The Lebensborn Myth



Mention “Lebensborn” to most Americans today, and they will give you a blank stare. If anything, they would probably confuse it with “Lebensraum” — German for living space, or elbow room. But a few decades ago, the name had a suggestive ring. And the organization it stood for had been in fact an SS affiliate. Little wonder, then, that the post-World War II rumor mongers and fantasy peddlers had such a merry time with it. Even today, the man in the street misremembers dimly that the Hitler regime had some sort of racist scheme to operate human stud farms, with the party faithful acting as the studs and blond-haired, blue-eyed girls as the recipients of their “service.” During the incarceration of Dr. Udo Walendy, Siegfried Egel has been carrying forward his work on Historische Tatsachen (Historical Facts). The following article from that series is translated by Andrew Gray.

“Himmler’s baby factories,” “SS bordellos,” and “breeding farms for the master race”—these were just a few of the provocative terms invented by pornographers and anti-German propagandists which have been used to describe Lebensborn e.V. (e.V. stands for “registered association,” or in German, eingetragener Verein).

Actually this SS affiliate was nothing so titillating or sinister. It was in fact nothing more than a system of lying-in hospitals for pregnant women. But multitudes at the time leapt at the chance to believe the worst whenever Germans were concerned—and, sadly, that is still the case today.

Predictably enough, the U.S. Military Tribunal rose to the occasion after the war and opened, on October 10, 1947, formal proceedings against the surviving leaders of this organization. The prosecution brought three principal counts against them.

Count 1 charged a crime against humanity based on the abduction of foreign children for the purpose of Germanization or extermination.

Count 2 charged plunder of public and private property in Germany and the occupied territories.

Count 3 charged membership in a criminal organization.

The trial lasted five months. According to the verdict delivered on March 10, 1948, the three chief SS officers in command of Lebensborn e.V. —Max Sollman, Gregor Ebner and Günther Tesch — were acquitted on the first two counts and convicted only on the third one, as of course the SS itself had been declared a “criminal organization” in the prior Nuremberg kangaroo court.

The head nurse, Inge Viermetz, was acquitted on all counts.

This should have put an end to all the propaganda nonsense, but needless to say, it did no such thing. Lebensborn (the word means, literally, “wellspring of life” ) lives to this day in the popular imagination as an SS sex park.

Revisionist historian Erich Kern later summarized the facts about Lebensborn in these terms:

“Lebensborn e.V. was among the most exemplary charitable organizations of its time. Founded in 1936, it grew to include a total of 18 lying-in hospitals. These also served as temporary homes for orphans. More than 11,000 children first saw the light of day in them. Unwed mothers, it is true, were also accepted by these hospitals, but in such cases every effort was made to arrange subsequent marriages with the biological fathers, and the organization offered further care to the extent needed.

“This often included help in securing living quarters. In special cases adoptions were arranged. The facilities, admittedly, were not available to all German women. There were in fact racial requirements, and proof of Aryan ancestry including all four grandparents had to be provided. Women with obvious genetic defects were also excluded.

“But the facilities, though financed entirely from monthly contributions by SS members, were not restricted to SS use alone. During the war years, up to 90 percent of the women giving birth there were wives of soldiers and officers of the army, navy and air force.”

As to the charge that Lebensborn participated in a program for the Germanization of children abducted from the conquered territories, the U.S. Military Tribunal found no substantiating evidence whatsoever. On the contrary, it found Lebensborn policy was to make every effort to bring orphaned children together with their surviving next of kin.

Children transferred to Lebensborn orphanage facilities by other organizations always received the best possible care. No instances of cruelty or sexual abuse of any sort were ever adduced.

These factual and judicial findings, however, proved no barrier to the myth makers. Early in the 1950s, the German illustrated magazine Revue ran a sensationalistic series purporting to show Lebensborn as a “breeding farm for the master race.”

The nonsense reached its apogee in a late 1950s German film, by Arthur Brauner, entitled simply Lebensborn e.V. In Brauner’s cinematic fantasy these lying-in hospitals underwent a transmogrification into sex parks. This film was an instant hit and was circulated throughout the globe.

All attempts to block this defamation of German men and women failed in the court system. As a result, to this day, the term “Lebensborn” often arouses even in literate people a vision of beautiful, scantily clad young women offering themselves to SS officers. It is a complete fiction. Yet, when was truth ever a bar to popular misconceptions about the Third Reich?

Actually, when you come right down to it, the National-Socialists and SS were quite prudish. So are most authoritarian regimes. Loose sex is for democracies.

AP Historical Hard Drive 2005



ordered1-712x1024Perverse Jewish fiction

Read also: The Lebensborn Program and the “Herrenvolk” – Fact vs Fiction pdf file.

Sources: WorldTruth & Britannia

Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Härtle — part 6


Stalin knew that he was not in a position to make the kinds of accusations that were made at the post-war International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.


Stalin’s Worry

From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Härtle

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015

There are obvious reasons for Stalin’s distrust of a legalistically structured mammoth process. If, by chance, the counsel for the defense reviewed the defensive war of the tiny Soviet Union against gigantic Finland, the Western judges could find themselves in a dilemma. Stalin also knows what his democratic confederates still do not know, that he was not entirely uninvolved in the preparation for the war against Poland, that he had already made a treaty to secure Polish booty for himself in advance, in case of German victory. Also, not everyone could have forgotten that he had delivered the coup de grace to Poland’s back as it collapsed. Could it be concealed in such a trial that Stalin had undertaken peaceful plundering-raids in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and southeastern Europe, and had removed entire population-groups? Now he had attacked the Japanese, still in their death-throes, to whom he was obligated by a non-aggression pact.

Stalin had reasons upon reasons to regard these legalistic zealots with distrust.

Indeed his Western accomplices were also initially far from being so unanimous as it might later seem. At the beginning of 1945 Roosevelt, apparently recalling his babblings in Teheran, sent to London a prominent member of his “Brain Trust,” Mr. Rosenman, to talk Churchill out of his earlier scruples and to clear the way for the punishment of all German political and military leaders. In his memoirs Rosenman reports that the English would have accepted the plan to shoot leading personages of the Third Reich without trial, but they opposed a public trial because they feared that such an affair could turn into a powerful sounding-board for a reawakening National-Socialist propaganda.

As a response to his mission to London, on 23 April 1945 Sir Cadogan handed to Rosenman a memorandum of the English government stating that the procedure suggested by Rosenmen would necessarily generate the impression of a rigged game in which the Allies intended only to ratify a decision already made.

Attacking the pre-war policy of the German leadership seemed especially worrisome to the English. Even Germany’s military actions were not war-crimes in the usual sense. It is not at all certain “whether according to the Law of Nations they can be regarded as crimes.”

Not only in “Munich” but before and after, and until the beginning of the war, France treated the Great German Reich as legitimate and equal. Was it possible that men with whom one had dealt diplomatically for years, and whom one had acknowledged as European partners, could then be treated as bandits whose criminal intentions were already clear 20 years earlier?

Such concerns oppressed the Englishmen ever more strongly. Had they not a few years earlier completed the naval treaty with the current universal enemy of all humanity and democracy, and recognized de jure and de facto the National-Socialist state and its rearmament? Had not Chamberlain dealt with that “bloodhound” on equal terms, and come to an agreement in a friendly tête à tête with him for “peace in our time”? Was there still some memory of the words of praise from Lloyd George and from Churchill, for Hitler as the Savior of Germany, and as the Defender of the West against the global Communist menace? In Paris and London there is agreement only about this insurmountable uneasiness.

Then Churchill’s stylish foreign minister Eden has one of his rare inspirations; he finds an elegant way out: the “war-criminals” on the German side should not be immediately shot, nor judged by a lengthy legal process; rather, like Napoleon before them, they should be banished to some godforsaken island. There they could no longer be dangerous, and the need to stage such a problematic mass-murder or mass-trial would be obviated.

But, as in their conduct of the war, so too in the treatment of “war-criminals,” France and England had not been independent for a very long time. It was made unmistakably clear to these satellites that Washington would insist on a trial. And almost simultaneously Stalin fired a torpedo in London’s direction. On 19 May 1945, Radio Moscow’s agitator Yermashev screamed at the Western World:

“One should finally stand them against a wall and shoot them!”

Part 7

Source: National-Socialist Worldview