Germany Calling

Translated by Edward Spalton and staff of Free Nations

Important introduction to this series of Reports


Dateline: September 2002

As I pointed out in my paper Der Drang nach Osten of May 1999 (see ‘Archive’ the German political class has never really accepted the post war settlements of 1918 and 1945. In that paper I translated a motion put down by the then Governing Parties in Germany – 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”. The motion began:

“The expansion of the European Union to the east represents for Germany a great opportunity.”

Throughout the long statement of this motion it would have became clear to the outsider (but unfortunately and typically this unique translation was never published anywhere in the British press) that Germany was using the idea, the structures, the concepts and the power of the European union to pursue her expansion into Eastern Europe.

During the rise of fascism and German Imperialism in the 1930s those, like Winston Churchill, who warned of the dangers for Britain and indeed the whole world were derided as “Germanophobe”. Today those who, like myself (in the books Europe’s Full Circle and Fascist Europe Rising) have said the same thing in recent years about the true nature of the European Union are equally attacked on the grounds that 1. we are exaggerating in our use of the word “fascism” and 2. Germany is now a “democratic country” and is no threat to its neighbours. The detailed proofs of the fascist nature of the European Union and its supporters in Europe’s Full Circle (and in John Laughland’s The Tainted Source) and the proofs of German expansionism in Fascist Europe Rising have, I hope, answered these two objections. The journalists of “German Foreign Policy” translated here by Edward Spalton, daily provide further proofs.

There are many Germans – even a majority – who recognise the dangerous adventurism of their own political class and the threat to other nations of a German State which has successfully constructed and marshalled the powers of the “European” Union to promote its historical aims in both Eastern and western Europe.

The threat to the United Kingdom economically has long been evident and the final abolition of the Bank of England, the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and British national sovereignty through “joining the Euro” is imminent. What even a few years ago would have been seen as fanciful scaremongering is today the main constitutional plank in the manifestoes of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties.

The constitutional undermining of the United Kingdom is now a historical fact and the promotion of petty nationalist resentment by the European Union and German Government- sponsored organisations like the GfbV (see Edward Spalton’s translation of our first paper from german-foreign-policy) are designed, along with the EU’s “Europe of the Regions”, to break up the non racial nation states of Europe and concentrate power at the centre of the new imperial State. Germany’s increasing domination of Europe is based not so much on destroying nations in general but specifically those which have proved to be stable non-racial nations – like the UK, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. For if Germany can isolate nations on the grounds of race then by definition Germany becomes the most powerful racial nation. If (as the GfbV sets out to achieve with its replay of the Nazis “Blut und Boden” (blood and soil) philosophy) the new State can promote “ethnic rights” inside other nations then direct intervention in those states can be justified by German Europe using the central powers of the EU and its recently established “anti-xenophobia” laws.

Equally the European Union’s “citizenship” “freedom of movement of citizens” and freedom to invest in a “single market” all combine to give the German State, German industry and German people free rein to resettle, take over and control Eastern Europe.

With Edward Spalton’s regular translations and other material already provided in English by German journalists we are pleased to be able to feature Germany Calling as a regular contribution to the analysis of German Imperialism and EU fascism as the British political class continues its betrayal of those who gave their lives in two world wars.

Rodney Atkinson
September 2002


The Tainted Source, John Laugland, Warner Books, London 1998
Europe’s Full Circle, Rodney Atkinson, see publications on this site
Fascist Europe Rising, Rodney Atkinson, see publications on this site

BACKGROUND REPORT: The Association for Threatened Peoples

BACKGROUND REPORT: The Association for Threatened Peoples
(Gesellschaft fuer bedrohte Voelker – GfbV)

Date of report 14 August 2002
Translated 18 August 2002

The German Association for Threatened Peoples (GfbV) which describes itself as a “human rights organisation” campaigns for the world-wide enforcement of the rights of ethnic groups and the “Right to Homeland” (Heimat). It co-operates with leading organisations influencing German foreign policy, such as the League of Expellees and the Federalist Union of European Peoples’ Organisations. It is closely allied with expansionary German foreign policy under the pretext of “advancement of human rights”. According to the GfbV’s proposals “fundamental human rights” should be enforced by “standing, operationally prepared, military strike forces”.

Around the year 1995 it became known that the former Nazi administrator of the Kolomea ghetto in Poland was working for the Advisory Board of GfbV. He was implicated in co-responsibility for the deaths of 30,000 Jews. The well-known, extreme periodical “Young Freedom” expressly praised the “folkish” policy of the GfbV which described itself as “the organiser and supporter of threatened nationalities and original peoples (Stammesvoelker), as well as of ethnic minorities”.

GfbV maintains particularly close contacts with the Federal Union of European Peoples’ Groups (FUEV). The headquarters of FUEV is in Germany and was conclusively connected with the reawakening of German “Folkdom” (Volkstum) and minority activities after the Second World War. Several of its founders are former National Socialist racists. FUEV maintains direct contact with the Foreign Office and is funded by the Federal Republic of Germany.

The GfbV was founded in 1970 and with around 8,300 members and 25,000
supporters claims to be “the largest human rights organisation in Germany after Amnesty International”. Over and above this there are, as parts of GfbV International, sections in Austria, Luxembourg, The Autonomous Region of South Tyrol, Switzerland and Bosnia Herzegovina – as well as a contact bureau in Paris. Since 1993 GfbV has enjoyed advisory status on the Economic and Social Committee of the United Nations. The founder and political head of GfbV is Tilman Zuelch who has been General Secretary since May 2000 and is President of GfbV International. Last year he received the badge of the German League of Expellees for his “efforts on behalf of the human rights of German expellees”. This year he was decorated by the German Federal President, Rau, with the Federal Service Cross for his “consistent striving for human rights”

“Ethnocide” and “Language Murder”

The political work of the GfbV is drawn from German Folk (Volk) ideology. Threatened and persecuted individuals are not at the centre of its concerns
although GfbV calls itself a human rights organisation. As indicated by its title, the individual is of concern as a member of a distinct community – that is a “people” (Volk). GfbV campaigns loud and long “against every attempt to destroy a people – its security, life, right to property and development, religion, its linguistic and cultural identity”. In the view of GfbV the “Volk” (people) is the essential form of organisation for humanity, a quasi natural “community” which basically creates human beings from its collective, group humanity. Humans who become estranged from their part in the continued existence of their “original folk” (language, culture, religion etc.) lose their “identity” and with it an essential part of their humanity.

Consequently the GfbV combats every form of the rising tendency throughout the world towards the assimilation of “peoples, ethnic and religious communities” into other population groups. “The destruction of the alien” begins with the destruction of languages and culture. This is termed “ethnocide” and “cultural genocide”. “To create or to tolerate an atmosphere in which a language cannot survive is language murder”. In the eyes of GfbV France is somewhat guilty of this because of its insufficient fostering of regional dialects. France is therefore guilty of “continuing ethnocide”.

The Most Threatened People : The Germans!

The GfbV sees history as, in the main, the history of peoples, particularly in the history of continuing genocide. It maintains “Since the end of the Second World War whole groups of peoples have been expelled and repeatedly given over to genocide in an unending sequence”. The genocide theory of the GfbV goes along with a far reaching relativisation of the real, German mass atrocities, especially the Holocaust. Thus, for the GfbV, the German people becomes one of the most threatened peoples. “In world history the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe in the years 1945 to 1948 is the worst case. More than twelve million then lost their homes and three million their lives”. Zuelch, the political leader of GfbV complains that the Holocaust was given too great a prominence during “The Tribunal of the Victors”. “The war crimes of the allied governments” and “the crime of expulsion of the Eastern and Sudeten Germans (..) which fulfil today’s definition of genocide, remain unatoned”.

In the meantime Zuelch has become a member of the Advisory Committee of the
League of German Expellees for the construction of a “Centre against Expulsion” in Berlin. He campaigns jointly with the League of Expellees for the endowment of this centre which should promote “The Right to Homeland”. “This centre in Berlin” Zuelch says “is of great importance for the victims of today’s expulsions because the European governments are not fighting these crimes, nor are they campaigning vigorously for the return of those who have been driven out”.

The last annual meeting of GfbV in 2001 called on the various organisations of German expellees to unite and demanded that the Federal Government must “undertake political steps at an international level so that (…) laws and regulations by which the expulsion of Germans after the Second World War was retrospectively legalised must be repealed by the EU candidate countries in Eastern and Middle Europe. They must be acknowledged as an historical injustice and be remedied.

Peoples (Volk) not Human Beings (Mensch)

In this close co-operation with the German expellees, a series of contacts and groupings have come to light which place the GfbV clearly in the tradition of “folkish” and National Socialist ideology. In the “national revolutionary” periodical “We Ourselves” the Deputy Leader of GfbV and Chief Editor of its periodical “Pogrom”, Andreas Selemci, wrote an article with the title “Suffer Expulsion no longer!” The masthead motto of this paper is “Who speaks not of the peoples (Voelker) should stay silent about human beings “(Menschen). It campaigns for” “national identities” in small, ethnically homogenous units”, following the principles of the GfbV.

“Europe of the Regions” and “Peoples’ Group Rights”

The first issue of the GfbV periodical “Pogrom” appeared in December
1993/January 1994 with the thematic emphasis “Guard Europe’s Diversity – The Situation of Nationalities and Minorities”. The FUEV, which also appears in the publication, provided one of the articles on this theme, along the lines of a policy based on “ethnic groups” (Volksgruppen).

Wolfgang Mayr (founder member of GfbV South Tyrol, who is crucial for the development of the theme of “ethnic groups within GfbV International) complains in his article about the lack of progress for laws and rights for “national groupings”. “One hundred million Europeans belong to over two hundred national groups and minorities. That is one seventh of the European population. This one seventh is certainly discriminated against and excluded. It has not been possible to establish legally binding “people’s group laws” because “states like France, England, Greece and Turkey were slowing the process down”

In a further article he praised the former South Tyrol MEP of the Green Party, Alexander Langer who supported “ethnically motivated” war. (“Ethno-national tensions could not simply be tackled negatively. They possessed much vitality and authenticity”). Langer supported a “Europe of the Regions” and of “Ethnic Group Rights”..”as a constituent element and as a condition of entry into the EU, states must accept cross-border EU Regions and an enforceable charter for “people’s groups” as well as a binding minimum commitment to decentralization – for example autonomy and regionalism”

“The Yearning for “folkish” Self Determination”

The South Tyrol Section of GfbV International is particularly active in the policy of “peoples’ groups”. It is entrusted with the area “Ethnic Minorities in Europe”. This GfbV section works closely with the FUEV and the “South Tyrol People’s Group Institute” (led by former FUEV President, Professor Christoph Pan). Professor Pan believes that the Institute can make “a constructive contribution to the solution of the ethnic minorities question in Europe”. He advocates “the development of a European system for the protection of minorities” above all with the appropriate organs of the European institutions and Parliament. In 1983 the Institute founded a centre for Austrian ethnic groups which was to serve as an “embassy” for ethnic
groups, jointly serving all the autochthonous (= “of the soil” or “aboriginal”) groups of Austria.

With the support of the South Tyrol Regional Government and the Region
Trentino-South Tyrol, the GfbV carried out far-reaching propaganda for the “right of self determination of peoples and ethnic groups”, “protection for ethnic groups” and the “Right to Homeland”. In its publication GfbV demanded the “systematic and comprehensive codification of a world wide valid system for the Right to Homeland, enforceable at law”. To this end GfbV’s instructional material for schools should make it clear to the pupils “how important collective rights are for ethnic groups and the central importance of protecting the linguistic diversity of Europe”.

The “ethnic group” propaganda is illustrated with reports from and about “threatened peoples” and “ethnic groups” world-wide. The line taken over Chechnya says that the escalating use of force arises from “the colonial behaviour and thinking of the Russians” whilst the Chechens are reacting to an attempt to “overthrow their culture”. In the first war resistance was supported by the longing for ethnic self-determination, by belief in God and in themselves. The contrast between the hungry, immoral Russian soldiers and the steadfast fighters who fired every shot with the cry “Allah Akhbar” could not be greater.

(Sections here omitted on “China of the Regions” and the GfbV campaign for the International Criminal Court)


The German word Volk translates literally as folk or people but it has a greatly loaded series of meanings in German, carrying mystical and racial overtones. It is the same word which appears in Volkswagen and Herrenvolk.

There is no single, satisfactory English equivalent. It can mean society, community, race or (almost) nation. It has several derived words, amongst the Volkstum – literally folkdom, volkstuemlichkeit – folkdomliness and voelkisch which literally translates as folkish but it is certainly not folksy! I have used various equivalents such as people/people’s, ethnic and national. Volksgruppe literally means folk group but it is not a musical ensemble, though a folk group would be voelkisch! In some of the German (and not solely Nazi) thinking, human individuals are defined by their Volk and their economy is determined by the size and resources of their Raum (space) where their homeland (Heimat) is situated. These are regarded as
sociological and geopolitical facts. The sum total of these “facts” is believed to determine the fate or destiny (Schicksal) of the Volk. These concepts are regarded as having much the same authority as a Marxist would attribute to the Dialectic.

GfbV website
South Tyrol People’s Group Institute
Minorities in flight. War-Expulsion-Exile. Instruction unit of GfbV South Tyrol and Paedogic Institute of Bozen
Wehrturm als Stolz. (Third Genocide in Chechnya)
For a world without genocide. Discussion paper by GfbV on reform of United
Protect Europe’s Diversity “Pogrom” No 174 Dec 1993/Jan 1994
Andreas Selemci “Suffer Expulsion no more!” “Wir Selbst” No 1-2/1999
Military Operations for Minorities. “Junge Freiheit” 26/02/1999

30/12/2006: Germany's new maps assert ethnic German Empire in Europe


INTRODUCTION We at Freenations have long provided conclusive proof of the German imperialist nature of the the embryo Euro-State and its effective achievement in the last few decades of the 20th century of everything which two world wars failed to deliver. One of the many ways in which this new power over our country, our parliament and our people and the once free nation states of Europe has been achieved is by the drawing of maps. Regionalism undermines nation states. Economic centralism undermines the logic of nation states. EU bureaucratic centralism overrides national Parliaments. On mainland Europe racial and ethnic politics – funded by the German Government and based on Nazi founded organisations like the Federal Union of European Ethnic Groups – are also exploited to wipe out national boundaries. By eliminating those boundaries Germany can revert to the power of the Volk, (ethnic Germans, wherever they are) to form a new power base. This report translated by Edward Spalton is perhaps the most blatant use of map drawing to promote German ethnic, imperial and economic hegemony over the nations of Europe.No wonder our German journalist friends in this report see echoes of the Nazi era.

A report by the German journalists of ,
Dated 22 December 2006. Translated 28 December 2006 by Edward Spalton for 

BERLIN (own report) On the eve of Germany’s presidency of the EU, German cartographical plans for a “large scale reordering of Europe” have come to light. These maps were produced at the request of the German Foreign Office and are intended for the political and administrative use of German authorities. In these presentations, Germany dominates the area called “Middle Europe” as the country with the largest population. Great Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands are excluded. Denmark, Spain, Italy and Portugal also do not belong to “Middle Europe”. Former Yugoslavia up to the Albanian frontier and thirteen other states in Eastern Europe do. According to the themes developed “areas historically ruled by the predominantly German-speaking states” are the most “suitable” for inclusion in the “The cultural space (Kulturraum) of Middle Europe”.

The accompanying charts designate parts of France, Denmark, the whole of Luxemburg, Switzerland and upper Italy to the political fiction of a German-dominated centre. Naturally, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary are taken into the project. Various areas are claimed as part of “Middle Europe” because they were originally part of the German Reich, “quite separately” from their later conquest by the Nazis. is publishing excerpts from these charts which bear a worrying similarity to projections made by the predecessor states of the German Federal Republic.

The charts themselves arise from a “definite request” by the German Foreign Office, intended to form a “position paper on the reordering of Europe into large regions”. The plan was discussed in the “Standing Committee for Geographical Names” (StAGN), a body little known outside specialist circles, of which the Director of the Leibniz-Institute for Territorial Science is a member.(2) This institution enjoys state funding and publishes authoritative guidance for geopolitical purposes. The German specialists in re-ordering are supposedly geographers but have repeatedly produced work affecting the sovereign rights of foreign states. In the institute, “Lebensraum” is a matter frequently discussed. (3)

Although the project was prepared by a state authority for national political use, it is claimed that the supra national interests of the presentation “for the large scale reordering of Europe” were conceived “without taking account of national political intentions” (4) . Over many pages the concept displays a germano-centric view of Europe in which the Germans are seen as “settlers and bearers of culture outside the present German-speaking areas”. With total insensitivity to historic changes in national state identities, it is maintained that “From the 11th and twelfth centuries, Germans settled in compact communities in large parts of present day Poland, the Baltic states, the Sudetenland, Carpathia and Upper Italy.

In a systematically pedantic way, parts of the territories of neighbouring European nations are made to fit the German understanding of “Middle Europe”. Districts of “Romania inside the Carpathian Arc”, the Bukovina, Ukrainian districts of Galicia, “Transcarpathia”, the “district of Grodno in White Russia and, yes, even “the present day Russian Enclave of Kaliningrad” are treated in this way. The Baltic states are mentioned as having belonged to the Order of Teutonic Knights along with East Prussia from the 13th to the 15th Century. The wars of extermination of Slavs by the Teutonic Order were not found to be worthy of mention. Instead the “Middle Europe” text produced by the Foreign Office remarks on the cultural merits of the Baltic Germans as “bearing a leading societal role”.

Germans dominate the “Middle Europe” fiction in the West, as in “North Schleswig” (Denmark) and in Luxemburg. Belgium is relieved of its “German districts” and France of Alsace and Lorraine. The “Region” (Alsace-Lorraine) is stated “to carry a strong French character today” – and this concerning a part of French territory! According to the report this character should belong to “an autonomous native people”. This issue is associated with the supposed issue of a semi-German local language. “At any rate” the report proudly states the “Region” (Alsace-Lorraine) “Belonged to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and was part of Reich territory from 1871 to 1918 – a matter completely unconnected with the situation arising in the Second World War.” The authors ignore the fact that military aggression and annexation of neighbouring areas by German troops could never lead to a genuine “cultural community” but quite the reverse. Neither do they consider the effects of renewed demands of a similar nature, especially on account of the connection with the Nazi occupation of Alsace –Lorraine. This is a matter which has previously only been taken up by right wing extremists and out-and-out revisionists. So the provocation has become much more serious since the German Foreign Office took up the cause.

It is abundantly clear that the “Large Space Reorganisation (Grossraumgliederung)” is intended “for the political and administrative purposes” of the German authorities. So this revisionist framework stands in the tradition of similar German attempts to base demands for leading power status in Europe, founded on reviving aspects of the Middle Ages. Elite German geographers reached a high point in these endeavours when they placed their services at the disposal of the Nazi regime. As investigations have shown (5) this involved direct cooperation with the Foreign Office and other departments of the Nazi regime. The resulting maps were used, amongst other things, to plan the attack on Poland and assisted greatly in the expulsion campaigns against the Polish population. (6) The new charts recall the time when Poland was seen as a reservoir of slave labour in the Nazi version of a teutonic “Middle Europe”.

It seems to be unknown to today’s planners in the Foreign Office that “Middle Europe” was “a synonym for racial-eugenic concepts and economic plunder” (7) – or, what is worse, something which must be denied. The implementation of “The historical Development of the concept of Middle Europe” was attempted in 1916 (8) and was considered again after 1945. The air-brushing out of the Nazi European dictatorship under the title of “Middle Europe” saves the originators from drawing attention to the economic and military background of the up-and-coming “Middle Europe” fiction in Germany.

As standard works of international history succinctly establish, the German programme for “Middle Europe” stands in a hundred year tradition of economic domination for Germany “ to bring the Northern, Southern and Western edges of the continent around the centre of power” (9) around Germany and its satellites in East and South Eastern Europe. A concurrent target of the Middle Europe project is the creation of “an informal European imperium”, based on the Single Market without customs barriers, so that German industry can find an optimal market for its products and for the provision of raw materials. In view of this intention , the new edition of the design for “Middle Europe” in the German Foreign Office is no surprise and is timely for the presidency of a united Germany over the rest of the European Union.

References (in German) and excerpts from the maps mentioned appear in the article entitled “Deutsches Imperium Europa” German original with a map:

31/08/2006: German Reich the model for Europe says German Minister


“Germany and Central Europe are historically indissolubly linked together”

Report by the German Journalists of,
Dated 29 August 2006.
Translated by Edward Spalton for 30/8/06

Introduction by Rodney Atkinson
As in all other moves towards the re-creation (under the disguise of the European Union) of German Imperialism and European Fascism, the warnings of democrats are laughed at but then later confirmed and still later admitted. So it is now with the re-creation of the German Holy Roman Empire, so beloved of the Nazis that some of them created the Charlemagne Prize awarded to Blair, Jenkins, Heath and other destroyers of democratic nationhood (see Blair’s Charlemagne prize created by Nazis) Now we have a German Pope (Nazi youth and supporter of the Reich ideal who recently declared Germans had no war guilt – see German Pope says Germans have no war guilt) who will be taking part in a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the EU next year by praising that “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation”. Now we see a German Minister admitting that Germany and the Eastern European countries “belong together” and that the Reich is the model for Europe.

The medieval, Europe-wide German Reich is a valid model for the union of European countries today. So says the Berlin State Minister for Culture, Bernd Neumann. According to him, the memory of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation reveals “an inner historical consistency” with the founding and steady expansion of the European Union. These remarks are a preparation for the festivities in Berlin for the fiftieth anniversary of the European Economic Community (EEC)., to which the Federal Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has invited the German Pope, Joseph Ratzinger. Ratzinger is a committed supporter of the “Imperial Ideal” (Reichsidee) and is to speak on the “spiritual foundations” of Europe in the German capital. This government offensive to revitalise the Imperial Ideal will underline the German leadership of the EU and confirm fears in France, Great Britain and almost all the states of eastern Europe. Sections of the German elites are warning against an all-too-public assertion of German hegemony.

As the Berlin State Culture Minister Bernd Neumann said, the German Reich of the Middle Ages can “from today’s viewpoint” serve “as a valid model of the functioning order of a superstate” (1). Neumann took this opportunity when he opened an exhibition last Sunday (27 August) which is dedicated to this supposed historical exemplar (“The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, 962 – 1806”). Because of the prominence of the exhibition ( partly in the state-controlled Historical Museum in Berlin), the individual stands and total content of the exhibition are attracting remarkable public interest. The Culture Minister’s intervention has strengthened the political charisma of the exhibition. He is a committed supporter of the Federal Chancellor. It touches on “every great trend (…) which makes very clear to us the inner historical legitimacy and consistency of European unification”, said Neumann on Sunday. The explicit aim of the organisers is “to examine the past of Old Europe in a time of fundamental inner and external reorientation” (2). According to the organisers, they have traced “structures and developmental processes “ which are “of great significance for the federal construction of Europe”

The public references to the structures of the medieval Reich which are evident in Neumann’s position used to be the province of the extreme right , or confined to clerical-conservative circles – at any rate since the Second World War. This was the opinion of the CSU (Christian Social Union) politician and grandson of the Austrian Kaiser, Otto von Habsburg who made it known at the end of the Seventies that “ the European integration of our times (…) follows the grand outline and principles of the Reich, which survived 1806, because they are of lasting validity”(3)

Similarly, the Pan-Europa Union , an association of EU supporters close to the CSU insisted that “the eternal function of the Reich must be renewed in the Europe of tomorrow in the interest of the West” (4). Similarly, Joseph Ratzinger, the present Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that the origins of today’s EU should acknowledge “a common imperial ideal (Reichsidee)” (5) In recent years, conservative newspapers have opened their columns to new advocacy for the “Reich”. (6)


As the Speaker of the Bundestag Norbert Lammert (CDU) has now informed us, he has invited a supporter of the imperial ideal, Joseph Ratzinger, to Berlin next year. The invitation was extended to Ratzinger last Monday by the Federal Chancellor at a reception in Castel Gandolfo. The German Pope will be in Berlin to attend the festivities for the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and will grace the proceedings with a speech. The German press already reports that the religious consecration will validate the European Economic Community (EEC) and will be dedicated to “the spiritual foundations of Europe’s political unification” (7). The invitation legitimates the “Reich” concept of a stable co-operation of Church and State. It will be a particular affront to France, a founder member of the EEC. Paris is committed to secularism and the separation of Church and State has been a principle of French public life since the revolution of 1789.

The Berlin Culture Minister’s speech of last Sunday will also affront those European states lying to the east and south of Germany’s borders. The Minister made an obvious allusion to Poland and the Czech Republic when he said that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was “a part of the past of many European states”. According to Neumann “Germany and Central Europe are historically and culturally indissolubly linked together” (8). By this the State Minister recalled the earlier German hegemony to the east of Germany’s present frontiers, which the Federal Republic has tried to reassert since 1990

The reawakening of the Reich myth has run into sharp criticism. In a press interview, the historian Heinrich August Winkler pointed to the significance of the Reich myth for Nazi propaganda. According to Winkler it was decisive “that the Reich was always something else and more than a normal national state”. When, in 1939, Hitler proclaimed the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia over the rump of Czechoslovakia, legal historians of pan-German views confirmed that this act was quite in line with the old Imperial ideal which had always been supranational. Winkler warns of new tensions between European states. “Incantation of the Reich” would “unavoidably create fears of German demands if it became again the model for the ordering of Europe”(9). As criticism of the well-know historian Winkler has been prominently publicised for three weeks, (10) the Minister’s speech can be clearly understood as an undoubtedly intentional rebuttal on behalf of German Reich propaganda.

The references ( ) to sources and supporting reports appear in German on the website.

20/05/2006: Montenegro - another German puppet State?

Report by the German Journalists of 19/5/06
Translated by Edward Spalton 20/5/06 for

See also on this website: Lies and Myths about Milosevic and the and the many other articles on Yugoslavia detailed there.

Concerned by the high bar set by the European Union for winning the
referendum – 55 percent of the vote – the Djukanovic forces were found
trying to buy votes in March. David Binder, New York Times.


Belgrade/Podgorica/Berlin (own report) Next Sunday the people of Montenegro vote on leaving the State Union with Serbia. The vote will decide the formal completion of the German-sponsored final destruction of former Yugoslavia. The supporters of secession will profit from the support of Germany and the EU, who have given uninterrupted support to leading personalities in Montenegro for years, in spite of their long-known, obvious, criminal activities in smuggling. Admittedly Berlin would welcome a further isolation of Serbia although the final secession of Montenegro will not have any further decisive significance. In any case, according to political commentators, the State Union with Serbia is “not at all functional”. In the meantime, in a move which lays bare the mainspring of the NATO war, the EU is working on a plan to improve the utility of South Eastern Europe for businesses from the Western industrial states. The region of powerless mini-states of shattered former Yugoslavia should be put back together again in the form of a free trade area.

Divided Negotiations
The Montenegrin secessionists can thank the promises of EU circles for a considerable degree of their support, arising from assurances that the economic position would be improved by the break with Belgrade. From the end of the war Berlin influenced Montenegrin internal policy in this direction. The most visible expression of this was the adoption of the D-Mark, which became the sole official legal tender in 2000. This enabled the German government to detach Montenegro (then still a constituent republic of Yugoslavia) from the sovereignty of Belgrade and favoured further movements towards secession. Brussels raised no objections to the continuing monetary division of Yugoslavia and subsequently approved the introduction of the Euro in Montenegro. In the actual negotiations for associated status with Serbia-Montenegro, the EU is conducting separate talks with both parts of the country behind the scenes and so is aiming towards a dissolution of the State Union. (1)

Observers believe that a German-European measure may have a decisive influence on the outcome of the referendum. The EU suspended association status negotiations with Belgrade on account of the government’s failure to deliver to the Hague one of its citizens accused of war crimes (2). This punitive action occurred at the beginning of May, a few weeks before the vote was due. It is said that ten to fifteen percent of Montenegrin voters are undecided. In view of this renewed demonstration of anti Serbian policy from Brussels, they may be persuaded to vote for separation from Belgrade to achieve better prospects of getting a share of EU subsidies. (3) In spite of the support from Brussels and Berlin, a close-run referendum result appears likely next Sunday. It cannot be ruled out that the fiercely fought secessionist campaign may lead to violent disturbances.

War Criminals and Smugglers

The protagonists of Montenegrin secession come from highly questionable political circles. International investigators accuse President Milo Djukanovic of acquiring a fortune of millions during his political career from the illegal sale of cigarettes and of promoting secession as a means of avoiding prosecution for dubious business practices. According to the opinion of an investigator In the Munich Customs Office, smuggling from Montenegro
“accounts for misappropriation of tax in billions” and this has occurred “under the eyes of the EU”. The witness asserts that “for years he informed the appropriate authorities of the occurrences” (4) Consequences remain. Whilst the Italian Navy was conducting operations against refugee boats from Albania, Montenegrin boats could deliver their lucrative cargo undisturbed to EU territory and so create a financial basis for the secession.

With their silent toleration of illegal machinations, Berlin and Brussels continue with their known Balkan policy, in which suspected war criminals are allies – like the “President” of Kosovo, Agim Ceku. Ceku, a protégé of Berlin and campaigner for independent status for Kosovo will be received this week at the German Foreign Office for negotiations. He is accused of serious war crimes (5)

“Harmonisation inconceivable”

In Berlin the decision on Montenegro’s secession is regarded with calmness. “Independence will not bring any great changes with it” says Franz-Lothar Altmann, an expert on South East Europe for the Foundation for Policy Study (SWP). The political systems of Serbia and Montenegro were already “totally distinct, harmonisation between them inconceivable and, up to now, the Union did not function at all” (6) – a result of the Berlin’s currency and economic policies. Experts on South Eastern Europe believe that it would be advantageous if Djukanovic were to fall from power after secession: then “a new leading personality must be found who is free of the burdens of the past”. (7)

Regardless of the outcome of next Sunday’s referendum, after the separation of Kosovo which is planned for this year, (8) only a territorial core will remain of the original Serb state. The Serbian mini-state has already been rendered incapable of any influence over Montenegro. Serious resistance to Berlin’s South East European plans, such as occurred in Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, is not to be expected.

Against this background, the centres of hegemony in Western Europe are driving forward an economic re-ordering of Europe’s South Eastern periphery. In January Brussels demanded an agreement between the “West Balkan” states (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania) for a free trade area. In these countries such a proposal is not regarded as negotiable because it would lead to an economic and political reconstruction of something not unlike that Yugoslavia which was torn to pieces by war. The “West Balkan states” would join the free trade zone formally by accession to the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) of which Bulgaria and Romania are members. After their soon-expected accession to the EU, Bulgaria and Romania would pull out. As a result Yugoslavia would arise anew – as a politically disempowered entity, a sort of Grand Bazaar for Western business concerns.

References (see website)

David Binder writes on Montenegro:

The United Nations has 191 members. Four of those which have joined since 1991 were constituent republics of the former Yugoslav Federation. So who could be surprised if the world body grows to 200 in the next few years, with some of the newest additions again emerging from the mess that was made of Yugoslavia?

Montenegro, population 690,000 – a new mini-state? At least it could boast
three times more population than Vanuatu, which joined the UN in 1981, and
ten times more than Andorra, which joined in 1993. Weighed on the scales of world events, the May 21 referendum on independenceof Montenegro may amount to something between a sigh and a hiccup. But for those who know a little and care more about the Balkans it is something of greater gravity.

This is so because Montenegro represents an essential part of the Serbian cultural space. Montenegro’s princes of the Petrovic-Njegos dynasty made their link to Serbia abundantly clear from 1697 onward. Two of the most accomplished contemporary writers have underscored this attachment. Milovan Djilas said in 1993 (to me as I am sure he said to others): “Montenegrins are basically Serbs.” And just last month Matija Beckovic, a friend of Djilas, branded the referendum “the greatest insult to the national
consciousness of Montenegro.”

For the last 15 years, Montenegro has been ruled by what earlier was called a petty despot (the usage is considered old-fashioned). Now we call such a person a crook. That characterization emerges from indictments involving international tobacco trafficking in the law courts of three countries, in which Milo Djukanovic is named as a conspirator.

But tobacco smuggling is only part of Montenegro’s dark side under Djukanovic. Exposés of sex trafficking have revealed the involvement of officials of his government. His territory is also crossed by transit routes for drugs and weapons. Just two years ago, an opposition journalist, Dusko Jovanovic, was killed by a gunman who remains free today.

Concerned by the high bar set by the European Union for winning the
referendum – 55 percent of the vote – the Djukanovic forces were found
trying to buy votes in March.

To a degree in the 1990s the Clinton Administration helped to advance the career of Djukanovic. It overlooked his origins as the protégé of Slobodan Milosevic, while backing his separatist ambitions at critical junctures during the Yugoslav civil wars.

Djukanovic still has opportunistic advocates here in the persons of Mitch
McConnell, the Republican from the tobacco state of Kentucky and one of the
most powerful men in the Senate; Morton Abramowitz of the Century Foundation
and Janusz Bugajski of the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
now director of the board of a lobby group set up to push the Kosovo
Albanian independence project in Washington. The other two are also vocal
supporters of Albanian causes.

For instance, some polls show the voters of Montenegro are divided on the
independence issue. Yet the 300,000 Montenegrins who reside in Serbia, are not permitted to vote in the referendum. This means that the small minorities of ethnic Albanians, Bosnians, Muslims could swing the outcome in favor of independence.

A mid-April poll conducted for the Podgorica government indicated that 55.9
percent of surveyed citizens of Montenegro will support independence in the
referendum. This reminds one of a Belgrade joke on the subject:These two polls might make a metaphor for the referendum: the public opinion testing, ritually practiced almost daily in self-styled democracies almost as a substitute for actual elections, versus the joke about the poll. On that note, let us consider how Milo Djukanovic might deal with
Montenegro’s residues of Serbian culture in case he wins the referendum. He
could rename the country Djukanistan.

David Binder (born 1931) was a correspondent for The New York Times from
1961 until 2004. He specialized in coverage of central and eastern Europe,
based in Berlin, Belgrade and Bonn. The current piece was published in
Belgrade’s Politika on May 11, 2006.



Notorious Publisher of Nazi Propaganda takes over administration of 350,000 Britons in Yorkshire

Dateline 14th April 2005

Translation by Edward Spalton from

INTRODUCTION by Rodney Atkinson. Bertelsmann, both a loyal propagandist for the Nazis in their rampage across Europe in the 1940s and a loyal propagandist for the European Union, the European Constitution and the Euro today. In the 1940s they published propaganda for the German armed services. An introduction to one book reads: “In these personal reports of our fighters in Norway the immortal Viking raid of German destroyers on Narvik is told in exciting pictures. After a reckless stormy journey the mountain troops struggle in self sacrifice against English superiority. The survivors cling on after the death of their Commander Bonte until German ships force the withdrawal of the enemy from Narvik”. Today, as this translation by Edward Spalton from our German friends at relates,they are taking over the administration of a large part of Britain. Has anyone told anyone about the implications?

GUETERSLOH / EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE. Europe’s largest media company, the German firm Bertelsmann AG, is taking over official tasks normally performed by public authority in Great Britain. From July 2005 a Bertelsmann subsidiary will undertake the majority of public administration in a British local authority. The plan is regarded by the German firm as a “pilot project of strategic importance” for its expansion into a multi billion market. Across Europe, Bertelsmann aims to expand within the framework of the so-called “Public/Private Partnership” into areas which are presently under the control of nation states and to carry out activities which are normally reserved to publicly responsible local authorities. Great Britain is also a target of Bertelsmann’s expansion in print media. By a joint venture enterprise with two other German media firms in the construction of new large-scale printing facilities abroad, Bertelsmann is aiming to gain market leadership in European newspaper printing.

From July the German firm Arvato AG, a totally owned subsidiary of Bertelsmann AG, will take over the majority of the administration of the British local authority, the East Riding of Yorkshire, which has around 350,000 inhabitants. About five hundred local authority employees will switch to Bertelsmann. So a German firm will be entrusted with carrying out duties which were previously under the authority of the British state. These include public and statutory duties (such as are carried out by a state, local authority or public corporation) to fulfil requirements under public law. The exercise of these powers of government is normally the preserve of responsible local government officials who have a special duty to the local authority and bear allegiance to the state. In a few months Arvato will become responsible for paying wages and social benefits as well as collecting council tax, fees and charges. It will provide a citizens’ bureau and the Council’s total information technology requirement . (*1)


The German conglomerate sees the takeover of administration in the East Riding as “a pilot project of strategic importance” for expansion into a multi-billion pound market. Arvato AG believes that, in Great Britain alone, the potential market is about 8.7 billion euros (£6 billion) (*2) and has already announced the expansion of its activities in public administration in Great Britain. The Arvato board states that it is already in substantive discussions for the takeover of more local administrations (*3). The firm is also planning entry into the public administration market in other European states. The Bertelsmann Foundation, which holds 57.6% of the shares in Bertelsmann AG and is principally financed out of the profits, has been involved for years in advising local government authorities(*4).According to German law, the Foundation counts as “of public utility” and therefore receives favourable tax treatment. Its articles of association explicitly provide for activities abroad.


Arvato AG is one of the most important components of Bertelsmann AG ‘s world-wide activities. After the RTL Group, it is the most important subsidiary in turnover and profitability of the conglomerate.. In 2004 Arvato increased its turnover and profits before tax and dividends to 3.756 billion euros and 310 million euros respectively.(*5) The firm controls enterprises from printing works to call centres and is increasingly targeting service provision in finance, logistics and out-sourcing. Through a joint venture with the large German printers Gruner & Jahr and Axel Springer, Arvato plans to become the market leader in European newspaper printing this year. This cooperative venture, to be vetted by the the EU Commission at the end of May, would control about 25% of the market.(*6) . Within the framework of a world-wide print media offensive (“Growth and Innovation”), Bertelsmann is building a 110 million euro plant in Treviglio in Italy and a 170 million Euro printing works in Great Britain (Liverpool).(*7) . Here Arvato is attacking the British firm Polestar. A print order from News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch) with an estimated value of 1 billion euros over ten years will not go to Polestar but to its German competitor (*8)


The economic rise of Arvato’s owner, Bertelsmann, was based on close involvement with Nazism. From 1933 Bertelsmann produced Nazi propaganda. The firm grew quickly, becoming the largest producer of books for the Nazi Wehrmacht, printing over 19 million copies. Bertelsmann could be called “Hitler’s best supplier”. A TV report on the publisher stated that its literature ” imparted strongly anti semitic, racist, militarist content and National Socialist propaganda”. Bertelsmann was from 1933 “an outstanding representative of those who produced such literature” .

Through the production of popular Nazi literature Bertelsmann experienced a “profit explosion”. The historian Norbert Frei attested to Bertelsmann’s “affinity in World-View” (Weltanschauung) and “high readiness to adapt to the economic calculus”. The former Managing Director, Heinrich Mohn, supported the SS financially from 1921 as a “subscribing patron member”. He gave around 15,000 Reichsmarks. For some few years the firm strove to work up its acquaintance with the Nazi leadership and gain attention.. This must be seen in connection with its attempts then to expand into the American market, where Bertelsmann attracted unfavourable reports in the US media. A press report of 2000(*9) commented “Bertelsmann’s expansion in the USA, which presently accounts for one third of its turnover, compels the firm to acknowledge unpleasant facts from the past”.

Bertelsmann expects strong growth in all areas of activity during 2005. Group turnover rose by 17 billion Euros during 2004 and the year’s surplus rose by more than 1 billion Euros. For the current year the firm has announced several takeovers for which some 1.5 billion Euros are allocated. It is also said that Bertelsmann plans to buy several TV stations in southern and eastern Europe. (10)

(*1) How Bill helped Bertelsmann: The Guardian 18.03.2005 . Wachstumsinitiative GAIN laeuft bei Bertelsmann auf Hochtouren; 17.03.2005. Arvato will’s besser machen – Outsourcing der Verwaltung; n-tv online 23.02.2005

(*2) Bertelsmann: Telefon statt Television; Die Tageszeitung 18.03.2005

(*3) OWL-Firma treibt UK Knoellchen ein; die Tageszeitung 24.02.2005

(*4) s.dazu Berliner Wirtschaftshegemonie und Divide et impera sowie Umsturz, neue Folge

(*5) Bertelsmann AG: Konzernentwicklung & – strategie- Bilanzpressekonferenz 17.03.2005

(*6) Arvato wieter auf Wachstumskurs; Financial Times Deutschland 22.03.2005

(*7) Wachstumsinitiative GAIN laeuft bei Bertelsmann auf Hochtouren. 17.03.2005

(*8) Arvato AG; Umsatz, operatives Ergebnis und Mitarbeiterzahl erneut gesteigert; Pressemitteilung 22.03.2005. Bertelsmann aergert Middelhoff; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 23.03.05

(*9) Frankfurter Rundschau 08.10.2002; TV-Bericht Monitor 20.05.1999 Neues von der Front – Bertelsmann laesst seine Rolle in der Nazizeit klaeren. Die Zeit 4/2000. Unabhaengige Historische Kommission zur Erforschung der Geschichte des Hauses Bertelsmann im dritten Reich: Die Vergangenheit des Verlags C. Bertelsmann in Guettersloh 7.Oktober 2002

(*10) Bertelsmann prueft Einstieg ins Mobilfunkgeschaeft; Sueddeutsche Zeitung 18.03.2005 . Bertelsmann: Telefon statt Television: die tageszeitung 18.03..2005 . arvato-AG: Umsatz, operatives Ergebnis und Mitarbeiterzahl erneut gesteigert. Pressemitteilung 22.03.2005

28/07/2004: German CDU sees "World Ethic as in Roman Empire"


Dateline 25th July 2004

Report by the German Journalists of
Translated by Edward Spalton 26 July 2004

INTRODUCTION (Rodney Atkinson): It should be possible to attack the wilder excesses of Islam and indeed the dangers in the modern world of the socio-economic influence of an “unreformed religion” (although many might see certain Christian denominations as equally primitive!) without seeking a Euro-American hegemony over the religious values of the Middle East and Asia. But that is what the (mainly Catholic) German Christian Democrat Party seems to be saying according to this report from Germany. By taking the Roman Empire as the model the CDU are taking up the Charlemagne theme of “The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” which is the founding mythology of the European Union (for the Nazi connections with the Charlemagne Prize see News on this website).

It is also disturbing to see an apparently “centrist” German political party talking of a “superior culture” which “globalisation” will spread around the world! Indeed the true definition of globalisation (the international extension of corporatist State control through “organising” trade and State manipulated investment and pricing) is precisely the aim of that “social market” model which the CDU here falsely ascribes to the Anglo Saxon tradition. In fact “social market corporatism” has always been a source of friction between the continental European and Anglo-Saxon traditions!

If the Western nations have a Christian based ethic which has provided wealth and democratic institutions then this should be a model for others freely to imitate – or more plausibly adapt to their own religions and cultures – but their reluctance to do so must not deprive them of genuine free trade and prosperity. But such emancipating relationships with the “free world” have become less and less possible as the “free” world has become more corporatist, controlling and hence collectivist and imperialist in its socio-economic structures.

BERLIN/FRANKFURT AM MAIN: The largest German opposition party
has called for the birth of a new “World Ethic”. In a paper published by the Values Commission of the Christian Democrat Party (CDU), it is stated that the moral New Order is due to the “positive forces” of globalisation. In it the “International Social Market Economy” was described as the foundation of a world-embracing moral canon, such as existed in the “Roman Empire”. By this means, Rome secured the “unity of its empire” through the “spreading of its superior culture (Leitkultur)”.

Today Europe and North America were the bearers of this superior culture. The prominent authors wrote that cultural resources must be deployed in a decisive struggle in which the opponent was the third oldest Religion of the Book in world history with which there is “unbridgable opposition”. It was “either the Europeanisation of Islam or the Islamisation of Europe”. The launch of the publication coincided with further measures of repression against Muslim religious communities.

The theme paper(*1) contains a foreword by the CDU General Secretary. It was launched to the press by Party Chairman Angela Merkel on 13th July. Frau Merkel is the daughter of a Christian clergyman. As she said herself, the new “World Ethic”(*2) is based on “the Christian view of Mankind” and must be raised to a binding norm in all countries (“universally”).


Up to now the word in Berlin was that “Islamic fundamentalism” was the obstacle. Now, for the first time “Islam”(*3) in its entirety is attacked with a demand for its final surrender. “Western culture” could succeed “in opening Islam to the universality of the ideal of (Christian) human rights” and the acceptance of the “Western model of civilisation” – thus wrote the largest German opposition party. The values of “The West” are “drafted on a
globally valid basis” and correspond to the “European-American understanding of policy”. The CDU promises that whoever, in non Christian cultures, bows down to this understanding can attain to the status of ” participant” in the “International Social Market Economy”. In this way “a world-wide alliance for freedom, human rights and an International Social Market Economy” would arise.


The religiously excessive attack on the Islamic oil-producing states is matched by corresponding repression in German internal policy. Following wilful restrictions of religious freedom at a Muslim school in Bonn(*4), two hundred German officials searched a Muslim place of worship in Frankfurt am Main this week. The police, who forced an entry into the Taqwa mosque, “combed through”(*5) the rooms, as the Berlin government expressed it in
military jargon. The cause of this large operation was information by a woman, who said she had heard from a schoolgirl that she had seen a so far unidentified video in the cultural centre which might have contained scenes of violence.

In German school yards and public video stores, hundreds of thousands of videos, DVDs and photographs with violent scenes of all sorts are sold or exchanged daily without being seen as grounds for entry by the responsible legal authorities. At present extremist organisations in Germany are publicly preparing to distribute a propaganda CD in five to six editions. The CD contains neo-Nazi music and aims to recruit new members for Neo-Nazi organisations which are ready to commit acts of violence.

(*1) Globalisierung – Herausforderung an die politische Handlungsfaehigkeit.
Wertekommission der CDU Deutschlands 13.07.2004

(*2) Gegen die Islamierung Europas. CDU Papier ueber die Folgerungen der
Globalisierung – Merkel spricht von “Weltethos”. Die Tagespost 15.07.2004

(*3) Globalisierung – Herausforderung an die politische Handlungsfaehigkeit.
Wertekommission der CDU Deutchlands 13.07.2004

(*4) s.dazu Muslime “austrocknen”

(*5), Grossrazzia in marokkanischer Moschee; Die Tageszeitung 13.07.2004

15/07/2004: Germans in the Irish Free State - 1920 to 1940


by Edward Spalton

Dateline 15th July 2004

This is not a tale of derring-do or cloak and dagger. It seeks to set the relationship between Germany and the Irish Free State (or Eire as it became after De Valera’s 1937 Constitution) within the context of known German doctrine and practice in its dealings with small European states then and now. Sir Roger Casement’s double failure to recruit an Irish force from prisoners of war in Germany and then to forestall the doomed rising of 1916 (because he believed it would fail) is well enough known. (Casement was hung by the British for treason) Similarly well known are the successes of the very effective Irish intelligence service in picking up all twelve of the known German agents to arrive in the Free State during what was there called “The Emergency” of 1939 to 1945.

At the time of the so-called Curragh Mutiny of 1914, Punch ran a cartoon. It showed Kaiser Wilhelm, looking at the then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with Ulster Volunteers in the North of Ireland, the Irish National Volunteers in the South and the regular forces of the Crown. “Mein Gott!” says the Kaiser ” and The Fatherland has only one army!”

The ensuing general conflict, in which Casement had seen England’s difficulty and Ireland’s opportunity, called men from all these forces; the greater part put on the King’s uniform and combined to frustrate Kaiser Bill’s considerable ambitions. If His Imperial German Majesty had been vouchsafed a similar glimpse into the British Isles of September 1939, South of the border the soldiers would have looked very familiar in German style coal scuttle helmets, adopted in honour of Casement’s efforts, and a uniform not dissimilar to that of the Fatherland. There were no jackboots but leather leggings gave a similar effect. By 1942, the scene would have altered; the Free State forces had adopted British-style battle dress and steel helmets. That change speaks more volumes about the policy of the De Valera government than any amount of delving in the archives.

It was only seventeen years since the Free State had emerged from a civil war of remarkable savagery, put down by the (new Irish) government with summary executions and considerable unofficial barbarity. Having lost this struggle, De Valera embraced constitutional politics, eventually coming to power in 1932. The onset of “The Emergency” saw him on public platforms alongside his former opponents, urging young men to join the forces. It was perhaps this, more than anything else, which stopped the Free State uniform being an object of hatred in the South West of Ireland.

Back in 1923, where would a newly independent government, with a damaged economy and the wounds both of the Great War and its own revolution and fratricide, look for friends ?. It is unsurprising that they should look to Germany – not least because German inflation would make supplies of industrial goods very competitive indeed. The grand project of the Ardnacrusha hydro electric power scheme was confided to a Siemens subsidiary. This was a tremendous visionary project, costing £5 million when the total annual revenue of the Free State was £25 million. It had been under discussion since the eighteen nineties but it took the determination of the new government of the new state to make it happen – a tradition of economic intervention followed by all Irish governments since.

Like nearly all large German companies Siemens was a patron of the “Verein fuer Deutschtum im Ausland” (VDA). Literally translated this means “The Club for Germandom Abroad”. Active during the Kaiser’s time, it was (and is) an instrument of German foreign policy. It exists not only to protect the interests of the many German communities outside the German state but to make Germans abroad into effective agents for the German “Volk”. This concept is very much more than the inadequate translations “People” or “nation”. With its ideal of a “blood community” on its ancestral soil, it is easy to see how it would dovetail in to the more misty and windswept reaches of the Irish republican movement.

The Irish Free State Army appointed a German called Brase as Director of Music with the rank of colonel. Dr Adolf Mahr, an Austrian, arrived in Dublin in 1927. De Valera appointed him to the staff of the National Museum. From 1934 to 1939, as chief of the Irish branch of the Nazi Party he was the de facto senior German representative in Ireland and attended the coronation of King George VI with Ribbentrop in 1937. Mahr appears to have been on personally friendly terms with De Valera and to have been able to get official German diplomats recalled, if they did not suit him. According to intelligence files “he made many efforts to convert Irish graduates and other persons to Nazi beliefs”.

One Friedrich Weckler obtained a plum position as chief accountant of the state Electricity Supply Board and a Hans Mecking was high up in the Turf Development Board (later Bord na Mona). Todd Andrews, Managing Director of the Turf Board, recalled in his 1982 memoirs “As German triumph followed German triumph, Mecking became increasingly uninvolved in his assignment. He set himself up as an intelligence agent, photographing railway stations, river bridges, sign posts and reservoirs…”

Weckler remained in Ireland. After a brief period as local Nazi leader, Mecking returned to the Fatherland and starved to death as a prisoner of the Russians. Otto Reinhard beat 65 other candidates to get a senior appointment in the Department of Lands. Hans Hartmann studied folklore at University College Dublin ** and returned to the Reich where he made propaganda broadcasts in Irish. It was obvious to the Irish authorities that most of these people were engaged in spying of one sort or another. Germans appear to have come under strong pressure to join the Nazi party or to leave Ireland. The Nazi movement’s annual Christmas party was held at the Gresham and other functions took place in the Red Bank Restaurant in D’Olier Street and at Kilmacurragh Park. One of the local branch’s tasks was to identify the Jews. Reporting on activities by one Muhlhausen in 1937, a civil servant was told that it was not illegal to take holiday photos.

The Director of Music, Brase, informed Major General Brennan of his Nazi affiliation in the early Thirties. Brennan told him to choose between the Nazi Party and his job but was overruled. Whilst Irish officers were forbidden to join political parties, someone in officialdom pointed out that the statute only applied to Irish parties! The German community was quite small but well dug into positions of knowledge and influence and well-disciplined to serve the purposes of its home government. The new team, which would see out the war, arrived at the German legation in 1937 . In February 1939, Joseph Walshe Secretary of the Department of External Affairs told the Sicherheitsdienst operative in Ireland Henning Thomsen, “I suggested, as I had frequently done to his Minister (Hempel).….. that the Nazi organisation in Dublin having as its chief member and organiser an employee of the state was not calculated to improve relations between the two governments”.

The Germans were not ordered back to Germany but panicked when they heard that the British government was interning aliens. They expected the invasion of the Irish Free State. In one of his cuter moves, De Valera persuaded the British government to allow those who wished to have free passage through Britain.

They left on September 11th with Nazi salutes and shouts of “auf Wiedersehen!” De Valera had shown his mettle by executing former IRA comrades. He wanted a united Ireland but withstood the blandishments of both sides to bring him into the war. He recalled unfulfilled promises made to John Redmond, the leader of the Parliamentary Irish National Party in 1914-18 to bring about a United Ireland. Staff discussions were held with British officers and Sir John Maffey kept the lines open for Whitehall. It seems that the German Army, like the British, preferred to keep Ireland neutral whilst Ribbentrop and the SS looked to bring in both De Valera and the IRA.

The German Minister, Dr. Hempel had a low opinion of the IRA and lost many brownie points when he discouraged the supply to Ireland of captured British equipment from Dunkirk. He pointed out that this would breach neutrality and could upset the apple cart. Perhaps the German influence in Ireland is typified by Helmut Clissman, reckoned to be the best-informed German about Ireland and the IRA of this period. He studied at Trinity College in the early Thirties , working on a doctoral thesis “The Wild Geese in Germany” (the Irish who emigrated to serve in foreign armies) and was sent back later under cover of an Academic Exchange. He made contact with the IRA and married a Miss Mulcahy from a strong republican family. They both returned to Germany in 1939. He made several abortive attempts to get to Ireland during the war.

The most ambitious, Operation Sea Eagle, intended to land him by seaplane on Lough Key, Co. Roscommon with £40,000 of funds for the IRA. It was cancelled by Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr.

Through the efforts of his wife, who had returned to Ireland after the war, he obtained a visa in 1948. He became a lecturer in German at Trinity College Dublin and was appointed by the Goethe Institute as a teacher of German and facilitator of exchange visits. He set up as an agent for pharmaceuticals and helped to found the Irish branch of Amnesty International. He was one of the founders of St Killian’s German school and died in 1997.

The VDA (“Verein fuer Deutschtum im Ausland”) still exists. It holds itself out as a cultural organisation and is still sponsored by the main political parties, industrial concerns and churches in Germany. Funded by various branches of government, it continues its work discreetly. In 1919 it was re-energised as a vehicle for foreign policy. Banned by the Occupation Authorities, it was nonetheless resuscitated in 1946 when its supporters asserted that it had been taken over and that they were not responsible for its activities during the Hitler dictatorship. With the reunification of Germany, its ideas permeate the many foundations, institutes and front organisations by which Germany conducts its foreign policy today.

**UCD is University College Dublin and TCD is Trinity College Dublin (which
was founded by Elizabeth I and was a Protestant foundation). UCD
was founded to open university education to Catholics and, in no small part,
because the hierarchy did not want good catholics getting tainted with
protestant ideas. A lampoon of the time (1880 -90) said

They can commit fornication and have carnal knowledge
But don’t send our dear boys to Trinity College.


David O’Donoghue, “Heil Hibernia!” Sunday Business Post 29 April 2001
“Hitler’s Man in Dublin – Herr Hempel at the German Legation, John P Duggan,Irish Academic Press ISBN 0-7165-2764-4
“Deutschtum Erwache!” W von Goldendach and H.R. Minow, Dietz Berlin ISBN
3- 320-01863-9
Joe Carroll, “Death of best-informed German during War” Irish Times Nov 8 1997
For some interesting insights into Sweden’s wartime neutrality, see paper by Jan Myrdal in “European Voices” on

01/03/2004: German Pressure On Russia, East and West


Dateline: 29th February 2004

Kaliningrad is the Russian territory inside Western Europe (and from May 2004) effectively inside the European Union. It was once part of German East Prussia, the German name being Koenigsberg. Today it is a prime target for German expansion Eastwards, using the systems carefully created within the European Union. Note how German Ministers below emphasise “human rights” and “Europe” as the key words in this process. While this has proved successful with western nations who have already lost their self-governance, it does not work so well with the Russians! By pursuing the Russian State through pressure in the East (Chechnya) and the West (Koenigsberg and pressure on the anti German regime in the Ukraine) and by reference to NATO, Germany seeks to reassert its power in the East. The following report is from our German colleagues at

KALININGRAD/MOSCOW – In Moscow, the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer argued for ,,human rights” and ,,democracy.” The purpose of the trip was the opening of a consulate in Kaliningrad, a former German region, where Berlin’s geopolitical interests conflict with Moscow’s sovereign rights.

The real reason for the stopover was a mission for the western military alliances, which continue with their expansion into the Middle East and the encirclement of Russia. Berlin’s task is to neutralize Russia’s foreign policy protests by
interfering in Russian domestic politics. German pressure makes use of noticeable tensions within the GUS (Commonwealth of Independent States) and seeks to weaken the Russian central state by incremental secessions of its former satellites.

The German Foreign Minister’s Russian visit follows the Munich military conference at the beginning of February. A formal agreement by all NATO ministers in Munich, settled, for the moment, differences over the expansion into Arab and Asian resource states (,,war against international terrorism”). The precise NATO programme which envisions the arming of Turkey to become a “frontline state” , and includes a military
deployment offensive up to Tadzhikistan, is to be published at a NATO conference in June. These endeavours touch on border regions of the GUS-States, especially Chechnya.

Potential for tension
Consequently, Chechnya is the focal point of German attempts to encourage secession, or at least autonomy, for the region of the Russian Caucasus (Having made specific efforts in Georgia but was less successful than the USA – see recent uprising -ed). Overt and covert contacts with internationally wanted terrorists are to serve these goals, while public pressure is applied on Moscow at the same time. During the
preliminary stage of the German foreign minister’s Russian trip, Gernot Erler (SPD) the coordinator for German-Russian cooperation, threatened that Russia would “end up in a global dead end” if it insisted on its current sovereign rights in Chechnya.

The German Foreign Office judges Russia’s democratic development ,,very
negatively.” It is reported that in a politically paternalistic fashion, Foreign Minister Fischer expressed ,,with unusual candour”, to Russian President Putin ,,Germany’s misgivings” concerning ,,internal democratization” and ,,human rights” because of Russian actions in Chechnya. Aimed, particularly, at the German public, this
statement is to prepare for the potential tension caused by Berlin’s own activities in that region. Because of these activities Fischer met with protests in Kaliningrad. Several Russian organizations pointed to Berlin’s contacts with Chechen terrorists, who propagate a move by NATO troops into the Northern Caucasus.

Failing state
The German foreign minister’s Kaliningrad stopover on the occasion of the opening of the, long controversial, German consulate (1) is described by Berlin’s press as an avowal of a former German settlement seeking its future as a state. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the population of Kaliningrad in the meantime harbours ,,its own sense of home land which, however, does not refer to the mother land, but to its own region – and thus also to its European history and its geographic location”.(2) Allusions to autonomy and secession are unmistakable.

Berlin’s government consultants view Kaliningrad as one of the ,,’failing states’ in immediate proximity” and set their sights on Kaliningrad as an operational area for the EU’s independent military power.(3)

The folowing footnotes refer to

1) See also earlier article Strategic Projects
2) See also earlier article German ,,peace researchers” want ,,transnational civil society” for Kaliningrad
3) See also earlier article Plans for Action

Deutschland zeigt Flagge in Kaliningrad; Koenigsberger Express 02.02.2004
Proteste gegen Besuch von Joschka Fischer in Kaliningrad; DW-Monitor Ost-/Suedosteuropa 09.02.2004
Russische Verhaeltnisse; dpa 11.02.2004
Zwischen Berlin und Moskau knistert es; Die Welt 13.02.2004
Streit mit Russland über die EU-Erweiterung; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 13.02.2004
Zwischen Kaliningrad und Koenigsberg; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 13.02.2004

10/12/2003: Blair's Charlemagne prize created by Nazis


Date of Report 10 July 2003
Translated 30 November 2003

Introduction: This piece demonstrates for the first time on this website the strong ideological links between Charlemagne’s Europe, lauded by the leaders of the European Union (Tony Blair and Roy Jenkins among others have received the Charlemagne Prize of the German City of Aachen), and the Nazis’ ambitions for Europe.

The eurofederalist class has always claimed that the European Union has brought peace to Europe after two world wars – but in fact the 1990s saw the break up of free nation states like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, created by the Treaties which ended those wars, the deaths of thousands and the ethnic cleansing of nearly a million people (mostly Serbs).

The Eurofederalist class created and annually awards the Charlemagne Prize to politicians who forced the integration of Europe because that prize and that aim contrasted with the past evils of European Fascism. We now reveal that even that is a lie for the Charlemagne Prize was created after the second world war by those who had been political leaders under the Nazis.

In 800 AD in Rome Charlemagne (in German Karl der Grosse) was anointed Holy Roman Emperor. His political ambition and religious bigotry had by then created a large empire built on the blood and bones of those who did not agree with his religious ideas and on the destruction of nations which rejected his imperial aims.

The re-creation of the Empire of Charlemagne has been the overt ambition of many European Catholics, the successors of Austria-Hungary (prominent among them the MEP Otto von Habsburg) and of course the (nation state hating) Vatican which saw in the historical uniting of French and German (“Frankish”) Europe in 800 as the historical basis for the new supranational Empire of the European Union.

From the ambition of Josef Retinger to create a central European Catholic empire (for which he was expelled as a war danger from both France and Britain during the First World War) to the religious exterminations of non Catholics in Yugoslavia by the Croatian Ustashe (puppets of the Nazis and Italian Fascists) to the 1990s ethnic cleansing of 300,000 Orthodox Serbs from Croatia and the massacres by Croats of Bosnian Muslims, the influence of Charlemagne has been sustained into the 20th and 21st centuries. Croatia, now the most ethnically pure state in Europe, was described by the Vatican as a “Jewel” in its Crown. The founder of modern Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, wrote in a 1989 book “Genocide is a natural phenomenon, it is commanded by the Almighty in defence of the only true faith”

For a detailed description of Charlemagne see the book Fascist Europe Rising pages 109 – 113.

Note: The Emperor generally called Charlemagne in English (via French from the Latin Carolus Magnus) is called Karl der Grosse in German. The prize is known as the “Karlspreis” in German

AACHEN – The Aachen Charlemagne Prize is the oldest political distinction awarded by the German Federal Republic in the area of foreign policy. It honours merit in “Europe and European unification”. It is awarded yearly on Ascension Day in the Coronation Hall of Aachen’s Council House. Those honoured include prominent European politicians, heads of state and government, amongst others Alcide de Gasperi, Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Vaclav Havel, Roy Jenkins, Edward Heath, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Since 1997 the “Charlemagne Prize Foundation” (“Karlspreis-Stiftung”) has been co-ordinated with the prize. Its purpose is to “publicize the ideal and aspiration of the Charlemagne Prize throughout Europe”. High ranking representatives of business, the German Minister for the Economy, the Minister President of North Rhine Wesfalia and the political advisor Werner Weidenfeld(*1) serve on its committees.

Those honoured by the Charlemagne Prize (the first was Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi(*2)) are chosen by the “The Charlemagne Prize Society(Karlspreisgesellschaft), a circle of influential members of the Aachen establishment whose discussions are secret. It was called into being in 1949 by the efforts of the Aachen textile merchant, Kurt Pfeiffer. Pfeiffer, who had previously been a member of the Nazi Party and of five other Nazi organisations, maintained that he had always tended to a “fundamental belief in Europe”. The Charlemagne Prize Society was founded by him with the intention of awarding a “European prize which should be associated with the Imperial Ideal (Reichsidee) of the Emperor Charlemagne, his palace and burial place “.(both in Aachen)


Supposedly the Charlemagne Prize is connected with Charlemagne because of his empire (Reich), set up around 800 AD, which could be reckoned a a forerunner of the German-French “core of Europe”. In fact the Charlemagne Prize, first awarded on May 1st 1950, was connected most closely with the Charlemagne myth which was very popular in the German Reich from 1871, especially in the Aachen area because of his “Imperial Idea” and supposed role as “Creator of European unity”.

The Nazis legitimated their plans for a European New Order with heavily emphasised allusions to CharlemagneThe post war image of Charlemagne as “Unifier of the Christian West” was preceded by his Nazi portrayal as “Unifier of the German tribes”. Charlemagne was compared with Hitler, his Reich and Greater Germany. The Nazis identified his policy with the Germanocentric New Order of Europe and cited his campaign against the “hunnish” Avars in support of their war of annihilation in the East. The then Gauleiter , Josef Grohe, declared at a celebration (Feierstunde) on the twelve hundredth anniversary of Charlemagne’s birth in April 1942 that Aachen was the “starting point for the formation of the German people”.

The Charlemagne Prize Proclamation of 1949 and the official speeches of the Aachen burgomasters of the early Fifties are heavily stamped with national (“voelkisch”) thinking. They show the Charlemagne prize had become
associated with the folk-myth of Charlemagne and the German Reich. This association was favoured not least because “The milieu which had carried and realized the aggressive pan-Germanic myth of Aachen ” was in agreement with “that which also established the “Christian-Western” Charlemagne Prize”. This is clearly exemplified by the career of the Aachen Professor of Philosophy, Peter Mennicken, who had authoritative influence over the symbolism of the Charlemagne prize and the “liturgy” of its award ceremonies.


Mennicken joined the SA (Storm Troopers) in 1933 and the Nazi Party in 1937. He used his lectureship at the Technical High School of Aachen in the service of expansionist “Western research” and worked for two so-called “societies for (international) understanding” which were informal offshoots of the Propaganda Ministry, used for German propaganda in the Netherlands and Belgium. Through him the Aachen elite tried to convey a sympathetic picture of Germany and to mobilize ethnic, regional and separatist resentments in the other side of the border in subtle ways – through the medium of apparently non-political cultural exchanges which offered a “border-surmounting” and “community-building” picture of Aachen. This would serve as a bridge into the post war era. Correspondingly, Mennicken succeded in making a clerical-conservative new edition of his “Aachen mysticism” after 1945.


To this day the Charlemagne Prize stands in the tradition of the ethnically (“voelkisch”) imprinted German Imperial Ideal. “.. Charlemagne wanted, as we do today, to preserve the diversity of peoples whilst simultaneously leading them together” – so it was said in the encomium for the then German Federal President, Roman Herzog, in 1997. A critic summarizes”The short-circuiting of Middle Ages and modernity, of Reich and Europe, produces a 1200 year original myth (Ursprungmythos) for an integrated Europe and its German-French core(…) . The Charlemagne Prize transforms the political leaders of European integration into heirs of the once and future European Reich. The myth of the European mission of Charlemagne and his town belongs among the building stones of imperial Europe”.

(*1) A highly influential foreign policy advisor (see previous reports)
(*2) Founder of the Pan-European Union.

26/11/2003: Nazi Paratroop "Hymn" now used by Germany's Airborne forces

Nazi Paratroop “Hymn” now used by Germany’s Airborne forces

Report of 25 November 2003
Translated 26 November 2003


HAMBURG – After the discharge of a high ranking German soldier who supported a statement which embodied a Nazi stereotype of the Jews (see on this site NEWS Anti-Semitism, Nazism and Modern Germany) government and media are ignoring clues of similar incidents. To this day the Bundeswehr keeps alive traditions which go back to the National Socialist era. A former Lieutenant Colonel speaks of ” a brown stench in the High Command” (Brown was the colour of Nazi Party uniforms)


The Bundeswehr Leadership Academy is amongst the institutions which maintain contacts with suspected extremist organisations. This summer its commander gave a talk to the “State and Economic Political Association” , an organisation which has been banned from official contact with the army for two years because of “an overlap of personnel with extremist organisations”. Among the former chairmen of the “Association” is a supporter of the British Holocaust denier, David Irving for whom he designed a commemorative volume. This man himself is in the Bundeswehr- as Brigadier General. He is known for his complaints against “allied re-education” (ie the post war de-nazification process and subsequent propogation of democratic values -ed)


In the middle Nineties a well-known neo Nazi extremist gave a lecture in the Bundeswehr Leadership Academy on German nationalist propaganda in Russian Kaliningrad: “a theme which would make a democratically minded officer’s hair stand on end”, according to retired Lieutenant Colonel Helmuth Priess. Priess is prominent among a group of critical soldiers who are said to have close connections with German government circles. In spite of this
closeness, the retired Lieutenant Colonel reproaches those responsible in Berlin that they are ignoring an alarming development. “They deny that this stench exists in the officer corps of the Bundeswehr”. His criticism shows that even military experts close to the government have cause for concern because their suspicions appear not to penetrate as far as Berlin.


To this day, traditional characteristics of the Nazi army are cherished in the Bundeswehr which was formed in the Fifties with the help of former Wehrmacht soldiers. Many barracks still bear the names of Nazi commanders
who took leading parts in the aggressive wars and extermination campaigns of the German Reich. A hymn of Hitler’s parachutists is retained as a living propaganda element from the Nazi occupants. The song (“Red is the sun”) was composed in 1940 and is now used again in the foreign operations of today’s Bundeswehr.
“We only know one thing, if Germany is in need, to fight and to conquer and to die.”

1. Amongst others, the anti-militarist Social Democrat MP. Gernot Erler (Freiburg) belongs to the group “Darmstaedter Signal”. Immediately after his party came to power, he changed into one of the most forceful advocates of Berlin’s world-wide military expansion.

2. Above all the (Nazi) German parachute forces are famed for their aggressive operation against Crete.

See also (in German)

Militaermusik (Military Music) “Nicht mordqualifiziert(not qualified for murder) and
Hintergrundbericht: Krieg fuer den “Grossraum”* Europa (Background Report: War for the “large area”* Europe)
* This is the same concept as “Living Space” (Lebensraum)


“Es gibt braunen Mief im Fuehrungscorps” ; Jungle World 12.11.2003

Neue Aufgaben? Rechte Vereinigung SWG ist in der Fuehrungsakademie der Bundeswehr wieder wilkommen, obwohl der Verfassungsschutz vor Jahren warnte;
die Tageszeitung Nord- Ausgabe 14.11.2003

14/11/2003: Corporatist Germany moves into Australia


From 14th November 2003
Translated and commentated by Rodney Atkinson

With the takeover of the second biggest construction company in Australia the German corporation Bilfinger Berger AG is continuing its expansion abroad. Australia serves as a springboard for Berlin’s foreign policy in South East Asia where Berlin seeks to assert its leadership against the dwindling dominance of the USA and the coming power of China. (NB Germany has been the most accommodating and unquestioning of China’s unsavoury political ways in return for large investments in that country) The traditional dominant position of the anglo-american States in Australia has, according to “Asien-Konzept” a publication of the German Foreign Office, “robbed Germany of a previously effective instrument, to forge long term links between Germany and the South East Asian elites”. (1)

The German corporation, which already obtains 60% of its turnover from abroad, had previously declared it would use its one thousand million Euro “War chest” for foreign acquisitions in order to compensate for the weak construction market in Germany itself. (Note how the failure of German Europe economically, brought on by 4 years of the Euro (and 7 years of preparing for the Euro!) leads automatically to foreign economic adventures, just as such failure in the 1920s and 1930s led to political authoritarianism and imperial expansion). The Bilfinger board responsible for foreign investment announced further acquisitions in Poland and in the USA. In Asia Bilfinger Berger has already achieved several major contracts. With the takeover of the Abrigroup Ltd in Sydney the German construction company seeks to build its position to become the second biggest Construction group in the Australian market where one of its subsidiaries has been active for ten years in the growing market for infrastructure projects.

Establishing links to Germany.

Australia is seen as an important building block for the “securing long term German foreign policy interests in South East Asia” (1) Berlin hopes to profit from its opposition to the USA’s war against Iraq to spread its influence in the area. To this end an Action Plan Partnership 2000 seeks to promote under the auspices of the German Foreign Office, the Australian Foreign and Trade Ministry and the German Economics Ministry “intensive bilateral relations into the future” in particular through a political follow through to German economic expansion in Australia.

South East Asia could “become one of the most dynamic growth regions in the world economy and thereby a much more important market for Germany” the German Foreign Office maintains in Asien-Konzept. “The great majority of the future elites of South East Asia are at present educated in anglophone countries (Great Britain, USA, increasingly Australia) and therefore have a long term affinity to those countries….This deprives us of an instrument which used to be effective in establishing long term links to Germany and so act “on the spot” as commercially attractive witnesses of our country’s economic, political and cultural attractiveness. We will therefore have to appreciably increase our exertions to win back this terrain.”

(1) “Asien-Konzept” (Suedostasien) from the German Foreign Office, the full text is available on

Aktionsplan Partnerschaft 2000;
Bilfinger Berger strebt Zukäufe im Ausland an; Financial Times Deutschland 15.04.2003
Bilfinger Berger geht bald auf Shopping-Tour; Handelsblatt 21.08.2003
Bilfinger verstärkt sich in Australien; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 24.10.2003

13/11/2003: More proof of German destruction of Yugoslavia



Translation by Edward Spalton 13th November 2003

INTRODUCTION (Rodney Atkinson). From the early 1980s under the leadership of Klaus Kinkel (the future German Foreign Minister) the German Secret Service (BND) had been infiltrating agents into Yugoslavia seeking the break up that country and in particular the re-establishment of its fascist war time ally Croatia. In Erich Schmidt Eenboom’s book on Kinkel and my own book Fascist Europe Rising the evidence has long been compelling. But this interview with an operative in the Yugoslav Secret Service at the time, while confirming what others have already written, provides further damning and conclusive evidence.

No other crisis in post second world war Europe has so conclusively proved the return (through the European Union) to the fascist and German imperialist 1940s than the destruction of Yugoslavia and the re-establishment of precisely those petty statelets which were then allies of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. They were among the worst perpetrators of war crimes and even provided escape routes for Nazis fleeing Europe in 1945. The activities then and now of the Vatican’s “Jewel in the Crown”, Croatia, shows how the old adage that “when Germany and the Vatican have interests in common the whole of Europe should be wary” has not lost its historical significance. At a rally of Croatian nationalists in Zagreb May 1992 Franjo Tudjman declared “If we had not wanted it, there would have been no war” (Source: Berliner Zeitung 13 December 1999).

Particularly damning in this interview is the revelation that the German Secret Service when it took over demanded the expulsion from the Croatian Secret Service of any Croatian “partisans” who had fought the Nazis during the war. Behind the smiles of the rapacious German political class as it re-establishes German hegemony in Europe lies the obnoxious reality of its own ruthless secret services. But since the dangerously ignorant British political class and their “Little Englander” mentality do not even know what is happening in superficial continental politics they know nothing at all of the hidden reality! 

Question: Milosevic is in the dock at the Hague but actually are Helmut Kohl and Hans-Dietrich Genscher, then respectively Chancellor and Foreign Minister of the German Federal Republic most guilty of the destruction of Yugoslavia?

Duhacek: Germany had been trying to do that for a long time. It went into its decisive phase towards the end of the Eighties. The Bonn government was supported in this by Austria, Italy and the Vatican. The German Secret Service (BND – Bundesnachrichtendienst) coordinated the support for the republics of Croatia and Slovenia which wished to secede from Yugoslavia.

Q. What factual, firm information have you about this?

D. At the end of the Eighties the BND took over the direct operational command of the Croatian foreign intelligence service. De jure it was still part of the all-Yugoslavia service UDBA but de facto it had been practically outside Belgrade’s control since the early Seventies. In February 1990 in the run-up to the election in Croatia, still then part of Jugoslavia, there was a personal meeting between the German Foreign Minister and the Croatian Chief of Secret Service, Josip Manolic. At this meeting Genscher promised 800 million marks. Manolic wanted to take the money straight away. Franjo Tudjman (later President) and his then comrade in arms, Stipe Mesic (President today) were in urgent need of the money. Finally the money flowed after the elections of March 1990. People from the BND handed over the 800 million marks in Zagreb – in cash.

Q. That must have been rather a heavy suitcase.

D. The Germans obtained a service in return. In February 1990 Manolic had concluded a far-reaching secret agreement with the BND. Essentially it contained three points. First: Cooperation between the BND and the Croatian service controlled by him in the action against Yugoslavia and Serbia. Secondly: The BND placed at the disposal of its Croatian partners all the intelligence reports which it and its allied NATO services had collected in and concerning Yugoslavia; for example – the situation in the Yugoslavian army, its troop movements and so on. That would be an enormous advantage for Zagreb in the military conflicts which were soon to start. Thirdly: Manolic placed a part of his informants and informal colleagues, for example in Belgrade, directly under BND control.

Q In his book “Der Schattenkrieger” (Shadow Warrior) Erich Schmidt-Eenboom draws a veil over the BND activities of Klaus Kinkel at many points. He asserts however that already ” immediately before the death of Tito” in Zagreb “All decisions on strategic matters were only agreed in coordination …with BND authorities and Ustashe representatives” (NB The continuation of the Croatian War Time Ustashe – the Nazi Allies that ran Yugoslavia -ed). That was at the beginning of the Eighties.

They were close contacts but they had to be developed under cover. The hot phase first began at the end of the Eighties, as the organisation which Manolic and his Godfather, Ivan Krajacic (NB in the 1940s he defended the Nazi Kurt Waldheim who had been indicted as a war criminal by the Yugoslav Government. Later research showed that Waldheim’s record was at best ambiguous – ed) after he, had built up in secret became the official Secret Service of the new Croatian state. From around May 1990 this service functioned as a dependency of the BND. The German side demanded the total subordination of the Croatian service in return for its assistance – and they got it too.

For instance in 1993/4 the BND demanded a total cleansing of the Croatian service. All who came from the Partisan tradition had to go (i.e. the anti-Nazi Yugoslavs during the second world war -ed). You have to understand that the whole Tudjman Project of the new Croatian State and all its institutions was first and foremost a compromise. Croatian nationalism and enmity towards Yugoslavia were the common denominators. On this platform forces met which had been enemies during the Second World War, namely national Communists (Tito was a Croatian communist – ed) and Ustashe Fascists. Now the BND demanded that the first should be cleared out. Thus Joseph Manolic was rendered powerless within the secret service structures and Stipe Mesic, who left with him and a few others, frustrated the Tudjman Party (HDZ) and founded one of their own.

Q Are you sure the BND demanded that?

D. Tudjman himself admitted as much. In 1994 he wrote this about his break with Manolic “As things came to such a situation with Mr. Manolic, I have to add this. In 1992, after we had been formally recognised but had no real friends, representatives of one of the leading world powers came to me and said “Mr. President , you are apparently aware that you need to build up a new defence and security structure. We are ready to help you but, please, not with Joza Manolic”.

Q. But what could the BND have against Manolic? He was the one who had first made the Croatian service available to the Germans in 1990.

D. The BND mistrusted those who came from the Partisan tradition. After all, they had fought the Germans for four years. They appeared unsafe to them, at any rate in the long run. Just remember this about Manolic. He was awarded the Partisan decoration “Fighter from the First Day”.

Q But the quotation from Tudjman is not clear about this. Who had demanded the replacement of Manolic? He says only “representatives of one of the Great Powers of the world”. Could that not have been the Americans?

D. No. The Americans had no sort of influence. The Germans were absolutely dominant. When the American military advisors directed the conquest of the Krajina (and expulsion of its population) in 1995, they did so at the wish of the Germans. Kohl and Genscher did not want to get their hands dirty. A German military operation then would have been unpopular with domestic opinion. But the Germans supplied the weapons, above all army surplus from the former socialist countries – Poland, Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic.

Q. In the meantime the Tudjman Party HDZ has been voted out. In 2002 Mesic was elected President. Have the Germans therefore lost their influence? After everything you have described, Mesic must feel rather bitter against the BND.

D. People have accommodated themselves. Mesic can do nothing without the Germans and the Germans can do nothing without Mesic, at any rate for the time being. Tudjman is dead, his right hand man Gojko Susak, the first Defence Minister is dead. That Mesic is now trying to recall some of the 300,000 expelled Serbs to Croatia is significant for Germany as his main economic partner. Since ethnic cleansing by Croatian nationalists, districts like the Krajina and Slavonia remain depopulated. A third of the country is lying waste.

Q. With your knowledge would you be an important witness in the Milosevic case at The Hague?

D. I would go if I were invited although I have already received death threats on account of this.

23/10/2003: EU regionalism and German authoritarianism


INTRODUCTION (Rodney Atkinson) There are two abiding characteristics of the building of the European Superstate by the German political class. First is the central authority which it imposes on the previously free and self governing nation states while often exempting itself from those constraints. Secondly the use of regional policy (Hitler’s “Regional Principle” – first emphasised in the book Treason at Maastricht published in 1994, see Publications on this site) in order to break down sovereign authority in other EU member states while pursuing the exact opposite policy within Germany itself. One example of the latter process is outlined below by our friends at

Another odious example has recently surfaced in Berlin with the publication by Defence Minister Peter Truck of a position paper calling for all national military forces to be put under the control of the European Union. This would include both British armed forces and the British nuclear deterrent! A single European army is, according to Struck, “the visionary goal of German policy” and “no step along the path to military integration would be unthinkable for Germany” – only “Britain and France have taboos over these issues”. No wonder the US Ambassador to NATO has said EU military plans represent “one of the greatest dangers to the transatlantic relationship”. With its usual hypocrisy the German political class is simultaneously proposing that in future the German Parliament should have less control over the German Army!

None of this of course is surprising to the informed analyst of the European Union over the last 20 years – but it probably surprises the decadent British political class whose Little Englander mentality is as disastrous for sovereign freedom and democracy as their eurofanaticism.

Date of Report 23 October 2003
Translated 23 October 2003

BERLIN/BRUSSELS Regionalisation within the EU, resulting from German policy, gains further impetus from the new constitution. The proposed constitution strengthens the role of the regions as “basic structures”.

Just as the decentralisation of other EU states is being driven forward, Germany is preparing further centralisation of its state apparatus to strengthen “Germany’s capability to act”.

The Centre for Applied Political Research (CAP), a highly influential German think tank which works closely with the German Foreign Office, believes that the regions are coming into a key position. From this they can legitimately demand comprehensive integration into the EU decision-making process. The strategists of Berlin’s world-power ambitions believe that the new constitution goes a long way towards giving “the regional dimension additional and previously unhoped-for momentum”


In particular the position of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) is strengthened as “the collective representation of the interests of all regions and local, district corporations” – one of the most important instruments of regionalisation according to German Guidelines.

In article 1 part 6 of the proposed constitution, local and regional self-government are designated as part of the “basic structures” which must be respected by the EU. In article 1 part 3 the value of “cultural and linguistic diversity” (“The principal prop of regional identity”) is brought to the fore. For the first time the Committee of the Regions is given the right of bringing prosecutions before the European Court of Justice.(ECJ). The Centre for Applied Political Research claims that the regions have acquired “more bite” with their new powers and that they should continually strive to strengthen their position.

The German strategists are counting on increased influence for the German “Laender” (provinces). The provinces voted in their “European Ministers Conference” to step up their europolitical activities. In concert with the Committee of the Regions they form a new Interest Group (“Regions with Law-Making Powers”, RegLeg for short). RegLeg combines the strongest regions of the EU under one roof – all the regions in Germany, Belgium, Austria, Spain, Italy and Great Britain which have far-reaching powers over internal policy and legislation. The RegLeg regions of most of the larger member states belong to this body. The CAP demands that this big-hitting group should be brought more closely into the work of the CoR.


In the meantime events are underway to bind the sixteen German provinces more tightly to central political direction from Berlin. With the agreement of all factions, a federal commission of both house of parliament has been instituted for “the modernisation of the order of the federal state”. The commission should report by the end of next year and is expected to cut the influence of the provinces by alterations to the constitution before the end of next year “so that Germany may be better and more simply governed”.

The Bertelsmann Foundation (which cooperates with the CAP) and the party political foundations are meanwhile making contrasting demands that the provinces should be made more autonomous in financial matters as “International Centres of Competitiveness”). Acting on their own responsibility they could be stronger than before in competing for the favours of big business. It is claimed that this will give more beneficial conditions for the German economy in international competition.

See also previous reports on Free Nations site
Regionen und die Zukunft Europas; (Regions and the Future of Europe)

Die Rolle rer Regionen mit Gesetzgebungskomeptenzen im Konventsprozess;
(The role of regions with law-making powers in the EU constitutional
convention process)

17/10/2003: Polish Reply to German President's speech

Polish Reply to German President’s speech

Freenations recently published the translation of President Rau’s speech to the Association of German Expellees. Here the Polish President Kvasnievski responds to this and other German attempts to re-assert their influence and control over Polish territory.

Date of Report 17 September 2003
Translated 17 September 2003

WARSAW – The Polish President Kvasnievski has reacted sharply against attempts in Germany to denounce some of the agreements of the Potsdam Treaty. Whoever characterises the resettlement of Germans as “Wrong and
Unjust” puts the post war order of Europe into question and is opening a “Pandora’s box”. So said President Kvasnievski in an article for the Polish daily paper “Rceczpospolita”. “It must be remembered” he wrote “how the
difficulties of our continent, which led to the outbreak of the Second World War, began with the undermining of the Treaty of Versailles”.

Kvasnievski was particularly concerned with the debate about a “Centre against Expulsions”. The German initiators of this project wanted to assert the opinion that the post war resettlement of Germans from Eastern Europe
was “Wrong and unjust”. At present the German Minister of the Interior is trying to create unity over some contested details which have previously obstructed the building of the Centre. A few days previously the German
Federal President had attacked the victorious powers of the Second World War, accusing them of “Dreadful wrong” (concerning the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe).


In contrast Kvasnievski called attention to the previously uncontested legality of the Potsdam Treaty and related agreements, on which the resettlement of Germans were based. “Today Germans are in an important phase
of finding a new identity” said the Polish President, as he warned against a revision of history. “The tearing up of the historical connection between cause and effect, between the aggressive policy of German Nazism and the
expulsions (…) brings us inexorably close to the suspicion that we have to deal with an attempt to revise the historical assessment of German aggression in comparison with others”.

See also
“Menschenrecht auf Heimat weltweit sichern” und Zugzwang sowie “Getarnte Rueckkehr des deutshen Drangs nach Osten”

Total revision


Przeciw Europie narodowych animozji : Rzeczpospolita 15.09.2003
“Gegen ein Europa nationaler Feindseligkeiten”. Praesident Kwasniewski
erklaert seinend Widerstnd gegen ein moegliches “Zentrum gegen
Vertreibungen” in Berlin; Deutsche Welle Monitor Ost-/Suedoseuropa

12/09/2003: German President attacks victors and victims of the Second World War


Date of Report 12 September 2003
Translated 12 September 2003

Translators Note:
The Role of the German Federal President

In case anyone should think President Rau’s speech to be an expression of personal opinion or of slight political importance, the President’s own website gives the following information about the functions of his office


The President embodies the state every time he appears in public, every time he participates in an event, assumes a patronage, makes a speech, conveys congratulations, takes part in a tour or a wide range of ther actvities. He thus sets an example of recognition, goodwill or particular support. Nonetheless there is a limit to what events the president can take part in. They have to be of national relevance and particular significance”.

So his speech to the “Bund der Vertriebenen” is:

1. An expression of the will of the German State and not his private opinion

2. Signifies the “goodwill and particular support” of the state for the
irridentist claims of the Bund and similar organisations and

3. has “national relevance and particular significance” .

The speech to the Bund appears on the German section of the website but not in English translation (18 September)

Introduction by Rodney Atkinson: Having used the European Union (and the naïve and historically ignorant political classes in Britain and America) to re-write much of the Treaty of Versailles which ended the First World War, the German political class now seeks – in remarkably aggressive terms which reflects the confidence of their growing power – to re-write the Potsdam Treaty which ended the second World war. President Rau’s speech to the annual conference of the “Association of German Expellees” (many of whose founders were intimately associated with the worst excesses of Nazi domination in Poland and Czechoslovakia during the War) is the latest in a series of German Ministers to associate themselves with groups which for much of the post war period were regarded as extremists.

In 1999 I translated a 1998 motion passed by the then coalition of Christian Democrats and Free Democrats in the German Parliament (click here for Der Drang Nach Osten). That motion was a clear warning to the rest of Europe and the USA that German politicians were going to use the carefully constructed logic of the European Union (European “citizenship”, free movement of people and capital, the withering of national borders etc etc) to re-occupy with both German business and German families those parts of Eastern Europe from which Germans had been expelled after the last war. Since it was Germany’s both present and wartime fascist allies Bosnians, Albanians and Croatians who have been responsible for the some of the most despicable ethnic cleansing in Europe, even during the 1990s, it is rank hypocrisy for the German political class to object to the expulsion of Nazi collaborators after the war. With the declaration of 5 wars since the 1860s and bearing unambiguous responsibility for the deaths of over 50 million people in two world wars, the loss of their – usually disputed – “homelands” in eastern Europe is a not unreasonable price to pay.

President Rau’s speech, reported in part below, is just the latest example of the new aggression in German foreign policy and in German politicians use of the German dominated Euro-State they have assiduously created.

BERLIN (own report) In a public speech the German head of state has attacked the victorious powers of the Second World War and accused them of “dreadful wrong”. The supposed wrong was inflicted on those Germans who were “expelled” from central and eastern Europe. The accusations are directed against fundamental parts of the Potsdam Treaty . To this day, the validity of the borders between Germany and it neighbours rests on these agreements.

The German Federal President, Johannes Rau (Social Democrat Party) accuses Great Britain and France because they “shook hands with Hitler on the Munich agreement”. Furthermore the USA and USSR had charges to answer. As “participants in the conferences of Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam” they could not plead innocence to the consequences of a policy “which deprived German people of rights”. He was speaking of supposed Germans who were, in reality, citizens of non-German states and were implicated in the Nazi occupation of their homelands.


This attack by the German head of state is also directed against those persecuted by the Nazis, who were forced to flee Germany. Because, in exile, they reflected how the provocations of German “Minority Policy” might be ended, Rau characterised these as “those who, already in exile for years, planned the expulsion” (of German minorities). According to Rau, the expelled minorities deserve the “status of suffering” accorded to persecuted Jews.


The high point of this speech by the highest representative of the German state is a relativised comparison in which the crimes of Hitler’s Germany are placed on the same level with the “wrong” perpetrated by the anti-Hitler coalition. Word for word, it goes “Hitler’s criminal policy does not excuse anyone who responded to dreadful wrong with dreadful wrong”.


Rau’s arguments have adopted the basic principle of political discourse which was developed after the war in the milieu of German revisionism and the extreme right. Its main element is the blurring of historical causes and the resulting consequences which affected the aggressor. These effects are described as morally abhorrent and therefore solved outside the context of their political origin. The purpose is the waste disposal of the past crimes of German power politics, which requires a thoroughly sanitised past for its present plans.

In spite of the significance of the attack on parts of international law, the actions of the German head of state have provoked no controversial echoes in the German public and media.

This report is fully documented in the announcement “A dreadful Wrong”, (Furchtbares Unrecht) on

01/09/2003: German Human Rights Policy not welcome in Germany


Dateline: 1st September 2003


The Director of the German Institute for Human Rights has been forced to resign because he has been rather too active in defence of human rights in Germany – instead of providing useful material for Berlin’s “ethnically” based Foreign Policy. (see other papers on this site detailing the German State’s use of “minority rights” to undermine other nations and establish cross border European power – NEWS 6/8/03, 26/6/03, 30/4/03 and GERMANY CALLING 12/7/03, 22/6/03, 16/4/03, 11/4/03, 30/1/03)

Other German human rights organisations meanwhile express ever sharper criticism of the abuse of basic human rights in Germany. The German Institute for Human Rights was founded in March 2001 on the recommendation of the German Parliament which was falling in line with a demand of the United Nations of its members to set up independent national organisations to promote and protect human rights.

According to Resolution 48/134 of the UN General Assembly of 1993 these organisations should concern themselves primarily with specific human rights situations in their own countries. The “independent German Institute is financed by the German Ministry of Justice, the Foreign Office ansd the Ministry for Economic Cooperation. Its management board includes apart from representatives of these Government departments, MPs from the ruling coalition, the Berlin Human Rights coordinator Claudia Roth and the Chairman of the Heinrich Boll Foundation (closely associated with the Green Party) Barbara Unmussig

“International Debate……”

After serious disagreements with members of the management board the Director of the Institute, MacLean was forced to resign in January this year. MacLean had put special emphasis on the observance of human rights in Germany itself and had criticised serious problems particularly in Asylum and Social policy. He had demanded that Berlin should give up its reservations about the UN’s convention on children’s rights. Unmussig had attacked MacLean for concentrating too much on the realisation of individual rights in Germany. The management board put more emphasis on the “observation and monitoring of the international debate” on human rights. MacLean has now demanded Unmussig’s resignation.

…instead of ratifying Conventions”

While Berlin’s Foreign Policy demands “the world wide realisation and securing of the full breadth of civicl, political, economic, social and cultural human rights” the Government comes under ever sharper criticism for the situation inside Germany. The German Government continues to refuse to put an EU directive on the prevention of racial discrimination into German Law and continues to have “reservations” about the UN convention on children’s rights**. Prominent politicians and jurists have in recent months even called in certain cases for the use of torture. (see Folter on

** For this an other examples of Germany exempting itself from conventions it imposes on others see the book Fascist Europe Rising.

31/08/2003: Germany undermines Belarus - Young SPD Leader expelled


Dateline: 31st August 2003


The German Government has been working for several years on the overthrow of Lukaschenko in order to promote the “Transformation” of White Russia and its subordination to German interests.

The expelled activist, Jan Busch, the “Team leader for international Affairs” on the North Rhein Westphalia State Committee of the Young Socialists, is accused by the Belarusian authorities of transporting large amounts of cash to Belarus and organising the German Foreign Office funded seminars which agitated against the elected president. The Minsk Government had already forbidden such a seminar in December 2002.


The North Rhine Westphalia Young Socialists have been working since the early 1990s on a “Network” which was to be oriented towards the political ideas of the young SPD. The nurture close connections with the Social Democrat Party of Belarus which would pay of that Party were to be elected. In the past year the SPD youth organisation had carried out another German Foreign Office funded project in Belarusian towns through which young people were taught about taking part in local elections. The project continues.

An “Outline Paper” of the Young Socialists talks of the “Building of democratic structures of civil society” which would be an “important contribution to a progressive development in Belarus”. This was necessary because “Belarus is still at the beginning of the transformation process”.

White Russia, despite strong pressures from abroad, consistently refuses to subordinate itself to German interests and to sell its domestic economic interests to Western big business. Berlin has therefore concentrated on the “Transformation” of the State and has worked towards the removal of the democratically elected President Lukaschenko.

Numerous advance organisations of the German Foreign Office are located in Minsk and other towns in Belarus, including the social democrat political foundation the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the Centre for Applied Political Research and the German Foundation for International Legal Cooperation. The leader of the OSCE Representation in Minsk Eberhard Heyken took up office on 10th February 2003. For the second time in succession the post is taken by a German.

For further infornation and sources see the following on

1) s. auch Weißrussland ,,Schurkenstaat”
2) s. auch Berlin verstärkt Unterstützung der weißrussischen Opposition
3) s. auch Tod eines ,,Deutschen” und ,,Grenzüberschreitende Kooperation” sowie ,,Wirksamste Instrumente der deutschen Außenpolitik”
4) s. auch Belarus: Destabilisierung durch ,,intensive Förderung der Zivilgesellschaft”; zur IRZ s. Hintergrundbericht: Deutsche Stiftung für internationale rechtliche Zusammenarbeit
5) s. auch Ehemaliger Präsident des deutschen Auslandsgeheimdienstes: Wahlen in Weißrussland ,,unfair”

Strukturpapier NRW Jusos 2001; Beschluss der Strukturkommission/Einstimmig
Juso-Mitglied wegen Jugendseminar in Weißrussland ausgewiesen; 18.08.2003
,,Seminare sind subversive Tätigkeit”; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 19.08.2003

07/08/2003: German impoverishment of the German people


Date of Report 5 August 2003
Translated 7 August 2003


This website in general and the two books Europe’s Full Circle and Fascist Europe Rising in particular point to a reprise of the politics of the 1930s and 1940s. The German Governments of those years were particularly adept at impoverishing their own people while expanding their armed services – usually illegally and against the terms of the post first world war Treaty of Versailles. Today in a Germany of over 6 million unemployed we see a similar exploitation of the German people while military spending rises and corporate investment, particularly in takeovers of East European industry, commerce and media grows. This report from our colleagues at is significant put in that historic context.

BERLIN (own report) A grand coalition of parties in the Berlin parliament has decided to dismantle significant social security benefits which, until now, helped to stabilize the cohesiveness of German society. In spite of warnings from church and charitable organisations against the exclusion of whole sections of society, the government is already discussing further far-reaching measures. The unresisted demolition of the German social security system is fostering aggressive reactions which are being directed abroad.

The most recent government decision has the objective of putting Berlin “Again at the top…in Europe” and to sharpen the worldwide competitiveness of the economy. To save German firms from proportionate contributions for the medical care of their workers, the government is cutting the total amount of health contributions. Complete branches of care are being cut. All payments for false teeth are discontinued. Furthermore ordinary visits to a General Practitioner will usually incur a consultation fee. Hospitals will levy a daily bed charge.


The capitalisation (i.e. privatisation) of the public health system has been accompanied by appeals which nationalistically minimise the material loss and make play with the weaknesses of other states. In a government announcement the Chancellor said “We Germans can be proud of the power of our economy, of the earnings of our people, of the strength of our nation…..Notwithstanding that, our national economy, the German national economy is what we have to improve – the strongest (sic) in Europe”


The demolition of the public health system complements similar measures against the unemployed. According to unofficial internal estimates there are now 6.5 million Germans without work. The highest levels of unemployment are reported from East Germany where up to 30% of the population is unemployed. Their claims for payment are currently being reduced or cut completely. According to “The Federal Office for Work” the number of unemployed members of the middle classes is rising significantly.


Research by German sociologists shows that fear of social degradation can lead to reactions of passivity and resignation as well as aggression. It favours the predisposition to accept authoritarian promises for the future. In view of high youth unemployment, offers of military and paramilitary training have increased. Job advertisements for foreign operations by supposedly non government organisations (NGOs) have taken on an added attraction. Service pay in areas of political crisis and war zones, offered by “Private Military Companies” (PMCs) appear to offer a secure social basis for a respectable life. In this way the expansionist elements of Berlin’s foreign policy are creating a pool of experienced personnel which, hoping to escape impoverishment, will be highly motivated for worldwide operations and at the disposal of a future, professional German army.

1. Regierungserklaerung des deutschen Bundeskanzlers 14.03. 2003 Government statement by German Chancellor
2. Nach offizieller Lesart betragt die Zahl der Arbeitslosen ueber 4 millionen. Diese Zahl unterliegt staendiger staatliche Bearbeitung und wird allgemein als unrealisitich angesehen. Official german unemployment figures of 4 million are generally seen as unrealistic.

See also on

“Durchgeifende Loesungen” gegen das erstarrte Parteisystem” Thorough going solutions for the paralysed party system
Der Preis der Expansion The price of expansion and Deutschland braucht “Fuehrer” Germany needs a “Fuehrer”


“Deutschland bewegt sich – Mehr Dynamik fuer Wachstum und Beschaeftigung” Reierungserklaerung von Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schroeder vor dem Deutschen
Bundestag am 3. Juli 2003.
Government Statement by Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to the German Federal Parliament 3 July 2003

04/08/2003: German radio propaganda - "Tradition since the days of the second world war"


Date of Report 26 July 2003
Translated 3 August 2003

MAYEN/KABUL (Own report) German Psychological Warfare units are intensifying their world-wide propaganda output and broadening the military radio network. The Central Directing Staff is in Mayen in the Eifel ( Land Rheinland/Pfalz). There are “Operational Editing Staffs” in Kosovo, Bosnia Herzogovina and Afghanistan. The occupation radio station “Voice of Freedom” promotes Western values (“Civil Society”) and is supported by “Deutsche Welle” a state broadcasting foreign service with a long history.

The military radio centre in Mayen (Bataillon Operative Information 950) runs varied overall programming which is received by satellite in the occupied countries. Programmes are recorded by the “Operational Editorial Staff” and then broadcast by local transmitters. The propaganda station at Kabul transmits its VHF output in the Dari and Pushtu languages.


The far-flung propaganda work of the battalion is founded on decades of Psychological Warfare activities in Germany and countries to the East. They became known as the pioneer units of “Psychological Warfare” , later called “Psychological Defence”. They were involved with systematic disinformation, surveillance and informing which had a continuity with the Nazi period. Subsequently the “Psycho Operation” had to be reorganised to remain as secret as possible and to be able to continue its work under another name.


The military specialists with their secret task of propaganda operate with related departments of the German state. “Deutsche Welle” radio station, a co-operating partner of the propaganda troop, has organised contacts with journalists whose close connections to German foreign espionage (Bundesnachrichtendienst/BND) are incontestable. Contacts between the Psycho Battalion and the supposedly private “International Media Assistance” (IMH/Hennef in Cologne) are proved.


In the murky world of secret or concealed work to influence opinion by radio and other media, German traditions from the Nazi era are being developed further. The propaganda Battalion in Mayen has borrowed the signature tune of the fomer Nazi transmitter in occupied Belgrade. In a German TV programme it was said to be proud of the tradition. “And every evening at precisely 21.56 hours local time the engineers of Mayen transmit “Lilli Marlene” into the ether, as the tradition has been since the days of the Second World War”

See also

Bundeswehr: Psychologischer Krieg und Deutscher Weltkrieg
“Nachrichtendienstliche Erschliessung” auslaendischer Journalisten
Liebesgruesse aus Kabul. In Kulturzeit vom 15.11.2002 TV-Sender 3sat (Mainz)
“German TV” Deutsche Aussendarstellung in aller Welt und Deutsches TV Programm in Afghanistan

03/08/2003: German Europe's claim to co-leadership with the USA



Since openly attacking the USA before and during the Iraq war the German political class has done a volte face. Then German Ministers called Bush a “Hitler” and a “dictator”. Now Germany seeks to ally itself with American military and political power. But the ongoing criticism of American “growing militarism” is now combined with a desire to exploit US power for German economic advantage and “European” leadership. The prime condition for their support is the inclusion in the re-organisation of world of German interests (which imperialist German politicians naturally call “European” interests!). Note how the corporatist structures of German State and Business leads to the discussion of such political strategies by influential business based think tanks. Prominent among these are companies like Deutsche Bank and State funded “Political Foundations”, as we have described in detail elswhere on this website..

Complementary war power (08.07.2003)

BERLIN – The German ambassador to Washington recommends that Berlin and the EU should participate in the attempt of the USA to eliminate the ,,Fiction of the (…) equality of states” – if necessary by military means. As a countermove the United States is requested to give priority status to German interests in the “reorganisation” of the world.

The thrust of German Ambassador, Wolfgang Ischinger, coincides with the interests of numerous big German enterprises which depend on business with the USA. According to Joseph Ackermann, spokesman for the board of directors of the Deutsche Bank, leading business circles plead that “Europe’s future” should be “at America’s side”. Ackermann states that the USA and Europe are “natural allies” even if based solely on their economic involvement. 1) While immediate economic interests press German foreign policy into continuing co-operation, divergent interests, particularly those of a political-strategic nature do exist.

Embarrassing similarity

Heinrich Vogel, board member of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP, foundation for science and policy), notes a ,,far deeper alienation between the USA and Europe”, which he sees as due to the advantage of the old continent’s civilisation. The unquestioning faith in authority and growing militarism of US society serve as reminders of Wilhelminian Germany on the eve of World War I. Vogel sees an “embarrassing similarity with that pre-democratic phase of German history”.

No reason for timidity

The demonstration of absolute military power has caused far-reaching damage to the claim of the USA to political leadership. The prominent political advisor formulates Berlin’s claims for participation in the global hegemony thus: It is necessary now that ,,terms concerning further political guarantees for cooperation must be openly discussed.” ,,European potential in trade, currency, technology, law and cultural policies put the American claim to leadership considerably into perspective. (…) There is
no cause whatsoever for timidity.”

Transformation of international law…

Ambassador Ischinger recently attempted to bring together the differing positions during a conference of the Alfred-Herrhausen-Gesellschaft, the socio-political forum of the Deutsche Bank. He agrees with Vogel that there is no going back to the ,,good old times of harmony among partners”. On the other hand, the hegemony of the USA which is based on superior military power, can hardly be questioned. Thus, the EU could only mature into achieving ,,our hoped for” world power if it were to “define its identity not against but in concert with the USA.” It must be accepted that the USA is questioning the ,,centuries’ old fiction that states are equal and are protected by international law.” It would be critical that the EU would participate actively in a ,,policy of transformation as it is framed by Washington.”2)

,,… by military means…

The former head of the planning staff and undersecretary in the Foreign Office, therefore sketches the prerequisites for a ,,renewed, acceptable basis of transactions for the transatlantic relationship.” The USA would have to be prepared to consider Berlin’s interests as a matter of priority. Otherwise, Ischinger foresees a coalition directed against the USA.3) On the other hand, the EU should participate in the elimination of the equality of states, if necessary by force: “In Europe one forgets occasionally that law and standards must be achieved, if necessary by military means.”4)

,,… means war.”

The German ambassador states that the ,,complementary” global power policy would have to prove successful in the joint ,,reorganisation” of the Near and Middle East. There Berlin and the EU must demonstrate the forcefulness of their ambitions.5) Ischinger sees the first acid test in the participation in possible aggression against Iran: “Will Europe, indeed, take a critical view of Iran, insisting on the transparency of Iran’s nuclear program, and be prepared to pay a price for this objective, should the
occasion arise? If yes, at what price?”6)

1) See also earlier article A lull in the conflict
2) See also earlier article ,,Downfall or ascent to world power”
3) See also earlier article BASF: Access to the largest energy reserves of the world
4) See also earlier article EU Strategy: ,,Preemptive Wars”, worldwide
5) See also earlier articles Germany as ,,victorious power in Iraq” and Berlin wants ethnic “New Order” in Gulf region
6) See also earlier article War or Change of Regime

Verzweifelt gesucht. Eine Berliner Tagung über das Selbstgefühl Europas;
Süddeutsche Zeitung 17.06.2003
Heinrich Vogel: Das Ende des ,,Westens”; Internationale Politik Juni 2003
Wolfgang Ischinger: ,,The Transatlantic Partnership: Can It Survive?”;

Redaktion Informationen zur Deutschen Außenpolitik
Fax: 01212-5-257-08-537
e-mail: [email protected]

02/08/2003: The Spirit of Potsdam

The Spirit of Potsdam

Date of original report 28 July 2003
Translated 2nd August 2003

POTSDAM near Berlin may well become headquarters for worldwide military operations under EU leadership within the facility of the German “Operational Leadership Command” . This location is a symbol of Prussian militarism and of Germany’s climb to the status of a Great European Power.

The “Operational Leadership Command” has been established in Potsdam-Geltow near Berlin since July 2001. It plans and controls operations of all German fighting forces, whether national or international, and so corresponds to the earlier German “General Staff”(*1). Amongst other things it houses the German-Dutch Operations and Coordination Centre for the International Protection Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

According to the wish of the German military, the Headquarters of the future EU Rapid Reaction Force would be in the old buildings of the Operational Leadership Command and the Bundeswehr would have a more modern operational centre. There are current EU operations in Macedonia and the Congo. Next year the EU will take over in Bosnia Herzegovina and military operations in Moldavia are presently under consideration.


The likely site of the future EU military Headquarters is a symbol of Prussian and German militarism. After the “Wars of Liberation”(*2) at the beginning of the 19th century and the “Reich Unification War” of 1870/71 (*3), the Potsdam garrison church received the dedicated war trophies of the Prussian army (amongst them some 200 French, Danish and Austrian standards and regimental colours(*4)) and so was developed into a sort of “Valhalla” of the Prussian-German ascent to world power status. In 1914 the garrison church became the symbolic point of farewell for the departing troops.

Because of the Prussian myth of Potsdam it was chosen as the place for the founding of the Third Reich. The Nazis used the “spirit of Potsdam” to place their movement within the Prussian tradition and those of middle class Conservatism.


(*1) After the First World War, Germany was forbidden to have the “Great General Staff” which had been so potent in aggressive militarism. Its functions were disguised under the name “Truppenamt” – literally “Troops’ Office”. The new title appears to be in this tradition.

(*2) Against the French under Napoleon Bonaparte.

(*3) Known outside Germany as the Franco-Prussian War

(*4) Whilst old regimental colours are often laid up in British churches, they are not places for the display of captured enemy colours. This shows the difference in tradition.

(On in German)
Erstmals nach 1945: Deutscher Generalstab in Aktion (First time since 1945: German General Staff in Action)*
EU Stratgie “Preventivkriege” weltweit (EU Strategy “Preventive Wars” worldwide) *
Testlauf fuer europaeische Militaermacht (Test run for EU Military Power)*
Bundeswehr: Beteiligung am Kongo-Einsatz (Bundeswehr participation in Congo Operation)*
Berlin uebernimmt taktische Fuehrung der Afghanistan- Schutztruppe (Berlin takes over tactical command of Afghanistan Protection Force)*
Deutscher Diplomat fordert Ausweitung des Mandats (German diplomat demands widening of mandate)*
Denkmal fuer Preussiche Militaers;” Die Baende des Vorurtiels loesen ”
(Memorial for Prussian Military: dissolving the bands of prejudice)*



30/07/2003: Ressurrecting Prussia on German TV


Dateline: 30th July 2003

Translated by Rodney Atkinson


The power of radio and television for propaganda purposes has long been recognised by the European Union. For several years it has tried to put its propaganda into sitcoms watched by millions of people. Programmes mentioned by the Commission were “Highlander” in the UK, “Alle Zusammen” in Germany and “Hors Limite” in France. The European Union’s propagandists used to get round the British ban on political advertising by sponsoring old films on Channel Four Television (no one knows why they needed sponsoring) and then having their Eurostar circle put at the end of the transmission. This was eventually stopped.

The official in Brussels who handles the Commission’s department “NEW APPROACH TO AUDIOVISUAL” (Santiago Herrero-Villa) said: “We are not insisting that the commission or the European Union be mentioned” But how insidious not to know who is subliminally influencing you through your favourite sitcom. Difficult to think of a more fascist approach. The subsidy is up to 5% of production costs. The new Goebbels said: “We are talking about product placement – or even idea placement – although there are some similarities. Sitcoms are the best way to get the message across because they are set against the background of a particular reality. We just have to broaden into a European one”. The Commission, reported The Times “would insist on vetting scripts to make sure there were no inaccuracies”. The European Commission office in London made a similar remark about “inaccuracies” which Eurosceptics might be guilty of (but not of course Europhiles) in the 1997 British general election!

Here therefore is the latest example of TV propaganda for political purposes, as reported by our German colleagues at and translated by us.

Channel 1 television in Germany (ARD) is preparing a prime time drama production which will portray “the world of the Estates East of the Elbe” in the year 1900. The series will present “the every day life of a Prussian Manor House”. Those interested in playing “Serving girls, maids or Lady’s maids” are asked to apply to the ARD, a public service television company. The popularising of the life of the Prussian aristocracy is one of the darkest chapters in the history of German expansionism.

The prime time series which could be seen by several million viewers will be set in the former Prussian provinces (East of the Elbe). That includes Polish and Russian territories like the former Pommerania, East Prussia and Lower and Upper Silesia. Filming will take place in inter alia Mecklenburg-Pommerania.

The “East Elbers” were owners of large estates who enjoyed life as the controllers of Polish, Russian and German farm labourers. During the rule of the German Kaisers the “East Elbers” were renowned for their barbaric exploitation of their servants. Their agricultural domination of of Polish and Russian dependents gave them the reputation of being in the avant-garde of anti-Slav Racism. The political representation of the aristocratic class East of the Elbe ensured a consistent anti-Polish strategy of Expansion.

In numerous analyses which concern themselves with the rise of National Socialism, sociologists and historians have established that the aristocracy East of the Elbe had an enormous influence on the course of German history. It was the declared aim of the international anti-Hitler coalition to destroy once and for all the social and political basis of the Junker but it is just this very Junker class which experiences its resurrection in the forthcoming ARD epic “1900 – Life in the Manor House”.

Two of the exemplary Junker who were such avid supporters of Hitler and the Nazis:

Friedrich Fürst Wend zu Eulenburg-Hertefeld wrote in a letter (February 1931):

“It was a great honour to get to know Adolf Hitler, who is undoubtedly a true personality and who towers over the pathetic mediocrity of today. It is not his outer appearance which gives this impression but the convincing sureness and clarity with which he speaks. I urgently recommend Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf which contains a plethora of brilliant thoughts in regard to cultural goals.”

Dietloff Graf von Arnim-Boitzenburg wrote in a letter (26/2/1931):

“I had the opportunity, in a small private group of some 15 people, to converse with Herr Hitler and hear him speak about his aims and his purposes! I can only say that the speech which he gave was quite excellent and was not objectionable in any way. If National Socialism moves in the direction outlined by Hitler we would all agree with him.”

The quotations are printed in: Junker und NSDAP 1931/32. Eine Dokumentation, in: Kurt Gossweiler, Aufsätze zum Faschismus Band 1, pages 230-259.

12/07/2003: Centralisation for Germany - EU Regionalism for others


INTRODUCTION: It was the victorious allies after the second world war who broke up the German authoritarian state into a federal structure of “Laender” or provincial states. Now the German “political class” wish to restore central control – at the very time when the EU under German control is forcing regionalism onto other nation states. The break up of Czechoslovakia, the destruction of Yugoslavia (both with the direct involvement of the German Government) and the EU’s “Committee of the Regions” all mimic the “regional principle” enunciated by the Nazis who saw great centralising power in the promotion of petty nationalistic and racist entities inside other nation states (see Nazi regions on this site). Today the EU is making large amounts of funding for the 10 new member states dependent on their introducing regional policies and structures.

But here in this report translated by Edward Spalton we see the opposite process being recommended for Germany. Not for the first time the German political class thinks it has a right to ignore what it imposes on others.

Date of Report 12 July 2003
Translated 12 July 2003

“Encrusted” German Constitution to be Centralised

BERLIN/PARIS (own report) A grand coalition of government and opposition parties is preparing to increase the centralisation of the German state structure. The aim is the streamlining of the federal system because “much decision making (..) is seen as too long and too complicated”. To achieve the desired new hierarchy the German constitution must be altered. The present, many-layered structure is designed to frustrate the return of a dictatorial or expansionist government. Whilst Berlin centralises, German foreign policy demands ever further-reaching decentralisation in the state
structures of its neighbours. Such plans for regionalisation have aroused resistance in France.

In a paper of 8 July by the the Social Democrat parliamentary party (“Modernisation of the Federal Order”) it is suggested that preparations for the alteration of the German constitution should begin in Autumn 2003. The responsibilities of the different levels of administration should be “More clearly defined than before”.

In particular, this is concerned with higher levels of authority for central state activities which are more and more weighted towards other countries. This is called “World internal policy” (Weltinnenpolitik)*. By these restrictive and superfluous areas of activity would be delegated downwards as part of “subsidiarity” . The two largest opposition parties (Christian Democrats and Christian Social Union) are already in basic agreement as the constitutional changes have already been under discussion for several

Federalism “restrictive”

On 18 June it was said in the Bundestag that the German constitution was admittedly “part of the success story of West Germany from 1948 -1989”. Nonetheless Social Democrat parliamentarians believe that it is no longer to date. “In the meantime there are faults and encrustations which increasingly frustrate the solution of the economic and political problems of our time”.

……but only in Germany

Whilst the “long and complicated” paths of decision making between central and subordinate authorities need “modernising” in Germany, Berlin regards them as “closer to the citizens” or “democratic” when abroad. Several German foreign policy front orgnisations are concentrating their efforts on France where they call the central state “anachronistic”. In the European Parliament German MEPs especially demand that the continent should be reconstructed in “Regions” in a “Federal Order”.

Protests in France

The French government has now complied with German demands and brought in far-reaching laws for regionalisation. These transfer many areas of state competence to lower levels. This has provoked protests in France which are to be express in a large demonstration in Paris, planned for 20 September.

Footnote * Within the context of European affairs, it is not just Germany’s Foreign Office which conducts foreign policy. TFor instance the Transport Ministry deals directly with its opposite numbers on the construction of strategic rail and motorway links, German education authorities are pressing very successfully for the German syllabus and curriculum to be adopted in schools and universities of neighbouring countries, German funding has established a “Central European Police Academy” where German is the medium of instruction and so on. Numerous instances of these types of activities are mentioned in this series of translations. It appears that the proposed alterations will give government departments a freer hand in this sort of activity .without the need to consult the governments of the” “Laender”. Parliamentary supervision of military matters has already been weakened in the interests of “speedier decision making)”.

See also

Background Reports “Federal Union of European Ethnic Groups”
“Regionalisation” in France – A “Ghost of German origin”
“National Co-ordination” of German Secret Service


Paper by Chairman of the Social Democrat Parliamentary Party ov 8 July 2003
Protocol of 51st session of the German Bundestag, 15. Voting period 18 June 2003
Appeal for the unity and indivisibility of the French Republic Communique No.1

11/07/2003: German Bank expansion in South East Europe


Dateline 11th July 2003
by Rodney Atkinson

In 1998 the HypoVereinsbank (HVB) became, through the biggest ever merger in German banking history, Germany’s second biggest bank. In the year 2000 by taking over Bank Austria (The Bank of Austria – by far the leading Banking group in Austria) HVB became the 3rd biggest Banking group in Europe. The Bank of Austria kept its name and is now responsible within the Group for Austria and the whole of East and South East Europe where it has the biggest bank network in the region with 950 branches in 15 countries and thereby surpasses the Italian Uni Credito, New York’s Citibank and Societe Generale.

Downgrading of the HVB Subsidiaries.

After the take-over of the Bank of Austria the German Bank’s ambitious expansion plans were held up. One reason was serious conflict with the management of the Austrian bank. The cross border take-over had only been allowed because the HVB had guaranteed The Austrian Bank wide ranging autonomy. But shortly afterwards the boards of the HVB subsidiaries saw that they had de facto had their power removed since the management responsibility was transferred to the board of the parent company. Secondly HVB needed to raise new capital in order to finance the billions of Euros for further take-overs and to prevent their own inadequate capital ratios leading to a reduction in their credit ratings. (Note that this is precisely the method used by the European Union to gradually take over and destroy the nation states of Europe: denial of intent, acquisition of power then “pragmatic” destruction. The use of the local name of banks and companies – like the use of national flags and powerless parliamentary buildings in the political sphere – is designed at least for a time, to disguise the true ownership. But gradually the new flag flies over the new possession!)

Massive Growth Potential

Now HVB is floating 25% of the shares in its Bank of Austria subsidiary and will raise one billion Euro in the largest (continental) European flotation of the year. Part of the process is the transfer of HVB shares in the third largest bank in Poland (Przemyslowo-Handlowy PBK SA) to Bank of Austria which will then own 71 percent of the Polish bank. The new capital is to be used for further purchases and participations in eastern Europe. With a high priority 5 year plan the Bank of Austria (a much less threatening name in Eastern Europe than that of its German Bank owners) will further expand its leading position in these markets. The East European Bank market will have massive growth potential declared the HVB subsidiary which expects a growth rate of 10% per annum.

HVB announced “We will be expanding in this growth region with added muscle”. Further take-overs have already been announced: The Bank of Austria intends to buy up to 81% of the Central Profit Bank in Sarajevo, the fourth largest Bosnian bank. It is also planned to buy the whole of CAC Leasing in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia. Also being considered is the Posta Banka in Hungary which is due to be privatised in September. (Note that so much of the acquisition of East European assets has been through privatisation of companies which, due to the failure of communism, had no rational price attached to them and which should have been able to develop, with Western help and perhaps minority participation to the benefit of those countries and employees. In this case it is interesting to note that Bosnia, Slovakia and Hungary were part of the axis powers during the last war. It is far more controversial to acquire banks etc in eg The Czech Republic or Serbia)


Hypo-Vereinsbank rüstet sich für Zukäufe; Die Welt 23.05.2001
HVB: Streit mit Bank Austria verschärft; Die Welt 02.03.2003
Bank Austria soll Milliarden bringen; Süddeutsche Zeitung 24.06.2003
Aktien der Bank Austria kommen zu 27 bis 31 Euro auf den Markt; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 24.06.2003

22/06/2003: German corporatism in ALSACE LORRAINE


Dateline: 22nd June 2003

Translated and commentated on by Rodney Atkinson

Introduction: No area of Europe better encapsulates the 20th century battles for German imperial power than Alsace Lorraine, or as the Germans call it, Elsass Lothringen. It was captured from the French in the German victory of 1870 and then ceded to the French after German defeat in the Great War. It was invaded by Hitler and then reverted to the French in 1945. It has always been a centre of Franco-German steel and coal – it borders the German historic coal region, and German Federal State called the Saarland. It was the core of the 1921 and 1951 creations of “Coal and Steel Communities” through which Germany sought (after defeat in both wars) to both re-acquire the territory and establish coal and steel power which would be the basis of the new Europe (see in particular Europe’s Full Circle page 9 and 10).

In this piece we see very clearly the nature of German (and continental European) CORPORATISM – that is an intimate involvement as investor and political player by central and local government in business and business strategy in which the political end is at least as important as the economic outcome. This was always alien to the enterprise capitalist ethic which prevailed in Britain and the British Commonwealth and – at one time – in the USA. However as we know from their activities during the second world war and the cold war, that the very large American industrial corporations (in particular Ford, General Motors, Standard Oil and others) have taken a similar stance – which is why (genuine) capitalist wealth creation is under such threat and the democratic credibility of the USA has been so gravely undermined in recent decades.

In the European Union German and French industry is put ruthlessly and blatantly at the service of those States in the expansion of its New European Empire.

The largest financial institute of the German Saarland has declared the French border region of Alsace Lorraine as an area for business expansion “as part of a comprehensive Re-organisation”. An announcement from the Saar Landesbank in Saarbrucken (capital of the Saarland) “integrated France as a new area for business focus”

The Saar Landesbank (The Saar Provincial Bank) is State owned Bank which is majority controlled by the “Free State” of Bayern (the German State of Bavaria) and the Saarland state itself. The effective control is exercised by politicians. Part of their cross border work of political influence is exercised thrlugh the provincial banks. The Saar Provincial Bank now wants to extend these activities with the aim of drawing more than 10% of their profits from the French border region.


As Max Haring, the Chairman of the Saar provincial bank openly admits the Alsace Lorraine area offers particular opportunities for expansion. “Elsass and Lorraine are far away from Paris Head Offices” and in addition businesses there offer much better economic prospects than ther are in Germany. Since the French share of Saar LB’s business is growing very strongly the bank intends to establish a branch in Metz.


Metz, the largest town in Lorraine, has long been at the centre of German banking and business interest. The Metz idnustrial region (Coal and Steel) was Germanised under Wilhelm II and subjected to control from Berlin. During the Nazi period banks like the Dresdner Bank were nased in Metz and were responsible for the transfer of (local industrial) wealth to Germany. All attempts in the post war period to cut the financial and industrial connections with Germany failed on the premises of American policy (ie their misguided support for European integration).

The extent of German influence on the economic activity in neighbouring states can be seen if we look at the Bavarian Provincial Bank, the majority owner (75.1%) of the Saar Provincial Bank. The “House bank of the State of Bavaria”, as its own advertising material claims, operates not only in France but also has shareholdings in the Bank for Work and Economy (Vienna) in the South Tirol Savings Bank (Italy) and in the Luxembourg Provincial Bank as well as the Hungarian Foreign Trade Bank (Budapest).

Wachstum in Elsaß-Lothringen; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 14.06.2003
Eine besondere Verbundenheit;

18/05/2003: Superpower Europe's systematic expansion of its territory


Date of Report 18 May 2003
Translated 18 May 2003

MUNICH – A German strategy paper on the future of the European Union foresees the disintegration of the EU and a “return to the power politics of former days” if the Berlin-driven “ascent of Europe to global power” is hindered by the “blockade mentality” of some members. The politically influential authors contrast the threat of this scenario against that of a “Superpower Europe” which will reach “power parity” with the USA and thereby achieve its rightful “objective, world-power potential”.

“Downfall or ascent to world power” are the alternatives placed before the EU member states by the Centre for Applied Policy Research (CAP), an influential German think tank which co-operates closely with the German Foreign Office. The German political advisers assert that the (railway) points to the future should be reset in view of the dissension within the EU over the Iraq war. (See Europe’s Full Circle and Fascist Europe Rising page 45 for the historic Nazi resonance of “setting the points” – ed). The Union and its member states must now define themselves anew as a “future-orientated community for success” which was concerned at “fundamental attacks on the substance of European integration”.


If the attempt to “europeanise” national foreign and security policies failed, a “renationalisation” would follow. In the first of the future scenarios offered in the German paper, relationships between European states would be affected by “a marked return to the power politics of bygone days”. The dominant influence of the USA in Europe would experience a renaissance. If the “blockade mentality” of some members hindered the “ascent of Europe to global power” then a group of member states could combine together in a “closed European nucleus” outside the framework of the EU treaties – thus the next threat. The strategic baselines would be agreed by the most powerful member states “which have at their disposal the necessary military capabilities and structures as well as the political will when necessary to commit military emphasis to their world-wide interests”. The rest of the EU would then degrade into a “de luxe free trade area” without capability in political matters.


A development after the fashion of the last few decades and an “Avant Garde” inside the EU does not appear sufficient for the German world-power strategists “to activate the world-power potential of 500 million people”. Only in the scenario of “Superpower Europe” will “Greater Europe” achieve its rightful world-power potential. Therefore it followed that the “final goal of a European state” should be pursued.

All central political competences (interior, foreign policy, defence, social and economic policies) must be communitised. The EU, already developing in the direction of “Superpower Europe”, would always be capable of accepting new members . Thus it would be “globally the only system which could continually expand its territory. Then the great political and economic power potential of the EU would achieve parity with the USA” .


In particular the “building up of United Strategic Armed Forces”(VESS) which could use the nuclear weapons capability of France and Britain under a unified European High Command , would alter the international role of the EU” – thus the German vision. This would lead to “power parity with the USA”.“Superpower Europe is finally saying goodbye to the idea of a civil power and is acquiring without restriction the means of international Great Power policy”.


The Will to World Power
Unilateral Reamament for the “necessary basis of power”*
Ethnic “New Order” for the Gulf Region
Berlin: Balkans of “ethnic groups” and regions *
German Leadership for “World power in the making”*
Excerpts from paper in Documents section*

* In German on


Centrum fuer angewandte Politikforschung (CAP) Mai 2003
Europas Zukunft;

(Centre for Applied Policy Research – Europe’s Future)

13/05/2003: Franco-German threats to pro-American Poland


Date of Report 12 May 2003
Translated 13 May 2003

WROCLAW – Germany and France are strengthening their pressure on Poland. This is aimed at increasing the country’s subordination to Berlin and Paris. In preceding months Poland had aligned itself with the war policy of the USA and thereby incurred the displeasure of Berlin – the frustrated hegemonial power.

Schroeder and Chirac used the joint press communique at the German-French-Polish summit in Wroclaw to make their demands clear. They “expressed” how greatly Poland’s “return to the European family after all the historical divisions” was anticipated. It has been decided to hold regular, trilateral consultations in future. By these Warsaw would be bound into the German-European foreign, security and defence policy. So Poland would be distanced from its new patron-state, the USA.


There were, in the meantime, unconcealed threats that Poland must decide for Berlin and the EU, if it did not wish to be torn apart between these rivals for world power. The Berlin Foundation for Research & Policy (SWP) had already pointed to the economic pressures available and declared “The reality of Poland’s new political life as an EU member, and its fear of losing influence in Europe through crude pro-Americanism will …….. add weight to the view that Poland should not behave as America’s “Trojan Ass (sic)”.

The “Tageszeitung” (which is close to the government) now demands that the Polish government must “finally say clearly what sort of Europe it really wants and what restrictions on national sovereignty it is prepared to accept”. The political elites in Poland have, for a long time, carefully avoided taking a position on this. Now Poland would have to allay the fear that it was attempting to influence the EU only as “an annexe of the USA”. The “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” (a forthright supporter of German expansionism in the 1930s and 1950s – ed) remarked threateningly that Poland had “every interest, including material interests” in accepting in earnest the role proferred to it by Berlin and Paris.


In the event of non-compliance by the Polish government, further possible consequences are being mentioned. The “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” asserts that the district of Poland where the summit meeting took place is not basically (urspruenglich) Polish: “the stones speak German”. With reference to the conference venue, Wroclaw , which was called Breslau “when Silesia still belonged to the Reich”, it remarked “In Breslau a Pole can only feel at home if he feels as much European as Polish”.

In the Polish border areas adjoining Germany, regional and separatist organisations have been active for a long time; these cooperate with the “German minorities” in Poland. The whole border area is taken over by “Euro-Regions” which are slowly bringing about a continual dissolution of loyalty from the centre to the periphery. The summit meeting in Wroclaw is, for the first time, to be flanked by a meeting of “regional politicians from Alsace, Saxony and Silesia”. (Another example of the German use of EU “regionalism” to assert their nationalistic territorial expansion – ed)

(*1) TRANSLATOR’S NOTE . The term “partner” was also used by Reichsminister Walther Funk, President of the Reichsbank, to describe the European countries which paritcipated in the European Economic Community (“Europaeische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft”) which he officially launched in June 1940 . Note that even the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper now dares (see above) to use the term “Das Reich” in discussing Poland!

See also

1. “America’s Trojan Ass”
2. Polish “Colonialism” and a “Pre War Situation”*
3. Background Report “Regionalisation ” in France, ” a ghost of German descent” *
4 German Autobahn Construction in Poland “part of a European (living) space Order” *

* In German on


Press communique on the future of cooperation in the framework of the Weimar 09.05.2003
Polish foreign policy must become clearer; Tageszeitung 10.05.2003
In the Triangle; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 10.05.2003
Poland’s New Strength; Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung 11.05.2003

12/05/2003: A people without a state


Date of Report 1 May 2003
Translated 12 May 2003

STARBIENINO/KIEL: The parliament of a German Land (Province) is setting itself up as the advocate of ethnic opposition groups in several European states. This German agitation is focused (inter alia) on the Cornish “ethnic group” (Volksgruppe) in the South West of England. Click here for News: Cornish Movement joins Welsh Nationalists in NAZI based group and Nazi “Regions”

Working together with the “Foederalistische Union Europaeischer Volksgruppen” (Federal Union of European Ethnic Groups – FUEV) which operates from Flensburg , the provincial parliament of Schleswig Holstein will, in June, be staging a “seminar for autochthonous minority language groups”. The seminar is aimed at ethnic opposition groups which – unlike, for example , the German minorities in Germany’s neighbouring states – are alleged not to have a “cultural home state”, so that the Parliament of Schleswig Holstein is making itself the spokesman for a mixed bag of aspirations for autonomy. Groups from Great Britain, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania and Poland have been invited to attend.


The seminar, which the Parliament has moved to the “Kashubian University” in Starbienino (Poland), is the second of its kind to be held to date. At a similar event last year, the British government,in particular, was on the receiving end of accusations that it had suppressed an “ethnic group” in “a truly dictatorial manner”.


These accusations originated from the Cornish, who term themselves an “ethnic group”. They define themselves as such primarily by reference to their own language, a Celtic dialect spoken in the extreme South West of England until the nineteenth century, but which has been extinct for over 100 years. The Cornish language was reconstructed by separatists with an enthusiasm for languages, and today, a few hundred people feel themselves drawn to the language and derive from their use of it their identity as “Cornish Celts”.


At last year’s “Smaller Languages Seminar” in Sandelmark, German politicians played their part in drawing political conclusions from the alleged “oppression” of the Cornish, who, among other things, complain that their children learn nothing in British schools about their (invented) “Celtic roots”, something they describe as the “continuing denial of basic rights to the Cornish people”. In Sandelmark, this was described as the consequence of a failure to recognise them as an “independent ethnic group” whereas other “ethnic groups”, it was mentioned by way of support for the Cornish, already had their own political parties and television stations. The Cornish were described, by way of comparison, as being “absolute beginners”.


This ethnic agitation is funded from various sources, including the German Social Democrat and Green Parties, who form the government in Kiel.


“The Cornish in the South West of Great Britain” – speech by Nigel Hicks (member of the Cornish Stannary Parliament), 13 June 2002, to the seminar “Cultural Diversity and Identity in Europe – Conference of Ethnic Groups”, organised by the FUEV, the Landtag of Schleswig-Holstein and the European Academy, Sandelmark; second semianr for authochthonous minority language groups, Starbienino, Poland, 10-11 June 2003, Kashubian University, Starbienino; FUEV press release No 19/2003

10/05/2003: German guards to police "Europe's" new border


Date of report 6 May 2003
Translated on 10 May 2003

“HAENDE HOCH!” (Hands up!)

GDANSK/BERLIN (Own report) The transfer of national sovereign rights to German police authorities is being publicly discussed in Poland. The debate concerns German plans to transfer several thousand uniformed officials to Poland’s eastern borders. There the Berlin officials would be in charge of law and order.

The timing of the proposed transfer has arisen because of the lifting of the present German/Polish border regime. This delays permitted travel rights for for those going to the West but will permit them as soon as Poland is a full member of the EU. The EU external frontier will then be the present eastern Polish border and the sovereignty of the Warsaw government will be subordinated to the EU.


In contrast the German proposal is to “internationalise” the Polish eastern frontier. According to a press report (1) the leader of the German Customs Administration, Gerd Meny, has proposed to the EU Commission that customs controls at Poland’s eastern borders should be strengthened and offered the “experience” of German officials. This unselfish suggestion takes account of the fact that about 4,000 German border guards will become unemployed at the time of EU eastern expansion. Therefore they would be looking for new tasks in “Europe”.


The Polish press has expressed concern that “on Polish soil the command “Hands up!” will be given in German and not Polish” and that this is an unreasonable imposition. The young generation “Only knows the command “Haende hoch!” from war films but their elders know it from their own bitter experience”.

(1) Tygodnik Solidarnosc 30.04.2003


German Customs Controls in Italy*
German Frontier Regime in the Netherlands and Belgium*
Berlin interlocks European Border Regimes* and “Second Class People”*

* In German on

17/04/2003: Solidarity Trade Unionists see EU annexation of Poland


Date of Report 17 April 2003
Translated 17 April 2003

KRAKOW – Whilst the Berlin government was celebrating the signing of the new EU accession treaty, criticism was growing in several of the affected countries. In a recent publication Polish trade unionists state “The accession of Poland to the EU should not be called integration but annexation” . The authors belong to the founding members of the first “Free Trade Union” in Poland and themselves worked during the 1980s to orientate Poland towards the West.


The trade union manifesto asserts that the “conditions for the entry of Poland into the EU” show “that Poland is not regarded as a partner but as a colonised state. Furthermore integration will increase the existing discrepancies in economic development”. The Polish people “should not allow itself to be blinded by one-sided propaganda” and should vote against the entry of Poland to the EU in the referendum to be held in June.


An agricultural expert, who was sent from Berlin to Warsaw as an “EU adviser” to “assist” in the “reshaping” of Polish agriculture, has issued a warning. This adviser has now been relieved of his duties because of his criticism. (He follows in a long line of dismissed EU officials – Bernard Commolly, Paul van Buitenen, Ms Andriesen -Ed) He reckons that there will be an enormous disposal of Polish agriculture to foreigners. Only around one fifth to a quarter of present farms and enterprises can be counted as “capable of survival” in the medium term.


This critic of the EU believes that he is threatened with disciplinary procedure by the German authorities. “The accession of Poland was in the interest of Germany and therefore I had to be recalled” , he said.

See also

“Expropriation multiplied by ten” *
German Economic Expansion into Eastern Europe announces new Successes* and
“Second class People”*

* In German on


Poland facing the EU Referendum: Catastrophe for Polish small Farmers? Interview with Carl Belderman Junge Welt 14/1/03

“Poland will be treated as a colony, not as a partner”, Legendary representatives of the first Solidarity Movement speak out against Poland’s Accession to the EU; Deutsche Welle Monitor East/South Eastern Europe 24/3/03

16/04/2003: Exploitation of the EU's "Regional Principle"



Date of Report 14 April 2003
Translated 16 April 2003

AACHEN/EYNATTEN – One of the largest semi-official German associations is extending its organization to the territories of neighbouring states. The “Sozial Verband VdK” has founded the VdK Local Association of Euregio East Belgium which is affiliated to the VdK District Association in Aachen (Germany) as its thirteenth local branch.

The “Sozialverband VdK (Association of War and Service Casualties, the Disabled and Pensioners of Germany) was founded in 1950 and has about 1.2 million members. It plays an important role in German health and social politics. It works with many advisory committees and commissions of several German ministries and federal authorities.


In East Belgium the “Sozialverband VdK” is now campaigning for the incorporation of local associations and similar organisations into German structures (“Networking and integration”). The expansion of the VdK into the Kingdom of Belgium has taken place in close agreement with the German-speaking, East Belgian, Social Democrats who started a campaign years ago for “autonomy of the German-speaking community”. (Note that the “Left wing” Social Democrats in this and other ways are more nationalistic than the Right. See for example anti-Semitism among Schroeder advisers – see Fascist Europe Risingpage 56 – and support of Sudeten Germans – see same book chapter 4, RA)


The “Sozialverband VdK” plans to found a local branch in the South Netherlands this year, which will also be incorporated into the German organizational structure. The next target is the expansion of this German association throughout the whole area of Euregio Maas-Rhein. Like other European Regions, Maas-Rhein is co-ordinated by the Team of European Border Regions (“Arbeitsgemeinschaft Europaeische Grenzregionen” – AGEG). AGEG is a known front organisation of the Berlin Foreign Office but is funded from Brussels by other means.

NOTES (see previous articles)

1. East Belgium: Agitation for autonomy by German speakers Reunion with Germany “no misconduct”*
2. With regard to Euregio Maas-Rhein see also “Spatial ordering” around Aachen and “Using the potential of neighbours”*
3. AGEG Background Report; Team of European Border Regions*

* In German on


Cross-border lobbying for the sick, disabled and pensioners. VdK now also has presence in Belgium; netecho 10/4/03

15/04/2003: Germany as "VICTORIOUS POWER IN IRAQ"

I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.


(NB: This report is NOT a spoof! These are the extraordinary claims of the German political and journalist classes!)

Date of Report 11 April 2003
Translated 15 April 2003

The German government is strengthening its efforts to assert its influence over the “New Order” in the Gulf region. Simultaneously powerful forces are demanding a compromise with the USA so as to use the military power of the aggressors as a “peacekeeping force”, ensuring that German and European protagonists can organize the “New Order”.

On April 3 for the first time Chancellor Schroeder committed himself publicly to the objective of the war against Iraq and demanded “regime change”. The Chancellor’s speech awoke the expectation that Germany belonged among “the victorious powers in Iraq”. The opposition CDU/CSU (Christian Democrats) in the meantime moved significantly closer to the government line which was laid out in the strategy paper “A New Order in Iraq according to European Principles”.

The 23 NATO and EU foreign ministers also demand that the USA must place the “reconstruction of Iraq” in the hands of the UN and share with other nations the influence achieved by war. In this matter, Berlin is relying on the British Prime Minister Blair, who supports Berlin’s demands for a central UN role, and on dissent in the US administration. It is reported that the “sensible” forces around Secretary of State Powell are ready for compromise while the “hard-liners” around Defence Secretary Rumsfeld insist on the power of the USA to dispose matters. German diplomats plan to use the
UN authority over Iraqi oil exports to drive the USA towards greater co-operation.


The Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung reports that “liberal” circles in the USA are already pressing for a leading German role in Iraq’s “New Order”. The Germans are portrayed as “the world-wide leading experts in de-totalitarianisation” (!!) and so are ideally suited to the task. This would be a publicly acceptable form for German participation in the Iraq campaign, which could be sold to disgruntled public opinion in Washington as a calming
measure. The newspaper’s suggestion is headed “Germans to the front – after the last shot has been fired”. The report envisages far reaching possibilities of influence in “exclusively civilian brigades” (!) of German liberalisation advisers, lawyers and high school teachers who can show Iraq the way to greater democracy; a task force of investigating authorities should take charge of the Ba’ath Party archive and open it to the public; a delegation from Karlsruhe (the seat of Germany’s constitutional court ) should offer tried and tested suggestions for the construction of Iraqi constitutionality” (the German constitutional court has repeatedly failed to impose its own constitution – for example when they approved the abolition of the Deutschmark – ed).

The endeavours of the German “civil brigades” should be protected by the military power of the invading powers. Germany and the EU should encourage the USA to leave American troops in Iraq for as long as it takes to achieve “stabilization of political conditions” and convert them into a “peacekeeping force” as quickly as possible – thus advised the “Foundation for Policy Studies” (SWP). This would be a test of the ability of Europe and America to overcome their differences about the war. Additionally the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung stated that any halfway stable New Order for Iraq could not be led by the principle of self government (!!). Iraq should first become a protectorate. “The population will be most quickly persuaded by what happens there politically, if the powerful will of the powers is recognizable. They must not aspire too soon to a civil society and independence but rely on the moderating influence of the new protecting powers.

(*1) “Germans to the front” was the order given by the British commander Lord Edward Hobart Seymour to the international expeditionary force during the Boxer rebellion in China (1900). The incident was the subject of a painting which became very popular in Germany – rather as Lady Butler’s picture of the Scots Greys at Waterloo is well known in England.

Notes (Previous reports)

1. “Away from America’s side” and “For a strong Europe” *
2. Berlin wants ethnic “New Order” for Gulf region and “Dreamable undertakings”*
3. Fischer: War* see also “Far reaching demands to shape the world” and “Very highly critical”*

* In German on


Government statement by Federal Chancellor Schroeder 3/4/03 on the international situation and conclusions of European Council in Brussels;
Common Reconstruction not excluded; Berliner Zeitung 4/4/03 EU pushes for a UN Mandate; Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung 4/4/03
Powell & Rumsfeld at odds over post war administration in Iraq; Frankfurter
Allgemeiner Zeitung 4/4/03
Good comes from experience. Specialists in U turns. America hopes for German
help on Iraq; Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung 4/4/03
Peace in the Bundestag; Sueddeutscher Zeitung 4/4/03
More Imperialism; Frankfurter Allgemeiner Sonntagszeitung 6/4/03
After Saddam Hussein. Political perspectives in Middle East;

14/04/2003: German demand for "Re-ordering" of the world


Date of Report 7 April 2003
Translated 14 April 2003

BERLIN – The German Federal Chancellor has taken up the proposal by an influential political expert who wishes to contest “World Hegemony” with the USA. In a government statement the Chancellor demanded world-wide “enforcement of law” accompanied by police and military forces. Chancellor Schroeder called for the EU to develop corresponding military capabilities.

In his government statement of 3 April Schroeder demanded for the first time that a regime change must take place in Iraq. By making this demand the Social Democrat Chancellor incorporated into the government statement the essential points of a strategy paper “New Order in Iraq according to European Principles”. (for a translation and commentary see Breaking News “Iraq – the EU’s Abject Failure”) Berlin sees in this the opportunity of using the invasion of Iraq for an ethnically (“voelkisch”) based “New Order” for the whole region. Schroeder calls this a “political stabilising process” for the Near and Middle East under a guarantee of “the rights of the minorities living there”.

The Chancellor’s speech has awakened public expectations that Germany deserves to be among “the victorious powers in Iraq”


The Frankfurter Allgenmeiner Zeitung (a major mouthpiece for an aggressive German Foreign Policy both in the Nazi period and in the early 1950s -ed) comments that this “testifies to a far-reaching demand for re-ordering in the world”. This demand was apparent in the theme “enforcement of law” over the whole globe. By this Germany had taken a fundamentally new international alignment. The newspaper continued “Germany has used its sovereignty in earnest. The country is “emancipating” itself from America”. (Now that the supine British Establisment has surrendered our Sovereignty to German Europe’s control!- ed) Berlin’s foreign policy was “seductive”. “Right in its beginning but.. in the end certainly risky”. The German Chancellor foresaw “a long arduous process with set backs from time to time”.

Notes (previous reports – mostly covered here in Germany Calling)
1. Berlin wants ethnic new order in Gulf region.
2. Popular potential and SPD wants “achievement-capable” Living Space*
3. The Will to World Power
4. Problem of American Power*

* In German on


Government statement of 3 April 2003 on the intentional situation and conclusions of European Council in Brussels

It is America; Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung 4/4/03
Germany should become an adult. Chancellor plays national card. A risky game; Frankfurter Allgemeiner Sonntags Zeitung 6/4/03
A Dimension like Brandt’s “Ostpolitik”. Left wing intellectuals in SPD (Social Democrat Party) see conflict with USA as “detonator” for a new Europe; Welt am Sonntag 6/4/03

11/04/2003: Massive resistance in Prague to Sudeten German "Embassy"


NOTE (Rodney Atkinson): The Sudeten German League, once rightly regarded as a neo-Nazi bunch of extremists has in recent years had the support of both the Bavarian State and the Social Democrat Government in Berlin. Leading ministers like Joschka Fischer have attended their congress and German Government money has been donated to them.

Date of report 8 April 2003
Translated 11 April 2003

PRAGUE – The so-called “embassy” opened in Prague by the Sudeten German League has run into massive resistance. The Czech Ministry of the Interior will refuse diplomatic rights and a Member of Parliament foresees mass demonstrations against the demands of the German “expellees”.

The Czech Minister of the Interior explained a few days after the opening of the Sudeten German bureau that the applicants had circumvented the basic requirements of Czech law. The Interior Ministry would not therefore provide the necessary permission.


The Social Democrat Member of Parliament Robert Kopecky comes from Northern Bohemia, a district on which the Sudeten Germans have made demands. He announced that this year’s anniversary of liberation from the Nazi regime would be the occasion of mass demonstrations against the very real provocations of the Sudeten Germans.


Berlin gives the Sudeten German League a free hand. “They are a non-governmental organisation” explained the spokeswoman for the German embassy in Prague. “They can do what they like”. For years Sudeten German organisations have been fostered by state funding. The government of Bavaria (“Freistaat Bayern”) became the “godfather” of Sudeten Germans in 1954. The German embassy in Prague dignified the opening festivities of the Sudeten German Bureau by the attendace of an official delegation.

Thus Berlin follows the provocative game plan of the “expellees'” officials. Bernd Posselt, Chairman of the Sudeten German League, has already suggested for several years that territorial districts of the Czech Republic should be placed directly or indirectly under German sovereignty.

Notes (Previous articles)
1. “Sudeten Germans” open “Embassy”
2. European Parliament. German “expellees'” official supervises Czech Republic’s EU accession.


Sudeten Office in Prague improper – Klaus CTK 27/3/03
Interior Ministry refuses to register Sudeten german Groups CTK 28/3/03
Sudeten Office sparks Controversy. The Prague Post 2/4/03

10/04/2003: Berlin wants ethnic "New Order" in Gulf region


Date of Report 3 April 2003
Translated 10 April 2003

MUNICH/ GUETERSLOH – German foreign policy seeks to use the war in Iraq as an opportunity for an ethnically oriented “New Order” for the whole region. A strategy paper demands ” A New Order in Iraq according to European Principles”, the “progressive overthrow” of the former political order and rapid dismantling of present frontiers. The USA and its allies should be made complicit in this process.

Shortly before the beginning of the war in Iraq, Werner Weidenfeld, Director of the Centre for Applied Political Research (CAP) and member of the the Praesidium of the Bertelsmann Institute, (Bertelsmann was the principal publisher of Nazi propaganda in the 1940s) declared that the chance had arisen to dispute “World Hegemony” with the USA and that this opportunity should be used.


Now both organisations, which co-operate closely with the German Foreign Office, have presented a strategy paper for a “New Order in Iraq according to European principles”. The military defeat of the Iraqi government and the occupation of the country by the USA is implicitly accepted. The proposed strategy would guarantee “the presence of the EU at all levels in order to protect the political and economic interests of the Community” and prevent the EU’s becoming marginalised “in a region close to its back yard”. At the same time the Berlin strategists aspiring to World Power attempt to involve the belligerent USA and its allies in these plans.

The strategy paper was elaborated in co-operation with the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University of Florence, The Royal Institute of International Affairs London (for the corporatist/fascist background of this organisation see Rodney Atkinson’s book Europe’s Full Circleunder Publications on this site) and the ASPEN Institute of Italy in Rome (whose headquarters are in Washington).

Josef Jenning, leader of the “International Understanding” division of the Bertelsmann Foundation explained that the suggested “New Order” could “perhaps be a way to integrate American world policy once again into a multilateral system”.


Inherently the strategy follows the principles of “voelkisch” (ethnic) “New Order” such as Berlin has pressed on the Balkans and advocates for Asia and Africa. (see Breaking News and previous Germany Calling articles for the outright rejection of this German strategy by Turkey, Brazil, Ecuador etc.). It should be based on the authority of the UN Security Council, “a multi-national task force” and a “High Authority” as a protectorate. This authority should be responsible for “the enormous task of constructing a New Political Order”. This must unconditionally take into account the “ethnic differences” and “confessional division” of Iraq by “autonomy of minorities “with the autonomous Kurdish region as a “germ cell”. (Needless to say the Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Iraq, like the Israelis and the Palestinians, want their own Nation State, not a region, but that does not conform with German Europe’s agenda either at home or abroad!)

The territorial integrity of Iraq (and of other countries in the region) should only be maintained pro forma because the “artificial division” of the region into various independent states had not created a stable, regional order. (This was of course precisely Saddam Hussein’s view). Therefore it was necessary to achieve a “progressive overthrow” of this order. “Psychological and administrative frontiers in the region must be speedily demolished” says the report. With the help of a “Conference for Security and Co-operation in the Gulf, border problems (amongst other things)…could be overcome by co-operation” A great international conference should urge “the parties of the growing Arab – Israeli conflict” to accept a solution in which the transfer of population must be supervised by an international force.


1. See earlier article on the “Will to World Power
2. The trustees of the ASPEN Institute include the former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and Madeliene Albright. Chairman of the Berlin ASPEN Institute is Manfred Gentz of Daimler Chrysler, Members of the trustees include the former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, former Federal Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and also Werner Weidenfeld.
3. See earlier Germany Calling articles on Berlin’s “Volksgruppen” (ethnic group) policy and regionalisation, “New Order” for Africa and Berlin’s wish to “stabilise” Central Asia.
4. German foreign policy supports strategy for EU “Friedenseinsatz” (Peace operation) in Israel and support by German “Foundations” for “international intervention” in Israel.



Strategy Paper : Outline for a European strategy for Iraq ;

European plan for the New Order in Iraq after regime change

09/04/2003: Germany's post-war war - against the USA


Date of Report 27 March 2003
Translated 9th April 2003

(For the historic connections between Germany and Iraq click here: IRAQ AND GERMAN EUROPE – THE HISTORIC CONNECTIONS)


BERLIN – The German government is taking steps to assure its influence in Iraq after the expected occupation by the USA and its allies. Berlin seeks to diminish the militarily achieved advantage of the United States by the political superiority of those states which opposed the war but it does not renounce the use of its own military forces. The German Foreign Office has already set up its own “Sonderstab Irak” (Special Staff Iraq), working out the German concepts for the reconstruction of Iraq. The participation of the Bundeswehr in a UN peace-keeping force is also being prepared, according to
the press.

Chancellor Schroeder announced the German position two hours after the beginning of hostilities. He said that the UN and Security Council must play a central role in the post war ordering of Iraq. That would enable Berlin “the possibility of playing a leading role in a post war political order” . Foreign Minister Fischer enlarged on the idispensibility of the UN. “There are those who must come to acknowledge it although they are presently of the opinion that war is now the correct means”. Those opposed to war should
“concentrate all efforts on strengthening the international order and creating a “Friedensordnung” (Peace Order) worthy of the name”. They could count on further support against the USA. The “positive effect on the Muslim Arab world” of the millions-strong protest in Europe against the Iraq policy of the USA should not be under-estimated. “It made clear that the war was not a war by the West”.


Shortly after the war started Berlin chalked up its first victory at the special session of the NATO Council. The United States’ attempt to create a “coalition of the willing” for the reconstruction of Iraq ran up against resistance from all 18 partners. This is believed to be a matter for the internationally legitimate UN on its own. At their summit meeting of 20 March the EU states followed the Berlin line. The EU would “strengthen its
dialogue with the Arab world” with regard to the war in Iraq “and take active steps to secure stability in the region”. The New Order of post war Iraq must be the responsibility of the UN which should receive a “robust mandate” from the Security Council for this purpose. This code for a military mandate is aimed directly against the plans for a US military administration in occupied Iraq.

Similar controversies over the division of influence in Iraq have already broken out in the Security Council. The German press reports that experts of the Council were working “under German leadership” on a further resolution on Iraq. The US plans for a military administration were placed in question by the German delegation because they were incompatible with a “creative role” for the UN. The UN did not wish “to legitimise the occupying power or be subject to it”, said an EU diplomat.


In the meantime the Foreign Office had set up “Sonderstab Irak” to elaborate on the German concepts for “the reconstruction of Iraq”. The German press reports that preparations are in hand for “substantial” participation by the Bundeswehr in a UN peace-keeping force. The Federal Agency for External Economy (BFAI), which supports German executives who are active in the region, has already studied Iraq’s growth potential after the war and estimates that it is “highly significant”. With 23 million inhabitants and a well educated work force, which was mostly occupied in repair work and aid supplies during the sanctions period, Iraq has a highly favourable outlook
for development.

The German press reports that there are chances for a possible compromise with the USA over the post war development plan. It is reported that Berlin wants to use “billions of aid” to buy its way back into a reasonable relationship with the USA. Three weks ago the US State Department announced the first model for the division of “aid for reconstruction” and Chancellor Schroeder took this signal as an opportunity to restore dialogue. Secretary of State Powell has already announced that there will be opportunities in reconstruction for all who wish to take part. This could be interpreted as an invitation to countries such as France and Germany.


EU Summit. Aid for the Arab World Spiegel online 20/03/03
Reistance in Brussels. NATO will not participate in Iraqi reconstruction. Die Welt 21/3/03
Fischer emphasises UN role in cisis administration. Frankfurter Rundschau 21/3/03
New Chance for the CLub of Peoples. Sueddeutscher Zeitung 21/3/03
Ice Age Europe . Die Welt. 22/3/03
Aid as soon as possible. UN Security COuncil debates support for Iraqis and distances itself from US. Tagesspiegel 22/3/03
Reparation. Frankfurter Allgemeiner Sonntagszeitung 23/3/03
Thierse: Germany should help Iraq’s reconstruction. Die Welt 24/3/03
Foreign Ministry forms Special Staff for Iraq . Frankfurter Rundschau 24/3/03

28/03/2003: NAZI friendly Germans "re-invade" Czech Republic - with the support of the EU (and the British Tory party!)


Date of Report 28 March 2003
Translated 29 March 2003

Historical Note by Rodney Atkinson: The Sudeten Germans were the great supporters of the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938. They provided some of the most evil of the Nazis which ran the invaded country until 1945. They were expelled after 1945 under the so called Benes decrees. The Sudeten German League today (supported by the German Government) has members who helped the evil Heydrich to run the Nazis’ Czechoslovakia during the war! A recent European Parliament motion demanded the repeal of those decrees before the Czech Republic’s entry into the EU – despite their historical justification and protection of Czech sovereignty. In the European Parliament debate the British Tory Party voted with the Germans against the Czechs! However the demand was dropped – but as the piece below illustrates “German Europe” will not rest until it has reversed the outcome of the last war!

PRAGUE: The Sudeten German League (SL) has opened a bureau in the Czech capital. Chairman, Bernd Posselt, has described it as an “Embassy”. According to the usual custom of the movement, this is a demand for accredited diplomatic representation of the “Sudeten Germans” , legitimising their demands against the Czech Republic. The opening of the SL office has led to massive protests in Prague. In the meantime, information has been laid to start criminal proceedings against the league.

The new “Embassy of the Sudeten Germans” is designed to bring influence to bear not only on Czech politicians but especially on Czech “civil society”. The Sudeten German League (SL) aims for the annulment of the so-called Benes Decrees which have constitutional status in the Czech Republic. They demand collective special rights for “Sudeten Germans” within the Czech Republic and the return (or compensation for) their former property, which was confiscated by law as a consequence of the Second World War.

Information Laid

The opening of the SL office in Prague was attended by the EU ambassador to the Czech Republic as well as by staff of the German, Austrian and Hungarian embassies. Representatives of institutes and foundations attached to German political parties were also present. Serious protests resulted. Whilst high-ranking parliamentarians of the ruling coalition took part, numerous MPs of various parties were sharply critical. State President, Vaclav Klaus said the SL bureau was “unsuitable and unnecessary”. The foreign policy spokesman of the ODS, Jan Zahradil, said that he hoped for intervention by the Czech government, if the SL’s activities in the Czech Republic proved to be “unlawful”. In the meantime information has been laid against the operating company of the Sudeten German League . The accusations mention “High Treason”, “Support of Fascism” as well as “Encouragement of nationalism and racial hatred” .

Debate over Benes Decrees “by no means closed”

The European Parliament held a hearing into the “Benes Decrees” at the instigation of Bernd Posselt. A German international lawyer, Professor Dieter Blumenwitz, appeared as an expert witness. He repeatedly published articles in a forum of “notorious representatives of the international network of holocaust deniers – especially concerning Auschwitz”. It was said at the hearing that the debate about the “Benes Decrees” would continue even after Czech accession to the European Union. The matter was “by no means closed”.

Posselt is also deputy president of the mixed committee of the Czech and EU Parliaments, as well as of the Pan Europa Union of Germany. He has denounced
the Benes Decrees as “racist”. The German foreign minister, Fischer, recently renewed his membership of the “German-Czech Co-ordinating Council” , along with two other Sudeten Germans.

16/03/2003: Berlin's ambitions for the EU as a world power


Date of Report 10 March 2003
Translated 16 March 2003

BERLIN: One of the most influential political experts in Berlin believes that the opportunity has arrived to dispute “world hegemony” with the USA. He demands that the EU (which he sees as “a world power in the making”) should make use of this chance. A foreign policy specialist of the SPD (Socialist Party) favours a rapprochement with the “Islamic states” to which the EU could offer an alternative to the USA.

Werner Weidenfeld is Director of the Centre for Applied Political Research (CAP) and a member of the presidium of the Bertelsman Foundation (a company involved in publishing Nazi propaganda in the 1940s) as well as of the German Society for Foreign Policy. He is reckoned to be the most influential foreign policy adviser in Germany. His article appeared in the newspaper “Die Welt”, which formerly supported the opposition CDU (Christian Democrat Party) and was committed to the alliance with the USA and sceptical of the German government’s aggressive policy.

Weidenfeld foresees an “epoch of disorder, risks and crises” for which no new “forms of order” existed until now. The USA had “neither the will nor potential” for a sustained policy of world hegemony. The United Nations could order nothing above its usual strength and capability. Since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO had lost its function and was displaying “elements of absurdity”. Other potential world powers such as China, Russia and India showed “serious weaknesses” so that they were not in
the running for “world hegemony”.


It was however now valid for the EU to make use of the situation because it has the potential to be the leading world power. “The population of the EU will increase from today’s 371 million to 539 million – almost twice as many as the USA. It’s area is approximately 5,097,00 square kilometres, rather more than half that of the USA. The Gross Domestic Product is about 15% higher than the USA. This potential could secure the status of a world power – around 35% of world production (USA 27%) and 30% of world trade (USA 18%) lies in European hands. This potential carries outstanding weight”. But for the first time since 1989 the EU was a “world power in the making”.

Weidenfeld believes that what the EU lacks to become the leading world power is essentially the will to power (note the old Nazi tirade about “the Triumph of the Will”!) He sees this deficit as “the lack of effective concentration of political energy and the failure to think in world-political categories” …”The key question is this: can Europe translate this potential into world-political creative power?” Up to now the EU had merely been a “consensus machine”. It did not provide a “world-political strategy and an offensive ability to handle crises and conflict”. It not only lacked an “operational centre” (Berlin’s claim to this role is no secret). Above all the EU lacked strategic thinking. This was Europe’s “real Achilles’ Heel”. “There exists no agenda which can give direction to Europe in conflicts and crises..This is lacking for transatlantic disagreements as much as for the Near East, for ethnic explosions in the Caucasus as in South East Asia, for the Kashmir conflict as much as for the breakdown of African states”.


To achieve “world hegemony” Weidenfeld favours the closest possible German-French alliance. He cites the Sixties as an example when Berlin and Paris took the “world political horizon” into their sights and attempted to found a “union of world-political relevance” (against the USA). Weidenfeld is supported by the SPD foreign policy specialist, Egon Bahr, who has for a long time propagandized for the enforcement of “German interests” against the USA (as in the title of his book). Writing in the same newspaper Bahr explained that the closest possible contact between Berlin and Paris was “essential if Europe was to achieve its aim- namely self-determination”

The USA would try to frustrate an “independent Europe” (“I am firmly convinced that America prefers to deal with several than with one factor”) Bahr believes in keeping a lookout for further partners in an alliance and favours “a policy of reducing tensions with the Islamic states” which he wishes to mobilise against the USA. “Europe should develop an acknowledgeable alternative in its model of society, its armaments and in its policy so that the Islamic world can perceive that there is not only one model in the Western world. They should be able to see that there are two Western models of society (…) We Europeans should try to establish that the strengths of law will supersede the law of greater American strength”.


“The frustrated World Power” Die Welt 8/03/2003
“When will we finally wake up?” Die Welt 8/03/2003

03/03/2003: The EU as Franco-German hegemony


“Germany calls Poland America’s Trojan Ass”

Date of Report 22 February 2003
Translated 3 March 2003

BERLIN: Germany and France are openly demanding that the states of eastern and south eastern Europe must be subject to their hegemony. This is their reaction to the support which these states have given to US foreign policy and is a reaction to Germany’s bid for hegemony over them.

A leading Berlin foreign policy think tank says it is optimistic (amongst other things) that Poland, the largest of the disaffected countries, can be “Europeanised” in the middle to long term and cannot, in the long run, sustain its irrational position as America’s “Trojan Ass”(*1).

The eastern and south eastern European states have aligned themselves with the USA and Great Britain in the Iraq conflict to cover their backs against the crudely obvious German attempt at hegemony. As an influential Polish foreign policy expert put it, “Whoever tries to make Europe a vehicle for his own national ambitions must reckon without the support of his neighbours”


Berlin and Paris have reacted with massive pressure . The French President, Chirac, berated the south eastern and eastern European countries with words which can only be described as scandalous. It was “not well brought up” to support pro-American declarations, he said. “The had missed a good opportunity to keep their mouths shut”. Chirac reinforced his remarks with the threat to hinder accession to the EU for “irresponsible states”.


The views of German politicians are identical. A German diplomat in Warsaw said that he felt “he had simply had the piss taken”(*2) by sovereign European states which had dared to make a foreign policy decision without reference to Berlin. The German EU Commissar for enlargement declared threateningly “I do not believe there will be such an opportunity again” and sought to “advise” applicant EU members that “in basic foreign and security policy matters, the EU must be respected and supported”.


In the meantime the Berlin Foundation for Science and Policy (SWP) has sought to play down the dispute. In a position paper, analysing Polish foreign policy, it points to the small economic influence of the USA on Poland. Of Poland’s exports only around 3% go to the USA but 70% to the EUropean Union. The SWP continues “Poland’s new potential of political life as an EU member and its fear of losing influence in Europe through crude pro-Americanism will certainly assure that Poland will not continue on its irrational path as America’s “Trojan Ass” “(*1)

(*1) “Ass” is used in the straightforward veterinary sense and not the American vernacular.

(*2) An approximate (and probably somewhat politer) translation of the original

03/03/2003: German threats to Poland over Iraq


Date of Report 9 February 2003
Translated 3 March 2003

WARSAW: The eastern and south eastern European client states of Germany are using the German-American disagreement as support against the blatant German attempt to assert hegemony. Many European countries “would defend themselves energetically if a European power laid claims to leadership”, warned a prominent Polish foreign policy expert. These states are hoping for public support from the USA. It is said that they have no problem in accepting the leading role of America.

The declaration by eight European heads of state and government, who placed themselves alongside the United States, was signed by the Prime Ministers of Poland and Hungary as well as by the Czech State President. A similar declaration in support of the USA was drawn up by a further ten eastern and south eastern European states (Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Rumania, Slovakia and Slovenia).


The rapprochement with the United States is a public indication that these countries are covering their backs against Germany’s expansionist ambitions towards eastern and south eastern Europe. The former Polish ambassador to Germany and current president of the Warsaw Centre for International Relations, Janusz Reiter, warned against the all-too-obvious German bid for hegemony. “Whoever tries to make Europe into a vehicle for its own national ambitions must reckon with the fact that neighbouring states will refuse their support”. Thus Reiter, a highly influential policy expert wrote in the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”.

Amongst other things, the Polish press is already speculating on plans to remove US military bases from Germany and to resite them in Poland. For some time Poland has been aiming to have a NATO headquarters based on its territory.


Up to now the German Federal Government has appeared unworried and has tried to play down these dissensions. The “Frankfurter Rundschau”, which is close to the government in matters of foreign policy, spoke slightingly of an “anti German threat” and said that “Loyal addresses” would not count “as soon as the first gunsmoke appeared over Iraq”…”Then only economic strength and political weight within the EU will count. For without Europe the USA cannot successfully sustain the post war era in Arabia. Berlin will play a key role in that and Washington will be compelled to come to an accommodation.”

Troop transfers to Poland? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 01.02.03
Janusz Reiter: Anti Americanism is unsuitable building material for Europe.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 05.02.03
The Vilnius Group supports America. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 07.02.03
Threat of anti German Cabal ..Frankfurter Rundschau 08.02.03

13/02/2003: The German experience - the origin and future of the Euro

The German experience – origin and future of the Euro

By Horst Teubert

Dateline:13th February 2003

When at the end of the year 2001 in Germany the first Euro coins were issued, it seemed as if the Emperor Charles V was, in a manner of speaking, alive again. You may not know the Emperor Charles V. He was the father of Philip II of Spain who sent his Great Armada to conquer England in the time of your first Queen Elizabeth in 1588. Your history calls this great fleet the Spanish Armada but it would be as accurate to call it the European Armada, because Philip ruled over so much of Europe. If it had succeeded, your religious, political and economic life would have been dictated from the European mainland for more than 400 years and we probably would not be holding this meeting! The Empire of Charles V is widely seen as a predecessor of the European Union.

What has Charles V to do with the Euro? When the first Euro coins were handed out, German newspapers published maps on which you could see the “zone of influence” of the Euro, a zone which is much bigger than the 12 western European countries that introduced the new currency. The “zone of influence” of the Euro reaches from the Caribbean Sea to the Indian Ocean and to the Pacific Ocean. You pay with the Euro not only in the French Departments in South America and in the Indian Ocean, but also in Kosovo and in Montenegro. Bound to the Euro are the currencies in French Polynesia and New Caledonia, besides the currencies of 16 countries in Western and Central Africa. Politicians in the candidate states of the EU in Eastern Europe have already started planning the introduction of the Euro You can say of the Euro what could be said of the Emperor Charles V: He controlled an “empire on which the sun never sets”.

The German government is proud of this. The EU has turned into “a first-class global finance power with the Euro”, declares the German Foreign Office on its website. And it declares further: “For the first time the finance markets possess a credible alternative to the dollar.” This is especially important for German policy: Finally they can compete with the USA. With the Euro Germany has got a currency that makes this possible. German bankers are even hoping the Euro could beat the dollar. The Chief Economist of the “Deutsche Bank” declares: “In the not too distant future, in short, the Euro will be to the dollar what Airbus has become to Boeing.” The European Airbus outstripped US-Boeing in the meantime.

The Euro is to compete with the dollar in the whole world, and for that purpose German bankers offer the strangest suggestions. You know, on the continent we have one-Euro-coins but no one-Euro-notes Recently a German banker declared publicly that the one-dollar-note was world famous; so the EU should introduce a
one-Euro-note because a coin could never become as famous as a note. Of
course this is a very strange idea, but it shows how eager Germans are to compete with the US.

Yet the Euro isn’t a currency which can be influenced by all Euro-countries
to the same extent: Germany is the country with the strongest influence on the new currency. When the first Euro-coins were introduced German newspapers declared: “The Euro speaks German.” It speaks German, not French and not at all
English. The currency policies of the “European Central Bank” which is situated in the German town of Frankfurt am Main has been established according to German concepts and is formed by them. The statutes of the “European Central Bank”, the “convergence criteria” and the “stability pact” correspond to concepts developed by the German Ministry of Finance. The German Minister of Finance succeeded in getting them accepted against concepts suggested by other countries.

Of course Germany, the strongest power of the EU, has enough influence to shape the political general conditions for the Euro in accordance with its national interests. You can recognize this very easily by the “stability criteria”. To make the Euro become a stable currency an upper limit for new indebtedness of states was fixed at three percent. The first state that threatened to exceed this limit after the introduction of the Euro was Portugal, which was warned officially by the EU. The second state that threatened to exceed the limit of three percent was Germany – and Germany was not warned by the EU. As long as Germany itself exceeds the limit
there won’t be any consequences. When Germany again fulfills the stability criteria, other states, which do not, will get into serious trouble.

You may now suspect that Germany advocated the introduction of the Euro for
pursuing its own hegemonial concepts. That’s an insidious idea but it seems to be true. With the Euro Germany has a currency which is valid in a large economic area; Germany played a decisive role in determining the political rules for this currency; Germany is playing a decisive role in keeping these rules.

Anyone who is familiar with German history will not be particularly surprised at this assessment. Since the beginning of its expansionist policy , Germany disguised its striving to become a super power with the ambition of uniting the European continent. Propagandists of the German Kaiserreich had already developed similar plans when the First World War was prepared. They declared that Germany would put Europe “in order” in a new and “natural” manner if the continent was ready to grant Berlin’s wishes.

Germany continued the old propaganda of uniting Europe after the Nazis came to power in 1933 as well. When the German army occupied neighbouring countries, Germany offered to the oppressed nations a system of economic exploitation that was named “Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft” (European Economic Community).
Various details of this project of dominance resemble the post-war-plans of the European Economic Community. You can learn many interesting details in a document that was translated into English by Mr. Spalton and published under the title “Nazi Plans for European Union”. The original document was published under the title “Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft” (European Economic Community) in the year 1942 and was an attempt to sketch the “economic face of new Europe”. The publication contains a revealing introduction written by the then president of the “Herein Berliner Industrieller” (Club of Berlin’s Industrialists), Heinrich Hunke, who continued his career after 1945.

When economic experts and bankers contemplated the European Economic Community at the beginning of the 1940s, they discussed the future of the different European currencies as well. On this occasion plans were created which recommended the introduction of a common European currency – under the condition that it was dominated by Germany. It was a question of standardizing the European monetary area and achieving trade advantages for the German economy. Additionally, the European currency was expected to compete against the pound and especially against the dollar.

The unification of Europe and the introduction of a common European currency can not just be traced back to plans that were developed by anti-nazi-resistance until 1945. Experts of Nazi Germany developed their own concepts that even – as a historian declared recently – anticipated the Euro To give you a more precise
idea of this I will quote some sentences of a document that was written in 1944 by a member of “IG Farben”. The German economic expert wrote:

“Whether Europe can hold its own with the super powers USA, Russia and Greater East Asia and become equal to them depends on whether it can find its way from national divisions and the endless struggle of its nations for dominance to achieve real European cooperation. (…) We all here in Europe are small in comparison with the three super powers if we are divided, and we will become powerless and weak-willed against them if we remain separated. It is fruitless to imagine that we were able to hold our own as Latvia or Sweden, as Hungary or Greece, as Spain or Italy and – in my opinion – even as France or Germany. Let us realize: We continental Europeans have only the choice between co-operation or subordination, to get along together and to unite in a healthy unity or to become subjects ourselves to a foreign rule from overseas.” The German economic expert then demands the building up of a “European Economic Alliance” and promises to the occupied countries independence in that alliance: “If the creation of the European large-area economy the Führer repeatedly proclaimed that aims of our policies shall be carried out in the form of an economic alliance, our intention is not to infringe on the territories of the occupied countries and of the little nations with regard to their national independence.” The draft ends with suggestions about a “Bank of Europe” and about the introduction of a common European currency, the “Europagulden” or European Guilder.

This example gives us a deeper insight into the role of the propagandists discussing the unification of Europe and also into the introduction of a common European currency. For a long time the origins of European unification and the European currency in the bureaucracies of Nazi Germany were put under a taboo, and to a certain degree they are still. But recently historians started to reconstruct the past history of the European Union and the Euro in the particular debates of the Nazis, and they have been discovering very interesting connections.

This little excursion into German history reveals that the introduction of a common European currency agrees – under appropriate circumstances – with the German striving to become a super power. Of course nobody’s trumpeting this forth. The slogans used in Germany to campaign for the Euro are completely different. The
Euro is a practical thing. Germans can go on holiday in France, Spain, Italy or Greece without having to change money. Only rebellious states like Great Britain are to blame for my having to change my German euros into pounds when traveling to Derby… The Euro contributes to international understanding, according to the
arguments of the propagandists. It raises consciousness in all Euro-countries that Europe belongs together and should not quarrel. With that the Euro is said to support peace in Europe.

Here I may introduce a short excursion and show how German politics disturbs peace in Europe most effectively – with its politics of ethnic groups (“Volksgruppen”) and with its plans of regionalisation. These are two different concepts that are very important in understanding German policies.

The “Volksgruppenpolitik” – a policy which claims to preserve and to empower
ethnic minorities – is an old German specialty. German ideology is based on the political view that an homogenous population with a common origin, common roots and common language forms a “Volk”. Living together in such an imagined community is considered as the uniquely adequate form of living together. This approach differs totally from the concept of living together in a nation state. A good example is the former Yugoslavia. The standpoint of the German government is that people in Kosovo who speak Albanian are another “Volk” from the people who speak Serbian. Germany concludes that “Kosovo-Albanians” must receive special rights to demarcate themselves from the Serbs. Germany demanded similar things for Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia. You know very well the outcome of this German policy in former Yugoslavia: The former nation state broke into four parts and probably will break again into Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia. Existing concepts in Germany advocate the ideology of “Volk” that all European countries consist of many peoples and will break apart, even Great Britain and France. Only one country will not break for it consists of one “Volk” only: Germany.

Another German concept is the concept of “regionalisation”. It plans that parts of nation states – so-called “regions” – get more rights of their own. This strengthens the regions but, as a logical consequence, weakens the nation states. EU-policies are – as Germany wanted – supporting the regions: They are getting money and support from Brussels. The crucial outcome of the concept of regionalisation is that the supported regions align themselves more and more with Brussels and tend to
lose their ties to the nation states. By these means the EU gains increasing
influence on the regions. Who wonders that the strongest EU-power – Germany – profits from these developments! Recently some French complained that Alsace can’t be controlled completely by Paris any more and they cite a growing German influence. Germany influenced Alsace after occupying it in 1870 and 1940; both times Alsace was made part of the German “Reich”.

As you may recognize, German policies imply very dangerous aspects that are not supporting peace in Europe at all. Therefore it’s somewhat misleading to claim that the Euro upholds peace; for the Euro is supporting German hegemony over Europe.

In spite of all this propaganda, the Euro isn’t very popular in Germany. The reason for this is that many Germans were proud of the D-Mark, a currency which is associated with German economic growth after the Second World War, and therefore symbolizes a great success. Now many Germans are disappointed that this
symbol of success was taken away. Furthermore many companies used the
introduction of the Euro at the beginning of the year 2002 to increase prices. Official statistics say there hasn’t been a significant increase of prices but many Germans have a different perception.

Nevertheless, because Germany has a very strong position inside EU the Germans actually need not reckon with an economic crisis in Germany because of the new currency. I think the actual economic crisis in Germany – we have 4,6 millions of unemployed at the moment, the highest number for many years, and the number is
increasing – I think the actual economic crisis is mainly due to political decisions made by the German government and not due to the Euro With the Euro came rules for the finance policy of the European countries; these rules are a danger for many European nation states, especially the smaller ones, because they lost the freedom to make a finance policy corresponding to their needs. It’s another thing for Germany. Germany has the power to break the rules which came with the Euro, and in fact it does so. So the Euro may be blamed for unemployment in Portugal or Greece, but hardly for German unemployment.

Beyond this background, the strong German economy has created the prerequisites to expand totally in the countries that introduce the Euro Already now the German economy controls every day greater parts of Europe. An example is the German energy company RWE, one of the biggest German energy companies. The enterprise bought – among other things – the gas monopoly in the Czech Republic, possesses about 50 percent of the gas market in Hungary and bought recently 85 percent of the polish energy company Stoleczny Zaklad Energetyczny. Buying the British gas producer Highland Energy RWE invaded into the British energy market, taking over Innogy Holding RWE bought the leading company of power supply in Great Britain.

RWE is not the only German holding buying parts of the British energy market. Eon – in the meantime the biggest private energy holding of the western world – bought Powergen and TXU-England last year and now possesses a leading position as power and gas supplier. Eon wants to strengthen its position, now with Midlands Electricity which is to be bought by Eon-subsidiary Powergen.

Economic influence of course causes political influence. You can recognize that very clearly if media holdings are sold. There are complaints in Eastern Europe against the German media holding WAZ (“Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung”); it is said that the holding now possesses a monopoly of public opinion. At present Bodo Hombach, a German social democrat, is a leading manager of WAZ. Previously Hombach had been Minister of the German Chancellor and then EU-coordinator on the Balkans. WAZ now possesses direct or indirect control over 23 newspapers, 38 magazines and 10
advertising papers in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Yugoslavia. In Bulgaria the holding publishes the daily newspaper with the highest circulation, the greatest political weekly newspaper, the women’s magazine with the highest circulation and the only evening newspaper and controls – measured by circulation – 80 percent of Bulgarian daily press. Most media in the Czech Republic are also owned by German holdings; last year the Czech government complained that its view of the Benes decrees is hardly printed in national media which print a view that is similar to the German view.

Citizens of the affected countries certainly will not profit by the fact that German companies get an easier access to their markets after introducing the Euro, since – if companies are bought by German groups, control over the companies shifts to Germany and can’t be influenced by the local population. What people want doesn’t count at all. An example: There were massive protests in Poland last year when the German RWE bought the Polish energy company Stoleczny Zaklad Energetyczny; conflicts in parliament dragged on for a whole day and a night. One member of parliament who was protesting against the sale to the German company was finally removed from the parliament forcibly at five o’clock in the morning by guards.

This can happen if someone is defends his country’s interest against German influence. Already now Germany is the greatest power inside EU, and it does all it can to enlarge its power more and more. It is trying to weaken the sovereignty of other nation states, to weaken their resistance and strengthen the German position. The Euro is one of the means that support the German policies, besides other means such as German ethnic group policies or the German concept of regionalisation. That all could end in a Europe dominated by Germany – a vision Germany aimed at twice within the last century. I can’t do anything but warn you against German hegemony
over Europe.

Redaktion Informationen zur Deutschen Außenpolitik
Fax: 01212-5-257-08-537
e-mail: [email protected]

30/01/2003: German government financed group admits 'Europe of Regions' will destroy nation states



Date of Report 29 January 2003
Translated 30 January 2003

FLENSBURG The first General Secretary of the “Federal Union of European
Ethnic Groups” (Foederalistische Union Europaeischer Volksgruppen – FUEV)
described the aim of his organisation as “a federal Europe of Regions” which
could destroy “unitary and centralised nation states” like France. The
Headquarters of the FUEV is in Germany. It was massively involved in the
revival of German national consciousness (Volkstum*) and activities in
support of minorities after the Second World War. FUEV has direct
contactswith the German government and is financed by the German Government.


The FUEV was founded in the early Fifties by former Danish Nazis. From 1954
it was in contact with the Welsh Nationalist Party (Plaid Cymru). Its present
list of associates includes the Cornish separatist movement, the Stannary
Parliament. There is a background report in German on

Volkstum – literally “Folkdom”

16/01/2003: NAZI theories behind EU' s Regionalization


Date of Report 23 February 2002
Translated 16 January 2003

MUNICH – (Own report) The “International Institute for Nationality Rights and Regionalism”, a well known front organisation for German foreign policy can see good opportunities for the further extension of ethnic/racial concepts in Europe. At its most recent conference the institute maintained that ethnic conflicts were smouldering in the nation states of France, Spain and Ireland, which could be pacified by “Ethnic Group Law”.

The institute (Internationales Institut fuer Nationalitaeten und Regionalismus” (“Intereg”) was founded in 1977 and, according to an internal document, was “practically carried by the government of Bavaria (Freistaat Bayern)” during its early years. Its address, when founded, was the same as the Bavarian State Chancellery. Several former Nazi theoreticians (Raschhofer, Veiter) and at least one convicted Nazi Criminal (Riedl) belonged to the founding group of “Intereg”. The institute operates within the milieu of German “expellee” organisations. The present Vice President of Intereg, Estebauer published a far-ranging work in 1977 together with Guy Heraud, a French ethnicist. In this book the German “blood theory” of an ethnically pure people’s (Volk) state was opposed to the Western concept of the nation state.

Already during the Nazi era, notorious front organisations of German foreign policy propagated the idea of a European system of “Ethnic group rights”. Minorities in neighbouring states could claim to be collective subjects of the Reich and demand autonomy. The aim of German “ethnic group” policy was to weaken European opponents through minority conflicts. In the final consequence, the territorial integrity of neighbouring states could be broken up by German-led “ethnic groups”. (The precise method used by Germany in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia – see the book Fascist Europe Rising – and through the regionalisation of the UK along ethnic lines – Scottish and Welsh “regions” -Ed)

In the meantime, the “ethno politicians” from around the Bavarian State Chancellery recommend their “ethnic groups” and model of regionalism for world-wide operation (Einsatz). At the recent conference, Esterbauer maintained that Afghanistan and the Near East could be pacified in this way. Intereg also has contacts in the Arab states bordering Israel.

09/01/2003: German centre party praises NAZI'S geopolitical advisor



Date of Report 3 January 2003
Translated 9 January 2003

BERLIN (Own report) The old German concept of “Middle Europe” “is once again, in some measure, a reality”. This was the view of a member of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation which is closely associated with the FDP (*1) (The Free Democrat Party). He expressed this view at the annual conference of the “Study Group for Geopolitical Analysis”. The concept of Middle Europe was first formed in Imperial Germany and became an important element of German foreign policy during the Nazi era. It should now be “a liberal example of German hegemony over Central Europe” and must be achieved through “indulgence and flexibility”.

The annual conference of the study group took place in Bonn in mid November with the title “World Concepts, Geopolitics and Crises”. Geographers, historians, military and security experts took part. With this background the conference set itself the task of “giving the most important decision makers scientific analyses of geopolitical concerns in the light of the strengthened, fulfilling upturn in geopolitical and geo-strategic methods of participation and in the interpretation of global conflict”.

“Geography as a basic element for Joschka Fischer” (German Foreign Secretary)

Along with papers which considered the geopolitical standpoints of Russia, Turkey, Afghanistan and the “Asiatic Tiger” states, “the central position of Germany” was at the heart of the conference. There were conceptualisations of the present situation ” Midway from the left? Geography as a basic element of Joschka Fischer” and also discussion of historic strategies.

“A Liberal Kind of German Hegemony over Central Europe”

Juergen Froelich, an associate of the “Friedrich Naumann Foundation” gave a paper on the theme “Germany as a first class World Economic Power or : How real is Fiedrich Naumann’s “Middle Europe”?” He posed the question as to how Naumann had come to “to support a concept of foreign policy which must inevitably lead to conflicts – and very serious conflicts too”. Arising from this Froelich’s recommendation was that the “Middle Europe” concept, a “liberal kind of German hegemony over Central Europe was already, in part, reality”. He said that “In no circumstances must we throw our weight around out of arrogance and love of power”. Integration would not be achieved in that way “but only through indulgence and flexibility”. (Note that even on the “liberal left” the word integration is clearly a euphemism for German imperialism -ed)

The conference was rounded off with an evening function at the memorial to the German geopolitician and Nazi adviser, Albrecht Haushofer. Haushofer has been honoured with a memorial which was placed in the inner court of the Interior Ministry a year ago. From 1934 he advised the Information Section of the German Foreign Office. Before the Munich Agreement he worked for the disintegration of the Czechoslovak Republic amongst other projects.

Connections at the Highest Level

The “Study Group for Geopolitical Analysis” works within the “German Association for Geography” (DGfG), the umbrella organisation of specialist groups and association in Germany with around 25,000 members. The Chairman of the “Study Group for Geopolitical Analysis” is Klaus Kost, honorary professor at the Ruhr University of Bochum.

The “Political Geographers” and “Critical Geopoliticians” have at their disposal contacts in the highest circles of German foreign policy. At a conference of the “Study Group for Political Geography” (part of DGfG) under the title “Radical Change in Europe – Geopolitical Examples and Discourse” a member of the Planning Staff of the German Foreign Office, Joschka Schmierer, gave a paper with the title “Real geopolitical examples for Europe – Suggestions by the Foreign Minister for dealing with tensions between European neighbours”. For the Geographers’ Conference in October 2003 in Bern “Geopolitical Analysis” is seen as a crucial point. The complex of themes “Geopolitics, the Military and Crises” will be tackled. One announced speaker is a member of the German Association for Foreign Policy and his paper will be on the theme “Oskar Ritter von Niedermayer: Officer, Geographer and Geopolitician”.

See also
1. Friedrich Naumann: National Social Catechism in the History section of , also Friedrich Naumann on “Mitteleuropa”
2. Haushofer’s memorial was also reported earlier
3. Amongst the member organisations of the German Association of Geographers is the “Institut fuer Laenderkunde”. See earlier article in English


Jahrestagung des Arbeitskreises “Geopolitical Analysen” in Bonn:
Politikberatung bei Konflikten oberstes Ziel;

Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Geographie; AK Geopolitische Analysen;
AK Politische Geographie;


(*1) The FDP, Free Democrat Party, is a minority party which has been in virtually every coalition government since the war. The price for their participation has usually been the Foreign Office portfolio. So they have had a very strong influence, disproportionate to their size over the development of German foreign policy. The party is sometimes compared with the British Liberal Democrats.

Their expansionist aims in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are largely unknown to the British public. (Their former leader Hans Dietrich Genscher was largely responsible for the break up of Yugoslavia). The Friedrich Naumann Foundation is connected to the FDP and generously financed by German government funds.

29/12/2002: German expansionism leads to murder


Report 26 December 2002
Translated 29 December 2002


ANKARA (own report) The university lecturer Necmit Hablemitoglu, author of several publications on German influence in Turkey, was shot on 18th December. The victim had accused the German Secret Sevice (BND) of subversive activities and had collected evidence of co-operation between the secret service and several German, political institutes. The institutes maintain subsidiary activities in Turkey and are driving forward the “europeanisation” of the country. Hablemitgolu was to have appeared as principal prosecution witness in a case before the Turkish State Security Court, listed for December 26.

The murder is the latest high point in a series of unscrupulous attempts to bring a halt to investigations of four German foundations and their presumed partners in the German intelligence community. Previously the appointed prosecutor, who had pursued the case vigorously, was discredited by compromising private photographs and removed from the case.

For several months the German Foreign Office has tried to avert the case which is highly embarrassing to it. The Foundations (Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Friedrich Naumann Foundation and Heinrich Boell Foundation) are part of the basic political organisation of expansionary German policy abroad. They are accused of subversive activities in several countries (1). The Turkish prosecutor’s department seeks to prove that the foundations are operationally connected with German foreign espionage (BND).

The case in Turkey against four German political foundations, accused of “Conspiracy” and “Undermining the Turkish State”, has begun with public threats by the accused. In a “declaration” hedged about by many qualifying clauses, the German Foundations gave notice (over a “Network of the politicial elite of Europe” (Echo)) of serious repercussions if the charges were not dropped. The threats from the foundations are part of a package of measures by Berlin to put massive pressure on Ankara.


The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the German Secret Service, has the facilities of its own residency available in Turkey and is on the best of terms with its Turkish counterpart. Up to now it is not clear why the Turkish Secret Service was unable to prevent the murder of the principal prosecution witness against the German foundations or whether it was itself involved in the murder.


From their statement, which is now in the public domain, the Boards of the German Foundations accept by implication that German foreign policy must inevitably lead to conflicts from which conspiracy and murder cannot be excluded. It states that they pursue the “CLOSER UNION of the “guest” (sic) countries and of their social groupings into the European Union”. The “rapprochement” which they propose is an hegemonical economic bloc with supranational assertions in its constitution, which aims to overthrow the sovereignty of its members. A peaceful “rapprochement” is therefore only possible when the elites of the “guest” states are ready to give up their sovereignty step by step and to hand themselves over to German-ruled “Europe”. The readiness to do this is present only in parts of the Turkish state administration. In other parts, it has led to outright resistance which is embodied in the charges against the German political “foundations”.


Since 1991 , German political institutes and cross-border associations have been active in all European states under the pretext of humanitarian, cultural or social concerns.

The investigations by the State Prosecutor were brought against the “Konrad Adenauer Foundation” (Christian Democrat), the “Friedrich Naumann Foundation” (Free Democrats), the Social Democrat “Friedrich Ebert Foundation” and the “Heinrich Boell Foundation” (Green Party and League 90). These “research institutes” of the political parties are financed with millions of German taxpayers’ money. They were accused of “membership of a secret, illegal conspiracy” and with “undermining the Turkish National State”. The dismissed prosecutor wished to bring evidence that the German political foundations were complicit in the activities of anti Turkish irredentists to bring in measures to subvert Turkish sovereignty under the guise of “Regionalisation”.


Similar accusations have been made against the German secret service (BND) and German political institutes in several other countries (for example in France). (see also the BND role in Yugoslavia in the 1980s and 1990s in the book Fascist Europe Rising). Up to now Berlin has succeeded in covering this up and avoided a political scandal. In spite of massive diplomatic pressure applied to Turkey by the German government, it seems now to require physical force to keep the process going.

(1) In German on see Deutsche Stiftungen “Dem aeusseren und inneren Frieden foerderlich” sowie “Generalprotest”

04/12/2002: German UN administrator seeks UN takeover of Kosovo



Date of Report 17 November 2002
Translated 24 November 2002

BERLIN (Own report). The explosive German economic expansion, which began with the takeover of the DDR (East Germany) (and the continued German contribution to the costs of an expanding European Union) and led to twelve years of world-wide restructuring, has led the government into a severe financial crisis. The Federal government now plays down the fact that public coffers are short of some 30,000 million euros. The provincial government of Schleswig Holstein is bankrupt. German cities are now setting up emergency social services and the number of unemployed is rising further. (A realistic estimate of TRUE unemployment is some 5.5 million).

The state institutions of the Federal Republic laid out several hundred thousand million euros for the takeover of the DDR, which ended up overwhelmingly with large West German firms and capital investments. The related economic expansion into eastern Europe was (and is) subsidized in great measure. German commercial banks are still ready to extend necessary finance. In several individual states, servicing state debt takes up around quarter of the public budget.


Small speculators were encouraged to spread the scope of international investments. Hundreds of thousands bought overvalued shares in the semi-state company “Deutsche Telecom” . Amongst other things, Telecom used this cash to finance the takeover of “Voice Stream” (USA). In the meantime Telecom piled up a debt mountain of around 64,000 million euros. The small shareholders have been duped by the artificial value of their shares and of their anticipated dividends. Worldwide, Deutsche Telecom is seeking to axe around 50,000 jobs whilst improving its profit margin by increasing turnover.


Internal social rejection, which has accompanied this crisis of expansion, is leading to a definite radicalisation of the middle classes according to German sociologists. Aggressive attitudes are catching on and underlie the sometimes offensive, sometimes militant foreign policy which Germany is following.

**See in particular Rodney Atkinson’s book Europe’s Full Circle Chapter 1 on the radicalisation of the German Middle Class during the Weimar Republic. See ‘Publications’ section of this site)

24/11/2002: The costs of German expansion - financial bankruptcy and the radicalisation of the middle class



Date of Report 17 November 2002
Translated 24 November 2002

BERLIN (Own report). The explosive German economic expansion, which began with the takeover of the DDR (East Germany) (and the continued German contribution to the costs of an expanding European Union) and led to twelve years of world-wide restructuring, has led the government into a severe financial crisis. The Federal government now plays down the fact that public coffers are short of some 30,000 million euros. The provincial government of Schleswig Holstein is bankrupt. German cities are now setting up emergency social services and the number of unemployed is rising further. (A realistic estimate of TRUE unemployment is some 5.5 million).

The state institutions of the Federal Republic laid out several hundred thousand million euros for the takeover of the DDR, which ended up overwhelmingly with large West German firms and capital investments. The related economic expansion into eastern Europe was (and is) subsidized in great measure. German commercial banks are still ready to extend necessary finance. In several individual states, servicing state debt takes up around quarter of the public budget.


Small speculators were encouraged to spread the scope of international investments. Hundreds of thousands bought overvalued shares in the semi-state company “Deutsche Telecom” . Amongst other things, Telecom used this cash to finance the takeover of “Voice Stream” (USA). In the meantime Telecom piled up a debt mountain of around 64,000 million euros. The small shareholders have been duped by the artificial value of their shares and of their anticipated dividends. Worldwide, Deutsche Telecom is seeking to axe around 50,000 jobs whilst improving its profit margin by increasing turnover.


Internal social rejection, which has accompanied this crisis of expansion, is leading to a definite radicalisation of the middle classes according to German sociologists. Aggressive attitudes are catching on and underlie the sometimes offensive, sometimes militant foreign policy which Germany is following.

**See in particular Rodney Atkinson’s book Europe’s Full Circle Chapter 1 on the radicalisation of the German Middle Class during the Weimar Republic. See ‘Publications’ section of this site)

03/11/2002: German imperialism exploits EU Regional Policy


Date of Report 29 October 2002
Translated by Edward Spalton 3 November 2002

LEIPZIG (Own report): Berlin Ministries are financing the penetration of the planning process in all European states. They are working on detailed projects for the “spatial development” of foreign territories. These studies are not only concerned with the traditional German sphere of influence on the eastern borders. They also take in western Europe including Great Britain and France. The cross border(*1) planning activity is discussed in a specialist periodical published by the “Institut fuer Laenderkunde” (IfL) in Leipzig. The institute is sponsored by the Berlin “Ministry for Traffic, Building and Housing”.

“Europa Regional”, the paper published by IfL, discusses “Questions of Spatial order”(*2) in numerous detailed analyses. These touch on the sovereignty of British & French planning authorities. Thus the periodical busies itself with “Economic spatial structural change in the West Midlands Conurbation (Birmingham & the Black Country) in the times of “Thatcherism” and “post Thatcherism”” or concerns itself with “Geo-deterministic factors” in British “large settlements”. The aim is an X ray examination of those factors favourable and unfavourable to the parcelling out of central state administrations and their replacement by “Regions”. This is a well known key
project of German high policy . On the French side it is particularly targeted against Lothringen (the French region called Lorraine).


The geo-politcal analysts are doing further research to place the assumptions and possibilities of large scale industrial projects under German hegemony. In order to put the multi billion German industrial project, “Transrapid” on a profitable basis, the “spatial planners” have already made drawings for Europe-wide sections of construction. This is a train system which will go from the Channel coast in the west to the Black Sea in the east: it has no rails and a planned speed of 500 kilometers per hour. By this the levels of planning will be decreed to subordinate the sovereignty of France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and various other states. In the notorious jargon of German “Geo-politics”, the arrogant monopolisation of the sovereign powers of foreign states it is said “Target setting and target achievement are a European Community task which concerns the fashioning of a LIVING SPACE (LEBENSRAUM) (*3) (translator’s emphasis)


Until a short while ago the Director of the IfL (“Institut fuer Laenderkunde) was Professor-Doctor Frank-Dieter Grimm who is also a member of the Praesidium of the “South East Europe Society”. The institute is funded not only by the Federal government but by the provincial government of Saxony. As part of ” A network of competence in the study of spatial scientific arrangements” the Leipzig institute co-operates with the “Academy for Spatial Research and Land use Planning” (Hannover) and the “Institute for ecological spatial Development” (Dresden). Together they are members of “The scientific Association Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz” (GWL) in the section of “Spatial scientific Studies”.

The IfL has made co-operation agreements(*4) “particularly for assuring borderland projects” with Lviv, Hrodna/Grodno and Minsk. The IfL has also founded “Work Bases” in Riga, St Petersburg, Moscow, Kaliningrad, Kiev, Cluj-Napoca and Sofia. In the project area of “Border Regions” the Institute is particularly concerned with “Border regions between Poland and its eastern neighbouring states” and is examining “Co-operation between towns in central and south east Europe” . It also sponsors “The trans border town network in “Three country corner” between Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia”.

There are eight cross references to other papers on the www.german-foreign-policy website


Translator’s Notes

(*1) “Cross border” is rather a weak translation of the German “grenzueberschreitend” which means literally “border over-striding” – a far more vigorous and active concept.

(*2) An inadequate translation of the German “Raumordnung”. Some months ago a Councillor told me he was puzzled by the title of an EU Directive – the “Spatial Directive”. Raum literally means space but it includes everything in it – agriculture, water, mineral resources, industry etc.

(*3) LEBENSRAUM – Living Space is the concept of a large area with all necessary resources for a self-sufficient developed economy under a single political system. These are concisely set out in Walther Funk’s paper “Economic Face of the New Europe” published in “Nazi Plans for European Union” (ISBN 1 904260 03 09) Price £2.85 inc. p & p from Publications on this site.

(*4) The German word “Vertrag” also means treaty or contract.

01/11/2002: Another German minority threatens a Nation State


Date of Report 28 October 2002
Translated 1 November 2002

COPENHAGEN (Own report) : The leading official of the German-speaking minority in Denmark has called upon the Danish people to remember its National Socialist collaborators instead of reacting with “resentment” to everything German. With a clearly threatening undertone it was said that the Danes also had made “mistakes” which still remained to be worked out. These comments were published by a German minority newspaper in Denmark which is funded from Berlin with taxpayers’ money.

The cause of the demands by the German official, Hans Heinrich Hansen, is the growing reservation against the European policy of Berlin and of its propagandists in Denmark. On account of increased hostility, Hansen said, they should “have the courage .. to acknowledge their (German) roots”

Alluding to the occupation of Denmark by the Wehrmacht, Hansen regreted that the Danes still had “an earlier, negative image of Germany”. This functionary of German national identity (*1) calls upon Danish politicians “to make their influence felt” and to think of the “crucial archive” of Danish collaborators with National Socialism “which has remained closed until now”.

Post War Careers

As in all occupied countries, the German regime in Denmark attracted beneficiaries from business and politics whose careers continued in the post war years. These circles were used especially in the East-West conflict and were (or are) capable of being blackmailed because of their complicity in the Nazi occupation.

“In close Association”

This threatening hint to Danish collaborators comes from the ranks of “The League of German North Schleswig” (BdN), an organisation founded by former anti-Semites and red hot Nazis. (They believe that Denmark is no more than “North Schleswig Holstein” i.e. a part of the German State of that name! ed)

To this day the officials of the German-speaking minority maintain a “Grove of Honour” on Danish soil in which they gather yearly to commemorate their fallen Nazi soldiers.

According to the BdN newspaper of 28 September 2002, the status of this “Grove of Honour” should be enhanced. It can be said that Siegfried Matlock, the representative of the minority organisation in the Danish parliament, stands “in close association” with Werner Best, the former commander of the Nazi occupation in Denmark. He edited a book about Best with “unconcealed sympathy and, yes, admiration”. Best was praised in this book (*2) for his “national(*3), organic, world view” – yet he was Heydrich’s deputy and accused of four thousand murders.

The “League of German North Schleswig”, its officials and newspaper, “The North Schleswiger” is located in Abenra (Denmark) and funded from Berlin by the German Ministry of the Interior.

(*1) The word used was “Deutschtum” – literally Germandom

(*2) Ulrich Herbert: Best . Biographical Studies on Radicalism, World View and Reason. Bonn 1996

(*3) The word used was “voelkisch” – literally folkish

SOURCE: “Resentments are the everyday lot of Germans” The North Schleswiger 18 October 2002


HISTORY TODAY Vol 52 (11) November 2002 Page 14

“Danish historians are calling for a sealed archive, which may hold the names of up to 300,000 Danish Nazis or Nazi sympathisers to be opened in order that the true extent of Denmark’s collaboration with Nazis during the Second World War can be gauged. The archive is subject to an eighty year closure (August 28th) “

23/10/2002: German Bundeswehr prepares for psychological warfare


Date of Report 23 October 2002
Translated 28 October 2002

ANDERNACH (own report): The German military organisation for the conduct of psychological warfare is being centralised and given additional operational
tasks “against opponents”. The psychological warfare unit (“Psycho Truppe”) of the Bundeswehr which consisted until now of around 750 soldiers (“Bataillon Operative Information 950”) is seeking a world-wide role in future wars and is recruiting (amongst others) radio technicians, video specialists, computer experts and print journalists. The Batallion works together with organisations which are suspected of secret service contacts.

Under the title “Operational Information” (Opinfo) the Bundeswehr bundles activities which it previously called “psychological warfare” and later “psychological defence” (Psychologische Verteidigung – PSV). Connections were proven between former, prominent, National Socialist criminals and the organisation for “Psychological Warfare”. PSV “Psychological Defence” has been retasked by camouflaged measures to aggressive propaganda, which it carries on in a “Study Association for Contemporary Problems”. The Bundeswehr officers active in this field link their work with the lessons learned by Nazi propagandists and have given detailed papers on this in several publications (Reference FUS1). National Socialist radio propaganda during the bloody occupation of France (“Radio Humanity”) is described as giving “a fascinating grasp on contemporary history”.

Transmitter Station Sarajevo”

As the result of numerous concealed measures which became public knowledge in Germany and were described as “espionage activity”, the Bundeswehr (overall armed forces command) was forced to reorganise its psychological work in the late 1980s. The PSV (Psychological Defence) organisation was transferred to the army and temporarily reduced in strength. With the military expansion of the enlarged German state the Propaganda Troop soon announced it was back in business (with the setting up of a transmitter station in Rajlovac/Sarajevo). Since the attack on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the presence of a standing force of around 10,000 soldiers in foreign countries, the tasks of specialists in disinformation and destabilisation via the media have been increased considerably. These tasks are being concentrated in a “Centre for Operational Information (Mayen/Rhineland Pfalz).

Bader & Bader

The Psychological Operations Force ( “Psycho Truppe”) maintains connections with related organisations of the German state concerned with media work in foreign countries and also looks after Secret Service contacts. At a conference in May 1999, the commander of “Bataillon Operative Information 950”, Christian Bader, appeared alongside the specialist organisation “International Media Assistance”. According to its own information this operates closely as a privately trading, established organisation with “The International Association of German-speaking Media” (founder Werner Bader). This is a rich source of German espionage in foreign countries and was established by the BND (*) ,(Bundesnachrichtendienst), the German Secret

(*) Further Report “Development of Foreign Journalists for Intelligence Work”.

For German activities in Yugoslavia see also Fascist Europe Rising particularly chapter 4. (Available on this website – see Publications)

25/09/2002: German Europe challenges USA influence in South America


(For discussion of the effects of German Europe’s Foreign Policy on the USA see in particular the book Fascist Europe Rising pages 167-177, available from ‘publications’ on this site)

Until now these reports generally appeared in date order. This article from May gives an insight into thinking at the heart of the EU process which has an immediate bearing on the recent behaviour of the German government, so we have placed it by its date of translation. SEE ALSO FIRST REPORT “EUROPE MUST FREE ITSELF FROM FOREIGN POLITICAL FETTERS”.

Date of Report 30 May 2002
Translated 25 September 2002

BERLIN: EU must assert itself against the USA in Latin America

BERLIN/MADRID: The European Union wishes to intensify its economic and political relations with Latin America and the Caribbean region. The German federal government and parliament had previously pressed for the common strategic policy, agreed under the German presidency of the EU in 1999 to be advanced and to overcome the opposition to it in various EU member states. US analysts saw in this co-operation a new “solidarity” or “common front” against Washington’s interests in the region.

The ruling coalition had brought a resolution before the Bundestag in which they complained that economic relations remained “behind expectations”. In the resolution it was also mentioned that the restriction of the EU market for agricultural produce from Latin America did not promote co-operation.

The German federal government should therefore work towards “the dismantling of protectionist measures and subsidies within the European agricultural market”. “An intensification of political contacts with the aim of common initiatives in world policy” was also demanded.

The Foreign Office stated that “bi-regional co-operation” was a suitable means to “have a stabilising influence on the political and economic development of Latin America”. Federal Chancellor Schroeder demanded a “markedly enlarged exchange of trade with the markets of the future in South America” and the building up of the strategic partnership between the EU and Latin America; this was “not directed against anyone”.


In the parliamentary debate spokesmen of all parties were agreed that German foreign policy must urge the other EU states to free the Latin American continent from economic dependency and the political and military dominance of the United States by means of close co-operation.

It was unconditionally necessary to come to a speedy association agreement with the South American free trade zone MERCOSUR in order to forestall the American initiative for the merging of NAFTA and the transamerican Free Trade Zone (FTAA). The establishment of a pan American free trade zone before the conclusion of an agreement with the EU would damage European and Latin American interests equally and lead to considerable loss of market share.

Lothar Mark, one of the movers of the resolution and Latin America spokesman for the SPD (Government party), maintained that the USA identified itself with the view of Latin America and the Caribbean as its “back yard” and always inclined to the Monroe doctrine of 1823 (“America for the Americans”). But Latin America was a potential market and partner of the EU. Mark said it was not acceptable that Washington should try to compel Europe with diverse doctrines to “subordinate itself to the economic interests of the US”.

Monopoly and market domination – that was the strategy of the United States; German and European firms which were active in Latin America needed fostering and support, declared Wolfgang Gehrke, foreign policy spokesman of the PDS (“former” communists).

In the last ten years trade with Latin America had doubled. European investment had increased tenfold since the beginning of the Nineties. Europe is today the most important investor in southern Latin America – now ahead of the USA. The South American free trade area MERCOSUR had been one of the most rapidly developing markets in the world for EU exporters. German businesses controlled outstandingly successfully established subsidiaries which, in some branches of the economy, controlled strategic market areas. German subsidiaries produced some fifteen per cent of Brazil’s industrial production.


Previously there was only the EU free trade treaty with Mexico which was signed in 2000. Since then European – Mexican trade had increased by thirty per cent. Now (May 2002) a treaty of association between the EU and Chile was tabled in Madrid, which would be signed in Seville towards the middle of June. The most far-reaching arrangements envisaged not only the almost complete liberalisation of trade in agricultural and industrial products but also services and investment. By the end of 2004 the EU and Central America hope to conclude such an agreement. The states of the Andes region are making efforts to achieve a similar pact with Europe. Corresponding negotiation have commenced with the MEROCSUR members – Brazil,Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. The next meeting between MERCOSUR and the EU takes place in Brasilia in July – at a time when the Bazilian President Cardoso is still in power. Cardoso is a strong supporter of co-operation with the EU especially with Germany. In Madrid he told the Mexican President Fox “If the leading economic power of our continent, the United States, had behaved as generously as the Germans in Europe, things would have gone much better with the Latin American countries. But one can expect no Particular help from the Gringos”.

In the final declaration of the summit conference, without naming Washington directly, the USA was condemned for the imposition of economic sanctions and punitive measures “of a unilateral and extra-territorial character which contradict international law and the rules of world trade”. Support was demanded for the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the rapid ratification of the Kyoto protocol – “both international initiatives opposed by the United States”, as US analysts noted. They noticed “numerous subtle digs against US foreign policy” and a “new solidarity or common front” against Washington’s interests in the region.

TO BE TRANSLATED SHORTLY “Germany as “Protecting Power” in Central and South America” on


Relations with Brazil and Latin America. Lecture by Minister of State Dr. Volmer in Brazilian Centre for International Relations (CEBRI) RIo de Janeiro; 21.03.2001

Intensification of relations between EU, Latin America and the Caribbean. Bundestags-Drucksache 14/9051

Protocol of sitting 236 of the German Bundestag of 16.05.02 , TOP 16, Discussion of request of SPD and League 90/The Green Party: Intensification of contacts between the EU, Latin America and the Caribbean;

The EU should assert itself against the USA – Frankfurter Rundschau 16.05.2002

Summit Conference of heads of state and government of the EU, Latin America and Caribbean countries in Madrid; 17.05.2002

German Federal Chancellor: Bringing forward agreement between EU and MERCOSUR 17.05.2002

Political Declaration: The Madrid Commitment (SN 1658/6/02 REV 6)

The European Option. Criticism in Washington of the Meeting in Madrid; Franfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 21.05.2002

23/09/2002: German subversion in Belgium


Date of Report 23 September 2002
Translated on 15 October 2002

EUPEN,BELGIUM :(own report). As long as fifteen years ago, the covert activities of German influence in eastern Belgium gave rise to investigations by the Eupen Regional Assembly (*1). In October 1995 this resulted in the appointment of an investigating committee which followed new lines of enquiry.

As the Assembly (*1) committee reported two years later in its final report, it was established that an institute based in Duesseldorf (Nord Rhein Westfalen) had worked consistently with significant influence. The aim of the “Herman Niermann Institute ” was the fostering of “German identity”. This was intended to lead to demands for autonomy and thereby to associated demands in neighbouring territories.

As the investigating committee established, the pressure for German influence included right wing extremists and even instances of official involvment by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. It mentioned Uwe Stiemke as Chairman of the Herman Niermann Institute. Stiemke was ,at the same time, a Ministerial Counsellor(*2) in the German Federal Ministry of the Interior. The world-wide financing of foreign nationals who identify themselves as “German” falls within the competence of the Interior (!) Ministry. It could be asserted that Ministerial Counsellor Stiemke had been engaged in
subversive activity in Eupen and was “an accomplice in a conspiracy against Belgium”.


(*1) The word actually used was “Parliament” but this does not convey the essence of a subordinate regional body.
(*2) The German word is “Ministerialrat” which is approximately equivalent to Head of Section within a department of the Ministry.

21/09/2002: Germany seeks to "dissolve" national boundaries in Poland and Belgium


Date of Report 21 September 2002
Translated on 15 October 2002

EUPEN/BRUSSELS (own report) A German expert on “ethnic groups”, who previously worked not only for German “Expellee” organisations but also for the controversial Federal Institute for Eastern Research and International Studies , is the permanent representative in Brussels for the eastern Belgian German-speaking community. This was announced on Belgian radio.

Joerg Horn, one of the “ethnic group” experts originating from the German town of Koblenz, has now worked for several months as the permanent representative in Brussels of the East Belgian German-speaking community. There he publicly supports the struggle for autonomy of the German-speaking community, whose government is campaigning to secede from the Belgian Region of Wallonia . Horn himself represents an even more radical position; he wishes to separate even more Communes from the Region of Wallonia where German is spoken and to form them into a “German-Belgian” Region.

The works of this “ethnic group” expert , Horn, have been used in the official foreign policy of the German government. In particular, he demanded new special collective rights for German-speaking Polish citizens. In 1997 his paper “On the way to “Europe-Town”? German-Polish co-operation in the towns divided by the Oder and Neisse rivers “(*1) appeared in a series of the Federal Institute for Eastern Research & International Studies . In the meantime this has been taken up by the Economy & Policy Institute, one of the most influential Berlin think tanks.

Last year Horn published the quintessence of this paper alongside a series of further articles on the “ethnic group” policy programme in the “East Prussia Journal” (Ostpreussenblat), the paper of the “Association of East Prussians” (*2). He suggested that Polish towns such as Zgorzelec or Gubin should be bound step by step , ever more closely, to neighbouring German towns such as Goerlitz or Guben. This would lead to the point “that the Oder-Neisse frontier(*3) (…) will be dissolved like a sugar lump in tea”. The towns of Goerlitz and Zgorzelec are presently experimenting with such a programme.

Horn is openly implicated in the circumvention of the usual formalities in his appointment. The Social Democrat Minister-President of the German-speaking community, Lambertz, declared this before the Regional Assembly of the German-speaking Community. The nomination of the Conservative, Horn, was of “unusual interest” because he had decided on Horn’s appointment without advertising the position.


(*1 & *3) The Oder Neisse line is the frontier between Germany and Poland, agreed in the 1945 peace settlement and subsequently ratified by the then West German Government

(*2) Most of former East Prussia is presently part part of the territory of Poland and of Russia


Belgian Radio Regional Announcement of 20 September 2002 – “Permanent Representative for enlarged Fourth Region”.

21/09/2002: President of German "EXPELLEES" seeks German expansion


Date of report 21 September 2002
Translated 2 October 2002


Erika Steinbach, President of the German League of Expellees, said she was in favour of restoring the former first verse of the German National Anthem. This was reported in an interview with the Prague magazine “Respekt”.

In this verse, which begins with the words “Deutschland,Deutschland ueber Alles”, Steinbach sees nothing but harmless love of homeland (Heimat). Yet it includes territorial demands “From the Maas to the Memel River from the Etsch (River Adige) to the Belt”). Many districts from Belgium to Lithuania, from Northern Italy to Denmark are declared to be “German”

SEE ALSO RODNEY ATKINSON’S PAPER “DER DRANG NACH OSTEN” AVAILABLE FROM THE SITE UK Conservatism for an analysis of the German Parliament’s aims to take back whole areas of Eastern Europe.

08/09/2002: Berlin calls "Expatriate Germans" to the ballot boxes


Date of Report: 8 September 2002
Translated on 14 September 2002


At the forthcoming elections to the Bundestag, Berlin has granted voting rights to citizens of foreign states and calls Croats, Czechs, Poles or Russians to the polling booths, if they can produce a German “blood certificate”. In the Czech Republic alone, Berlin has granted German passports to more than 60,000 Czech citizens.

The guidelines, published by the Federal Election Leader, recognise foreign citizens as valid Germans if they are of German descent and can produce evidence of blood relationship to members of a German family in earlier generations. Relevant evidence is to be submitted to German embassies and
consulates in foreign countries. The Certificate of Descent will also be evidential, even if German descent reaches back more than a hundred years. The German authorities will accept documents relating to the raising of SS units in occupied countries. The selection of “species pure” blood will be valid for this purpose.

The subjection of citizens of foreign states to German law is conclusively established by the issue of a German passport. In this way Berlin has incorporated several hundred thousand east Europeans and can call them to their duties as German citizens – amongst other things, to service in the German army. Those expatriate Germans now mobilized will be simultaneously an important source of intelligence and also be given preference in the international undertakings of German firms in eastern Europe. Additionally, whoever can make a plausible case that he lived in Germany for at least three months since the establishment of the Federal Republic, is also entitled to vote (being of German descent)

“Personal Disadvantage”

It is known to the Berlin authorities that this call to the polls is political arrogance which attacks the internal political affairs of foreign countries. The German Election Leader (Wahlleiter*) felt it was necessary to warn foreign citizens who made use of the offered German voting rights. In an official announcement, which stands the international law of citizenship on its head, Berlin advised the so-called expatriate Germans as follows “If the government of the state in which you live makes simultaneous demands on you as its own citizen, you should immediately inform the authorities of the state whose nationality you hold together with German citizenship, and ask them to state whether you may expect any personal disadvantages arising from your participation in the election”.



This appointment is stated to go back to the days of the Reichstag. It appears to be the ex officio appointment of the chief of the Federal Government’s Statistical Office to oversee the elections.

06/09/2002: Germany as "protecting power" in central and south America


Date of Report 6 September 2001
Translated 29 September 2002


Americans may be puzzled at the sudden intransigence of Germany towards operations in Iraq, given that Germany relied on the USA for its defence over 50 years. This can be understood as the working out of a long-standing policy to position Germany and re-establish it (with the European Union under its control) as a world power. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, this project has gone into overdrive. Germany has successfully used its “Minorities Policy” to undermine nation states and has already achieved its aim in Czechoslovakia (peacefully) by splitting it into the Czech and Slovak republics. With intense subversion over many years and eventual NATO intervention, the state of Yugoslavia was split into Slovenia,Croatia, Bosnia-Herzogovina, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo. (For detailed analysis see Rodney Atkinson’s book Fascist Europe Rising)

This article details one attempt to export this policy to Latin America. Please see also Introduction and Background Report on the in this section, also the reports in the “Voices from Europe” section by Miroslav Polreich (a former ambassador of Czechoslovakia) and by Jan Myrdal (Sweden).

BERLIN/MEXICO CITY : Germany is now seeking to extend its policy on minorities to central and south America and offers itself as a “Protecting Power” to “indigenous peoples” of the subcontinent. According to the theme of a conference organised by the German Foreign Office, South America must “open itself” to permit its peoples to exercise their “human rights”. Several South American states felt that the conference was a “provocation”. The ambassador of Ecuador spoke of a German “affront”.

The conference theme was the responsibility of the Foreign Office,the Federal Press Office and the Federal Ministry for International Co-operation. Invitations were issued for a conference at the end of September (2001) in Berlin under the title “Indigenous peoples – human rights, cultures and developments. Readiness for change in central and south America”.

Several south American states felt the conference to be a provocation”. The obvious aim of the organisers was to enlist foreign minorities in the cause of German foreign policy. Luis Fernando Serra, Brazilian Ambassador, was quoted in the Daily paper, Die Welt, with unusual clarity “The whole project is unacceptable. It is an attempt to talk up an ethnic conflict which just does not exist…. We are a multi-ethnic country with a very clear, distinctive, national culture”.

The Bazilian ambassador called the written aim of the conference “To create an opening for the achievement of a civil society in central and south America” “a totally unnecessary provocation of Latin America”.

In the run-up to the conference, the Foreign Office had not informed the authorities of the target countries and only invited a section of their representatives. The ambassador of Ecuador Werner Moeller, called this diplomatic dealing a German “affront”.

The Heinrich Boell Institute is busying itself with the “opening up” of central and south
America, acting as an auxiliary of the German Foreign Ministry. The Institute is financed out of official funds from the party organisation “Federation 90/The Greens” and acts as
co-organiser with the Foreign Office. It planned to confront the Mexican ambassador with representatives of the Zapatista Liberation Army (EZLN) at the Berlin conference.

This systematic tactic of German policy has already been successfully used in Yugoslavia. It plays the role of “mediator” between separatist organisations in order to supplant governments which it opposes. The plan by which Berlin sought to make itself “Protecting Power” of German-discovered “peoples” broke down after the protest of the Mexican embassy.

Numerous camouflaged and front organisations assist German foreign policy. Amongst them are “The European Centre for Minority Questions” (EZM/ECMI), various departments of the “Bertelsman Institute” (writing papers like “Costs, Advantages and Prospects for the European Union’s expansion to the East”) and the most recently founded “National Institute for Human Rights”. These are rapidly building on Germany’s policy of intervention, dressed in the guise of ethnic concerns.


The German care for “human rights” in central and south America is flanked by a steadily
advancing economic penetration of the sub continent. Large German corporations use the cheap labour force (amongst which are many people of indigenous origin) to create competition for the USA along its southern border.

The weight of German pressure on wages became known as the result of a three week strike in the Mexican Volkswagen plant. The International Herald Tribune reported on 6 December (2001) that the strikers at Volkswagen were campaigning against an hourly rate of around 3 dollars. Comparable hourly rates in the US were around 20 dollars and in Germany around 25 dollars.


Schroeder’s visit should speed trade with Mexico; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 28.06.2001
Diplomatic Tension between Foreign Office and Latin America ; Die Welt 04.09.2001
Strike ends at VW Mexico; International Herald Tribune 06.09.2001

22/08/2002: German Europe seeks to wrest Kaliningrad from Russia


Report date 22 July 2002
Translated on 5 August 2002

There is speculation in the German press about possible separatist movements in Kaliningrad. One of these groups is credited with a “clear concept”, a NATO operation with the goal of “a guarantee for free elections in a young republic, threatened from the East”.

According to the report in the “Tagesspiegel” the Baltic Republican Party (BRP), founded 10 years ago, is demanding independence from Russia, although the state administration is considering proceedings against it on grounds of High Treason. The party programme of the BRP envisages that Kaliningrad should attain the status of a state by means of a referendum of its inhabitants. By treaty with the Russian Federation , this should transfer to themselves the property of the territory and plenipotentiary legislative powers. Alongside the BRP there exists another “Movement Bernsteinkuste” which also wishes this name for the new state. As a first step to a sovereign state, Kaliningrad should be receptive to the retrospective name of Koenigsberg – the Tagesspiegel suggests.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper had previously speculated about ” a new form of separatism with all the unpleasant concomitants”. Solomon Ginsberg, a Liberal Deputy of the Kaliningrad Duma was reported as saying that, on account of low living standards, Kaliningrad could change “its anti bureaucratic opinion into an anti-Russian Federation opinion”.

“Young Republic, threatened by Aggression from the East”

The four pointed star on the substantially retained Russian flag of the Baltic Republican Party looks identical to the NATO logo – and that is publicly admitted to be no coincidence – according to the “Tagesspiegel”.

According to the opinion of BRP Party Leader Sergej Pasko, NATO would shortly have a “thoroughly clear concept” of “a guarantee for free elections in a young republic, threatened from the East”. In accordance with this concept, NATO manoeuvres began in March in the Polish Baltic. Three divisions and forty warships took part.


Shades of the Danzig Corridor because of the part of Europe in which this is taking place!
Shades also of the Sudetenland where Hitler instructed the “German Community Leader” Heinlein to make ever more impossible demands on the Czechoslovak state.

Source : Better off without Moscow. Party in Russia’s Exclave of Kaliningrad
demands Independence . Tagesspiel 22 July 2002

28/07/2002: German "Peace Researchers" want "Transnational civil society" for Kaliningrad


Date of Report 28 July 2002
Translated 31 July 2002

(For further reading see the book Fascist Europe Rising pages 169-171)

KIEL – An academic project of the state of Schleswig Holstein established that there was a “tendency to estrangement from Russia” in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad and investigated the possibilities of introducing a “cross-border civil society” there. There exists a “considerable appearance” that separatist opinion is gaining popularity and that a “spiral of escalation” is setting in.

The “Field research for a study of the developmental situation of a civil society in Kaliningrad” was conducted on the instructions of the Schleswig Holstein Parliament by the Schleswig Holstein Institute for Peace studies (SCHIFF). SCHIFF is financed from the budget of the state of Schleswig Holstein and directs its attention specially to “the Baltic Region of the New Europe” and here on “Beginning the development of cross-border regions”, a particular priority of German foreign policy. It co-operates with the “Centre for Minority Questions (EZM), based in Flensburg, which is a leading organisation in the “ethnic” parcelling out of Europe and is also active in Kaliningrad.

“Weak Links to the Territory”

SCHIFF says that there is presently a chance within the framework of European policy (!) “to find constructive solutions for the difficult situation of Kaliningrad”. In view of the circumstance that the future EU frontier will also be a cultural frontier (with the Latin alphabet on one side and the Cyrillic on the other) and in view of “actual minority conflicts” there could be a “horizontal and vertical dynamic” of escalation on the EU border with Kaliningrad.” Optimistically considered this could, at least, not be excluded. Unresolved problems of migration and policy on minorities developed a “life of their own” and promoted an “internal Russian destabilisation”.

SCHIFF maintains that the make-up of the whole, adult population of Kaliningrad by immigrants and descendants of first generation immigrants meant that they had “only weak links with the territory (i.e. attachment to the land)whose original culture was hardly visible or experienced because of the destruction of the Second World War and neglect of reconstruction. It was hard to develop a stable identity under these conditions.

There was a “general lack of attachment to the territory and its history” and a tendency to “estrangement from Russia”. Large sections of the politically active population of Kaliningrad felt themselves to belong to “Europe” and wished to take part in its development. All soundings of opinion among the people of Kaliningrad made it clear that there was a strong wish for change in the present status. If such an aspiration was not satisfied, there existed “a considerable possibility that the separatist current would gain in popularity”. Four to six per cent of the supporters of a “stable weak” separatist tendency is no negligible quantity but “a solid point of
departure for the politicisation of the conflict”.

“To overcome a territorially based concept of Sovereignty”

To advance European (and thereby German) influence in the “Spiral of Escalation” SCHIFF recommends support for a “Cross-Border Civil Society” in Kaliningrad. With 900 registered non-governmental organisations (NGOs) the initial conditions were “extraordinarily favourable”. Additionally many of the NGOs wanted to intensify their connections with foreign partner organisations. The “Transnational Civil Society” of Kaliningrad will involve itself further as the future first line in the “ongoing debate about internal Russian developments”. International organisations and other governments and parliaments could help. This would lead “to nothing less than the abolition of the concepts of “internal” and “foreign” and of clear borders. It would overcome the territorially based concept of sovereignty”. Such an “overlapping” would be “an innovative form of the organisation of political space” (Raum).

The memorandum, signed by the Duma of Kaliningrad and the Parliament of Schleswig Holstein on 31 January 2000 is an outstanding example. In it, both sides declare their intention to intensify co-operation with NGOs and to promote the development of civil society. Above all it is remarkable that the Russian side had returned to its mistrust of the concept of civil society as an instrument to increase Western influence. Much remains to be done if a “decidedly anti-reform politician like the Duma President, Valerii Ustjogov”, could declare “For instance, whilst visitors in the German-Russian house listen to Chopin and drink vodka, the conversation may
get tangled in discussion of supranational values. But the Germans will not succeed in this way to re-Germanise Kaliningrad”.


“Pilot Region Kaliningrad”
Hanne-Margret Birckenbach/Christian Wellmann : The Dilemma of EU Eastern
Enlargement Perspective of European Policy in the case of the North West Frontier of Russia and its Exclave of Kaliningrad;
Christian Wellmann: Historical Miscellany. The Russian Exclave of Kaliningrad as Conflict Syndrome;
Hanne-Margret Birckenbach: People of Kaliningrad seek World Citizens.
Hanne-Margret Birckenbach/Christian Wellmann with collaboration of Leonid
Karabeshkin: Civil Society in Kaliningrad. An exploratory study of the
promotion of co-operation and partnership, drawn up at the instructions of
the Parliament of Schleswig Holstein, Kiel 2000

19/07/2002: "GERMAN BELGIUM" as a model for Eastern Europe

“GERMAN BELGIUM” as a model for Eastern Europe


Date of Report 19 July 2002
Translated on 30 July 2002

KOENIGSWINTER – The states of Eastern Europe should “in part take the outstanding Belgian laws for the protection of minorities” as a model. This was demanded at a conference of the “Cultural Foundation of German Expellees” and the “Study Group for Policy and International Law (Voelkerrecht) in Koenigswinter. The German-speaking minority in Belgium uses its constitutionally guaranteed special rights to fight for further far reaching autonomy. Even secession from the Belgian State is no longer excluded from the debate.

Belgium was first constituted as a centralised, single language state on the French model. The conference heard that since the Sixties Belgium had changed into a “federal order which respects the rights of its different communities”. The Belgian laws for the protection of minorities had given the German-speaking minority political scope, which it is using to increase its autonomy. It was demanded at Koenigswinter that these regulations must also be enacted in the EU accession states. The European Framework Agreement on protection of minorities permitted the German government to concern itself in the agreement’s implementation in the internal affairs of the applicant states.

The “Study Group for Policy and International Law”, whose material is published by the “Cultural Foundation of German Expellees” was founded after the Second World War in the milieu of associations of German “Expellees”. It endeavours to create scientific and academic legitimization of German demands for the former eastern districts of the German Reich. In this connection, it specialist above all in “Minorities rights and international law”. Many prominent, influential, German international lawyers belong to it. At the conferences which it runs jointly with the Cultural Foundation of German Expellees, foreign supporters of “people’s group rights”
(Voelkergruppenrechte) regularly take part – among them members of the Hungarian civil service or of the German-speaking minority in Poland.


“VOLK” – literally translated as people or folk carries so many more layers of meaning in German that there is no single English equivalent. It comprises race, nation, community etc. The German word for international law is “Voelkerrecht” – literally “law of peoples”

Source: Specialist Conference on the State and International Law by the
Cultural Foundation of German Expellees. Upper Silesia 2/2002

18/07/2002: Autonomy for "German" Belgium


Date of report 18 July 2002
Date of Translation 27 July 2002


BRUSSELS – The “German speaking community” in East Belgium is demanding greater autonomy and wants, in the long term, to be recognised as an “equal region” in federal Belgium. The Minister President of the Community, Karl-Heinz Lambertz announced in the Belgian capital Brussels that he had opened negotiations with the Belgian Region of Wallonia. The German speaking community, which already has sole responsibility in its area for culture and education, goes back to the former Reich districts of Eupen and Malmedy which were transferred to Belgium by the Treaty of Paris (Versailles) In 1918.

The Kingdom of Belgium consists, at present, of three regions (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels) which are roughly equivalent to states of the German Federal Republic. Parallel to this , there exists an organisation of the state into three “communities” which correspond to the language frontiers within each region. The three “Communities”, amongst them the Germans, possess far reaching superior rights in education, cultural polices, the protection of memorials , family and health matters and in employment policy.


The German speaking community now wants additional powers in the parish (commune) and provincial administration. Overall planning policy (*Raumordnung – literally “spatial order”), house construction and highways, as well as agriculture should become “independent”. This follows a strategy which was unanimously endorsed at the end of 2001 in “The Council of the German Speaking Community”. There, it was decided to “go further, step by step, along the way to an increase in our autonomy”. This was demanded in a “Government statement” of the German speaking community by Lambertz. In the long term, the German speaking community should be recognised as a fourth region, alongside Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia.
Lambertz now states “We have learned to be patient but we cannot wait until St.Never’s Day” (Sankt Nimmerleins-Tag)

The Minister President of Wallonia, Van Cauwenberghe, rejected the demands and stated that the German speaking community was putting the existence of the region of Wallonia into question by its demand for autonomy. In no way was there a place for “a state within a state” and a fourth region. The inhabitants of the nine German-speaking parishes (communes) were Walloons who spoke German. These people would neither be left in the lurch nor lost and would “certainly not secede from the territory”.

Secession from the Belgian state is publicly debated in the German speaking community. In his publication “Ethnos-Nation” Lambertz has, for years, cast doubt on the continued existence of the Belgian state. This publication was distributed by the Seminar for East European History of the University of Cologne and is dedicated to the service of “ethnic minorities”. Whether the “peaceful” development of the Belgian state into a federal state “will have continued validity before the critical eye of history”, Belgium must first demonstrate – thus the opinion of Lambertz.

1. Co-publishers of “Ethnos-Nation” are Georg Brunner and Stefan Toebst. Brunner, Director of the Cologne Institute for “Eastern Rights” (i.e. of Germans!) is a known campaigner for the territorial New Order of the states of Eastern and South Eastern Europe according to principles of “ethnicity” (See Georg Brunner: National Problems and Minority Conflicts in Eastern Europe – Strategies for Europe). Troebst is well known from his many expert reports to the German Federal Governments . Since early 2000 he has been Professor of Humanities at the Centre for the Culture and History of Eastern Middle Europe in Leipzig. Previously he was Director of the “Centre for Minority Questions”, based in Flensburg which called itself “European” and was implicated in subversive activities in the Balkans. (see “German Centre for Minority Questions” in Macedonia, also “Spiritual Regionalization” and “The New Frontiers of Europe”.


“Raum” means “space” (as in Lebensraum). It is a continuing basis of German economic and political thought. The acquisition (or control) of enough of it is thought essential for civilized life. The concept also crops up in “Grossraumwirtschaft” (literally “large space economy”) – the whole rationale of the Single Market. “Space” is a very inadequate English word to translate an idea and concept which is seen as being both scientifically and mystically self-evident.


Karl-Heinz Lambertz: Belgium the Birth of a Federal State in Ethnos-Nation 1 (1993) p 49-56
Community Policy Statement at halfway point of legislative period 1999-2004
“More autonomy for German speakers” Minority in Belgium demands independent
administration – Frankfurter Allgemeimer Newspaper 16/7/02.

09/06/2002: German politicians see "world political potential" of EU Army


Date of Report 9 June 2002
Translated 15 July 2002


Politicians from government and opposition demanded the rapid unification of the military policy of the EU and the buildup of a heavily armed EU Army. This was “unconditionally” necessary if the EU was to play its proportionate role in future as a “world player”, it was said.

At a conference of the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper, Radio Deutschland Berlin and the Centre for Associated Political Research, Foreign Minister Fischer explained that, as a matter of extreme urgency, the European Union must develop into a “European Security and Defence Union” or it would only be able to play a subsidiary role in international security policy, as against Russia and the United States. Federal Chancellor Schroeder had already declared in October 2001 that the EU must use its “world political potential” and, in particular, build up its military potential.

The CDU Party Chairman Merkel complained at the conference about the growing military and technical backwardness against the only super power, the USA and demanded a massive strengthening of European “Defence Capability”.In view of the dramatic inferiority of the European s, may more “security and defence-political efforts must be undertaken. From the USA Merkel demanded that “they should be more open with the Europeans” and “give up secrecy in several technical and scientific areas”. The CDU Chairman said that strength in foreign policy would develop from the military strength of the EU.

“A Ridiculous (Laughable) Troop”

The former Inspector General of the Bundeswehr , Naumann*, demanded vehemently a strengthening of the military capabilities of the EU. Europe must grasp that it is a global power . In economic terms , it fills this role. On the other hand, politically it is a dwarf. The planned European Intervention Force of 60,000 was a ridiculous troop (laecherliche Truppe), said Naumann. Additionally, the target of making the force operational by 2003 would not be achieved.

*General Naumann was also formerly Supreme Military Commander of the Bundeswehr. In that capacity he declared “German forces will be engaged for the protection of the market and access without hindrance to the raw materials of the entire world. Like the CDU Chairman, Angela Merkel, he appears to equate political influence entirely with military capability

Sources: Fischer: Debate over far right offers an opportunity.
Merkel demands an improvement in military capabilities from the Europeans.
“Fazit”: Europa in Berlin, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 06.06.2002

Angela Merkel: Europe must believe in itself; Frankfurter Allgemeiner
Zeitung 08.06.02

19/10/2001: German Chancellor demands Worldwide Military power for EU


Date of Report 19 October 2001
Translated on 15 July 2002


The “new conception of German foreign policy” announced by Federal Chancellor Schroeder, should likewise be put into effect in the EU. The EU has to bear “worldwide responsibility” and to use its “world-political potential” according to Schroeder. To this end its military potential, in particular, must be built up.

(Further to this, the Federal Chancellor announces a new stage of German foreign policy “Worldwide German military operations”)

Schroeder demanded in a government declaration that the activities of the EU must be brought together to a conclusive (final) common, foreign security and strategic policy. Europe bore “Worldwide responsibility” and must, like German foreign policy, be ready and capable of worldwide military operations. “I mean the securing of peace and the creation of security, not only on the continent of Europe and around the edges of the European Union”

Rearmament “The Path to World Power”

German pressure for the militarisation of EU foreign policy showed a clear effect. In a declaration of heads of state or of governments of the EU and of the President of the Commission it was announced that the EU would reinforce its endeavours in other regions of the world” in order to foster a “just world-wide system of security” The Commissar for reform of the EU, Michel Barnier, demanded a “European will to power”

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE “the Will to Power ” is a classic fascist expression. You may remember Leni Riefenstahl’s film of the Nuremberg Rally. It was called “The Triumph of the Will”.

The “new conception of German foreign policy” announced by Federal Chancellor Schroeder, should likewise be put into effect in the EU. The EU has to bear “worldwide responsibility” and to use its “world-political potential” according to Schroeder. To this end its military potential, in particular, must be built up.

(Further to this, the Federal Chancellor announces a new stage of German foreign policy “Worldwide German military operations”)

Schroeder demanded in a government declaration that the activities of the EU must be brought together to a conclusive (final) common, foreign security and strategic policy. Europe bore “Worldwide responsibility” and must, like German foreign policy, be ready and capable of worldwide military operations. “I mean the securing of peace and the creation of security, not only on the continent of Europe and around the edges of the European Union”

SOURCES: declaration of German Federal Government by Federal Chancellor Schroeder at the European Council of 18 October 2001, Ghent.
Declaration of Heads of State or Government of the EU and of the President of the Commission.
Measures to combat terrorism and measures following the terror attack of 11 September 2001 (SN 4296/2/01 REV2) Brussels 19 October 2001
Commissar demands European Will to Power, Financial Times , Germany, 19 October 2001

© 2017 Freenations