Throughout Eastern Europe today German expansionism RELIES ON the structures and rules of the European Union which they themselves created. Whether it is the takeover of businesses, the takeover of important means of propaganda like TV and Radio stations or newspapers and periodicals or the claims of Germans to territory in Poland or Czechoslovakia – all this was predicted in the following paper written in 1999. The paper, reproduced here, analysed a 1998 motion passed by the German Parliament which made clear the true intentions of the German political class in relation to their new “Drang nach Osten” – i.e. their “push to the East”. This Nazi term is not used today (just as the imperial Reichsmark has been renamed the Euro and the Reich the EU) but the policies are precisely the same as the historic aims of the “Pan Germanism” and “Pan Europeanism” of the last 100 years.
DER DRANG NACH OSTEN
Rodney Atkinson (presented May 1999)
The following is a commentated translation of a motion put down by the then Governing Parties – Christian Democrats and Free Democrats – and passed by the German parliament on 7th July 1998. The motion was “Refugees, evacuees and German minorities are a bridge between the Germans and their Eastern Neighbours”. My translation, in bold, is followed by my comments.
The motion reads as follows:
“The expansion of the European Union to the east represents for Germany and for the whole of Europe a great opportunity.“
Note which comes first – Germany, which shows the use of ‘Europe’ not as a means of suppressing German nationalism but as a means of promoting German national interests.
“Democracy and the Rule of law in middle and eastern Europe will be lastingly secured through the entry of our neighbours into the European Union and the Atlantic alliance. Step by step we are thus approaching (My emphasis) the common goal of a lasting and just peace for the whole of Europe.”
Most Europeans had assumed this was achieved in 1945 after the defeat of the Nazis – or at least in 1989 after the defeat of communism but not apparently for a still agitating German political class.
“The Germans who were expelled from their homelands, the expellees resident in Germany, as well as the German minorities in middle and eastern Europe have supported from the beginning the policy of opening up the countries of middle and eastern Europe and have been actively involved in the development of this process. Today we see how the Charter of the German Expellees of 5th August 1950 has become reality. In this charter the expellees, a few years after war, flight and expulsion declared their support for a Europe ‘in which the peoples can live without fear’.“
This is precisely why the Poles, Czechs and others who had suffered from both the Kaiser and the Nazis’ aggression, persecution and murder, drove out the German minorities, who had collaborated in that persecution, in the first place.
“The German parliament calls on the Federal Government to actively pursue its consistent policy in support of German refugees, late evacuees and German minorities in the East and to continue effectively to represent their justified concerns.
1. The German Parliament supports a policy of a comprehensive inclusion of the German refugees, evacuees and German minorities in middle and eastern Europe in Germany’s co-operation (sic!) with its eastern neighbours. The German Parliament welcomes the inclusion of the representatives of the Zudeten Germans in the institutions (!) established by the German-Czech declaration of 21st January 1997.”
A typical example of how the promise of EU and NATO membership has been exploited by German Europe to ‘persuade’ the Czechs to ‘co-operate’ with the (now exiled) Zudeten Germans who welcomed the Nazi invasion of 1938 and helped the Nazis to persecute the Czechs.
“The participation of suitable representatives of the Zudeten Germans on the board of the German-Czech ‘Fund for the Future’ and in the co-ordinating council of the German-Czech forum are an important contribution to reconciliation and mutual understanding as well as for a fruitful dialogue between Germans and Czechs.”
This is all so reminiscent of the German ‘friendship organisations’ set up in the 1930s with those countries which were later invaded and subjugated.
2. “Even during the political upheavals in East and South East Europe, but especially after the fall of the wall and barbed wire the German refugees sought contacts in their original homelands (constant reference to their ‘homelands’ infers a continuing claim, indeed even a nationalist claim) and provided much support. The German Parliament reasserts its unanimous resolution of 28th February 1997 on the ‘Contribution of the German refugees to the reconstruction in Germany and to Peace in Europe.’
Even today the integration of Europe is already making easier the promotion of German culture in the homelands of the refugees. (In other words in Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. as the Poles, Czechs and others know to their cost!) The German Parliament welcomes the fact that more and more state and private institutions in middle and eastern Europe, especially in the fields of science, art and culture are concerned with the continuing German cultural and historical inheritance in those areas and are co-operating with cultural and scientific institutions in Germany, especially those of the refugees. Parliament expects that the Federal Government, the states and local councils will promote this process in the future.”
How precisely this mirrors the experiences of Norway before the Nazi invasion. As Churchill described in The History of the Second World War ‘For some years past Nordic meetings had been arranged in Germany to which large numbers of Norwegians had been invited. German lecturers, actors, singers and men of science had visited Norway in the promotion of common culture … The President of the Norwegian Parliament has written: ‘The Germans under the mask of friendship tried to extinguish the nation … what stupefied the Norwegians was that men and women who had been cordially welcomed in one’s home were spies and agents of destruction.’ The European Union has now extinguished the self-governing nations of western Europe and the German political class now wishes to do the same for eastern Europe.
3. “The German Parliament, in accordance with the treaty agreements with the states of middle and eastern Europe and most recently with the ratification of the German-Polish and German-Czech ‘Neighbour treaties’ has emphasised that in the process of the acceptance of our eastern neighbours into the EU and NATO, basic European freedoms must of course be equally applied without condition to all citizens in the old and new member states, including the German refugees.”
Note once again how NATO, as in the latest war in the Balkans, is seen by Germany as the (credible) power behind which German Europe expands. Treaties between neighbours are not usually necessary unless there is tension, grounds for mutual aggression or territorial claims. This kind of treaty, coupled with the European Union treaties, now shows precisely what Germany intends with its promotion of ‘Europe’.
The creation of one ‘Europe’ with it’s ‘citizens’ who have ‘equal rights’ throughout its territory and then the expansion of ‘Europe’ eastwards permits the re-colonisation by Germans of those countries whose suffering under German rule led to the expulsion of German minorities in the first place. Even if these areas of e.g. Poland and Czechoslovakia were today populated by Germans (never mind when they are not) the aggressive promotion of cross border cultural and financial institutions would represent a political and territorial threat to those countries.
Helmut Kohl’s claim that only by creating a united Europe would German aggression and war be prevented was the exact opposite of the truth. For it is precisely through those ‘European’ institutions that the mechanisms for expanding German influence and control, especially towards the East, have been constructed. This is only ‘peaceful’ in the sense that it makes aggression unnecessary!
“The German Parliament expresses the hope that with the entry of the Czech Republic and Poland into the European Union the acceptance of common ownership (!) by the new member states will permit the solution of unresolved (!) bilateral problems. That would include the right to free movement and freedom of settlement (!)”.
Here we have expressed in ruthlessly clear words the true purpose of the EU’s economic (the ‘single market’, freedom of movement) and its political characteristics (freedom of residence of ‘European citizens’, non discrimination etc.). What can be sold to the dimmer British politician as free trade and free investment becomes a political tool for the re-colonisation of eastern Europe and a threat to all the small nations within which Germans once lived (‘Freedom of settlement’ and even ‘common ownership’). What can be sold in western Europe as a fight against racism and xenophobia can be used in the east to prevent Polish and Czech resistance to German migration and cultural imperialism.
“They are important elements in the realisation of the goal of a united Europe, in that peoples and ethnic groups with their different cultures and traditions can live together in harmony while having regard for their historical commonality and mutual respect and promotion of their different identity … They are the elements which are intended to help overcome the consequences of war and expulsion.”
In other words to overcome the settlement of the last war, whereby Germans were driven out of those countries in which they had proved aggressors against the native majority and had helped the Nazi state to conquer those countries. (There never was any ‘historical commonality’ or ‘mutual respect’.) This is not quite what western Europe had in mind by a ‘united Europe’. Nor would such politicians agree that the ‘consequences of the war’ should be reversed! In all these calls for the peaceful co-existence of minorities in a united Euro-state we must be aware of how, historically and during the 1980s and 1990s, Germany undermined and destroyed the multi-ethnic state of Yugoslavia, recognised Slovenia, its wartime fascist puppet Croatia then rearming and helping the ‘Kosovo Liberation Army’ in its attempt to wrest a part of Serbia from Serbian control and finally sending troops and planes for ‘peacekeeping’ bombing runs in a war which they had instigated.
4. “Expulsion must not be regarded as a legitimate means to achieving political ends.”
This is precisely what Germany supported when Serbs were driven out of their historical homeland in the Krajina by the Croats (having been declared an alien minority by the Croatian constitution). ‘Expulsion’ is also the result of the war in Kosovo where Serbs have again been ethnically cleansed from their own country (from 50% of the population after the 1st World war to less than 5% today).
Is it not strange that just as in the 1940s it is Germany’s hated Slav enemy (Russians and Serbs) who suffer while former Nazi allies (Slovenia, Slovakia, Croatia) flourish?
“The German Parliament therefore shares the approach of the Federal Government – and indeed all other post war governments – which has always seen the post war expulsion of Germans from their historical homelands as a great injustice and illegal. The parliament calls on the Government to continue its dialogue with the governments of our eastern neighbours and stand up for the interests of the expellees.”
Now we see in more aggressive language what all the friendship, co-operation, cultural exchange and ‘united Europe’ really adds up to. It is apparently perfectly legal for Serbs to be driven out of their own country but not for Germans out of other people’s countries.
5. “The position of minorities is of decisive importance for a lasting peace (Friedensordnung – literally peace order) in Europe. Such minorities can form an important bridge between European states and peoples. The minorities and ethnic groups in Europe can perform their bridging function more effectively the more their cultural, linguistic, religious and ethnic identities are respected and protected.”
This is the ultimate hypocrisy from a government, which defines it’s own citizens according to blood and does not permit it’s ‘guest workers’ from other countries to vote in Germany. It is the present and historical attitude of the German state to its ‘blood brothers’ in other countries and its promotion of their right not to integrate into the linguistic and cultural life of the countries in which they live that permanently destabilises other nations. This ‘bridging function’ seems to apply only to Germans in other countries where they no longer live but into which ‘European citizenship’ will entitle them to return at the cost of the indigenous peoples! The Italian government does not take such a position about Italians in England, nor does the British government about Englishmen in France or in the USA – so why does Germany?
“The German parliament welcomes the framework agreement of the Council of Europe of 1st January 1995 on the protection of national minorities which was ratified by the German parliament in 1997 and became law on 1st February 1998. The German Parliament expresses the hope that our eastern neighbours, for example Poland, Latvia and Lithuania will ratify this document as soon as possible (Those countries are rightly hesitant to sign agreements which their historical enemy embraces with such speed!) Like the European charter for Regional and minority languages of the Council of Europe of 5th November 1992, which is at present in the process of ratification in Germany, this framework convention contributes to the improvement of the legal position of the German ethnic groups and minorities in middle and eastern Europe as regards their legal status and political representation and the maintenance of their culture and language. In this convention the German parliament calls on the German government to actively pursue their policy of support for German minorities in middle and eastern Europe.”
Once again we see how ‘European’ charters and treaties have been carefully worded to promote exclusively German interests in eastern Europe.
6. … The German Parliament welcomes the offer of out-of-school German courses in the CIS (former Soviet Union) by the German Government. It calls on the Government to continue and expand these initiatives…”
One wonders how this promotion of the German language inside other countries is appreciated by the indigenous peoples. There is a difference between language courses for ethnic Germans who wish to return to Germany on the one hand and for those who do not on the other. The latter will certainly not be encouraged to integrate into their ‘homelands’ by learning German for the first time. But the extent to which only blood is the deciding factor for German citizenship is clear when the German language qualification has to be artificially taught!
7. “The German Parliament supports the common task of anchoring throughout Europe the culture of living together which has developed through European integration … A Europe which is drawing together with the inclusion of states in middle and eastern Europe creates the preconditions for a common formation of the European future.”
Many small countries in Europe – west as well as east – have fought two wars in order not to have their ‘common’ future decided by others and certainly not by a European superpower of the kind which the German political class has been creating since the end of the last war. National sovereignty and the co-operation of free nations in trade, social relations and frequent political alliances is precisely what that war was fought to achieve. In ‘middle and eastern Europe’, as this German parliamentary motion calls it, we see the difference between that concept of free nationhood and the coercion of other nations dressed up as ‘co-operation’, and ‘cultural exchanges’ and ‘European integration’. Europe has indeed gone ‘full circle’. Ironically and tragically this has happened with the full collaboration of the British political establishments.
