by – L. Richardson
In 2024, Germany is entangled in a complex web of foreign military presence, unratified laws, and international controls. This intricate situation, a product of post-World War II arrangements, challenges many citizens’ long-held assumptions about their nation’s independence and sovereignty, deeply rooted in the country’s historical significance.
Signs of external control are pervasive in German society. U.S. military bases operate remarkably independently, while foreign entities influence privatized police forces. The nation’s legal foundation also bears the marks of such constraints. Germany’s Basic Law (Grundgesetz) must have the proper constitutional status it deserves. SHAEF and SMAD orders continue to cast their shadow over German governance. Many experts view these elements as proof of an occupation state lurking behind the facade of independence. This situation should raise concerns about the country’s future.
Germany:
A Nation Still in Conflict with Over 50 Countries
Germany’s current international status reveals a fascinating story through unresolved peace treaties after World War II. The U.S. declared an end to fighting on December 13, 1946. However, the U.S. Congress didn’t officially confirm the war’s end until October 19, 1951, 1. This wasn’t just paperwork—” the U.S. wants to retain a legal basis for keeping a U.S. force in Western Germany” 1 [21].
Many Western Allies ended their war status with Germany in 1951:
- Australia (July 9)
- Canada
- Italy
- New Zealand
- The Netherlands (July 26)
- South Africa
- United Kingdom (July 9) 1
The Soviet Union kept its war status until early 1955 1, using legal frameworks to control Germany. Germany gained sovereignty on May 5, 1955, but with strict conditions. Special rights stayed in place, especially for West Berlin, which couldn’t join the Federal Republic 1.
This complex legal history still shapes Germany’s sovereignty today. The country struggles with military deterrence and defense 2. Germany now ranks second only to the U.S. in providing arms to Ukraine 2. Yet post-war restrictions still bind its actions. This creates an odd situation where Germany is a major military supporter while old post-war rules limit its freedom.
A 1968 constitutional amendment created the state of defense (Verteidigungsfall), giving the Federal Government special wartime powers 3. This setup and unsettled war statuses mean other nations can indirectly influence Germany’s military and defense choices through historical agreements and international rules.
Germany as a Labor Camp
Germany’s resources and labor power continue to be exploited, revealing a sophisticated economic control system. The German industrial sector consumes resources at a rate four times higher than that of developing nations, creating a dependency that benefits foreign interests. This ongoing exploitation should evoke a sense of empathy towards the country’s plight.
Germany now functions as a managed economic engine where:
- Global markets receive systematic channeling of natural resources 4
- Local communities suffer ecological and social consequences 4
- External interests control fertile land use for energy crops and animal feed 4
- International recruitment drives labor market management 5
Labor exploitation patterns continue in new forms. Occupied territories contributed 93.6 billion Reichsmarks to German war efforts during World War II 6. Germany now experiences similar resource extraction patterns itself. Social services, healthcare, construction, and STEM fields face severe skilled worker shortages 5. These shortages create dependencies that mirror historical occupation patterns.
German labor market conditions highlight this ongoing exploitation. A “particularly drastic” decline in working population 5 forces Germany to rely on foreign labor recruitment, echoing past dependencies. This demographic shift results from calculated policies that keep Germany a managed economic territory.
Control mechanisms shape German citizens’ lives in multiple ways. Article 12 of the Basic Law promises occupational freedom 7, but external forces increasingly direct labor in reality. German living standards depend on this system of resource and labor exploitation 4. This creates a dependency cycle that serves occupation interests while maintaining a prosperity facade.
Carlo Schmidt & The “Constitution” Myth
Modern Germany’s governance is based on the carefully constructed myth that the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) is a legitimate constitution. A leading post-war German politician and legal scholar, Carlo Schmidt, revealed this misconception. He stated that the Basic Law was never meant to be Germany’s permanent constitution.
Schmidt’s insights revealed three critical facts about the Basic Law’s beginnings:
- It served as a temporary administrative framework
- Allied forces directly supervised its creation
- Not a single German citizen voted to approve it as their constitution
The Basic Law was created in 1949 by Allied powers as a temporary solution. They purposely avoided calling it a “constitution” (Verfassung). This wasn’t just about words—it showed the document’s real purpose as a tool for occupational control. The Parliamentary Council worked under Allied supervision and created this framework without asking the public, which any legitimate constitution requires.
The legitimacy issue becomes apparent as you look at the implementation of fundamental law. Actual constitutions draw power from their people’s approval. The Basic Law, on the other hand, came from occupation authorities who pushed it down to the people. This core problem still challenges Germany’s claim to complete sovereignty in 2024.
Article 146 of the Basic Law proves its temporary nature. It clearly predicted its replacement with an actual constitution once Germany united. Yet, after the 1990 reunification, this change has yet to happen. The temporary framework became permanent instead, creating precisely what Schmidt warned about – an occupation-era administrative tool turned into Germany’s fundamental law.
Germany’s Police:
A Privatized Force
Germany’s law enforcement system underwent a significant change with little notice. This change marked another chapter in the nation’s compromised sovereignty. Private international security firms now control German police forces, representing a radical alteration from public service to corporate control.
German law enforcement went through a complete transformation in 2018. Private security corporations, including the notorious Blackwater (now Academi), started taking control of police functions of all sizes. The changes happened through:
- Strategic collaborations with international security firms
- Transfer of training and operational protocols
- Integration of private security methodologies
- Implementation of corporate management structures
German police transformed from public servants into private security contractors. Their mercenary status changed the bond between law enforcement and citizens. Public safety now follows a profit-driven approach. Corporate directives guide the police force instead of democratic oversight, raising serious questions about accountability and national sovereignty.
Due to police privatization, civil rights and democratic governance face serious challenges. Traditional oversight methods no longer work because law enforcement answers to private entities, not the public. Corporate interests can now override public safety concerns, and international security firms have gained unprecedented control over domestic matters.
The changes run deeper than just reorganizing the system. German sovereignty continues to erode. These private security forces work with limited public accountability. They represent a modern extension of occupation authority. External control stays in place while maintaining an illusion of independence.
The new system creates a concerning situation. Police services appear modern, but democratic control keeps declining. The police force serves corporate and international interests under the facade of domestic authority, making Germany’s path to true sovereignty even more complex.
No Defined Jurisdiction:
Laws Without Borders
Foreign powers maintain control over Germany through a sophisticated dismantling of its legal jurisdiction. The precise definition of German territorial jurisdiction became obscure after calculated changes to the Basic Law in 1990 and 2006, creating a state of perpetual legal uncertainty.
Legal clarity eroded through these critical changes:
- Removal of the original Article 23 defining the Basic Law’s scope of application
- Elimination of explicit territorial references in the 2006 Bereinigungsgesetz
- Creation of ambiguous jurisdictional boundaries affecting law enforcement
- Implementation of overlapping international legal frameworks
German courts and law enforcement face profound changes from this legal restructuring. The principle of mutual trust no longer works uniformly, especially when dealing with non-member States 8. German courts now operate in a complex environment where they “are not bound by any finding of fact made by the foreign court as to its jurisdiction” 8. This creates a system of perpetual legal uncertainty.
These changes affect more than theoretical legal frameworks. Law enforcement faces significant challenges with “different authorities, and there are examples of conflict and co-operation across jurisdictional divides and in areas with overlapping or convoluted jurisdiction” 9. This complexity is a control mechanism, making it harder for German authorities to assert clear jurisdiction over their territory.
A closer look at international agreements reveals strategic patterns. Germany now relies more on “non-legally binding international agreements” 10, which “present several advantages for governments compared to treaties” 10. Foreign powers maintain influence through these arrangements while avoiding legal scrutiny or dispute settlement mechanisms, weakening German sovereignty through this legal ambiguity.
German jurisdiction remains in limbo due to this calculated erosion of legal certainty. With a clear territorial scope for its laws, Germany is protected from external control. Its sovereignty exists more in theory than in practice.
Basic Law vs. Constitution
Germany’s Basic Law sharply contrasts with a legitimate constitution and shows a carefully coordinated system of control that continues into 2024. Sovereign nations typically have constitutions that emerge from popular will. However, Germany operates under a framework without democratic legitimacy.
The key structural differences between the Basic Law and a proper constitution include:
- Absence of direct popular ratification
- Implementation by occupying powers rather than citizen consent
- Provisional nature never properly addressed
- Missing territorial sovereignty declarations
- Limited amendment capabilities under foreign oversight
Systematic deception exists in how the Basic Law gets misrepresented as Germany’s constitution. This calculated confusion creates an illusion of sovereignty while foreign control mechanisms remain intact. Germans unknowingly confirm a system that limits their national self-determination when they accept the Basic Law as their constitution.
This constitutional facade’s implications reach way beyond the reach and influence of legal semantics. The Basic Law started as a temporary measure, but its provisional character has become a permanent control instrument. A legal twilight zone emerges where Germany is neither fully sovereign nor openly occupied.
The constitutional crisis shows a broader pattern of occupation control. Modern Germany portrays itself as an independent nation, yet its fundamental governing document stems from post-war occupation authority. Foreign influence over German sovereignty continues through carefully preserving this system and consistently avoiding true constitutional reform.
The provisional document’s evolution into Germany’s de facto constitution demonstrates sophisticated political maneuvering. Occupying powers secured their influence by normalizing the Basic Law’s status while maintaining an appearance of German independence. This constitutional paradox is evidence of modern occupation’s sophistication, where control works through subtle legal and institutional mechanisms rather than visible force.
The Preamble and Missing Popular Consent
Germany’s Basic Law preamble reveals a clever deception that still binds the nation today. The preamble claimed to represent “the German People in the Laender” through “constituent power” 11. Yet, this foundational document should have been put to a popular vote 12.
Behind the preamble’s promises of unity and freedom lies a darker truth:
- It claimed to preserve “national and political unity” 11
- Promised to “serve the peace of the World as an equal partner” 11
- Declared itself valid only “for a transitional period” 11
The missing public referendum makes the true nature of post-war German governance clear. Western Allied Powers coordinated the creation of a federal West German State in 1948/49. They suggested that a constituent assembly draft its constitution and Military Governors ratify it 11. Laender parliaments accepted the document instead of putting it to a public vote, bypassing direct popular consent 11.
The implementation process clearly demonstrates the deception of self-governance. The preamble boldly stated that “the German People… has enacted” the Basic Law 11. Reality tells a different story. No one directly elected the Parliamentary Council members, and they never submitted their work for public approval 11.
This strategic denial of public participation created a system that served foreign interests while creating an illusion of sovereignty. The Constitutional Court later declared it had “assumed the guise of the constitutional charter of a sovereign state” 11 [22]. This transformation happened without democratic legitimacy’s core requirement—the German people’s direct consent.
These effects continue in 2024. Germany operates under a framework that people never democratically ratified 12. This lack of popular consent undermines valid sovereignty claims. Occupation-era controls remain strong through complex legal mechanisms.
Occupational “Clarification” Law of 2006
The 2006-2007 Bereinigungsgesetz is a calculated move in Germany’s ongoing occupation narrative. German legal clarity faced systematic dismantling under the pretense of modernization. This “clarification law” created confusion by removing vital jurisdictional references from the Basic Law, weakening Germany’s legal sovereignty.
The act brought several significant changes:
- Elimination of territorial scope definitions
- Removal of explicit jurisdictional boundaries
- Deletion of occupation-era references
- Introduction of ambiguous legal frameworks
- Restructuring of administrative authorities
These changes profoundly altered German society. Citizens must direct themselves through a legal maze where law applicability remains to be seen. This systematic ambiguity leaves citizens and legal professionals unable to determine which regulations apply in specific jurisdictions, resulting in legal certainty suffering.
The Bereinigungsgesetz works as a sophisticated control mechanism. German territory remains under occupation through legal uncertainty rather than visible force. Removing clear jurisdictional definitions creates a legal limbo that allows foreign interests to easily direct German affairs.
Legal clarity erosion extends beyond administrative confusion. Missing territorial references allow international agreements and foreign directives to more easily override domestic law. External powers retain substantial influence while preserving an illusion of German autonomy.
The 2006 “clarification” brilliantly showcases modern occupation tactics. Control comes through carefully crafted legal ambiguity rather than military presence. The German legal world’s reshaping keeps true sovereignty out of reach, hidden behind bureaucratic complexity and jurisdictional uncertainty.
Analysis:
The Consequences of Legal Ambiguity
Legal ambiguity serves as a powerful control tool in modern Germany. The principle of Rechtssicherheit (legal certainty) continues to erode systematically. Recent studies show that only 27% of Germans believe the state can fulfill its simple responsibilities 13. This highlights a profound crisis of confidence that stems from legal uncertainty.
Regulatory gaps face exploitation through the systematic dismantling of legal certainty. Tax authorities note how firms and individuals interpret ambiguous regulations to their advantage. This creates a system where legal uncertainty becomes a mechanism for exploitation 14. Such manipulation goes beyond taxation and affects fundamental aspects of governance and sovereignty.
Legal ambiguity creates three critical vulnerabilities:
- Exploitation of unclear jurisdictional boundaries
- Manipulation of tax and regulatory frameworks
- Public trust’s erosion in legal institutions
Foreign interests utilize these ambiguities, especially when dealing with arms export controls where “legal ambiguity provides an opening for political exploitation” 15. External powers retain control through this manipulation while giving perceived legitimacy to policies others see as unlawful 15.
Rechtssicherheit’s erosion affects public confidence directly. Legal certainty’s compromise makes it impossible to fulfill the fundamental principle that “those subject to the law must know what the law is” 16. This uncertainty breeds a framework where laws and decisions lack the clarity needed for democratic governance 16.
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice recognizes this crisis. The court rules that ambiguous terms need an explicit explanation to protect the public from misleading information 17. This requirement rarely works in practice. The system’s complexity helps maintain external control while preserving the illusion of legal autonomy.
This calculated ambiguity plays a broader role in Germany’s occupation status. The nation needs clear legal parameters to stay safe. Sovereignty exists more in theory than practice, perpetuating foreign influence and control cycle. This defines The German Question in 2024.
Persistent Influence of SHAEF and SMAD Orders
Military directives from post-World War II created a sophisticated control system that still influences German governance today. The Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) and Soviet Military Administration (SMAD) implemented complete frameworks under the banner of ‘civil affairs [23].’ These frameworks controlled multiple aspects of society, from public health to simple civil administration 18.
Background of Orders
The Allied powers created a complex system that placed civil affairs relatively low in the military hierarchy 18. This positioning created an intentional lack of clarity that continues today. Their careful placement enabled extensive control while they remained largely unseen. The Public Health Branch of G5/SHAEF demonstrated this approach effectively. They worked through several overlapping agencies while keeping their operations quiet 18.
These orders affected multiple areas:
- Distribution of relief supplies
- Liaison with religious representatives
- Care of displaced persons
- Creation of simple civil administrations
- Restoration of police and justice systems 18
Ongoing Control
Modern institutional structures show the lasting impact of these control mechanisms. The Internal Affairs and Communications Division created frameworks that still shape German governance today 18. These 79-year-old divisions started operating from London in 1944. Their influence now reaches way beyond their original reach and influence 18.
Trapped in Post-War Mindset
Allied military governments pushed their cultural values onto Germany through “credible and positive programs” to shape German cultural revival 19. This approach created a lasting dependency that flows through today’s institutions. Information control and mass propaganda remain potent tools to retain control over occupied territories 19.
These directives achieved several key objectives:
- Complete disarmament of Germany
- Elimination of military production capability
- Decentralization of political structure
- Control of economic and financial transactions 20
The German administration still works under these historical constraints today. SHAEF and SMAD directives have shaped institutions that use sophisticated modern methods to extend their influence. The Control Council’s “paramount authority” continues in today’s governance structures 20. This perpetuates a system where historical occupation frameworks limit German sovereignty.
Summary Position:
The Need for a Real Constitution
Germany operates under complex control mechanisms that challenge our understanding of national sovereignty. External powers enforce legal frameworks without the people’s consent. Foreign entities directly privatize law enforcement, while systematic economic exploitation reveals a nation restricted by sophisticated occupation structures. The foundations of a detailed system need peace treaties with dozens of countries and unclear jurisdictional boundaries. This system maintains external control while creating an illusion of independence.
The German people face a harsh truth. Their nation’s governance originates from occupation-era directives instead of democratic choices. Several factors highlight how post-war arrangements still define Germany’s current situation. These include unresolved peace treaties, ongoing SHAEF influences, and the “Basic Law’s” temporary nature. The path to true sovereignty requires addressing these simple issues through proper constitutional processes. Democratic validation represents everything in genuine self-determination that the German people just need.
FAQs
What was the significance of the “German question” during World War II?
The “German question” from 1945 to 1949 involved determining Germany’s future state-political and socio-economic structure and its role in the new international relations framework.
When did Germany achieve complete sovereignty?
Germany regained full sovereignty on March 15, 1991, following the Four Powers’ renunciation of all rights under a treaty, including rights over Berlin.
What was the “German question” in the context of the European Union?
Historically, the “German question” referred to 19th-century debates, particularly during the 1848 Revolutions, concerning the optimal approach to achieving unification of all or most German-speaking regions.
Why did the Allies divide Germany into four occupation zones after World War II?
The Allies’ division of Germany into four occupation zones was intended to facilitate their eventual annexation of these zones. This strategy was part of a broader plan that included securing Soviet support in the newly formed United Nations and the ongoing Pacific War against Japan.
References
[1] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany
[2] – https://quincyinst.org/research/the-risks-to-germany-and-europe-of-a-prolonged-war-in-ukraine/
[3] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_defence
[4] – https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/waste-resources/resource-use-its-consequences
[5] – https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2023RP03/
[6] – https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/exploitation-and-destruction-nazi-occupied-europe
[7] – https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html
[8] – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441048.2023.2239007
[9] – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1757780223006194
[11] – https://akjournals.com/downloadpdf/journals/026/52/1/article-p54.pdf
[12] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany
[13] – https://www.dw.com/en/germans-trust-in-state-institutions-hits-new-low/a-66570660
[14] – https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/224788/1/173347398X.pdf
[15] – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09662839.2022.2144728
[16] – https://journals.tulane.edu/jicl/article/download/3377/3164/10862
[18] – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK293860/
[20] – https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945Berlinv01/d327
[21] – Petersberg Agreement – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petersberg_Agreement
[22] – Silagi, M. (2011). The Preamble of the German Grundgesetz-Constitutional Status and Importance of Preambles in German law. https://doi.org/10.1556/AJur.52.2011.1.5
[23] – Martin Furnival Jones – Powerbase. https://powerbase.info/index.php/Martin_Furnival_Jones
[24] – Joyce, R. (2008). Pornography and the Internet. IEEE Internet Computing. https://doi.org/10.1109/mic.2008.83
[25] – Siegel, A., Schug, J., & Rieger, M. (2022). Social Determinants of Remaining Life Expectancy at 60: A District-Level Analysis in Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1530.
[27] – https://t.me/BRDkeinStaat/1539
[28] – https://s-h-a-e-f.de/geltungsbereich-des-grundgesetz/
[29] – https://fragdenstaat.de/anfrage/bereinigungsgesetze/
[30] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Headquarters_Allied_Expeditionary_Force
[31] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Military_Administration_in_Germany
Critical Thinking Dispatch 
Leave a comment