|
Lebensborn:
From Inception to the New Millennium Germanization of Abducted Children
Alienation & Estrangement
originally
published online at
http://www.parentinternational.com/resources/lebensborn.htm
© 2000 by Maureen Dabbagh, author Recovery of
Internationally Abducted Children
Introduction
American children abducted to
Germany
are not being returned as sent down by the articles of the Hague
Convention
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, reports Mike
Dewine,
Republican Senator for Ohio. Dewine explains,
"Germany has signed the Hague Convention, which means that they agree
that if a child is kidnapped to Germany, to return that child to the
country wherever that child came from," said Sen. Mike Dewine, R-Ohio.
"Yet, in only
about a fifth of the cases do they do this." (CNN, 2000).
After a meeting between American President Clinton and German
Chancellor Schroder, German authorities have indicated that they were
addressing U.S. concerns that children that had been international
child abducted and not returned by setting up a special task force with
the United States to Review individual cases.
At a meeting in Berlin on June 1, 2000, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and
President Bill Clinton addressed the issue of cross-border custody
disputes and accusations that German courts unfairly favor German
parent in awarding custody. Schroder proposed that the Federal Ministry
of justice and the
U.S. Department of justice establish a working group to examine
individual
cases and to consider whether institutional changes are needed to
improve
resolution of custody
disputes within the framework of the Hague Convention. (German Embassy,
2000).
The high rate of non-return of American children by German authorities
may be the result of the current social welfare practices of the German
State, with Hague non-compliance being only one of the symptoms
of German
Social welfare policies and practices. In the majority of cases
involving
children that have been abducted to Germany, social services and
psychologists
were called in to provide the Hague courts and family courts with
recommendations regarding return and access in these abduction
cases. The courts,
deferring to the recommendations and finding of representatives from
the
German social Services and child psychologists, have put into place a
practice
of recognizing those recommendations in deference to the Hague
guidelines.
It is therefore suggested that the source of non-returns of American
child
by German authorities lies not with the Hague courts, but rather with
German
social welfare practices.
While children have been returned to the United States under the Hague
treaty, the question remains as to way so few returns are ordered or
honored as well as access issues. In order to determine the
practice of the German social welfare system in cases of international
child abduction, a look at the evolution of that system may provide
answers. This year, the Social
Service Agency of the Evangelical Church in Germany takes over the
rotating
role of overall control / coordination of the six (German Welfare
Organizations)
- Approximately 1 million full-time workers. (EDK, 2000).
History:
Redefining the Family role
Post
WW1 found Germany in a state of economic crisis. With the rise of
Hitler and the Nazi party, laws were put into place which redefined the
rights, duties and status of the individual in German society.
These affected the roles of women, men and children at the most
intimate
level of social obligation in regards to their role in the family unit.
Those
roles were often obeyed as a result of economic relief to those who
were
compliant to the law, while others were forced to obedience. The
restructuring
of German society and the explicit defining of the roles of individuals
and
their obligations to Germany had a profound impact on all, including
the
children. An understanding of the specific laws pertaining to
children
then and now may lead to a better understanding of why children are not
returned,
or why children are not returned as desired by the United States.
In redefining the role of individuals, Germany past a series of laws
known as the Nuremberg laws. These laws put into place mechanisms to
further the adherence to the redefined roles of individuals non-Aryan
individuals. (Gilbert,1979).
Some of the issues addressed were:
1. Who could marry
2. Who could have children
3. The number of persons considered to be a
family
4. Grounds for divorce
5. Women in the work place
6. Men‘s roles
7. Child Support
8. Education
These laws, known as the race
laws
were put into place to also divide and define Aryan from non-Aryan
people.
These laws had a profound effect on individual family members from both
groups. The central theme to all social restructuring laws was to
create a master race of German people and at the same time, exterminate
those that did not meet the definition of Aryan. While the
history
of the Holocaust is well documented, the plight of children and
the
affects these laws had on children have not.
In order to carry out this agenda, Aryan mothers were encouraged to
have children to increase the Aryan population, in part, by:
1. Lowering of marriage age
2. Having sexual intercourse with only Aryan
men
3. Encouragement of child birth outside of
marriage
4. Creation of the Lebensborn Program
5. Outlawed working mothers
6. Rewarded mothers with large families
7. Outlawed abortion
8. Outlawed marriage for sterile women
9. School curiculum for girls was geared
towards physical education and homemaking skills
Laws and programs effecting non-Aryan women and
children included:
1. Sterilization
2. Illegal to have sexual intercourse with an
Aryan male
3. Twin children were subjected to experiments in an
effort to determine how twins were conceived for the further population
of the Aryan race.
4. Non-Aryan children not permitted to attend
school, or education was minimal
5. Non-Aryan children not permitted to play in
parks, go to children1s activities
7. Non-Aryan children were placed into forced
labor
8. Non-Aryan children were routinely separated
from their families
9. Non-Aryan children were murdered.
In both categories, fathers by
far and large were absent from the children‘s lives. Many
children,
both Aryan and non-Aryan were sent to live with family, friends,
convents
and orphanages for protection during the war years. Others were orphans
of soldiers or separated in concentration camps. Still others
comprise
a category of children that were forcibly removed from their families
and
kidnapped by order of laws and policies of the German State.
Lebensborn: State Ordered International Child
Abduction
Nazi encouragement to produce
Aryan
children lead to the Lebensborn program. This program not only
encouraged
Aryan women to have children, but also rewarded those efforts through
economic
incentive. Lebensborn homes were set up in Germany and occupied
countries
for the benefit of Aryan mothers to live during their pregnancy and
delivery.
The demand for children brought with it a change in moral code
regarding
unwed mothers. Unwed mothers were elevated to the status of the
married
woman, including the right to use Mrs. in front of their name. These
children
were often adopted out or housed in orphanages. Nazi SS men were
ordered
to father children with Aryan women. It has been suggested by
John
Hooper, that economic incentives offered to those women
prompted
some into compliance at a time when the economy was in a disastrous
state.
Though portrayed as a way of getting young Nazi to, mate for the
fatherland,
the Lebensborn project had some characteristics of a welfare
scheme
for single mothers. (Hooper, 1999).
While many Aryan children were being conceived and born under the
Lebensborn program, authorities were not satisfied with the rate of
population increase of Aryan children and expanded the Lebensborn
program. Himmler(1943) ordered the international kidnapping of
children from those countries they had conquered. In a speech to the SS
Group leaders in Poznan, Himmler ordered those children meeting racial
qualifications be abducted from families in conquered countries,
particularly Poland. These children were placed with German
families in Germany. Such good blood of our own kind as there may
be among the nations we shall acquire for ourselves, if necessary by
taking away the children and bringing them up among us. (Himmler, Oct
,1943)
The children abducted under the policy and programs of the Third Reich,
specifically the SS, fell under the Lebensborn program. The
intent
was to Germanize these abducted children. German authorities
believed
that younger children would acclimate easier than did older
children.
As such, age limits were discussed in regards to those children that
should
be kidnapped. Dear comrade Brandt, Concerning the matter "children of
executed Czechs" I wish to reply to your letter as directed to
SS-Lieutenant General Frank, date 6 February of this year, diary index
No. 26/2/44 g Bra/H, that the conversation between SS-Lieutenant
General Frank and SS Colonel Sollmann took place on 2 July of last year
in Prague. Colonel Sollmann stated during this conversation that
racially valuable children up to six years would
be considered eligible by the "Lebensborn"... It was intended, to have
children up to six years and suitable for Germanization brought into
German families through the "Lebensborn"... It is intended to have the
racially acceptable elements of the collectively housed children
transferred through the "Lebensborn" to German families or to a
children's home whereas the children over 6 years are to be sent to a
concentration camp. (the Minister of State for the Protectorate of
Bohemia and Moravia, 1944).
Abducted children taken into
the
Lebensborn program were systematically „Germanized“ by programming
[brainwashing]
the child into what the authorities expected him or her to be. Names
were
changed and they were encouraged not to speak any language other
than
German. The children were not allowed to contact their families
and
were often told that their families no longer existed or that their
families
did not want them. Thousands of children were transferred to the
"Lebensborn"
centers in order to be "Germanized". In these centers, everything was
done
to force the children to reject and forget their birth parents. As an
example,
the SS nurses tried to persuade the children that they were
deliberately
abandoned by their parents. The children who refused the Nazi education
were
often beaten. (JSOURCE, 2000).
While the Actual numbers of children internationally abducted through
the Lebensborn program are unknown, estimates reach as high as a
quarter
of a million. Ironically, even after Europe was liberated, many
German families refused to return the kidnapped children to their
families, citing they were too Germanized to return. In 1946, it was
estimated that more than
250,000 were kidnapped and sent by force to Germany. Only 25,000 were
retrieved
after the war and sent back to their family. It is known that several
German
families refused to give back the children they had received from the
Lebensborn
centers. In some cases, the children themselves refused to come back in
their original family: they were victims of the Nazi propaganda and
believed
that they were pure Germans. It is also known that thousands of
children
not "good enough" to be Germanized were simply exterminated.
(Châtel
& Ferree, 1997-2000). Children abducted under the Lebensborn
program
were targeted for“Germanization“ and systematically programmed
[brainwashed]
using a variety of techniques.
They included:
1. Forced separation from family
2. Denial of access to family
3. Forced separation from friends
4. Forced separation from community
5. Restrictions on speaking any language but
German
6. Children were often told their parents were
dead, did not want them or were unfit
7. Children were told German culture was
superior than their own
8. Children denied knowledge of their past
9. German abductors earned economic incentives
from the government.
The Child Victims
The effects of the Lebensborn
program
-defined in the Nuremberg Trials as crimes against humanity- are
evident
more than half a century later as the children that were products of
this
program struggle for identity. Several groups exist in Europe for
Lebensborn
children to cope with the decades of uncertainty and their search for
identity.
The personal histories of the children of Lebensborn who ended up in
East
Germany were hidden for decades by the authorities of that postwar
Communist
state. .. says Wilhelm Lenz, head of the department for documents from
the
Third Reich. "Until recently, many didn't know or suspect they were
Lebensborn
children." "Before the change (in1989), no one ever talked about
the
past," says Harzendorf, who still lives barely half a mile from the
orphanage.
"All my foster mother ever told me was that I didn't have any parents
anymore
and I was coming to live with her. She was a good person and would
never
have imagined such things (as Lebensborn) ever existed."
(Williams,
2000).
After the war, many of the Lebensborn children grew up scorned as Nazi
progeny and tormented by dark uncertainties about their origins."
(Hammer, 2000).
Having rejected our origins, we have ended up as refugees in our own
country. The result is that most of us don't know other NS children but
our own brothers and sisters. .. we NS children have fought a battle
lasting forty-five years more than our parents' war. That one lasted
only five years. We have been in continuous struggle with society, with
our parents and with ourselves." (Klüwer , 2000).
Abductions from The United States of America
Today, children are still being
abducted to Germany from other countries. While these abductions are no
longer ordered by the German government, German practice in
regards
to the return of these children as well as germanizing them, appear to
find
more similarity in the Lebensborn Program than in the Hague Treaty, an
International
treaty providing language that provides for the return of children that
have been illegally abducted to Germany. The Hague Treaty is not
the
only treaty which Germany has ratified in regards to the treatment of
children.
As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, obligations towards recognition of a child1s rights as well as
obligations towards to signatory state to implement policies and
resources that would ensure those rights, particularly in regards to
parental abduction, have been ignored. While the Child1s Rights
Convention is not provide for any mechanism
by which individual grievances can be heard, it does recognize that
children
are
deserving of special consideration and protection. In regards to
parental abduction, the Rights of the Child Convention states that
signatories, at the highest level, will ensure these rights:
1. The right to
know
and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. The right of the child to preserve his or her
identity, including nationality, name and family relations
asrecognized by law
without unlawful interference.
3. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all
of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide
appropriate assistance and protection, with a view
to speedily reestablishing his or her identity.
4. Ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents
against their will.
5. Respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both
parents to maintain personal relations anddirect contact with both
parents on a regular basis
6. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties
under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his rher
parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family
reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive,
humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that
the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences
for the applicants and for the members of their family.
7. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the
right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances
personal relations and direct contacts with both parents.
8. Respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any
country, including their own, and to reenter their own country.
9. State Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit traffic and
non-return of children abroad.
10. State Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the
parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to
the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent
with the evolving capacities of the child
11. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference
with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
unlawful
attacks on his or her honor and reputation.
12. State Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of
the principle that both parents have commonresponsibilities for the
upbringing and development of the child
13. Measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental
violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment
or
exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s),
legal
guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
14. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the
desirability of continuity in a child's upbringing and to the child's
ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background
15. State Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote
physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child
victim
of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other
form
of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed
conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an
environment which fosters
the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.
The underlying theme to all the right dues to a child is „in the
child‘s best interest“. It is in the context that the German
social Welfare system appears to define a child1s best interest as that
of being German, even to the extent of Germanizing the child as per the
Lebensborn policy. It is under the theory of the best interest of
the child that German psychologist, family courts and social welfare
services, apply policies and practice in direct violation of both The
Hague Convention and the Rights of the Child Treaty. German
social welfare does not recognize child
abduction as child abuse, and therefore, the perpetrators are often
rewarded and protected by the German system, further enabling the abuse
of the child. German social welfare system also does not
recognize reunification, deferring rather to denial of access in the
event a child has been brainwashed or Germanized as seen in many
of the Lebensborn cases."Their view of the child's welfare is such --
and it's so distorted -- that there's no way they can conceive of a
child ever being better off in any country outside of Germany," [Law
professor] Feinerman said. (CNN,2000).
The effects of the Nuremberg laws as the Lebensborn policies put into
place during the Nazi era in regards to the roles and responsibility of
family members are still being felt. It may be these, the social
and
welfare policies and practices of Germany, that are retarding the
return
of internationally abducted children, rather than the Hague Treaty,
citing
failure of the Hague as one of the casualties of social welfare
policies
and practices. Allegations against Germany in its non-return
policy
of abducted children come not only from the United States,[but also
France].
I informed him [German Judge] that the "new" German law stated that I
had unquestionable rights to visitation. The judge told me that he "did
not believe in the new law". (Gebhard,2000).
The current practice of those that have abducted children to Germany as
well as the systems that support and enable these abductions, i.e.
German social welfare services and German child psychologists
are Germanized using a variety of techniques.
They include:
1. Forced separation from family
2. Denial of access to family
3. Forced separation from friends
4. Forced separation from community
5. Restrictions on speaking any language but
German
6. Children being often told their parents were
dead, did not want them or they were unfit
7. Children being told that the German way was
superior than their own culture
8. Children being denied knowledge of their
past
9. German abductors being eligible for economic
incentives from German government.
Concern over abduction
complaints
regarding Germany, the governments of both France and the United States
have resulted in meetings with German authorities in an attempt to
remedy
the problem. There was no question that the complaints by
brokenhearted
parents were true. Children were being abducted to Germany and
German
authorities were not returning them to their parents as per the Hague
Convention
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Even after
the
leaders of both the United States and Germany meeting and discussing
the
problem, little has been accomplished except promised visitation in a
few
selected cases. The United States Congress responded to
allegations
of German non-compliance by urging compliance to the Hague. Whereas
some
contracting states, for example Germany, routinely invoke Article 13 as
a
justification for non-return, rather than resorting to it in a small
number
of wholly exceptional cases S[H. Con. Res. 293].
The House passed Congressional Resolution naming Germany as one of the
countries in violation of the Hague treaty in regards to their refusal
to return American children, or even ensure access between the children
and the American parent. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the
Senate concurring), That Congress urges--
(1) all contracting parties to the Hague Convention, particularly
European civil law countries that consistently violate the Hague
Convention such as Austria, Germany and Sweden, to comply fully with
both the letter and spirit of their international legal obligations
under the Convention;
(2) all contracting parties to the Hague Convention to ensure their
compliance with the Hague Convention by enacting effective implementing
legislation and educating their judicial and law enforcement
authorities;
(3) all contracting parties to the Hague Convention to honor their
commitments and return abducted or wrongfully retained children to
their place of habitual residence without reaching the merits of any
underlying custody dispute and ensure parental access rights by
removing obstacles to the exercise of such rights;
(4) the Secretary of State to disseminate to all Federal and State
courts the Department of State's annual report to Congress on Hague
Convention compliance and related matters; and
5) each contracting party to the Hague Convention to further educate
its central authority and local law enforcement authorities regarding
the Hague Convention, the severity of the problem of international
child abduction, and the need for immediate action when a parent of an
abducted child seeks their assistance.
Germanization is another term
for
programming [brainwashing] a child to acclimate to the German culture,
giving
preference to those things that are German, whilst divorcing themselves
from those things not considered German, thus retarding any sense of
ethnicity
outside that which is German. In Dr. Nancy Faulkner1s presentation to
the
United Nations, Human Rights Commission, 1999, Parental Child Abduction
is Child Abuse, she writes, Children who have been
psychologically
violated and maltreated through the act of abduction are more likely to
exhibit
a variety of psychological and social handicaps. Faulkner‘s
seventeen
page report outlines the emotional and psychological effects that
abduction
can have on children, including alienation.
Brainwashing and programming
are terms used
more and more frequently by experts of parental child abduction. These
terms may initially offend or alienate the reader who is not familiar
with Parental Alienation and abduction dynamics. Brainwashing and
programming or changing a child‘s belief systems,--may be intentional,
or, it may be the unintentional process of a parent imposing their
belief systems on the child through an extended period of inadvertent
repetition. (Faulkner,1999).
In the process of Germanizing American abducted children,
different forms of alienation, and programming [brainwashing] are being
used to program any sense of being American out of them.Naomi (now 12)
exhibits the mentality of a hostage. She is afraid to talk to me freely
on the phone in her father's presence. In CA she was an excellent
student, but in Germany she barely passed to the next grade level. Her
teacher for the previous two years commented on her report card, "she
cannot formulate her own independent ideas", contradicting the German
Youth Authority and judges who said, she was mature and capable of
forming her own opinions. She told us, she has difficulties
concentrating in school. (Gerbatsch-Bornemisza, 2000).
Records indicate that American children have had their names changed by
the abductor. The vast majority of abducted children are
forbidden
to contact their parents in the United States. it will be 3 years
since I have seen my children or spoken with them. The German
authorities refuse to tell me where they are. (Marquette, 2000).
Abducted American children are taught to speak German, forgetting
English. Many abducted children under the Lebensborn program were
not returned after the war because they had become too Germanized, so
is the reasoning for German authorities in not returning children
abducted today. Daniel and Michelle now speak only German and cannot
understand English. The German courts have used this language barrier
as another justification for keeping them in Germany.
(Jeffreys, 2000). because the children had been living in Germany for
over a year now (This was due to the fact that the case was dragged on
despite the requests my lawyers and I made to have the case speeded up)
and because they were in German schools and adapting well, it would
cause undue stress to have then moved back to the US. (Vajko, 2000).
A German court ruled in 1995 that the children had bonded with the
foster family and would suffer if they were returned to their father.
(CNN, 2000). Economic incentives also exist today for German
abductors. German courts are issuing orders for American
parents to pay child support for their illegally kidnapped child whom
they are denied access to. German foster
care families receive money from the German government on a monthly
basis. The amount of money these foster care families receive is
dependent on the number of children they have taken in. Wehs, who have
six foster children and get paid the equivalent of $1,000 a month for
each (Jeffreys, 2000).
I have done nothing wrong, have always played by the rules of the
German courts, have continued paying child support, but have not seen
my children in almost six years. Physical and psychological bonds have
been severed between two children and a father who loves them.
(Gebhard, 2000).
Today‘s internationally abducted children find themselves searching for
answers and some sense of identity in their adult years. Many of
the Lebensborn children are now grandparents and a new generation of
lost children are being harvested by Germany.
As adults, many victims of bitter custody battles who had been
permanently removed from a target parent, whisked away to a new town
and given a new identity, still long to be reunited with the lost
parent. The loss cannot
be undone. Childhood cannot be recaptured. Gone forever is
that
sense of history, intimacy, lost input of values and morals,
self-awareness through knowing one1s beginnings, love, contact with
extended family, and much more. Virtually no child possesses the
ability to protect him-or herself against such an undignified and total
loss. (Clawar & Rivlin, p.105).
Germany is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child. This international treaty sets forth ideals
regarding
the basic rights of children. This treaty addresses issues of
parental abduction and the right of every child to know their parent
and extended family
members. It provides for the ethnic protection of children and
for
children and parents to have access to each without fear of reprisal
from
governments. The ideals and beliefs that children have rights and
are
entitled to certain protection are the to be ensured by the signatory
country.
Germany has not only failed in implementing the Hague Convention, but
has grossly infringed on the basic rights of the child as defined in
the
Child‘s Rights Convention by arguing the best interests of the child
resembling many of the Lebensborn ideals, polices and practices.
There is no room
in the civilized world for the barbaric and inhuman practices against
children to continue, regardless of how well disguised under the
auspices of best
interests of the child, in programs such as the Lebensborn or refusing
to
return children because they have been Germanized. The German social
and welfare
attitudes based in the Lebensborn ideology have failed to recognize
abduction
and denial of access as abuse, just as the SS refused to consider the
State
ordering of child abduction to be Crimes against Humanity.
The current practice of German authorities in the handling of the vast
majority of children abducted to Germany, not only of children from
American, but also from countries like France, likewise are not handled
nor viewed as
child abuse. A closer look at the attitudes that continue to
influence the German system, supporting abduction and Germanization,
may provide a basis
for restructuring that system so that it falls within the acceptable
western
norm in regards to the handling of children‘s issues.
Dabbagh & Associates
P.O. Box 134
Capron, VA 23829
434-658-3050
MaureenDabbagh@aol.com
References
Châtel, Vincent & Ferree, Chuck: The Forgotten Camps
.1997-2000 http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/LebensbornEng.html,
2000.
Children of the Holocaust. The Life of Amalia Dembitzer .
Copyright© 1995-2000, The Simon Wiesenthal Center.
http://www.wiesenthal.com/children/damalia.html, Aug, 2000.
Clawar SS, Rivlin BV: Children held Hostage: Dealing with programmed
and brainwashed children. ABA Family Law, ISBM No. 0-89707-6281.
U.S. and German Leaders to tackel international child-custody dispute.
CNN Wire Service. May 31, 2000.
EKD: Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland. 2000. www.ekd.de, Aug,
2000. Faulkner, Nancy, Ph.D.: Parental Child Abduction is Child
Abuse. Geneva, Switzerland. United Nations, Human Rights Commission.
1999.
Gebhard, Glenn: Glenn Gebhard1s Case Summary.
http://www.rheashope.com/pact/members/gebhard/index.shtml, 2000.
Gerbatsch-Bornemisza, Ildiko, M.D.: Case Summary.
http://www.rheashope.com/pact/members/gerbatsch/index.shtml, 2000.
Germany Embassy: German-American Cooperation in Implemention of the
Hague. Germany Embassy homepage. 2000.
www.germany-info.org/.newcontent/index_governemtn.html, Aug, 2000.
Gilbert, Martin: Final Journey. New York, Mayflower Books, Inc., 1979.
1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction. Netherlands. Treaty.
http://travel.state.gov/hague_childabduction.html. Aug, 2000.
Hammer, Joshua : Hitler1s children. Newsweek , March 20, 2000
http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups164.html,
Hooper, John: Nazi1s aryan scheme exposed, Berlin: Sydney Morning
herald, 1999.
Himmler, Heinrich, [This speech was recorded; the magnetic tapes are in
the national archives in Washington, DC] Speech by Reichsfuehrer-SS
Himmler at Kharkow, April 1943 [Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression -
Washington, U.S
Govt. Print. Off., 1946, Vol. IV, p. 572-574]
106th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H. CON. RES. 293. Urging compliance with
the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction. 2000. www.thomas.state.gov
JEFFREYS, DANIEL: HAUNTING ECHOES OF ELIAN. New York Post. April
4, 2000.
Jewish Student Online Resource Center:The Lebensborn.
The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise.1999.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/Lebensborn.html, Aug, 2000.
Klüwer , Ole Wilhelm : The NS Children in Norway.
Organization of Norwegian NS Children. 2000
http://home.online.no/~kluwer/engl.htm, Aug. 2000.
Letter from Dr. Hilfrich, Bishop of Limburg, to the Reich Minister of
Justice, August 13 1941 [Trials of War Criminals Before
the Nuernberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off.,
1949-1953, Vol. I, p. 845-846]
Marquette, Robert: Case Summary.
http://www.rheashope.com/pact/members/marquette/index.shtml, 2000.
Letter from the Minister of State for the Protectorate of Bohemia and
Moravia to Rudolph Brandt, June 13 1944, Concerning Children of
Executed
Czechs [Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals
- Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. IV, p. 1030-1032]
http://www.vwc.edu/library_tech/wwwpages/dgraf/nazidocs.txt, Aug, 2000.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Switzerland. Treaty. http://www.hri.org/docs/CRC89.html, Aug,2000.
Vajko, Robert J., Jr.: Case Summary
http://www.rheashope.com/pact/members/vajko/index.shtml, Aug, 2000.
Carol J. Williams, Hitler's children' finally learn the truth .Detroit.
Detroit news. January 30, 2000.
http://detnews.com/2000/nation/0001/30/01300158.htm, Aug,
2000.
|
