The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation or the Holy German Empire of European Nations?! Who or what are the people who are branded as “Reichsbürger” (Reich citizens) with killer arguments?

Plea for a new foreign policy doctrine

Any criticism of the existing situation, the exposure of the legends of those currently ruling over us, is almost without exception killed by the mainstream media and the established party-political elite of the Federal Republic of Germany with accusations of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, as if criticism of rapid vaccination approvals, restrictions on basic rights and deprivation of liberty due to a supposed “epidemic situation of national proportions”, criticism of global financial capitalism, the imperialism of the USA and its allies and the neoliberal predatory capitalism of the past 35 years were a question of being Jewish or left-wing.

It is strange who puts on which shoe without being asked, because why should “Corona” or the financial crisis have anything to do with just one population group or religious community? Why is it claimed that critics of the Corona regulations, the “Infection Protection Act” or the banking union are anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers?

To put it the other way around, is the good citizen who bravely swallows the lies of those who rule over us and the mainstream media like bitter medicine, a good democrat and thus an anti-fascist who stands on the side of the Jews and Israel?!

This impression is deliberately fueled in order to have killer arguments at hand and to simplify things: anyone who questions the restrictions on basic rights and the obligation to wear masks must be a NAZI who is against Jews and bankers.

And if you quote the Basic Law, West-Germany’s post-WW II provisional “constitution” with its wonderfully liberal articles on freedom of opinion, human dignity and the commandment of peace, or even demand denazification in accordance with Article 139 and a constitutional assembly in accordance with Article 146 of the Basic Law, you are pejoratively categorised as a “Reich citizen” and thus lumped together with people who fly the Reich war flag next to the garden gnomes in their front garden, dress in fantasy uniforms, allow themselves to be addressed as “Highness”, print their own driving licenses and passports, refuse to pay the broadcasting fee because they prefer to watch private trash TV and shopping channels instead of wanting to understand the meaning of an informative and educational broadcast, just because their own narrow-minded opinion is not being dominantly represented. “Reich citizen” is the slap in the face these days. These cheap propaganda tricks only work because the corresponding decades of brainwashing by the state and corporate media have left their mark.

Legal status of “Germany”

In order to understand the need for a constitution, it is essential to look in detail at historical facts, which in their entirety must be regarded as irrefutably true, whether it suits you or not. This applies to the enlightened citizen of the 21st century who comes across as completely “woke” and believes LGBTQ to be God’s will, as well as to the petty-bourgeois racist who, as a “Reich citizen”, claims to have picked up a few fragments of international law and radically quotes excerpts from them as soon as a bailiff shows up.

These loudmouths who hurl “high treason!” at every magistrate because they only represent a “BRD GmbH” (Federal Republic of Germany – corporation) and have no right to impose disciplinary measures against them are no more right than those who speak of a customary law of a lived “constitutional reality”, which is also represented by the Basic Law and the Federal Republic of Germany. The population has lived quite well under the Basic Law in the Federal Republic of Germany for decades and there was little sign of oppression, unless, yes, unless questions were raised about the provisional substitute “constitution” Basic Law and the missing peace treaty. In that case, the apparatus reacts highly aggressively to this day.

You are not allowed to ask these questions. But you have to ask them, otherwise we will never find our way out of the vicious circle of US paternalism and indirect participation in wars as a commissioned vassal.

As a journalist in Moscow on February 11, 1990, I asked Chancellor Helmut Kohl after his conversation with Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev about a constitution for the unified Germany and Mr. Kohl replied: “We will have to create a constitution.” ARD and ZDF, the evil public television, broadcast it exactly the same way. Great, I said to the Chancellor and then asked Mr. Gorbachev whether he saw it that way too, and the President replied that the Chancellor had told him that too and that he, Gorbachev, had also proposed a peace treaty for the whole of Germany on behalf of the USSR, including the Kaliningrad region, for which he wanted 50 billion DM in “compensation”. I was delighted, but Gorbachev shook his head regretfully. “The Americans won’t allow that,” he said, dampening my hopes.

Nevertheless, as soon as I returned to Bonn, I set out to establish a preparatory constitutional assembly and to proclaim the German Congress in accordance with Article 146 of the Basic Law. Before that, I had worked on the subcommittee for a constitution at the German Democratic Republic’s “Round Table”, that had been established under pressure from revolutionary demonstrations and so we founded an all-German committee, the “Deutschlandkongress”.

In the course of the rapid “reunification”, however, this was quickly forgotten. All GDR citizens had been to the West at some point, had been talked into buying overpriced used cars and pointless insurance, had been harassed by the “Treuhandanstalt” (Trust Agency of the German Unity government dominated by West German politicians), which implemented the sell-off and deindustrialization of the former GDR with social devastation in the most brutal way possible for the benefit of the Western ruling circles, and thus had other things to worry about than thinking about a constitution and a peace treaty. The issue only became acute again when basic rights were suspended with the help of a demonstrably staged fake pandemic that was intended to conceal the collapse of the neoliberal economic model and the simultaneous preparations for the NATO-war against Russia on the territory of Ukraine.

People who had previously lived rather apolitical lives were suddenly startled as if they had been stung by a tarantula and developed a sense of political injustice. They showed solidarity and informed themselves, and so millions of people became politically active, mostly for the first time in their lives. The call for a constitution grew louder as the Basic Law was reduced to absurdity and as it became clearer that the announcements in the Ukraine war came from Washington and that German weapons were to be used against Russia for the third time in 100 years, the more people questioned German sovereignty and the peace treaty that has not yet been signed.

Social Democratic (SPD) politician Professor Carlo Schmid stated in the Parliamentary Council in Bonn in 1948 that a constitution is the highest norm of a state. It describes the territorial structure of the state, the relationship to the member states and the people, and regulates the structure of the state. The first restriction is that the Allies imposed certain content on us for the Basic Law; furthermore, that it was not the people of the state who discussed and passed the Basic Law. It was the Parliamentary Council that, after it had discussed and passed the Basic Law, had to submit it to the occupying Alliied powers for approval. It should be noted that a constitution approved by a foreign power is not a constitution of a free and sovereign state with true popular sovereignty.

But who is “the people”? The correct nationality of the Germans is not regulated by the Basic Law, although it claims so. In Germany, the Reich and Nationality Law (RuStAG) of July 22, 1913 is still in force today.

§1 Definition of “German”: A German is someone who has the nationality of a federal state (§§ 3 – 32) or direct nationality of the Reich (§§ 3 – 35). A German is someone who has… direct German nationality of the Reich (according to the Federal Republic of Germany). Therefore, the nationality of every German is: Germany in the German Reich. Everything else is a deception under international law and in legal terms!

The Federal Republic of Germany has expired de jure under international law. Article 116 of the Basic Law stipulates the limits within which the constitution must come into force. The date of Article 116 is incorrect, however, and only underlines the recognition of the dictates of the victorious powers when creating the Basic Law. Article 116 of the Basic Law specifies who may call themselves a German citizen. It states, quote: “A German within the meaning of this Basic Law is, subject to other legal regulations, anyone who has German citizenship or who has found refuge in the territory of the German Reich as of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such a person.”

The Two Plus Four – Sovereignty Lie

The German Reich still exists within its international legal borders today in 2024. The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (2+4 Treaty) of September 12, 1990 is void, since neither a provisional Federal Republic of Germany under occupation law nor a provisional German Democratic Republic under occupation law may negotiate the borders of “Germany as a whole”. This remains the sole preserve of the people of the German Reich, or rather their international legal representation. Likewise, only the latter can sign peace treaties with other states or create peace treaty regulations.

The Federal Republic of Germany is an administration of the United Economic Area and therefore cannot sign any international treaties that affect the borders of the German Reich. The fact that the “2 + 4 Treaty” is not a final peace treaty can be seen from the fact that Articles 53 and 107 of the UN Charter (enemy state clauses) are still valid.

The Unification Treaty of August 31, 1990 (BGBI. 1990, Part II, page 890) is void. The reason is very simple: Article 1 of the Unification Treaty states that the states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia will become states of the Federal Republic of Germany on October 3, 1990, in accordance with Article 23 of the Basic Law. However, Article 23 of the Basic Law was repealed by the Allies on July 17, 1990, due to the Allies’ reservation rights to the Basic Law, with effect from July 18, 1990, 00:00 CEST (BGBI, 1990, Part II, page 890 see the summarized annual report in the constitutional library in Washington, USA).

As a result, the former German Democratic Republic of Germany (GDR) could not legally join at that time. This meant that no citizen of the former GDR could join the territorial scope of the Basic Law. I was present at the negotiations in Paris as a journalist and questioned US Secretary of State James Baker, the Federal Republic of Germany’s Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher and the GDR’s Foreign Minister Markus Meckel, and all three confirmed to me that this was indeed the case, but that the GDR’s intention to join the Federal Republic of Germany had already been declared.

That is true, but declared is not documented, because the Unification Treaty was not signed until a month and a half later, on August 31, 1990. Every first-semester law student knows that no legal transaction can be retroactively valid. Likewise, a law must have a scope of application, otherwise it is invalid. With the deletion of Article 23 of the Basic Law, the only article that states where the Basic Law should apply was deleted. Strictly speaking, and one must do this if one is concerned with law and legislation, the Basic Law was no longer valid by July 18, 1990 at the latest. The GDR still had a constitution, so that the FRG could have joined the GDR, but this was obviously not politically desired.

From a legal point of view, the unification treaty is void because no treaty is necessary to reunite two German states that were separated for administrative reasons and were both provisional.

The only term used under international law and in legal terms is: Germany in the German Reich. This term is binding for the German Reich and all parts of Germany that are still occupied within the borders of July 31, 1914.

The “reunification” of the so-called Western Zone with the so-called Eastern Zone (Central Germany) was carried out illegally by both the Allies and the government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the government of the GDR, with knowledge of international law and the Reich Constitution.

Invalidity of the Basic Law

Article 23 of the Basic Law, which defined the scope of the Basic Law and the possibility of accession, was deleted from the Basic Law before the new states joined. This means that

A) the GDR’s accession under Article 23 of the Basic Law was no longer possible and

B) the Basic Law has expired because it no longer has any scope of application.

Article 146 of the Basic Law confirms the expiration, quote: “This Basic Law, which applies to the entire German people after the completion of the unity and freedom of Germany, loses its validity on the day on which a constitution comes into force that has been freely decided upon by the German people.”

This means that the completion of unity has not yet occurred, the real “reunification” is still to come. Complete sovereignty is also still not given, since the occupation rights have not yet been revoked by any official note from the Allies. In terms of concurrent legislation, Article 23 of the Basic Law is a farce, because the same article can never have two different texts, because the old Article 23 and the new Article 23 are not identical in meaning and wording, so the Basic Law would also be void for this reason.

What and where is the Federal Republic of Germany?

“German Reich” or “Germany within the borders of December 31, 1937” is a historical misinterpretation by those who are not fully familiar with the Versailles Treaty or the Alliied Powers S.H.A.E.F. laws. December 31, 1937 was first named at the Foreign Ministers’ Conference in Moscow in 1943 as the date for defining the German Reich’s borders before the territorial expansion by Hitler’s fascism. In the London Protocol of 1944, at the Potsdam Conference of 1945, and in several subsequent legal acts, the victorious powers of the time referred to this date in order to capture “Germany as a whole” in geographical terms as it stood after the First World War.

The borders of December 31, 1937 are absolutely identical to the borders that resulted from the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919 and were contractually established by the USA in a separate peace treaty of August 25, 1921 between the USA and Germany. This treaty was enacted as law on October 20, 1921 by the Reichsrat and the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic for the then divided Germany, without Alsace, West Prussia, Posen, etc. Simply put, the application of the borders of December 31, 1937 means the recognition of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 and the separate peace treaty with the USA of 1921.

The mention of the “borders of December 31, 1937” in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany and “Greater Berlin” as a part of the Federation confirms that the Federal Republic of Germany is only a legal successor to the two foreign-controlled state fragments of the Weimar Republic and the Greater German Reich and not “Germany as a whole” as it existed before the Versailles Treaty. The following is of global political importance:

“Germany as a whole” is the German nation state (federal territory) with its federal states within the borders of July 31, 1914 (one day before the start of the First World War). Germany is a part of the German Reich, which united into an “eternal federation” with the constitution of April 16, 1871 in the spirit of German unity.

In view of the true unity of Germany (1871), the nation state of Germany was formed for the first time within the legal sphere of the German Reich. This is also clearly evident from the Reich and Citizenship Law of July 22, 1913.

Anyone who recognizes the Federal Republic of Germany as a sovereign state on the land of the German Reich recognizes the Federal Republic of Germany as the legal successor of the Greater German Reich, which is proven by the UN enemy states clause. This means that the Allied military laws, the Reich Concordat, the Weimar Republic, the Versailles dictate in all its facets and consequences are accepted and national sovereignty is renounced.

It is pointless to deny the Federal Republic of Germany, because anyone who applies Article 146 of the Basic Law declares themselves a “Reich citizen” and refuses to recognize the actual German Reich Constitution, is often argued, and there is actually logic in this idea, because the enforced borders were never recognized by the Federal Presidency of the German Reich with the consent of the Federal Council and the Reichstag. These borders (December 31, 1937 and June 28, 1919) are only legally binding for the non-governmental trade organizations of the Weimar Republic, the Greater German Reich, the United Economic Area, the old and new Federal Republic of Germany, and the GDR.

Legal relationship between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Reich

There are many reasons for the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling (which federation, which constitution, one might ask): With the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany, no new West German state was founded, but rather a part of Germany was reorganized (as Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid said in his speech at the 6th session of the Parliamentary Council in Bonn 1948- StenBer p. 70).

The Federal Republic of Germany is therefore not the “legal successor” of the German Reich, but as a subject of international law it is identical to the German Reich – in terms of its spatial extent, however, it is “partially identical”, so that in this respect the identity does not claim exclusivity. The Federal Republic therefore does not encompass the whole of Germany in terms of its population and territory, without prejudice to the fact that it must recognize a unified national people of the subject of international law of the German Reich, to which its own territory also belongs as an inseparable part. In constitutional law, it limits its sovereign power to the “scope of the Basic Law” (see BVerfGE 3, 288 [319f]; 6, 309 [338, 363]), but pretends to be responsible for the whole of Germany (see the preamble to the Basic Law).

The following should be noted regarding the continued existence of the German Reich beyond the Greater German Reich and May 8, 1945:

In a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court, it is stated that the Basic Law – not just a thesis of international law and constitutional law – assumes that the German Reich survived the collapse in 1945 and did not perish with the merely military capitulation or through the exercise of foreign state power in Germany by the Allied occupying powers;

At this point, it is important to draw attention to the expulsion, expropriation of Germans and confiscation of property by the Polish government in the eastern territories. According to all rules of human and international rights, all international rules and agreements, the Germans affected have the right to have their right to property, dignity and homeland recognized for the damage they have suffered, because the property rights of the Germans affected have never been called into question by any government or administration.

This also corresponds to the consistent case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, which the Senate adheres to. The German Reich continues to exist:

Judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court:

a) BVerfG 2266 [277]

b) BVerfG 3288 [319 f.]

d) BVerfG 585 [126]

e) BVerfG 6309 [336, 363]

The German Reich still has legal capacity, but as a unified state it was not able to act due to a lack of organization, in particular due to a lack of institutionalized bodies. The all-German people and the all-German state power and responsibility for “Germany as a whole” are anchored in the Basic Law and in all treaties between those responsible in the Federal Republic of Germany and other contracting parties. The Basic Law is neither a constitution nor a law that regulates or satisfies the interests of the German people 79 years after the end of the war. During its existence, the Basic Law was constantly amended, which shows the inadequacy of this collection of paragraphs. From the outset, the Basic Law was a collection of laws that was enacted in accordance with the Hague Convention on Land Warfare “Article 43” to restore public order.

The Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which can only apply to the German Reich, states in Article 43 [Restoration of public order]:

“After the lawful power has actually passed into the hands of the occupying power, the latter must take all measures within its power to restore and maintain public order and public life as far as possible, and in compliance with the laws of the country, unless there is an urgent obstacle.”

The Basic Law was never a German constitution. The Basic Law does not regulate the needs of the German people, nor does the Basic Law have validity for the German people after the “reunification”, which is valid for the Federal Republic of Germany.

Article 146 of the Basic Law stipulated the duration of the Basic Law: “This Basic Law, which applies to the entire German people after the completion of the unity and freedom of Germany, ceases to be valid on the day on which a constitution comes into force that was freely decided upon by the German people.”

The only constitution valid for Germany in its entirety under international law and freely decided upon to date is the Imperial Constitution of the German Empire of April 16, 1871. An amendment to meet today’s needs will be necessary as soon as the constitution is reinstated as a valid Imperial Constitution and the people have completed the unity and freedom of Germany through free self-determination.

In contrast, the preamble to the Basic Law was amended as follows:

“In the awareness of its responsibility before God and mankind, animated by the will to preserve its national and state unity and to serve peace in the world as an equal member in a united Europe, the German people have given themselves this Basic Law by virtue of their constituent power. The Germans in the states of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia have, through free self-determination, completed the unity and freedom of Germany. This Basic Law therefore applies to the entire German people.” What free self-determination are we talking about here?! There was no debate and no vote.

Now to the definition of the state or national borders:

According to the general rules of applicable interstate law (international law), the territorial status of a state is determined by the status on the day before the outbreak of war. According to applicable international law, the borders of July 31, 1914 are therefore binding for the German Reich, or otherwise the borders of August 31, 1939 must be assumed to be valid. The different dates depend on how one evaluates the “Treaty of Versailles” of June 26, 1919.

To justify this, it should be noted that if one starts from the date August 31, 1939, this in no way means that the Versailles Dictate was recognized as a valid treaty. The Versailles Treaty established the borders of the German Reich – effective January 20, 1920 – which, as far as the eastern border of the Reich was concerned, were never recognized by any Reich or federal government.

A legal review of the current legal situation regarding the “Treaty of Versailles or Dictate” states: The question of whether a dictate is considered a contract and can therefore have a binding effect is a question of various views. As far as private law is concerned, it is generally believed that a contract concluded under duress is void. As far as international law is concerned, legal interpretations differ. The decisive criterion here is usually who dictates and who has to accept it. The Treaty of Versailles was, in the opinion of the victorious powers of the First World War, a valid treaty and thus a binding one for the states that had signed it.

If the USA did not actually sign the “Treaty of Versailles”, this would mean that this “Treaty” never became effective in the relationship between the USA and Germany. From this fact, it cannot be concluded that the “Versailles Peace Treaty/Dictate” had no legal effect for those states that signed this treaty. The “Treaty” in question is therefore to be regarded as a dictate and thus legally ineffective. Therefore, according to the norms of current international law, the borders for the German Reich must be taken as those on the last day before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. This day was July 31, 1914.

Enemy state forever?!

Since, according to the definition of the UN Charter, the Greater German Reich is the enemy state, a peace treaty with the USA or other states after the Second World War is also unnecessary, especially since the USA is ruthlessly continuing and expanding its occupation policy. (After Germany in 1945, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Palestine, partly Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine and Syria.

It is rather unlikely that the USA will agree to a peace treaty. After the Second World War, the occupying troops illegally removed and used 300,000 German patents and 250,000 partially German foreign patents that were stored in Germany under the orders of the Supreme Commander Mr. Eisenhower (including the order: “Paperclip”). According to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, the patents must be compensated for and any profits for patents used must be paid to the country from which the patents come. The rocket patents alone would bring the German Reich 28.3 trillion gold marks with interest.

If, however, one assumes that the Versailles Treaty “dictate” is legally binding, then the following applies: The territory of the German Reich was defined by the Treaty of Versailles, which was concluded before the outbreak of war in September 1939. “Anschluss” (Accession) of Austria, enlarged by the incorporation of the Sudeten German territories and New Swabia. The Reich thus received the borders that existed on August 31, 1939. In accordance with this view, negotiations on a peace treaty with the German Reich would have to be based on the borders of August 31, 1939. The formula “Germany within the borders of 31.12.1937” is not correct from an international law perspective, but it is applicable through the Versailles dictate (identical borders) and the determination of the United Nations (but only if their legitimacy guarantees a legally binding character).

The borders of the German Reich as they are recorded at the UN and as they appear to be legally binding de facto are those as they existed on 31.12.1937. The legal situation of Austria, which joined the German Reich in 1938 with an overwhelming majority (contrary to the Versailles dictate) but was returned to its 1937 status in 1945, will not be discussed here, unless one wants to clarify in advance the question of whether there is even a sovereign Austrian nation of its own. The latter has not yet been clarified under international law.

Whoever, as the provisional administration of the “FRG” always tries to do, wants to control the whole of “Germany” to limit it to the territory of the “Federal Republic of Germany” is constantly committing treason against sovereign Germany or the German Empire.

The name “Germany” is associated with many eras in many documents. There was the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation”, after 1814 the “German Confederation” and from 1871 the “German Empire”. This German Empire never collapsed, so it still exists today within its borders according to the norms of current international law, as shown above. The German Empire is not the “Greater German Empire” as it was after the end of World War II.

A word about the world wars for which Germany is made solely responsible:

World War I:

From an international law perspective, the causes of the war lay in the tensions that had existed between France and Germany since 1870-71. The Pan-Slavic movement could not cope with the defeat against Austria and so the German Empire incurred the hostility of Russia because it supported the Danube Monarchy and signed a support pact intended as a defensive measure in the event of an attack. England saw the development of the submarine fleet as preparation for war and felt threatened. The external cause was the murder of the Austro-Hungarian heir to the throne Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914 together with his wife in Sarajevo.

This act of terror prompted Austria to launch a sharp counterattack. The ultimatum of July 23, 1914 brought Russia into action. The alliances forced Germany to side with Austria. Although Germany and England threw all diplomatic relations into the balance until the last moment, Austria’s demand for a military conflict could not be prevented. According to international lawyers from all over the world, Germany was not to blame for the outbreak of the war.

Since July 1914, efforts were made to attribute sole blame to Germany. An Entente Commission had drawn up a report on March 29, 1919, according to which Germany was solely to blame for the war. Due to an ultimatum from the Allies on June 16, 1919, the German Reich had to accept sole blame in Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, despite protests from the German side. The Treaty of Versailles is therefore to be viewed as a dictate and is internationally worthless. The German Reich subsequently paid the increased reparations, but never accepted sole blame. Factual historical research, including by the enemy states at the time, proved the theory of Germany’s unilateral guilt to be untenable.

With the international annulment of this thesis, the Treaty of Versailles was finally classified as a dictate and a farce as an international treaty. (See G.E.Barnes: “Genesis of the world war”; L.Bourgeois and Pagès: Les Origines et les responsabilités de la grande guerre (1921); S.B.Fay: The origins of the world war, 2 vols. (1928 and 1930)

World War III or continuation of World War I

The so-called Second World War did not fall from the sky either and of course the genome of evil was personified in Hitler, but without the powerful people of the Düsseldorf Industrial Club, where the nobility, owners of German heavy industry and bankers met and who wholeheartedly supported Hitler, the simple angry private of the First World War, who probably also hated Jews because his own father was Jewish but had left the family in poverty, would never have become “the Führer”.

These major industrialists and bankers, some of them ironically Jewish, they thought they had found a puppet in Hitler until he turned against some of his supporters in 1938. The New York Times wrote after Kristallnacht on November 9, 1938 that those Jews who had previously supported Hitler would abandon him.

The Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 1939 did not suit the US imperialists, who wanted to see Hitler installed as a bulwark against Bolshevism. Until his death, Stalin had been puzzled over the question of why Hitler betrayed him just two years later, on June 22, 1941, which would sooner or later lead to his own downfall. I suspect that the US secret services were able to blackmail Hitler, because if it had come out that Hitler was half-Jewish, he would have been sent to his own concentration camps. In my interview with Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess in the Allied prison in Berlin Spandau on June 20, 1987, he suggested that this might have been the case. But he claims not to have known it. In any case, Hess had no other explanation for Hitler’s betrayal of Stalin. He had already flown to Great Britain shortly beforehand. Two months after our conversation, Hess was dead.

It would at least fit into the pattern of US thinking, because even in recent times double agents of the US secret services have been exposed again and again, some of them have made it far, just think of Saddam Hussein, who was installed by the USA against Iran and who was then let walk into a trap (Kuwait) when it seemed appropriate, or the strange connections between the bin Laden clan and the Bush family.

On March 21, 1939, Hitler proposed an agreement to Poland under which the Free City of Danzig would be reunited with the German Reich. It was the wish of the people of Danzig and Germany that an extraterritorial transport connection to East Prussia should be established through the Polish corridor. The Polish government rejected this request on March 26, 1939. Through their Berlin ambassador, they verbally pointed out that pursuing the German reintegration plan would mean war with Poland. A partial mobilization on the Danzig border showed the seriousness of the decision. The situation became tense due to never-ending mutual provocations and the fact that the victorious USA did not feel it necessary to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which ensured the intended bleeding of the German Reich in the West.

The British government concluded a British-Polish mutual assistance pact on August 25, 1939. It was agreed that negotiations between Germany, England and Poland would take place. On August 29, Hitler agreed that a Polish negotiator would come to Berlin to save the peace. The negotiator did not appear, however, and Polish troops attacked border posts on the Polish-German border and announced general mobilization on the afternoon of August 30, 1939. Hitler then waited until August 31, 1939 for a signal from Poland and after a staged false flag border raid by SS officers disguised as Polish soldiers, he gave the order to attack Poland at 4:45 a.m. on September 1, 1939 with the words: “Starting at 4:45 a.m. today, we will shoot back!”

From America’s perspective, however, the Second World War never took place under international law; it was merely a continuation of the fighting in the First World War, in which the USA declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917.

After the end of the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles came into force in 1920, but this was only a “sham peace treaty” and was only signed by the “revolutionary government” under protest (although it was never legally binding). From the USA’s perspective, history looks like this: The USA entered the war on April 6, 1917 by declaring war on Germany.

An end to more than 100 years of war and occupation is in sight, even if the Federal Republic of Germany has done the opposite so far, while enlightenment has increased. Whether the “Treaty of Versailles” is viewed as a dictate, since it was clearly created under duress and signed by the German side “under protest”, will be decided by the discovery of the truth. A dictate is not a valid treaty under international law, but the legislators agreed to proceed according to the UN regulations.

The UN Charter does not apply to the German Reich, because the enemy state according to the enemy states clause associated with a so-called Second World War was not the German Reich but the “Greater German Reich”.

The UN Charter makes it clear what this is all about. Article 53 of the Charter of the United Nations states:

“(1) The Security Council shall, where appropriate, have recourse to such regional arrangements or agencies to take coercive measures under its authority. No coercive measures may be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, except for measures against an enemy state as defined in paragraph 2, insofar as they are provided for in Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against the resumption of aggression by such a state; the exception shall apply until the Organization is assigned the task of preventing new aggression by such a state at the request of the governments concerned.

(2) The term “enemy state” in paragraph 1 means any state which was an enemy of a signatory to this Charter during the Second World War.”

EU or the Holy German Reich of European Nations

By peaceful means, through skilful negotiations and economic power, the FRG administration was able to force all 9 neighbouring states and also adjacent states into the EU, which was dominated by German industry and political lobbyists, by creating a pull effect that made it seem advantageous to want to join. In reality, it only paid off indirectly for most members outside core Europe, as Brussels invested in pan-European infrastructure. Of course, this was also in the interest of industries in Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Austria, as it made it easier to sell their goods. However, all other states quickly recorded trade deficits with the FRG and were thus made dependent, while the FRG was able to increase its exports mainly to the EU.

The European Roundtable of Industrialists (ERT) has more power than the EU Commission and Council of Ministers and is dominated by German representatives. Retail chains such as Aldi and LIDL and a European road and rail transport network enabled the success of the Federal Republic of Germany’s economy.

It can therefore be said that the Federal Republic of Germany in particular benefited from European unification. In this respect, it is fair to say that with the EU’s eastward expansion in 2004, the Federal Republic of Germany achieved peacefully what Hitler could not do with force of arms and terror: the complete economic and political subjugation of the European continent.

It is therefore completely unnecessary, if not detrimental, to want to restore the German Reich to the borders of July 31, 1914, because with the exception of the Russian-occupied region of Kaliningrad-Königsberg, this has de facto been the case since 2004. Anyone can settle anywhere in the EU, buy a piece of land, a house or an apartment, start a business or take up a job, retire, enroll their children in kindergarten, school and training centers or enroll in a university, be treated and cared for in hospitals, exercise almost all civil rights and even have them buried, so why for God’s sake reopen old wounds and think in nationalistic, ethnic or racist terms when the goal of unity of a living and economic area has long been achieved in the EU and the German voice is even the most audible in all EU institutions?! Why risk a war with neighboring countries in order to be able to say in Alsace, but Wissembourg is actually called Weissenburg, or in Poland Gdansk, Danzig?! Everyone who lives there or goes there to visit knows that anyway.

Only in the case of Kaliningrad-Königsberg is this different and there it would indeed make a difference and I have some personal comments to make on this last aspect of the German question, as I was involved in it myself when the negotiations on the so-called “German unity” took place in Moscow on February 11, 1990.

Missed opportunity or a peace solution with Russia

Germans and Russians have much more in common than what divides us. Culturally, mentally, historically and economically, it is only politically that there are always problems. The latter is mostly due to external, geopolitical factors. It can also be said that every time Germans and Russians get closer, the US imperialists step in and shoot the lock of the door in which we currently have one foot. This has only been different twice in Russian-German history and was a great success for both sides. The first time was during the Hanseatic League, when Russian cities such as Novgorod and Smolensk also took part around the year 1500, and the second time was during the time of Catherine the Great, the German Tsarina of Russia.

In 1998 I once spoke with Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had just announced that two thirds of Britain’s gold reserves would be stored in Frankfurt so that they would have a foot in the door if they did want to join the European Monetary Union, which was indeed the plan of New Labour under Anthony Blair. I laughed and asked if he thought he would ever get the gold back? Brown looked at me in amazement. We should not forget who won the Second World War, he said shortly. I replied that this was not entirely clear, because if I looked at the economic data and the political influence in Europe, one could come to the conclusion that the Federal Republic of Germany was about to achieve by peaceful means what Hitler could not achieve by force of arms and terror: German dominance over the entire continent. Brown then quickly said goodbye, because his boss, Prime Minister Blair, entered the room. I wondered if he would tell him about our short discussion.

Now that we have examined all the arguments of the so-called “Reichsbürger”, we can ask the simple question: What do you want and what do you think can be achieved under the real circumstances without war? It is clear that after our missed opportunity in Moscow in 1990 to separate Kaliningrad from the Soviet Union, which collapsed shortly afterwards anyway, this would not happen again.

Gorbachev was weak; he did not even demand any guarantee from the Americans in the form of a state treaty that NATO would not be expanded. Mere handshake agreements and friendly conversations in a Caucasian sauna are not enough for such things; we have seen this impressively for decades of NATO expansion and US imperialism, which is likely to flare up again under Trump, as can be seen from his appetite for Greenland, the Panama Canal and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

So what would be the peaceful alternative to change the status of Kaliningrad-Königsberg by mutual agreement? I have spoken to Russian politicians about this for many years and I know that they would never simply give it back, which would really mean another expulsion, this time of Russians, from the area and of course would not be peaceful.

The idea came to me when President Putin gave his much-noticed and applauded speech in the German Bundestag in 2001 and spoke of the European house that we would have to build together. I immediately thought of Kaliningrad and that this could be the Russian window in our common European house.

In the meantime, I have found open doors among many Russian politicians when I suggest that the area could be made into a special economic and constitutional zone where East and West meet, with a joint administration based on a New Hanseatic League, with sovereign rights remaining Russian, but with visa-free entry, simplified settlement procedures similar to those of the EU and support in every respect for the economy, culture and peace. For Russia, this would also eliminate the problem of the Suwalki gap, the 120 km corridor between NATO states Poland and Lithuania, where tensions are always to be expected. If, as part of a peace treaty, Kaliningrad is recognized as Russian territory and a joint administration is set up at the same time, this also includes a joint Russian-European security structure. NATO will then no longer have a say. When I said this in my speech in Kaliningrad on the 300th anniversary of Immanuel Kant’s birth, there was a lot of applause.

Back to the question. After considering all the arguments of the “Reichsbürger”, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that only a sovereign Germany in a united Europe can be beneficial for securing peace. The “Reichsbürger” may be right on some points. But being right does not mean getting justice, and if the other side is not prepared to negotiate, then what then?! Violence?! That would mean a third, or as Henry Kissinger, no more a “Reichsbürger” than Carlo Schmid, called it, a second Thirty Years’ War, and regardless of whether it is the second or third World War, it would definitely be the last.

repeating the proclamation for a constitution on 29th August 2020 in Berlin: