Field Marshalls von Rundstedt and von Brauschtisch, and
| |
| − | Minister of Justice Guertner, encouraging them to “take countermeasures against
| |
| − | Hitler.”67 Later in 1938, Schacht met with General von Witzleben, a man he called “a
| |
| − | determined opponent of the regime” and convinced him to help plot Hitler’s overthrow
| |
| − | in order to prevent inevitable war. General Brockdorf-Ahlefeld was added to the list of
| |
| − | conspirators, as well as General Halder and General Beck. The plan was to arrest Hitler
| |
| − | and bring him before a tribunal in Sept. 1938.68 The plotters even made contact with
| |
| − | Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and tried to convince him to boycott the Munich
| |
| − | Conference, instead throwing his support behind the coup when it began. Chamberlain,
| |
| − | however, was not convinced and went to Munich.69 Oddly enough, the conspirators, if
| |
| − | successful, planned on making Schacht the new head of state.70 Unfortunately for the
| |
| − | conspirators, the plan fizzled when the success of the Munich Conference made Hitler’s
| |
| − | popularity soar. It was impossible to arrest the man who re-forged greater Germany
| |
| − | without the loss of blood. Furthermore, Schacht lost a good deal of personal influence
| |
| − | after Munich; he had predicted war, but it never came. Schacht continued to seek out
| |
| − | 66 “Testimony of Hjalmar Schacht, 16 October 1945,” document 3728-PS, Red Set, vol.
| |
| − | VI, 485.
| |
| − | 67 Schacht, Confessions of the “Old Wizard,” 355.
| |
| − | 68 Ibid, 355-7. This was another reason Schacht divorced his first wife. Having a
| |
| − | antagonistic wife with a big mouth while one is planning a coup tends to end in disaster.
| |
| − | 69 Peterson, For and Against Hitler, 317.
| |
| − | 70 Ibid, 314.
| |
| − | 170
| |
| − | other individuals and plans that might bring Hitler down, but his resignation from the
| |
| − | cabinet and his dismissal from the Reichsbank had essentially stripped Schacht of any
| |
| − | power or influence that that made him valuable to any conspiracy. After 1939,
| |
| − | Schacht’s sounding brass had become a tinkling cymbal. Schacht even received
| |
| − | warnings from American Ambassador Dodd that various elements of the regime wanted
| |
| − | him dead.71
| |
| − | It was no surprise to Schacht when, in 1940, the Berlin chief of police advised him
| |
| − | to be careful and tread lightly; he was now on the Gestapo’s “Black List.” Not only did
| |
| − | the Gestapo keep an eye on Schacht, but anyone speaking with Schacht other than to
| |
| − | doff his hat and say “how do you do” came under suspicion as well.72 Nevertheless,
| |
| − | Schacht continued to criticize Hitler and the government for leading Germany on a
| |
| − | collision course to war that would certainly doom Germany. The stunning successes of
| |
| − | the Wehrmacht in Poland and France, however, simply amplified what happened in
| |
| − | Munich. Hitler seemed infallible, further coup attempts had to wait until the later war
| |
| − | years when the war had shattered Hitler’s credibility and influential people were again
| |
| − | willing to act against him.
| |
| − | That time arrived in 1944. Schacht’s opposition to the regime culminated with his
| |
| − | collaboration in the famous July 20th Plot, the aftermath of which witnessed Schacht’s
| |
| − | arrest and imprisonment for the rest of the war. There was no direct evidence linking
| |
| − | Schacht to the conspiracy, but the assassination attempt gave Hitler an opportunity to
| |
| − | clean house. Schacht was known to be critical of the regime, if not hostile, and so it was
| |
| − | 71 Blue Set, vol. XII, 439.
| |
| − | 72 Peterson, For and Against Hitler, 330.
| |
| − | 171
| |
| − | only natural that he be rounded up in the manhunt that followed. The People’s Court
| |
| − | sentenced him to prison instead of execution with the direct collaborators. Hjalmar
| |
| − | Schacht, the “Old Wizard” who salvaged the German economy twice and climbed to the
| |
| − | top echelons of banking and government, went first to Ravensbrük, then to Flossenberg,
| |
| − | then Dachau, and finally to South Tyrol where he remained until liberated by American
| |
| − | forces.73
| |
| − | Unfortunately for Schacht, he was pulled out of one prison only to be shoved into
| |
| − | another. Once identified by his American liberators as Hitler’s banker and economics
| |
| − | minister, Schacht was sent to Nuremberg to stand trial before the International Military
| |
| − | Tribunal. During the trial, Schacht’s career, as well as his attitudes toward National
| |
| − | Socialism, emerged in all their complexity and confusion. Was he a genuine nationalist
| |
| − | who had teamed up with the wrong party? Was he a Nazi that simply never wore the
| |
| − | party pin? Was he just an opportunist, willing to side with whoever was winning? Was
| |
| − | his participation in the various plots against Hitler motivated by patriotism, greed, or the
| |
| − | desire to back-paddle as the war turned sour for Germany? We have seen examples
| |
| − | throughout his life that suggest an answer of “yes” to all these questions, but who was
| |
| − | the real Hjalmar Schacht? How could a man prosper under both Weimar and the Third
| |
| − | Reich? How could he be a liberal yet hold sway with ultra-conservatives like Hitler?
| |
| − | Economically conservative, politically liberal, nationalistically minded, opportunistically
| |
| − | driven, socially elite; that is Hjalmar Schacht. That is also the majority of German
| |
| − | Freemasons.
| |
| − | 73 Ibid, 339-41.
| |
| − | 172
| |
| − | The acquittal came as no surprise to Schacht, who was fully convinced of his
| |
| − | innocence. Even during the trial he was so sure of an acquittal that he often came off as
| |
| − | snobbish and arrogant, severely annoying the other defendants. Schacht was brilliant
| |
| − | and he knew it. He always had a very large ego, and the Nuremberg courtroom was
| |
| − | relatively small.74 While languishing in his cell between days in court, Schacht wrote a
| |
| − | book of poetry with a tone that crossed the Apostle Paul with self-pity, to the effect of, “I
| |
| − | have fought the good fight, yet now I sit and bear my burden alone.”75 It isn’t known if
| |
| − | he ever joined a Masonic lodge again.76
| |
| − | To return to the beginning, Hjalmar Schacht provides an intriguing case study of
| |
| − | Freemasons in the Third Reich. When we look at Schacht we see that he (like thousands
| |
| − | of other Freemasons) didn’t waffle, but made his decisions by weighing ambition and
| |
| − | patriotism with opportunity. Through his life we see a man who represented a fairly
| |
| − | typical Old Prussian Freemason. He grew up in a middle-class home, received an
| |
| − | excellent education, and rose through the social ranks by excelling in his chosen career.
| |
| − | Though very liberal in regards to politics, Schacht maintained a love and respect
| |
| − | for the monarch and strong central authority. He also remained solidly right-of-center in
| |
| − | regards to economics and private property and absolutely abhorred communism. After
| |
| − | WWI, Schacht identified himself as a moderate liberal, but leaned closer to the right as
| |
| − | 74 Ibid, 365.
| |
| − | 75 Hjalmar Schacht, Kleine Bekenntnisse (Small Confessions) (Winsen, Germany:
| |
| − | Buchdrucherei Gebrueder Ravens, 1949), included as part of the Hjalmar Schacht Papers
| |
| − | Collection, Hoover Institution.
| |
| − | 76 Schacht’s own autobiography says nothing about it, and considering the respect in
| |
| − | which he spoke of Freemasonry earlier in his autobiography one would assume that he would be
| |
| − | proud to mention a reunion with the lodges.
| |
| − | 173
| |
| − | the political situation in Germany polarized. Though he originally criticized the Nazis,
| |
| − | Schacht began warming to them years before the seizure of power, seeing the party as
| |
| − | the future of Germany and thus, of his future as well.
| |
| − | He was also a joiner and understood the relationship between association and
| |
| − | social status. By the mid 1920s, Schacht had been, or was, a member of the a college
| |
| − | literary club, the Masonic lodges, the Young Liberals Association, the National Liberal
| |
| − | Party, the DDP, the Berlin Press Union, a local tennis club (where he met his first wife),
| |
| − | the German-Turkish Society and the Nineteen-Fourteen Club, which Schacht described
| |
| − | as a place for “kindred spirits – solicitors, journalists, businessmen, bankers.”77 Yet
| |
| − | while Schacht belonged to a dozen clubs and associations and held them dear, he also
| |
| − | never fought to keep any of them alive. He ditched the Liberal Party for the DDP. He
| |
| − | asked Hitler to keep the lodges open and, promptly dropped the subject when Hitler
| |
| − | refused, then publicly condemned the lodges in his Königsberg address. In fact, almost
| |
| − | none of Schacht half-dozen biographers mention his membership in Freemasonry. Even
| |
| − | Schacht’s own memoirs say little about the fraternity, other than to say when he joined,
| |
| − | and to recount a few anecdotes tied to his membership in the lodge. Like his other social
| |
| − | memberships, Freemasonry was something easily discarded, its benefits found
| |
| − | elsewhere. Schacht was a joiner, but a prudent one, joining organizations when they
| |
| − | offered some kind of benefit and then dropping them when they didn’t. Schacht wasn’t
| |
| − | flaky, he was practical.
| |
| − | Of course, there are some areas in which Schacht was not so ordinary in relation to
| |
| − | 77 Schacht, Confessions of the “Old Wizard,” 136.
| |
| − | 174
| |
| − | his Masonic brothers. Due to his extraordinary intelligence and skill in financial matters,
| |
| − | Schacht was one of the most powerful men in Germany, both under the Weimar and
| |
| − | Nazi governments. He name was known across the globe as the “Old Wizard” of
| |
| − | German economics. At the same time, Schacht never joined the Nazi Party, despite how
| |
| − | high he rose within its ranks. These two factors together shed some interesting light on
| |
| − | the way the party handled the issue of former Freemasons serving in government. Many
| |
| − | Freemasons, like Schüler and Westphal, tried very hard to stay in (or get in) the party
| |
| − | and civil service. While less-impressive former Freemasons heaped praise on the party
| |
| − | in hopes of proving loyalty and gaining membership, Schacht was able to publicly
| |
| − | criticize the party and still retain his office. When making decisions regarding the fate
| |
| − | of former Freemasonry, time and again the party deferred to the skill and ability of
| |
| − | former Freemasons to performs their jobs, warning that removing them would create
| |
| − | more problems than it solved. In other words, the more useful a former Freemason was
| |
| − | to the party, the better chance he had to succeed. In Schacht’s case, his skills were so
| |
| − | necessary that he never joined the party, but held cabinet-level positions. While being
| |
| − | ideological institutions, both Freemasonry and the NSDAP had practical sides, seeing
| |
| − | the value in favoring the former over the latter.
| |
| − | With great benefit, however, comes great risk. Schacht may have been able to
| |
| − | rise to prominence without joining the party, but that also meant he bore more
| |
| − | responsibility for what Hitler did with the new army Schacht had provided the money to
| |
| − | build. When Schacht turned against Hitler it was over the very issues for which he
| |
| − | collaborated in the first place. Schacht, like Jekyll, had created a monster and his pride
| |
| − | 175
| |
| − | and patriotism demanded that he try and stop it. Resistance, then, is another area where
| |
| − | Schacht stands out among former Freemasons; however, by the time of the July Plot,
| |
| − | Schacht hadn’t been a Mason for almost a decade and to point to him as an example of
| |
| − | Masonic resistance is more than a stretch. The last of the Freemasons who resisted out
| |
| − | of genuine ideology, a sincere disagreement with the fundamentals of National
| |
| − | Socialism, died with Leo Müffelmann. Schacht, like most German Freemasons, joined
| |
| − | the lodges out of ambition, elitism, almost anything besides ideological belief, thus when
| |
| − | the lodges ceased to be a benefit and became a liability, they made an attempt at
| |
| − | cooperation, then left when the attempt failed. Since most Freemasons never reached the
| |
| − | same level of benefit that Schacht did, they also never resisted as he did. Like Jekyll,
| |
| − | Schacht had to sacrifice his own ambition and career in an attempt to stop a madman
| |
| − | from letting loose on a murderous rampage. Unfortunately, Schacht failed where Jekyll
| |
| − | succeeded.
| |
| − | 176
| |
| − | CHAPTER VII
| |
| − | EPILOGUE AND CONCLUSION
| |
| − | An SD report issued in 1937 stated, “speaking of lodge members in general it
| |
| − | could be said…that they use every opportunity to defend Freemasonry, and that they
| |
| − | didn’t know the non-Germanness [sic] of the lodges, but would join the lodges again in a
| |
| − | heartbeat.”1 When the war ended that’s exactly what they did.
| |
| − | Freemasonry actually returned to Germany after the war in the exact same place
| |
| − | it had first come to the German-speaking lands in the eighteenth century. Only weeks
| |
| − | after Germany’s surrender, members of Absalom, the first of the German lodges, met
| |
| − | informally in Hamburg and planned for an official reconstitution of the lodge a week
| |
| − | later. In June of 1949, West-German Freemasons met in Frankfurt am Main and
| |
| − | founded the Großloge der Alten Freien und Angenommen Maurer (Grand Lodge of
| |
| − | Ancient Free and Accepted Masons). Ironically, the Symbolic Lodge of Germany in
| |
| − | Exile, the lodge that had been ostracized by all other German Freemasons, helped
| |
| − | reestablish this new German grand lodge and bring Freemasonry back to Germany. The
| |
| − | Symbolic Lodge was helped by the newly formed Grand Lodge of the State of Israel and
| |
| − | the United Grand Lodge of England.2 The drei Weltkugeln and Große Landesloge also
| |
| − | revived, and in 1958 these three German lodges, along with the Grand Lodge of British
| |
| − | 1 Monthy SD reports, lodge chronicles, RFSS-SD Year Report for 1937, Section II 111,
| |
| − | “FM influence in the economy,” BArch R58/6113 part 1, 13.
| |
| − | 2 In Collapse of Freemasonry, Howe attributes most of the recovery to the work of the
| |
| − | United Grand Lodge of England; Ralf Melzer, “In the Eye of the Hurricane: German
| |
| − | Freemasonry in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich,” Totalitarian Movements and
| |
| − | Political Religions, Vol. 4 (Autumn 2003), 132, Melzer gives the most credit to the SGVD.
| |
| − | 177
| |
| − | Freemasons in Germany and the American-Canadian Grand Lodge (both of which were
| |
| − | established by occupying armies) came together and formed the Vereinigte Großlogen
| |
| − | von Deutschland (United Grand Lodges of Germany), which remains the governing
| |
| − | body of Masonic lodges in Germany to this day.
| |
| − | A detailed explanation of why or how men who had previously abandoned the
| |
| − | fraternity could so easily return to it is outside the scope of this study, but the fact that
| |
| − | Masonic lodges began reappearing within weeks of war’s end is worthy of note. It
| |
| − | shows the persistent desire of the German middle class for sociability. With the death of
| |
| − | National Socialism, all the societies, associations, clubs and organizations under the
| |
| − | Nazi umbrella disappeared. If former Freemasons wanted to continue some kind of
| |
| − | exclusive organization the simplest option was to reestablish the lodges rather than try to
| |
| − | create something anew. There may have been some nostalgia or genuine desire to
| |
| − | reestablish Freemasonry, but after looking at how quickly and easily the lodges
| |
| − | collapsed it is more likely that the men wanted association, wherever it came from, and
| |
| − | Freemasonry was the easiest to reestablish.
| |
| − | There was, however, another motivation to quickly reestablish Freemasonry.
| |
| − | The majority of German Freemasons actively sought to collaborate with the Nazi regime
| |
| − | in one way or another. As Nazi Germany fell to the Allies, the process of occupation
| |
| − | and denazifacation began. Anyone who had any ties to the regime scrambled to find
| |
| − | some way to distance themselves from National Socialism. For former Freemasons,
| |
| − | reestablishing the fraternity was a convenient was to do so. There was no doubt that the
| |
| − | Nazis persecuted Freemasonry, and so to be able to reestablish connections with the
| |
| − | 178
| |
| − | fraternity gave former members something to point to and say, “See, I wasn’t a Nazi, in
| |
| − | fact, I belonged to a group that the Nazis persecuted.” Before they could do this,
| |
| − | however, the collaboration and willing cooperation of the previous decade had to
| |
| − | somehow be explained in a way that acknowledged it, but excused it.
| |
| − | To that end, the lodges recreated their history under the Third Reich in a manner
| |
| − | similar to that of the French regarding Vichy. Both Vichy and the majority of German
| |
| − | Freemasons had made the same mistake and bet on the wrong horse. The nationalist,
| |
| − | anti-Semitic Old Prussian lodges had gone to great lengths to distance themselves from
| |
| − | the Humanitarian lodges, and both Old Prussian and Humanitarian had gone to great
| |
| − | lengths to distance themselves from the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Germany.3 Yet with
| |
| − | Hitler’s defeat, the tables were turned and the Old Prussian and Humanitarian lodges
| |
| − | stood on the wrong side while the small SGvD, which had previously been shunned by
| |
| − | lodges on both sides of the Atlantic, could proudly boast of its activities under the
| |
| − | regime. Men like Karl Hoede, who was initially rejected from the party because of his
| |
| − | lodge membership and struggled for years to get in, ultimately receiving an exemption
| |
| − | from Hitler, returned to the lodges after the war in full fellowship. In Hoede’s case, he
| |
| − | returned and served in lodge administration until his death in 1973.4 Nobody challenged
| |
| − | Hoede’s return because most other German Freemasons had similarly mixed histories.
| |
| − | 3 The Nazis acknowledged their efforts. In Die Wahrheit ueber die Freimauerei, a Nazi
| |
| − | tract, printed in 1932, the party distinguished the SGvD from Old Prussian and Humanitarian
| |
| − | Freemasonry; all Masons were condemned, but some lodges were more condemnable than
| |
| − | others, GStA PK, 5.1.11, Nr. 22.
| |
| − | 4 I was unable to find exactly why Hoede was rejected so many times prior to 1939. It
| |
| − | could have been the increased need for doctors once war broke out, or it could simply have been
| |
| − | his previous applications ended up in the hands of hard-line party officers instead of more lenient
| |
| − | men like Buch or Stuertz, see Bernheim, “Tarnung und Gewalt” for a more detailed account of
| |
| − | Hoede’s history with Freemasonry and the Party.
| |
| − | 179
| |
| − | Thus when German Freemason began talking about life in the Third Reich, they
| |
| − | imagined their actions as undesirable but necessary, an attempt to voluntarily give in a
| |
| − | little in order to avoid the forcing of greater concessions. Just as the French reinvented
| |
| − | Vichy France as a necessary or lesser-of-two-evils, German Freemasons tried to justify
| |
| − | their behavior in a similar fashion.5 In the interest of smoothing relations among
| |
| − | German Freemasons, the Große Landesloge issued a declaration in 1955, stating that it
| |
| − | formally regretted the actions it took during the 1930s, including the severing of ties
| |
| − | with other lodges; however, the declaration asked for understanding from the other
| |
| − | lodges, since these steps, though blatantly contrary to the basic tenets of Freemasonry,
| |
| − | were taken in order to camouflage Freemasonry and escape the fate of other lodges.6
| |
| − | The myth of “collaborating to protect” was born. The declaration naturally caused a stir
| |
| − | among the other Grand Lodges, which were not so quick to forget, but at the same time
| |
| − | were themselves guilty of coordinating to one degree or another.
| |
| − | Once Neuberger, a “profane” (the Masonic term for a non-Mason), wrote his
| |
| − | dissertation describing the Freemasons primarily as victims, Freemasons could begin to
| |
| − | revisit the Hitler years and try again to reconstruct the history that the Große Landesloge
| |
| − | suggested in 1955. Thus began the trickle of articles and short pieces on the
| |
| − | victimization, persecution and small but noble resistance movements of Masonic
| |
| − | 5 For a discussion of how this process worked in France see Robert Paxton, Vichy
| |
| − | France: Old Guard and New Order, 1940-1944 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982).
| |
| − | Paxton showed that, starting with Marshall Pétain’s postwar trial, the French have reconstructed
| |
| − | Vichy France as a necessary evil, done in defense against even greater threats, when in reality
| |
| − | the French began aligning with Nazi policy of their own accord, long before the surrender.
| |
| − | Other countries resisted Hitler’s pressure to deport Jews and persecution Freemasons (Italy and
| |
| − | Bulgaria for example), so certainly France cold have resisted. Instead it chose to take the first
| |
| − | step voluntarily, just like the lodges.
| |
| − | 6 Bernheim, “Tarnung und Gewalt.”
| |
| − | 180
| |
| − | brothers. The Symbolic Grand Lodge, which had been absolutely spurned by the Old
| |
| − | Prussian and Humanitarian lodges, suddenly became the poster child for the experience
| |
| − | of Freemasonry in the Third Reich as Freemasons fostered the image of the heroic
| |
| − | minority struggling in the face of overwhelming Nazi pressure. Once Bernheim and
| |
| − | Melzer blew the whistle on this version of Masonic history, pointing out the errors and
| |
| − | inconsistencies of the Freemasons as heroic underdogs, the debate over Freemasons as
| |
| − | victims vs. collaborators began.
| |
| − | More important than identifying Freemasons as one or the other is examining the
| |
| − | significance of the paradox. If Freemasons could be identified as both victims and
| |
| − | collaborators then there was interplay between the lodges and the regime. This means
| |
| − | that Nazi persecution was not uniform and could be negotiated based on four factors: did
| |
| − | the Nazis identify the group as a non-racial group (i.e. did an individual belong to the
| |
| − | group by virtue of their birth)? Was the group willing to coordinate? Did the group
| |
| − | have anything to offer the regime in exchange for coordination? Finally, was the regime
| |
| − | willing to accept the coordination of the group? The more questions to which a targeted
| |
| − | group could answer “yes” meant the more that particular group could negotiate
| |
| − | persecution. In the case of Freemasons, all but the last question could be answered in
| |
| − | the affirmative, meaning that the Freemasons had a substantial amount of wiggle room
| |
| − | when it came to how they and the regime interacted, thus the dance of compromise
| |
| − | began, and by looking at Freemasons we can see how this dance played out in regards to
| |
| − | a particularly significant group. As seen in Chapter II, the Freemasons were those who
| |
| − | were the most adamant supporters of National Socialism after the Crash of 1929, and
| |
| − | 181
| |
| − | consisted of the professions that were necessary for the regime to survive. The only
| |
| − | obstacle to an otherwise ideal match was the worldview of the association to which these
| |
| − | men belonged.
| |
| − | Did the Nazis identify Freemasons as a non-racial group? Yes, and this is the
| |
| − | most important of the four factors. Racial targets like Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and
| |
| − | the mentally disabled were at a severe disadvantage because their identity rested in the
| |
| − | hand of the Nazis, or as Karl Lueger, the Mayor of Vienna once put it, “I determine who
| |
| − | is a Jew.” Non-racial groups, like Freemasons, had an opportunity to change their
| |
| − | proverbial spots by disassociation. One could not change their blood or heritage, but one
| |
| − | could change one’s ideology, worldview or associations.7 In the case of non-racial
| |
| − | groups, identity rested in the hands of the individual instead of the regime. As non-racial
| |
| − | group, Freemasons could disassociate themselves from the lodges and be free from
| |
| − | further persecution as Freemasons. The fact that membership in a Masonic lodge was
| |
| − | not something officially recorded (as was religious denomination), made disassociation
| |
| − | that much easier. Joining the party and gaining the benefits of party membership posed
| |
| − | a different problem, but as far as removing one’s self from Nazi crosshairs, former
| |
| − | Freemasons had only to remove themselves from the lodge.
| |
| − | Next, if a group had the option of cutting ties and escaping persecution, were the
| |
| − | members of the group willing to exercise that option? Jehovah’s Witnesses were a non-
| |
| − | 7 Yehuda Bauer uses similar logic to argue that only ethnic and racial groups can be
| |
| − | victims of genocide or holocaust. Political and religious groups cannot because they can
| |
| − | “change their spots,” so to speak. Thus according to Bauer’s definition the Freemasons, along
| |
| − | with communists and even Jehovah’s Witnesses, were not victims of the holocaust. Victims of
| |
| − | persecution, yes, but victims of the Holocaust, no. Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust, 11-12.
| |
| − | 182
| |
| − | racial group targeted by the Nazis, but they had no intention of dissolving, conforming
| |
| − | or otherwise coordinating. Individual Witnesses may have collaborated, but the
| |
| − | institution as a whole remained opposed. Freemasons, on the other hand, were more
| |
| − | than willing to severe ties with the Freemasonry and work with the regime, and why not?
| |
| − | It was the next big opportunity. As the Nazis themselves pointed out several times, most
| |
| − | Freemasons joined the lodges out of ambition and opportunism. After 1933, career
| |
| − | advancement and opportunity came through the NSDAP. The lodges were willing to
| |
| − | coordinate, and took steps to do so, even before the seizure of power. The hornet’s nest
| |
| − | that the Bröse letter stirred up showed that some Freemasons strongly supported the
| |
| − | Nazis, and even those that didn’t certainly preferred National Socialism to communism.
| |
| − | After the seizure of power, all three Old Prussian lodges and two of the Humanitarian
| |
| − | lodges, representing over 80% of German Freemasonry, expelled all Jews, severed ties
| |
| − | with Freemasonry, changed names, and then openly sought official acceptance under the
| |
| − | Third Reich.
| |
| − | Third, if a group was willing to coordinate, did it have anything to offer the
| |
| − | regime? Here the Freemasons could not only answer “yes,” but answer with a
| |
| − | resounding “yes.” This is what made the Freemasons stand out among other non-racial
| |
| − | targets. The Masonic lodges consisted of between seventy and eighty thousand wealthy,
| |
| − | established and influential men. Freemasons were doctors, lawyers, politicians,
| |
| − | businessmen, professors, administrators and bankers; the very professions that were
| |
| − | crucial for the success of National Socialism as a government, a war machine, and an
| |
| − | ideology. No other group, organization or association could boast such an impressive
| |
| − | 183
| |
| − | membership since membership in the lodges was tied so closely to one’s ability to
| |
| − | become part of the social elite. Other non-racial groups were more socially diverse.
| |
| − | They certainly had influential members, but also had “ordinary” members. The
| |
| − | Communist Party, for example, consisted mainly of the working class and had little more
| |
| − | to offer the regime than unskilled labor. So in the eyes of the Nazi Party not only was it
| |
| − | possible to accept former Freemasons, it was desirable.
| |
| − | The willingness of most German Freemasons to so quickly abandon the fraternity
| |
| − | and work with the party says something about their membership in the lodges. Hjalmar
| |
| − | Schacht, for example, had been a Freemason for almost thirty years when the Nazis
| |
| − | came to power, yet when Hitler rejected his request to let the lodges stay open, Schacht
| |
| − | essentially shrugged it off and during his Königsberg Speech (which took place that
| |
| − | same year), stated that there was no room in Nazi Germany for Freemasonry. Other
| |
| − | Freemasons, many acting before the seizure of power, discarded a membership that had
| |
| − | lasted for years, and sometimes decades. For most Freemasons, membership in the
| |
| − | fraternity was just part of a long list of social and professional memberships that offered
| |
| − | benefits, but was not a defining part of their character. For Jehovah’s Witnesses, or even
| |
| − | Freemasons like Leo Müffelmann, the ideology and the organization were intertwined
| |
| − | and did make up a defining part of their character, thus they chose the concentration
| |
| − | camps over acquiescence.
| |
| − | Finally, if the group was willing to coordinate, was the regime willing to accept
| |
| − | them? Given the Nazi need for professionals and the Masonic desire to establish
| |
| − | themselves under the new regime, one would think that the two would have made a
| |
| − | 184
| |
| − | perfect match. Instead, Goering flatly refused to accept either the lodges or the Christian
| |
| − | Orders. The reason given was that the new orders would serve as a means of secretly
| |
| − | continuing Freemasonry, allowing the ideology of Freemasonry to continue; however,
| |
| − | most members never bought into the ideology and were instead only interested in the
| |
| − | other benefits of lodge membership. There must, then, have been another reason why a
| |
| − | myriad of other social clubs and organizations were allowed to coordinate, but not the
| |
| − | Masonic lodges. A return to, and comparison with the university Korps helps shed some
| |
| − | light on why Freemasonry, an institution that had a valuable membership and was so
| |
| − | willing to align with National Socialism, was unable to do so.
| |
| − | Consider the two; by the mid nineteenth century, like the majority of Masonic
| |
| − | lodges, the Korps were very nationalist and also anti-Semitic, especially the Deutsche
| |
| − | Burschenschaften. The Freemasons were the current professional and educated elite; the
| |
| − | members of the Korps were the future professional and educated elite. Membership in
| |
| − | the Korps was a sign of social and economic status, a sign that one was superior even to
| |
| − | other university students. The lodges served a similar purpose after college. The Korps,
| |
| − | like the lodges, also had a strict honor code and moral guideline, and expected its
| |
| − | members to live by those standards. The Korps even used elaborate costumes during it
| |
| − | formal ceremonies, like the Freemasons. By the 1920s, the Korps was a Masonic lodge
| |
| − | in embryo, but when the Korps sought coordination with National Socialism, they got it.
| |
| − | Those few Korps that didn’t align were forcibly closed the very same year as the lodges.
| |
| − | So what was the difference?
| |
| − | 185
| |
| − | First, the Korps were 100% German. They were formed in Germany and had no
| |
| − | ties to foreign fraternities, whereas Freemasonry was an English import. In addition, the
| |
| − | largest of the Korps, the Deutsche Burschenschaften, formed against Napoleon, making
| |
| − | it a group that was not only 100% German, but born out of nationalist struggle. The
| |
| − | Korps, then, were immune to accusations of being international. Second, the Korps was
| |
| − | a club that developed an ideology. Freemasonry, on the other hand, was an ideology that
| |
| − | developed into a club. As Enlightenment philosophers and intellectuals sought venues to
| |
| − | meet and discuss, they gravitated toward the lodges, turning a craftsman’s guild into an
| |
| − | elite intellectual and professional fraternity. For the Nazis to accept the overtures of
| |
| − | German student associations that adopted a code of honor wasn’t a task at all. To accept
| |
| − | a foreign society that purported to embrace humanitarianism and reject differences of
| |
| − | politics and religion was another matter altogether.
| |
| − | The final, and most significant difference between the Korps and the lodges was
| |
| − | that the Korps had something to offer the regime as an institution. True, the Nazi Party
| |
| − | had a student auxiliary, the NSDStB, but the NSDStB constantly struggled for
| |
| − | legitimacy and acceptance among the other Korps prior to 1933. When Hitler came to
| |
| − | power and enacted his policy of Gleichschaltung, the Korps, collectively, offered a
| |
| − | ready-made organization made up of a group that he did not yet control. With a little
| |
| − | political maneuvering, the NSDStB simply absorbed the Korps. Those who did not want
| |
| − | to belong to the NSDStB could quit. The Freemasons, on the other hand, did not have
| |
| − | an opposite number in the party that could just absorb it. As an institution, the lodge
| |
| − | offered a worldview and social exclusivity, both of which the NSDAP itself provided.
| |
| − | 186
| |
| − | After absorbing the Korps the NSDStB simply added the National Socialist worldview
| |
| − | to the Korps’ existing laws and codes. Since the lodges had a completely opposing
| |
| − | worldview (at least in theory), National Socialism couldn’t tweak or adjust Masonic
| |
| − | ideology; it had to totally replace it. At that point there would no longer be
| |
| − | Freemasonry, not even National Socialist Freemasonry. Instead the Nazis would have
| |
| − | had an entirely new organization, the National Socialist Professionals Association, or
| |
| − | something like that. But why bother going through all that trouble when the party
| |
| − | already had the NS Ärtzbund for doctors, the Bund NS Deutscher Juristen for lawyers,
| |
| − | the NS Lehrerbund for teachers, and so on. If men became Freemasons to network and
| |
| − | build their careers, joining the NSDAP and the appropriate Nazi professional association
| |
| − | would serve the same purpose. As an institution, the continuance of Freemasonry had
| |
| − | nothing to offer the regime but the possibility of clandestine humanitarianism,
| |
| − | masquerading as a coordinated organization, the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.
| |
| − | After changing to Christian Orders, the problem of having nothing to offer remained;
| |
| − | why would the regime need to adopt the Christian Orders when it already had a
| |
| − | Concordat with the Catholics, friendly relations with the Protestants, and compromises
| |
| − | with the new religions? There was simply no way the lodges could manipulate
| |
| − | themselves to make the regime willing to absorb them as a group; however, the end of
| |
| − | the institutional battle signaled the beginning of the individual battles for coordination.
| |
| − | Here the regime was much more accommodating.
| |
| − | At the same time as the regime couldn’t co-opt the lodges, they also could not let
| |
| − | them continue to exist as independent institutions, as had been done with the churches.
| |
| − | 187
| |
| − | Doing so may have gained the support of more former Freemasons, and avoided some of
| |
| − | the problems the regime encountered in weeding out “acceptable” from “unacceptable,”
| |
| − | but the Freemasons were too influential to be left alone to serve as a potential rival or
| |
| − | foundation of dissent in the future. The ideal situation was a compromise; closing down
| |
| − | the institution but co-opting the men, which is exactly what happened.
| |
| − | Over the course of the 1930s, the dance between Freemasons and Nazis reached
| |
| − | a successful conclusion; the amnesty made it possible for all but the most senior
| |
| − | Freemasons to enjoy what National Socialism had to offer and avoid any negative
| |
| − | consequences of former lodge membership. The regime had salvaged tens of thousands
| |
| − | of educated and professional elites while still maintaining the institution of Freemasonry
| |
| − | and its ideology as a convenient whipping boy. The Masonic boogeyman remained a
| |
| − | staple of Nazi propaganda. In fact, as the war progressed and then turned against
| |
| − | Germany, Freemasonry became an even bigger propaganda tool for the Nazis as a way
| |
| − | to explain why the fortunes of war were turning. Anti-Masonic propaganda during the
| |
| − | 1920s pointed to the WWI and the League of Nations as proof of a Jewish-Masonic
| |
| − | conspiracy against Germany. In the later war years, with Britain, France and the United
| |
| − | States again joined against Germany, the propaganda of Weimar-era National Socialism
| |
| − | needed little revamping; the nations led by Freemasonry had returned to finish what they
| |
| − | started in 1914. The fact that both President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister
| |
| − | Winston Churchill were active Freemasons only lent further credence to the accusations.
| |
| − | When Italy fell, Nazi propaganda quickly pointed out that Mussolini had never been as
| |
| − | thorough in his attack on the lodges as Hitler, leaving room for them to strike back. The
| |
| − | 188
| |
| − | SS made similar accusations regarding the military reversals in Africa, Hungary and
| |
| − | Western Europe.8 Given the ease with which most Freemasons discarded the fraternity
| |
| − | and the party insistence on keeping it alive suggests that the Nazis needed Freemasonry
| |
| − | more than the Freemasons needed Freemasonry.
| |
| − | The pattern of compromise continued as Germany expanded. In Austria, for
| |
| − | example, Freemasons received the same degree of compromise that German Freemasons
| |
| − | enjoyed. Likewise in Czechoslovakia and the German lodges in Poland. In France the
| |
| − | Germans had to do very little against the lodges because the Vichy government did it
| |
| − | themselves. The most surprising example of compromise, however, came from
| |
| − | Bulgaria, where the nothing happened to the Bulgarian Freemasons at all, both as
| |
| − | individuals and as an institution. Gocho Chakalov lived in Bulgaria during the war, his
| |
| − | father had became a Freemason while studying in the United States and continued his
| |
| − | association with the fraternity upon returning to Bulgaria. As a known and respected
| |
| − | Freemason, as well as having strong liberal politics, Chakalov’s father represented a
| |
| − | clear example of the “dangers of Freemasonry” of which Nazi propaganda continually
| |
| − | warned. But when German troops marched into Bulgaria following Bulgaria’s alliance
| |
| − | with Germany, the Bulgarian lodges remained completely untouched, Chakalov recalled,
| |
| − | “There was no interference in the Masonic movement, in the Masonic lodges,
| |
| − | during the Nazi era. The Germans didn’t go that far, couldn’t go that far, in Bulgaria.
| |
| − | The lodges operated normally. They were closed down by the communists. There was
| |
| − | absolutely no interference, nobody suffered for having been a Mason, but by the
| |
| − | communists.”9
| |
| − | 8 May and June 1944, Information Reports, USHMM, RG-11.001M.01, Reel 11, Folder
| |
| − | 790.
| |
| − | 9 Chakalov, Gocho. Interview code 43811. Visual History Archive. USC Shoah
| |
| − | Foundation Institute. Accessed online at the USHMM on August 4, 2009.
| |
| − | 189
| |
| − | When the war ended, German Freemasons picked the fraternity back up even
| |
| − | faster than they dropped it in 1933. They then rewrote the history of the lodges under the
| |
| − | Third Reich, paint themselves in a more favorable light as underdogs struggling for
| |
| − | survival in the face of the Nazi juggernaut. The truth is that the Freemasons had a
| |
| − | substantial amount of agency. The Third Reich restricted that agency to a degree, but
| |
| − | never completely eliminated it as it had done to groups targeted for racial reasons.
| |
| − | Unfortunately, with that agency, the majority of German Freemasons acted under the
| |
| − | same motivations as their decision to enter the lodges: self-interest and opportunism.
| |
| − | From their decision to join the lodges, then to abandon the lodges for the Nazi Party,
| |
| − | then back to the lodges after the war ended, ambition, opportunism and self-interest
| |
| − | played a primary role. They cooperated with the Third Reich because they wanted to,
| |
| − | and because they could.
| |
| − | 190
| |
| − | REFERENCES
| |
| − | Archival Sources:
| |
| − | Austrian National Library, Historical Legal Texts Online (http://alex.onb.ac.at/alex.htm)
| |
| − | German Reich Law Gazette (Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt)
| |
| − | Bundesarchiv
| |
| − | NS 6 – Party Chancellery
| |
| − | NS 19 – Personnel Staff, Reichsführer-SS
| |
| − | NS 23 – Sturmabteilung der Nationalsocialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
| |
| − | NS 26 – Main Archive of the Nationalsocialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
| |
| − | NS 30 – Special Staff Reichsleiter Rosenberg
| |
| − | R 43 – Reich Chancellery
| |
| − | R 55 – Ministry for People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda
| |
| − | R 58 – Reichsicherheitshauptamt
| |
| − | Geheimes Staatsarchiv Pruessicher Kulturbesitz
| |
| − | Record Group 5.1.11 - Records of the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Germany
| |
| − | Hoover Institution of War and Peace
| |
| − | Hjalmar Schacht Papers
| |
| − | National Archives and Records Administration
| |
| − | Record Group T580 - Schumacher Collection
| |
| − | The Nizkor Project (www.nizkor.org))
| |
| − | Eichmann Trial Records
| |
| − | United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
| |
| − | RG 11.001M – Records from the Osobyi Archive in Moscow
| |
| − | RG 15.007M – Records of the Reichsicherheitshauptamt
| |
| − | RG 37.001 – Records from the Nordhein-Westfälisches Hauptstaatsarchiv
| |
| − | RG 68.040M – Records of the Deutsche Gemeindetag
| |
| − | RG 68.041M – Main Archive of the Nationalsocialistische Deutsche
| |
| − | Arbeiterpartei
| |
| − | USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education
| |
| − | Frida Ajzenberg
| |
| − | Sam Braun
| |
| − | Elizabeth Brodie
| |
| − | Ilse Buckner
| |
| − | Fransin Burshtayn
| |
| − | Gocho Chakalov
| |
| − | 191
| |
| − | Joseph Feneyes
| |
| − | Tillie Molho
| |
| − | Henri Montias
| |
| − | Jean Piuro
| |
| − | Giovanni Polgar
| |
| − | Roberto Romanelli
| |
| − | Jean Michel Rosenfeld
| |
| − | Henri Schnur
| |
| − | Natan Stayner
| |
| − | David-Mark Syfer
| |
| − | Adolphe Warzager
| |
| − | Gisela Wolters-Saj
| |
| − | Newspapers and Magazines:
| |
| − | Die Alten Pflicthen
| |
| − | American Mercury
| |
| − | Berliner Tageblatt
| |
| − | Danziger Volkstimme
| |
| − | Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt
| |
| − | Hamburger Logenblattes
| |
| − | Der Stürmer
| |
| − | The New York Times
| |
| − | Volkisher Beobachter
| |
| − | Welt Dienst
| |
| − | Published Sources:
| |
| − | Abbott, Scott. Fictions of Freemasonry: Freemasonry and the German Novel. Detroit:
| |
| − | Wayne State University Press, 1991.
| |
| − | Allen, William Sheridan. The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single
| |
| − | German Town, 1922-1945. New York: F. Watts, 1984.
| |
| − | Aly, Götz. Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War and the Nazi Welfare State. New
| |
| − | York: Metropolitan, 2007.
| |
| − | Anderson, James. The Constitutions of the Free-Masons: containing the History,
| |
| − | Charges, Regulations, &c. of that most Ancient and Right Worshipful Fraternity.
| |
| − | London, 1723.
| |
| − | Arendt, Hannah. Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1951.
| |
| − | 192
| |
| − | Bauer, Yahuda. Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
| |
| − | 2001.
| |
| − | Beachy, Robert. “Club Culture and Social Authority” in Frank Trentmann, ed.,
| |
| − | Paradoxes of Civil Society: New Perspectives on Modern German and British
| |
| − | History. New York: Berghahn Books, 2000.
| |
| − | Bernheim, Alain. “German Freemasonry and its Attitude Toward the Nazi Regime.”
| |
| − | The Philalethes XLX (February, 1997), 18-22.
| |
| − | ----------. “The Blue Forget-Me-Not: Another Side of the Story.” available from Pietre-
| |
| − | Stones Review of Freemasonry, accessed January 3, 2011,
| |
| − | http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/bernheim3.html.
| |
| − | ----------. “Tarnung und Gewalt: Karl Hoede, die Freimaurerei, die Nazis,”
| |
| − | R.E.F.O.R.M. Jahrbuch 03, 47-57.
| |
| − | Blackbourn, David. History of Germany, 1780-1918: The Long Nineteenth Century.
| |
| − | Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003.
| |
| − | Böttner, Friedrich John. Zersplitterung und Einigung: 225 Jahre Geschichte der
| |
| − | deutschen Freimaurer. Hamburg: “Absalom zu den drei Nesseln” Lodge press,
| |
| − | 1962.
| |
| − | Boberach, Heinz. Meldungen aus dem Reich: Auswahl aus den geheimen
| |
| − | Lageberichtung des Sicherheitsdienst der SS, 1939-1944. Munich: Deutscher
| |
| − | Tascenbuch, 1968.
| |
| − | Bracher, Karl Dietrich. The German Dictatorship: The Origins, Structure and Effects of
| |
| − | National Socialism. New York: Praeger, 1970.
| |
| − | Broszat, Martin. The Hitler State: The Foundation and Development of the Internal
| |
| − | Structure of the Third Reich. New York: Longman, 1981.
| |
| − | Bullock, Alan. Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. New York: Harper & Row, 1953.
| |
| − | Burleigh, Michael. The Third Reich: A New History. New York: Hill and Wang, 2001.
| |
| − | ---------- and Wolfgang Wippermann. The Racial State: Germany, 1933-1945. New
| |
| − | York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
| |
| − | Cesarani, David. Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes and Trial of a “Desk
| |
| − | Murderer.” Cambridge, MA: De Capo Press, 2006.
| |
| − | 193
| |
| − | Childers, Thomas. The Nazi Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany,
| |
| − | 1919-1933. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1983.
| |
| − | Conway, John S. Nazi Persecution of the Churches. New York: Basic Books, 1968.
| |
| − | Crankshaw, Edward. Gestapo: Instrument of Tyranny. New York: Putnam, 1956.
| |
| − | Dahrendorf, Ralf. Society and Democracy in Germany. New York: Doubleday, 1967.
| |
| − | DeCoste, F.C. and Bernard Schwartz, eds. The Holocaust’s Ghost: Writings on Art,
| |
| − | Politics, Law and Education. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta
| |
| − | Press, 2000.
| |
| − | DeHoyos, Art and S. Brent Morris. Freemasonry in Context: History, Ritual,
| |
| − | Controversy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004.
| |
| − | Desai, A.V. Real Wages in Germany, 1871-1914. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1968.
| |
| − | Evans, Richard. The Coming of the Third Reich. New York: Penguin, 2004.
| |
| − | ----------. The Third Reich in Power, 1933-1939. New York: Penguin, 2005.
| |
| − | Fest, Joachim. Hitler. London: Widenfeld and Nicholson, 1974.
| |
| − | Fischer, Fritz. World Power or Decline. New York: W.W. Norton, 1974.
| |
| − | Flood, Charles Bracelen. Hitler: Path to Power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989.
| |
| − | Fritsch, Peter. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998
| |
| − | Fulbrook, Mary. Concise History of Germany. New York: Cambridge, 1990.
| |
| − | Gellately, Robert. Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in the Third Reich. New
| |
| − | York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
| |
| − | Goebbels, Joseph. The Goebbels Diaries. Translated and edited by Louis P. Lochner.
| |
| − | London: H. Hamilton, 1948.
| |
| − | Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and their
| |
| − | Influence on Nazi Ideology. New York: New York University Press, 1992.
| |
| − | Gould, Robert Freke. Gould’s History of Freemasonry Throughout the World. New
| |
| − | York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936.
| |
| − | 194
| |
| − | Grill, Johnpeter Horst. The Nazi Movement in Baden, 1920-1945. Chapel Hill:
| |
| − | Univeristy of Norh Carolina Press, 1983.
| |
| − | Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into
| |
| − | a Category of Bourgeoisie Society, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
| |
| − | Hamilton, Richard. Who Voted for Hitler? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
| |
| − | 1982.
| |
| − | Hassell, Ulrich von. The Ulrich von Hassell Diaries, 1938-1944: The Story of the
| |
| − | Forces Against Hitler Inside Germany. London: H. Hamilton, 1948.
| |
| − | Helmreich, Ernst Christian. The German Churches Under Hitler. Detroit, MI: Wayne
| |
| − | State University Press, 1979.
| |
| − | Herzstein, Robert. The War that Hitler Won: The Most Infamous Propaganda
| |
| − | Campaign in History. New York: Putnam, 1978.
| |
| − | Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939.
| |
| − | ----------. Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf. Edited by Gerhard
| |
| − | Weinberg. New York: Enigma, 2003.
| |
| − | ----------. Hitler’s Table Talk. Edited by Hugh Trevor-Roper. New York: Enigma,
| |
| − | 2000.
| |
| − | ----------. The Last Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents,
| |
| − | February-April 1945 London: Cassell, 1959.
| |
| − | ----------. Hitler: Reden, Schriften, Anordnungen, Februar 1925 bis Januar 1933. Edited
| |
| − | by Clemens Vollnhals. New York: K.G. Saur, 1992.
| |
| − | Hodapp, Christopher. Freemasons for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Press, 2005.
| |
| − | Hoffman, Stefan-Ludwig. The Politics of Sociability: Freemasonry and German Civil
| |
| − | Society, 1840-1918. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2007.
| |
| − | Höhne, Heinz. The Order of the Death’s Head: The Story of Hitler’s SS. New York:
| |
| − | Penguin, 2000.
| |
| − | Howe, Eric. “The Collapse of Freemasonry in Germany, 1933-1935.” Ars Quatuor
| |
| − | Coronatorum vol. 95 (1982).
| |
| − | 195
| |
| − | Jacob, Margaret. Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in Eighteenth-
| |
| − | Century Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
| |
| − | ----------. The Origins of Freemasonry: Facts and Fictions. Philadelphia: University of
| |
| − | Pennsylvania Press, 2006.
| |
| − | Jarausch, Konrad. “The Perils of Professionalism,” German Studies Review, Vol. 9, No.
| |
| − | 1 (Feb. 1986).
| |
| − | ----------. Students, Society and Politics in Imperial Germany: The Rise of Academic
| |
| − | Liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982.
| |
| − | Johnson, Eric. Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews and Ordinary Germans. New York:
| |
| − | Basic Books, 1999.
| |
| − | Jowett, J. A. “The Masonic Union of the Rising Sun.” Ars Quatuor Coronatorum vol.
| |
| − | 97 (1984).
| |
| − | Junker, Heinrich. Der Nationalsozialistische Gedankenkreis: Eine Aufklärung für
| |
| − | Freimaurer. Leipzig: Verein Deutscher Freimaurer, 1931.
| |
| − | Kater, Michael. Doctors Under Hitler. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
| |
| − | 1989.
| |
| − | Katz, Jacob. Jews and Freemasons in Europe, 1723 – 1939. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
| |
| − | University Press, 1970.
| |
| − | Kershaw, Ian. Hitler, 1889 – 1936: Hubris. New York: W.W. Norton, 1999.
| |
| − | ----------. Hitler, 1936 – 1945: Nemesis. New York: W.W. Norton, 2000.
| |
| − | ----------. Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich. New York: Oxford
| |
| − | University Press, 1983.
| |
| − | ----------. The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives in Interpretation.
| |
| − | Baltimore, MD: E. Arnold, 1985.
| |
| − | King, Christine Elizabeth. The Nazis State and the New Religions: Five Case-Studies in
| |
| − | Non-Conformity. New York: E. Mellon Press, 1982.
| |
| − | Kopper, Christopher. Hjalmar Schacht: Aufstieg und Fall von Hitlers mächtigstem
| |
| − | Bankier. Munich: Hanser, 2006.
| |
| − | 196
| |
| − | Krausnick, Hans Buchheim, Martin Broszat and Hans Adolf Jacobsen. Anatomy of the
| |
| − | SS State. London: Collins, 1968.
| |
| − | Kubizek, August. The Young Hitler I Knew. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955.
| |
| − | Kurlander, Eric. “’I am no anti-Semite, but I am also not Jew:’ German Liberalism and
| |
| − | the ‘Jewish Question’ in the Third Reich,” GHI Bulletin 42 (Spring 2008).
| |
| − | LeBor, Adam and Roger Boyes. Surviving Hitler: Choices, Corruption and
| |
| − | Compromise in the Third Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
| |
| − | Lewy, Gunter. The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. New York: McGraw-Hill,
| |
| − | 1964.
| |
| − | Ludendorff, Erich. The Destruction of Freemasonry Through Revelation of their
| |
| − | Secrets. Translated by J. Elisabeth Koester. Los Angeles: Noontide Press, 1977.
| |
| − | ----------. The Coming War. London: Faber & Faber, 1931.
| |
| − | Lunden, Sven G. “Annihilation of Freemasonry,” American Mercury, February 1941,
| |
| − | 184-190.
| |
| − | Lutz, Rolland Ray. “The German Revolutionary Student Movement, 1819-1833,”
| |
| − | Central European History, Vol. 4, No. 3, September 1971, 215-241.
| |
| − | Maris, Leo. “English Freemasonry in Germany 1921-1929, 1945-1971,” Ars Quatour
| |
| − | Coronatorum vol. 83 (1970).
| |
| − | Maser, Werner. Hitler’s Letters and Notes. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
| |
| − | Masonic Service Association. “Freemasonry in Europe: Report of the Committee
| |
| − | sent abroad in August, 1945, by the Masonic Service Association to ascertain the
| |
| − | conditions and needs of the Grand Lodges and Brethren in the Occupied
| |
| − | Countries.” Washington: Masonic Service Association, 1945.
| |
| − | McClelland, Charles. State, Society and Univeristy in Germany, 1700-1914. New York:
| |
| − | Cambridge University Press, 1980.
| |
| − | McElligot, Anthony. Contested City: Municipal Politics and the Rise of Nazism in
| |
| − | Altona, 1917-1937. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1998.
| |
| − | Melzer, Ralf. Konflikt und Anpassung: Freimaurerei in der Weimarer Republik und im
| |
| − | “Dritten Reich.” Vienna: Braumüller, 1999.
| |
| − | 197
| |
| − | ----------. “In the Eye of the Hurricane: German Freemasonry in the Weimar Republic
| |
| − | and the Third Reich,” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 4
| |
| − | (Autumn 2003).
| |
| − | Morris, S. Brent. The Complete Idiots Guide to Freemasonry. New York: Alpha Books,
| |
| − | 2006.
| |
| − | Muehlen, Norbert. Hitler’s Magician: The Life and Loans of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht.
| |
| − | Translated by E.W. Dickes. London: Routledge, 1939.
| |
| − | Müller, Ingo. Hitler’s Justice: The Court’s of the Third Reich. Cambridge, MA:
| |
| − | Harvard University Press, 1991.
| |
| − | Neuberger, Helmut. Winkelmass und Hakenkreuz: Die Freimaurer und Das Dritte
| |
| − | Reich. Munich: Herbig, 2001.
| |
| − | ----------. Freimaurerei und Nationalsozialismus : die Verfolgung der
| |
| − | deutschen Freimaurerei durch völkische Bewegung und Nationalsozialismus
| |
| − | 1918-1945. Hamburg: Bauhütten, 1980.
| |
| − | Nilus, Sergei. Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Translated by Victor Marsden.
| |
| − | Reedy, WV: Liberty Bell Publications, 1922.
| |
| − | Noakes, Jeremy and Geoffrey Pridham. Nazism: A Documentary Reader. Exeter, UK:
| |
| − | University of Exeter, 1998.
| |
| − | Office of United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality. Nazi
| |
| − | Conspiracy and Aggression (Red Set). Washington, DC: United States
| |
| − | Government Printing Office, 1949.
| |
| − | Paxtion, Robert. Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order, 1940-1944. New York:
| |
| − | Columbia University Press, 1982.
| |
| − | Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich: Facts and Documents. London:
| |
| − | Burns and Oats, 1940.
| |
| − | Peterson, Edward. Hjalmar Schacht: For and Against Hitler: A Political-
| |
| − | Economic Study of Germany, 1923-1945. Boston: Christopher Publishing House,
| |
| − | 1954.
| |
| − | Peukert, Detlev. Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition and Racism in Everyday
| |
| − | Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.
| |
| − | 198
| |
| − | Phelps, Reginald. “Before Hitler Came: Thule Society and German Orden.” Journal of
| |
| − | Modern History 35, no. 3 (Sep. 1963), pp. 245-261.
| |
| − | Quellen und Darstellungen zur Freimaurerfrage. Berlin: Nordland Verlag, 1942.
| |
| − | Reitlinger, Gerald. SS: Alibi of a Nation. New York: Viking Press, 1957.
| |
| − | Remy, Steve. The Heidelberg Myth: The Nazifacation and Denazifacation of a German
| |
| − | University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
| |
| − | Riegelmann, Hans. Die Europaeischen Dynastien in ihrem Verhaeltnis zur
| |
| − | Freimaurerei. Berlin: Nordland Verlag, 1943.
| |
| − | Rigg, Bryan Mark. Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and
| |
| − | Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military. Lawrence, KS: University of
| |
| − | Kansas Press, 2002.
| |
| − | Rosenberg, Alfred. Myth of the Twentieth Century: An Evaluation of the Spiritual-
| |
| − | Intellectual Confrontations of Our Age. Torrence, CA: Noontide Press, 1982.
| |
| − | Rossberg, Adolf. Freimaurerei und Politik im Zeitalter der Franzoesischen
| |
| − | Revolution. Berlin: Nordland Verlag, 1942.
| |
| − | Segel, Binjamin. A Lie and a Libel: The History of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
| |
| − | Translated and edited by Richard S. Levy. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
| |
| − | Press, 1995.
| |
| − | Schacht, Hjalmar. Confessions of the “Old Wizard.” Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1956.
| |
| − | ----------. Kleine Bekenntnisse. Winsen, Germany: Buchdrucherei Gebrüder Ravens,
| |
| − | 1949.
| |
| − | Schick, Hans. Das äeltere Rosenkreuzertum: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte
| |
| − | der Freimaurerei. Berlin, Nordland Verlag, 1942.
| |
| − | Schramm, Arthur. “Freemasonry in Germany.” Paper presented at a meeting of the
| |
| − | Liberal Arts Lodge, No. 677, Westwood, California, May 7, 1931.
| |
| − | Schwartz, Dieter. Freimaurerei: Weltanschauung, Organisation und Politik. Berlin:
| |
| − | Central Publishing House of the NSDAP, 1944.
| |
| − | Schwarzburg, Freimaurerei als politische Geheimwaffe des juedisch-englischen
| |
| − | Imperialismus. Frankfurt am Main: Welt Dienst Verlag, 1944.
| |
| − | 199
| |
| − | Schwarzburg, Erich. Der jüdische Bloschewismus und die Judäo-Freimaurerei als
| |
| − | Urheber des spanischen Bürgerkrieges. Frankfurt am Main: Welt-Dienst Verlag,
| |
| − | 1944.
| |
| − | Shirer, William. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New
| |
| − | York: Simon and Schuster, 1960.
| |
| − | Simpson, Amos. Hjalmar Schacht in Perspective. The Hague: Mouton, 1969.
| |
| − | Simpson, Elizabeth, ed. The Spoils of War: WWII and its Aftermath – The Loss,
| |
| − | Reappearance and Recovery of Cultural Property. New York: H.N. Abrams,
| |
| − | 1997.
| |
| − | Six, Franz. Freimaurerei und Judenemancipation. Hamburg: Hanseatische
| |
| − | Verlagsnstalt, 1942.
| |
| − | Solf, Hans-Heinrich. “The Revival of Freemasonry in Post-War Germany.” Ars
| |
| − | Quatuor Coronatorum vol. 97 (1984).
| |
| − | Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich. New York: Macmillan, 1970.
| |
| − | Spicer, Kevin. Hitler’s Priests: Catholic Clergy and National Socialism. Dekalb, IL:
| |
| − | Northern Illinois University Press, 2008.
| |
| − | Stackelberg, Roger and Sally Anne Winkle. The Nazi Germany Sourcebook: An
| |
| − | Anthology of Texts. New York: Routledge, 2002.
| |
| − | Steffens, Manfred. Freimaurer in Deutschland: Bilanz eines Vierteljahrtausends.
| |
| − | Flensberg: C. Wolff, 1964.
| |
| − | Stern, Fritz. Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichröder and the Building of the German
| |
| − | Empire. New York: Knopf, 1977.
| |
| − | Tooze, Adam. The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi
| |
| − | Economy. New York: Viking, 2007.
| |
| − | Trevor-Roper, Hugh R. The Last Days of Hitler. London: Macmillan, 1947.
| |
| − | Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal,
| |
| − | Nuremberg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (Blue Set). Nuremberg,
| |
| − | Germany: The Tribunal, 1947-1949.
| |
| − | Ward, Eric. “The Birth of Freemasonry: Creation of a Myth.” Ars Quatuor
| |
| − | Coronatorum 91 (1978) pp. 77-86.
| |
| − | 200
| |
| − | Weber, R.G.S. The German Student Corps in the Third Reich. New York: St. Martin’s
| |
| − | Press, 1986).
| |
| − | Wende, Peter. A History of Germany. New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2005.
| |
| − | Weisberger, William, Wallace McCleod and S. Brent Morris. Freemasonry on Both
| |
| − | Sides of the Atlantic: Essay’s Concerning the Craft in the British Isles, Europe,
| |
| − | the United States and Mexico. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 2002.
| |
| − | Wichtl, Friedrich, Weltfreimaurerei, Weltrevoltuion, Weltrepublik: Eine Untersuchung
| |
| − | über Ursprung und Endziele des Weltkrieges. Munich: I.F. Lehmanns Verlag,
| |
| − | 1921.
| |
| − | Wiest, Irvine. “Freemasonry and the Nuremberg Trials.” Paper presented at the
| |
| − | 15th Annual Consistory of the Society of Blue Friars, Washington, D.C.,
| |
| − | February 22, 1959.
| |
| − | 201
| |
| − | APPENDIX
| |
| − | Figure A1: “Among ‘Brothers’.” Source: Robert Herzstein, The War that Hitler Won: The Most
| |
| − | Infamous Propaganda Campaign in History (New York: Putnam, 1978), 50.
| |
| − | 202
| |
| − | Founded Seat
| |
| − | 1920s
| |
| − | Members
| |
| − | (Lodges)*
| |
| − | 1931
| |
| − | Members
| |
| − | (Lodges)*
| |
| − | 1933
| |
| − | Members
| |
| − | (Lodges)*
| |
| − | Old Prussian
| |
| − | Three Globes 1744 Berlin 22,700 (177) 21,300 (179) 21,000 (183)
| |
| − | National Grand
| |
| − | Lodge
| |
| − | 1770 Berlin 22,300 (173) 21,005 (177) 20,300 (180)
| |
| − | Royal York 1765 Berlin 11,400 (104) 11,422 (108) 9372 (108)
| |
| − | Total 56,400 (454) 53,727 (454) 50,672 (471)
| |
| − | Humanitarian
| |
| − | Sun 1811 Bayreuth 4,000 (44) 4,000 (45) 3335 (41)
| |
| − | Unity 1846 Darmstadt 900 (10) 896 (10) 890 (10)
| |
| − | Grand Lodge of
| |
| − | Saxony
| |
| − | 1811 Dresden 7,200 (45) 7,344 (45) 6017 (47)
| |
| − | Eclectic Union 1823 Frankfurt 3,500 (24) 3,200 (26) 2574 (25)
| |
| − | Grand Lodge of
| |
| − | Hamburg
| |
| − | 1811 Hamburg 5,000 (54) 5,000 (54) 5000 (54)
| |
| − | Chain of
| |
| − | Brothers^
| |
| − | 1924 Leipzig 1,910 (10) 1,935 (10) 1800 (10)
| |
| − | Irregular
| |
| − | Symbolic Grand
| |
| − | Lodge
| |
| − | 1930 Hamburg NA NA 800 (28)
| |
| − | Masonic Union
| |
| − | of the Rising
| |
| − | Sun
| |
| − | 1906 Hamburg -- -- 1250 (50)
| |
| − | Total
| |
| − | (Humanitarian
| |
| − | and Irregular)
| |
| − | 22,510 (187) 22,375 (190) 21,666 (265)
| |
| − | Total of all
| |
| − | branches
| |
| − | 78,910 (641) 76,102 (644) 72,338 (736)
| |
| − | Figure A2: German Grand Lodge Statistics. Sources: Schumacher collection, T580, 267 I;
| |
| − | Schramm, “Freemasonry in Germany”; Solf, “The Revival of Freemasonry in Post-War
| |
| − | Germany”; Bernheim, "Freemasonry and its Attitude Toward the Nazi Regime"; GStA PK
| |
| − | record group 5.1.11; Gould, History of Freemasonry.
| |
| − | *Number represents Blue Lodges (St. John’s) only.
| |
| − | ^ The German Chain of Brothers formed from a looser association of five independent lodges,
| |
| − | whose first association began in 1883 when the five formed the Treaty of Alliance and Bond of
| |
| − | Union. The name was changed to “Chain of Brothers” in 1924.
| |
| − | 203
| |
| − | !
| |
| − | !
| |
| − | Figure A3: Hauptamt Sicherheitspolizei. Organization as of January 1, 1938, before the
| |
| − | creation of the RSHA. Source: Security Police Main Office organization report, USHMM RG-
| |
| − | 11.001, reel 92, folder 221.
| |
| − | Hauptamt Sicherheitspolizei
| |
| − | (Secutiry Police Main Office)
| |
| − | Political
| |
| − | Police
| |
| − | PP I
| |
| − | PP II -
| |
| − | Interior
| |
| − | II A
| |
| − | Communism
| |
| − | II B
| |
| − | Chruches, Jews,
| |
| − | Lodges
| |
| − | Catholic
| |
| − | Church
| |
| − | Protestant
| |
| − | Churches
| |
| − | Other Sects Emigrants Jews Lodges
| |
| − | Gestapo
| |
| − | Criminal
| |
| − | Police
| |
| − | 204
| |
| − | Figure A4: Organization of the RSHA after 1940. The Gestapo maintained its own Freemason
| |
| − | section even after incorporation into the RSHA. Sources: Höhne, Death’s Head, 144-145;
| |
| − | USHMM RG-15.007M, reel 5, folders 36 and 44; Records of the Eichmann Trial, available from
| |
| − | The Nizkor Project, www.nizkor.org, accessed June 21, 2011.
| |
| − | RSHA
| |
| − | Amt I
| |
| − | Personnel
| |
| − | Amt II
| |
| − | Admin.
| |
| − | Amt III
| |
| − | Inland SD
| |
| − | Amt IV
| |
| − | Gestapo
| |
| − | Section B
| |
| − | Sects &
| |
| − | Churches
| |
| − | IV B 3
| |
| − | Freemasons
| |
| − | Amt V
| |
| − | Kripo
| |
| − | Amt VI
| |
| − | Foreign SD
| |
| − | Amt VII
| |
| − | Research
| |
| − | Section B
| |
| − | Analysis
| |
| − | VII B 1
| |
| − | Freemasons
| |
| − | 205
| |
| − | Figure A5: The Erklärung as it appeared in 1939. BArch R43II 1308a.
| |
| − | 206
| |
| − | Figure A6: The 1782 design for the Royal York zur Freundschaft grand lodge in Berlin. Source:
| |
| − | Abbott, Fictions of Freemasonry, 125.
| |
| − | 207
| |
| − | Figure A7: Exterior photographs of the Alexius zur Beständigkeit lodge building. Source:
| |
| − | BArch R58/6103a, part 1.
| |
| − | 208
| |
| − | Figure A8: This inventory list for the third of four trucks carrying the contents of Alexius zur
| |
| − | Beständigkeit, showing the amount of property a single lodge could contain. The pool table was
| |
| − | in truck I. Source: BArch R58/6103a, part 1.
| |
| − | 209
| |
| | | | |
| | == VITA == | | == VITA == |
