5 Comments

Merkel’s removal of Section of 80 seems like kind of a bombshell (excuse the warlike metaphor) that I don’t think got any English-language media coverage. Interesting and disturbing.

As for there never having been a true cessation of the state of war between Germany and the WW2 allies, I’m not equipped to debate it in depth, but I’m not sure I see what would have constituted a surrender by the state as opposed to just a capitulation by the Wehrmacht. Jodl signed the surrender at the direction of Dönitz; to the extent the German state and government still existed at that point, I don’t see what else was required or possible.

Expand full comment

Agreed on the latter point--it's a technical, if not entirely 'academic' issue. That said, I tend to consider this all a 'ruse' to provoke Russia in 'firing the first shot' at 'the West'. If that's indeed the case (and I've seen plenty of Russian and Russian-aligned 'pieces' indicating that Moscow is contemplating abrogation of the 2+4 Treaty), I doubt that Russia would fall for it.

Moreover, the issue about the capitulation of the Wehrmacht vs. Nazi Germany as a whole--I agree with your argument but I would still consider the 'debate' relevant as German legal scholars learn and teach the above-cited version.

The point here being not 'what else was required or possible'--but, again, the implications: for Russia, if there never was a peace treaty (because either the 2+4 Treaty is kinda fake/void or Germany never surrendered), it makes 'going back to war' a much easier 'sales pitch' domestically'; for Germany and 'the West', this would be arguably worse for it would both 'prove Hitler right' and destroy the entire post-WW2 mythology about that conflict.

I don't know enough about Russia, but I think if you remove the proverbial 'capstone' of the master narrative about WW2, who knows what will happen next…

Expand full comment

"...tread carefully for they are dealing with morons."

like it :)

Expand full comment

Well, I'm glad--but the implications of 'idiocracy' are--stunning.

Expand full comment

These things are best explained by the fact that the West is not a conglomeration of countries but a supranational empire of vassal states. It is most important to understand that the USA, the current apparent center of this empire is also a vassal. Empires are not rooted in laws but in raw power. Imperial treaties (and all other laws) are merely legal constructs of that which power has wrought but wishes to provide a sheen of legitimacy. These can be safely ignored when the power demands it. This becomes clearly visible when many such legal constructs are so easily ignored when that serves the imperial power. This particular case can be viewed as a proof of this imperial reality.

Vassal states cannot even act in their own “national” interest; they must follow imperial edicts even when they clearly injure the interests of people which reside in their jurisdictions. How can that be? There is no national sovereignty left. Vassals are ruled directly through embedded deep state structures.

Without understanding our reality we cannot possibly affect change through the Potemkin Village of our “democratic” governance simply because they no longer posses the required sovereign power. Trying to bring changes thought existing political institutions will always feel like pushing on a rope.

Expand full comment