Woe to the Vanquished: Germany 'hasn't been sovereign since 8 May 1945', is a full-blown satrapy of the Washington--a call for high treason proceedings

Nothing new under the sun, but 'our leaders' become more brazen by the day while, with each passing day, more and more of the pretence of popular sovereignty vanishes before our eyes

As is well-known, Germany lost WWII, was occupied by the victors to ensure that German militarism was done with, and eventually partitioned in 1948/49. Two statelets, the Federal Republic (W. G) and the German Democratic Republic (East G.) emerged, both as clients of their respective sponsors, the US and the USSR. By the late 1980s, the Soviet system cracked up, and while the two Germanies were eventually permitted to ‘re-unite’ under the auspices of the US-sponsored client régime in Bonn (that soon moved to Berlin), there was much more to this event that meets the eye.

Let’s keep a brief scoring board: in early May 1945, what remained of Hitler’s Germany signed over its sovereignty to the victors, first to the ‘Western’ Allies in Reims (8 May) and a day later, at Moscow’s insistence, in bombed out Berlin.

The Second World War in Europe (1939-45) was over. It had ended with the destruction of Germany, arguably a tremendous success story of the bourgeois era that had commenced little over two generations earlier. This isn’t merely my opinion, however learned it might appear to anyone. Mainstream historians, such as John C.G. Röhl (professor emeritus, U Sussex, bio via Wikipedia here) agrees with this assessment.

US Global Power Revisited

Whatever name you’d like to give to the rulers in Bonn and (East) Berlin, neither of the two Germanies was sovereign: both W and E ‘Germany’ were occupied by the victors of WWII, with the United States being quite adamant about their crowning achievement: total victory in this conflict, with world hegemony as the most coveted prize, on which you may look at Stephen Wertheim’s recent Ph.D. dissertation-turned-monograph, Tomorrow, the World, which came out with Harvard U Press in 2020.

Funnily, it’s actually a quite good read, and, if I’d daresay, it’s a marvellous achievement for one particular reason: the planning behind US global supremacy, which Wertheim meticulously reconstructs over 250+ pages, was quite anathema to anything resembling mainstream scholarship.

Yet, in the autumn of the first year of ‘Corona’, it suddenly became o.k.-ish to call out the careful planning conducted by US officials, which kinda ‘reveals’—to Western audiences, if only they read anymore—what once-leftish ‘dissidents’ such as Noam Chomsky had been saying for decades. (You may check out his 1991 lecture ‘Year 501’ over at Eviltube or his book-length publication with the same title, ch. 3, section 2 ‘Logical Illogicality’, from which the below passages are taken; if you’d like a copy of my PDF of the latter, please feel free to email me and I’ll share it for research purposes; as always, emphases mine)

In an important study of July 1945, transmitted by Secretary of War Stimson to the Secretary of State, military planners tried to put a satisfactory gloss on the US intention to take control of the world and surround Russia with military force, while denying the adversary any rights beyond its borders. ‘To argue that it is necessary to preserve a unilateral military control by the U.S. or Britain over Panama or Gibraltar and yet deny a similar control to Russia at the Dardanelles may seem open to the criticism of being illogical’, they worried, particularly since the Dardanelles provided Russia with its only warm water access and was, in fact, to be kept firmly under unilateral US-British control. But the criticism is only superficially plausible, the planners concluded: the US design is ‘a logical illogicality’. By no ‘stretch of the imagination’ could the US and Britain be thought to have ‘expansionist or aggressive ambition’. But Russia

‘has not as yet proven that she is entirely without expansionist ambitions…She is inextricably, almost mystically, related to the ideology of Communism which superficially at least can be associated with a rising tide all over the world wherein the common man aspires to higher and wider horizons. Russia must be sorely tempted to combine her strength with her ideology to expand her influence over the earth. Her actions in the past few years give us no assured bases for supposing she has not flirted with the thought.’

In short, the burden is upon the Russians to prove that they have no intention of associating with the rascal multitude who ‘aspire to higher and wider horizons’, with the ‘poor who have always wanted to plunder the rich’ (Dulles). Until they do so convincingly, it is only logical for responsible men who do not consort with criminal elements bent on plunder, and flirt with no such subversive thoughts as higher aspirations, to establish their unilateral control over the world. Russia must demonstrate that it is not a potential threat to ‘the very survival of the capitalist order’ (Gaddis).

I’ll spare you the rest of this, but it is worth pointing out that Mr. Chomsky (and let’s disregard his more recent association with the Phascists for a moment) said and wrote these things more than thirty years ago. The momentous change now is that, as per Mr. Wertheim’s book, it is apparently now o.k.-ish to also say so ‘in polite society’. Talk about a sea change.

If at Night of Germany I think… (per H. Heine’s Night Thoughts)

…I clearly see that whatever power Berlin wields these days—or is, perhaps more correctly, perceived to wield these days—is clearly derivative of the Masters of Mankind over in Swamplandia.

Don’t just take my word for it, though, for here’s footage of Wolfgang Schäuble, former Finance Minister under Chancellor Merkel (and once convicted for illegal campaign funding, which really tells you the rest you need to know about him personally as well as German politics in general) and current President of the Bundestag, speaking candidly at the European Banking Congress in Frankfurt am Main. The video was taken on 18 Nov. 2011, and while the full text of his speech is still linked at the EBC’s website (here and scroll down to 2011), if you click on that link, the Finance Ministry’s website informs you that the site ‘cannot be found’, which is surely a coincidence…

Here’s Mr. Schäuble’s 2011 comment (transcript and -lation, as well as emphases, mine):

Those critics who believe that there must be competition between all policy areas are, in fact, assuming the regulatory monopoly of the national state. That was the old order that still underlies international law, with the concept of sovereignty, which has long since been reduced to absurdity in Europe, at long last since the two World Wars of the first half of the last century. And we in Germany have not been fully sovereign at any time since 8 May 1945…

That is why the attempt of European unification is to create a new form of governance, where there is not one level that is responsible for everything and which then, in case of doubt, confers onto others certain policy areas through international treaties. I am firmly convinced that this is a much more forward-looking approach for the 21st century than a relapse into the regulatory monopoly of the classical national state of past centuries...

I would like to make it quite clear to you that I am quite convinced that in a period of less than 24 months we will be able to change the European regulatory framework in this way. We just need to amend Protocol 14—whoever wants to read it, in general, in the Lisbon Treaty—in such a way that we create on it the broad outlines of a fiscal union for the eurozone....

Now, you can clearly see what kind of hack Mr. Schäuble is, whose song he’s been singing for quite a while now, and what he’s up to: a ‘new form of governance’ that stands in stark contrast to ‘the regulatory monopoly of the classical national state’.

What is Protocol 14 of the Lisbon Treaty, by the way?

Well, I’m glad you asked. Please follow this link for the official version, reproduced below (emphases mine):

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

DESIRING to promote conditions for stronger economic growth in the European Union and, to that end, to develop ever-closer coordination of economic policies within the euro area,

CONSCIOUS of the need to lay down special provisions for enhanced dialogue between the Member States whose currency is the euro, pending the euro becoming the currency of all Member States of the Union,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1

The Ministers of the Member States whose currency is the euro shall meet informally. Such meetings shall take place, when necessary, to discuss questions related to the specific responsibilities they share with regard to the single currency. The Commission shall take part in the meetings. The European Central Bank shall be invited to take part in such meetings, which shall be prepared by the representatives of the Ministers with responsibility for finance of the Member States whose currency is the euro and of the Commission.

Article 2

The Ministers of the Member States whose currency is the euro shall elect a president for two and a half years, by a majority of those Member States.

I’ve taken the liberty to highlight the crucial part, Art. 1. Note, specifically, the categorically anti-democratic and untransparent nature of these conspiratorial meetings:

the ministers…shall meet informally. Such meetings shall take place, when [not ‘if’] necessary [who determines this?], to discuss questions related to the specific responsibilities they share [this is so elastic, you could drive a tank through this protocol without technically breaking it]

Note further that

the Commission shall take part…The European Central Bank shall be invited to take part in such meetings, which shall be prepared by the representatives of the Ministers with responsibility for finance…

Neither the EU Commission nor the ECB have any responsibility—in the ‘technical’ sense of parliamentary oversight (whose, anyways?)—vis-à-vis any representative institution. The EU Commission is the manifestation of the will of the governments of the member states, and these governments are, technically, responsible to the legislative branch (parliament) in their respective countries.

By the time you’re reading this paragraph, we note, therefore, that the hierarchy established by the Lisbon Treaty’s Protocol Nr. 14 appears to be as follows:

EU Commission, ECB + reps of the Finance Ministers ≠ Economy and Finance Ministers Meetings (that working group’s acronym would be ECOFIN) > member state governments > national parliaments

But note that there’s (at least) the following rub: the informal meetings are prepared by staffers and advisors of the Eurozone’s finance ministers, i.e., by political appointees of the cabinet-level ministers, i.e., even further removed from anything even remotely resembling transparency and accountability vs. the sovereign people.

Here’s what Mr. Schäuble said: even though he—and every other politician of any EU member state—swore an oath to uphold their respective national-constitutional laws, he is actively working to sabotage said order.

In my book, this is the textbook definition of treason, that is,

the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family

Under the rule of law, such openly admitted acts would trigger criminal proceedings, with charges of high treason.

(In case you’re wondering as to why that won’t happen—the judiciary isn’t independent, as state prosecutors must follow orders of the Justice Ministry; let me know if you’d need this explained.)

Absent a revolutionary peoples’ tribunal, though, don’t waste your time counting on that to happen.

And Here Are Some of the Consequences

Translation: ‘What the US Wishes to be Discussed at the Ramstein Meeting’, via https://rp-online.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-treffen-in-ramstein-was-die-usa-auf-die-tagesordnung-setzen_aid-68399321 (27 April 2022)

As per Albrecht Müller, co-founder of the Nachdenkseiten, an Old Labour portal of more comprehensive news and activism dedicated to restore some tenets of popular sovereignty (which I very much subscribe to, despite many reservations, mainly because ‘representative democracy’ was faulty from the get-go; emphases mine):

The USA is becoming increasingly brazen. On Friday [22 April] it was reported: ‘More than 20 countries have confirmed their participation in the Ukraine conference at Ramstein Air Base, according to US information. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had invited them to the meeting in Ramstein on Tuesday.’ No question mark, no hint of breaking the pretence of our country’s sovereignty. In all likelihood, the USA did not even ask…

The handling of such events, the handling of the limitation of, and damage to our sovereignty [sic], has not become better, but worse in the last 30 years. In 1991, Rudolf Scharping, the SPD’s top candidate for the state parliament, demanded during the election campaign that Rhineland-Palatinate should not become an aircraft carrier for the USA in Europe. Scharping then buckled as elected prime minister after a visit to the USA. But at least he had made the problem a topic of public debate. That is obviously over. Today, neither in the media nor in politics does anyone care whether gatherings and events take place on German territory that affect and could affect our security situation.

Woe to the vanquished, since 8 May 1945, and counting.