By Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat (Shoebat.com Sunday Special)
Germany wants to merge its military with the militaries of weaker European countries. In other words, Germany desires to mix its iron with the miry clay of Europe.
The government of Germany now wants to recruit non-German EU citizens into the German military. As we read in one report from DW:
Germany’s long-understaffed army has a new plan to boost recruitment: allowing foreigners from other European Union countries to serve in the unified armed forces (Bundeswehr). The defense ministry confirmed on Saturday that it was seriously considering the idea.
“The Bundeswehr is growing. For this, we need qualified personnel,” a Defense Ministry spokesman told German news agency DPA.
Speaking with local newspaper Augsburger Allegemeine, Social Democrat (SPD) defense expert Karl-Heinz Brunner said that he could imagine EU citizens serving in the Bundeswehr. But he warned that any soldier who fought for Germany must be promised citizenship.
“If citizens of other countries are accepted, without the promise of getting a German passport, the Bundeswehr risks becoming a mercenary army.”
Germany wants to create a pan-European military force, with itself as the head of it all. This supranational force would have units from all different EU countries. As we have reported numerous times on this site, there are already non-German European units that have been integrated into the Bundeswehr, such as the Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade. The EU has come up with a program it calls, “Framework Nation Concept,” or “FNC,” with Germany having a central role in its operation. Retired German Lieutenant General Rainer Glatz, and Martin Zapfe, a German researcher and an infantry captain in the German army reserve, wrote a whole report for the leading lobbyist organization that has the ears of the German parliament, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, in which they write on Germany’s formation of a military force integrated with units from other European countries. In one section they write:
“The German-led FNC group has two distinct pillars which are only partially interdependent.
Since the beginning, it has focused on the coordinated development of capabilities in so-called “Clusters”; since 2015, an additional focus has been placed developing large multinational formations. To this day, 19 nations have joined Germany. Out of this group of 20, seven have thus far committed troops to the “larger formations”, and several others are deliberating on this possibility. Formally, both pillars of the FNC are of equal importance. Considering its effects on current Bundeswehr and NATO planning, the development of “larger formations” is of higher significance.”
While the report states that these European militaries will not lose their independence and still be under the authority of their autonomous countries, it goes on to state that a dependency on Germany by these non-German units would naturally develop:
“Naturally, closely linking European forces could lead to de facto dependencies; and, indeed, the FNC’s success may well depend on coordinated dependencies. As smaller states lose capabilities, their dependency on the larger framework nation grows – a dependency potentially institutionalized through the FNC.”
So, the authors are playing the typical academic game of saying that something is not going to happen, and then immediately afterwards saying — in a very diplomatic and sophistical way — that it is going to happen. What is being affirmed in this report is that dependency on Germany would ‘naturally’ happen, and may be what is needed for success in the battlefield. Whether or not you take the diplomatic talk seriously, what is indeed being stated here is that German militarists want other European countries — weaker both economically and militarily — to rely on Germany, and thus increase her power. This desire to be depended upon militarily correlates with the anti-American rhetoric that has been intensifying within German political discourse.
“We can’t rely on the superpower of the United States” was a statement just recently said by Angela Merkel. “We can no longer completely rely on the White House,” was another statement of this nature, this time coming from the German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas. What can one take from this? Germany wants to be the big momma of Europa, with all of her little children reposing on her teat.
Germany had an empire — a reich — over Europe, with the aspirations of transforming Europe to conform to her ideological vision. With the United States gaining the victory over Germany in World War Two, this vision was crushed. But now that Germany is working to rebel against the American empire, it wants to resume this mission of transforming Europe, with the help of military lobbyists in America of course. Gatz and Zapfe, in their report, talk about how Germany’s “Framework Nation Concept” will not be under the control of either NATO or the EU, but will consist of European states cooperating under German leadership. As they write:
“With few exceptions, neither NATO nor the EU permanently control forces. That is no downside, however. Through its long-term focus on generating a pool of principally national forces rather than standing multinational units, the FNC might contribute to European security beyond the Atlantic Alliance. While FNC units may be assigned to NATO, the FNC’s “larger formations” remain under the sovereign control of the member states – and may thus also be deployed for EU operations, thereby contributing significantly to the EU’s capacity to act.”
They then conclude the report by saying:
“Finally, it will need continuous German leadership to fully realize the potential of the FNC and current Bundeswehr planning. This is not an empty argument. Any lack of leadership by Berlin would likely turn the FNC’s strength – its flexibility as an initiative driven by the states – into a critical weakness. In the MoD, and within NATO, the FNC has to be led with clear responsibilities and at high levels. As of today, the Bundeswehr’s plans as outlined above still float about at the lofty heights of ministerial concepts. Many questions remain open, and the Bundeswehr’s services are currently tasked with examining the manifold implications. Yet should Germany be willing to shoulder the longterm political, military, and financial costs associated with the Bundeswehr’s ambitious plans and the FNC – and should the German public support such a commitment – the MoD’s current course has the potential to leverage Germany’s capability planning for its European partners within and beyond the Alliance – especially in times of crisis.”
Look what they are saying here: They want a supranational military force that would neither be under the control of NATO or the EU, which could mean two things: that they want to separate from NATO — that is, they want to leave the American security umbrella and start their own pan-German security hegemony over Europe —; and that they want to recreate the EU to where it would no longer be the EU of today, but an entirely new pan-European axis with an explicitly German leadership. This further substantiates what we have been arguing for some time now: that the Germans are in glee at the Trump administration’s adamancy that Germany must pay more for its own defense. This intensification of advocacy for more spending on German defense is really being used as a motivating factor for plans like what is quoted above: for Germany “to shoulder the longterm political, military, and financial costs associated with the Bundeswehr’s ambitious plans and the FNC”. Also, look at the last sentence of the report: it speaks about Germany leading European countries militarily “beyond the Alliance – especially in times of crisis.”
So, the Germans have plans of not just working within NATO. Numerous German politicians have emphasized on how they want to help NATO, and how boosting German defense spending would help cooperation with the North Atlantic alliance. But what this report is indicating is that Germany has ideas of entering an armed conflict beyond the concerns of “the Alliance” which means NATO. And notice that it says that military actions done beyond NATO would take place “in times of crises.”
This means that Germany would need some sort of crises that would stir up the masses for war; that would give them the pretext to use their military for solely German interests, and not NATO’s interests — while appearing justified doing so. The Germans needed a crises to commence their plan to invade France through Belgium at the start of the First World War; and they got that crises when the Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip murdered the Archduke Ferdinand. It was also the perfect crises for Austria since the Austrians wanted to invade Serbia.
While both the Austrians and the Germans wanted the situation to appear as a conflict between Austria and Serbia, they were conspiring to use the scenario as a crises by which to start a war with Belgium, France and Great Britain. Hence on July 26th, 1914, just days before Austria invaded Serbia, Helmuth von Moltke gave Gottlieb von Jagow a draft ultimatum to Belgium to be used when war began. The Germanians were waiting for an opportunity to cause a war against Belgium from where they would then invade France. The crises of Serbia was merely a situation from which to launch a full-scale war in Europe.
On July 27th, 1914, German military leaders then began to blame the whole Serbian crises on Russia (Russia was an ally of Serbia). Admiral von Muller wrote that Germany should “remain calm to allow Russia to put herself in the wrong, but then not to shrink from war if it were inevitable.” This is why Austria, to use the words of one British ambassador, had “gone wild with joy at the prospect of war with Serbia.” On July 28th, Austria invaded Serbia. Three days before this, Russia had done a partial mobilization of its troops. On July 30th, the Kaiser Wilhelm II was informed by his cousin, Czar Nicholas, about the mobilization. The Kaiser concluded: “That means I have got to mobilize as well!”
But the Germans understood that Russian mobilization did not mean war. One German plenipotentiary at the St. Petersburg embassy reported: “I have the impression that they [the Russians] have mobilized here from a dread of coming events without any aggressive intentions and are now frightened at what they have brought about.” The Kaiser responded by saying: “Right, that is it”. The Czar canceled any full mobilization and ordered his generals to resume partial mobilization. But Russian generals demanded for a general mobilization to which the Czar, unhappily, acquiesced.
Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, the Chancellor of the German Empire, understood that the Russian move was no reason to be concerned. He told Prussian State Ministers that “although the Russian mobilization had been declared, her mobilization measures cannot be compared with those of the West European states … Moreover Russia does not intend to wage war, but has only been forced to take these measures because of Austria.”
But the Germans could not help but use this situation to their own advantage. On July 31st, 1914, the German ambassador to Russia gave an ultimatum: cease the mobilization within twelve hours, or else Germany will deploy its military. The ultimatum even warned that Germany’s deploying of troops will bring Russia and Germany “extraordinarily near to war.” On August 1st, the Czar received news of Germany’s mobilization and cabled the Kaiser: “I understand that you are compelled to mobilize but I should like to have the same guarantee from you that I gave you myself — that these measures do not mean war.” Later the same day, Germany began its invasion of Luxembourg. (See Fromkin, Europe’s Last Summer, chs. 37-39)
So we can see how in the past Germany used Russia as a pretext to tread upon the warpath. Today, Germany has been doing something similar, increasing its military capacity after Russia invaded the Ukraine. Currently there are 650 German troops in Lithuania who are, in the words from a report from the Economist: “leading a multinational ‘tripwire’ force which would be in the front line of any Russian incursion. The Bundeswehr and its two armoured divisions are taking shape as the linchpin of a new European defence order, with Dutch, Czech and Romanian units under German command.”
THE MERGING BETWEEN EUGENISTS AND MILITARISTS
The major think-thank that is lobbying for German militarism, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, is backed by eugenists. Two of the major funders for the German think-tank are the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the German Research Foundation. The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation is another eugenist institution that worked with the Nazis as a propaganda group advancing race science. Today, it receives most of its money from the German government, getting 34.9% of its funds from Germany’s Federal Foreign Office, and 50.8% from Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
One of the leaders of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation is Yitzhak Apeloig, the former president of the Israeli company Technion which, according to one report, “is widely recognized as a world leader in embryonic stem cell research.”
The German Research Foundation is a scientific establishment that, as we have shown in parts 3 and 4 of our series on the Max Planck Institute (see part 3 and part 4), was an organization that worked directly with the Nazis in their eugenist operations. Till this day it funds human experimentation on unborn babies. For example, back in 1992, unborn babies, 17-23 weeks in development, were aborted to see the effects of osteonectin on their bodies. In the report written by the German scientist who led the experiment, Stefan Mundlos, the children are described as “material” and also “newborns”, revealing how these evil scientists know that they killing human life, while at the same time reducing them to simply the level of “material” to be experimented on. The report reads:
“Intact human embryos of Carnegie Stage 17-23 (41-56 days post conception) were obtained after therapeutic abortion using prostaglandin pessaries. Embryonic stage was determined by morphological appearance, weight, and crown-rump length. In addition, material of 7-12 weeks gestational age after suction termination and autopsy material from later stages and newborns were analyzed.”
The experiment on human embryos was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), or the German Research Foundation. That the German Research Foundation and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation are both backing one of the biggest lobbying groups for German militarism, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, shows truly the overlap between the eugenist elites and the military industrial complex.
The current political environment in the Western world is providing the conditions that the Germans seek to justify their desire to create a pan-European military force led by Germany. For example, with Britain having voted in favor for leaving the EU, it will no longer be an obstacle — as it was in the past — to Germany’s enterprise of a supranational military force. Moreover, with Trump intensely pushing for Germany to become more militarily independent, the Germans are seeing their opportunity to not just reinvigorate their military strength, but to become the superior military force in Europe. There are lobbyists for a European military force who are making these very arguments. In a report last year published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, written by Amélie Lohmann and Claudia Major, it reads:
“The signs for closer cooperation are there: With Britain’s exit from the EU, a traditional veto for further European cooperation will disappear. U.S. President Trump is raising doubts about American security guarantees and is signaling to Europeans that they need to pull their own weight. Furthermore, EU member states cannot hide from the difficult security challenges within and around Europe.”
Annegret Bendiek, writing last year for the same major German think-tank — in an article entitled, The New ‘Europe of Security’, affirms that Brexit and Trump’s rhetoric is what has been motivating the sudden enthusiasm for European militarism:
“The imminent departure of the UK from the EU and Donald Trump’s unpredictability as President of the United States are the main motives for the EU to seriously address its discussed but undefined goal of ‘strategic autonomy’ in the EUGS from July 2016.”
Claudia Major and Alicia von Voss wrote an article entitled, European Defence in View of Brexit, which was published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, in which they write that Brexit was not bad for the enterprise of an EU military force, but good because it removed the biggest opponent — Britain — of the whole idea of a pan-European army. As the article states:
“Rather than suffering from Brexit, many observers hope that the CSDP [the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy] will benefit from it, for it removes the UK veto. Indeed, since the Brexit vote, ideas on how to improve the CSDP have flourished. At the September 2016 Bratislava summit, states agreed to strengthen EU cooperation on external security and defence. At the December 2016 European Council meeting they focussed on three priorities: implementing the EU Global Strategy in security and defence; the Commission’s European Defence Action Plan; and a follow-up of the EU-NATO Joint Declaration, signed at the 2016 NATO Warsaw summit. In parallel, EU states from Finland to Italy exchanged non-papers on how to take the CSDP to the next level. Most states then rallied behind the Franco-German ideas, which call to make better use of the treaties, such as by implementing Permanent Structured Cooperation, setting up a European Medical Command and starting a CSDP research programme.”
This statement does describe reality: once Brexit took place, the energy behind a European military force became much more heightened. The one who was restraining the German beast, has been taken out of the way. What this does show is the insidious conspiracy behind Brexit. Boris Johnson, one of the biggest voices behind Brexit, has now been lobbying for Turkey to join the European Union, and for the creation of an EU military force. When Boris was advocating for Brexit, he was telling people that if Britain did not leave the EU, then Turkey would join the EU and flood Britain with Muslims. The use of Counter-jihad propaganda was very effective, rallying up the masses to favor Brexit. But now Johnson is pushing for a Turkish entry into the European Union, as we read in one report from the Telegraph:
“Boris Johnson has announced that Britain will support Turkey’s bid to join the EU despite putting warnings about the prospect at the heart of the Brexit campaign in the run up to the referendum. During the EU referendum Mr Johnson warned that the accession of Turkey would give millions of migrants the right to live and work in the UK. The claim was one of the most controversial of the referendum campaign and led to accusations by senior Remain campaigners that Mr Johnson had lied. But yesterday, during his first official visit to Turkey, Mr Johnson said that Britain will “help Turkey in any way” now that it is leaving the EU.”
Its not just Turkey that Boris Johnson wants joining the EU, but also the Balkan countries, including Bosnia and Albania, the biggest ally of Turkey in the Balkans. In July of 2018, there was a meeting in London that was initiated by Germany called the Berlin Process. According to a report from the Economist:
“Britain was holding a meeting aimed at helping countries join the European Union, which it is leaving. … The “Western Balkans Summit” was not an EU meeting but part of a German initiative called the Berlin Process. The London meeting, bringing together various EU leaders plus those from Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, was decided upon before Britain voted to leave the EU.”
The meeting was initiated by Boris Johnson in conjunction with officials in Brussels. One European report states that Johnson “has announced London will host a major West Balkans conference this summer in conjunction with Brussels. Jean-Claude Juncker, who began his five-year term in office as EU Commission president in 2014 by saying there would no new enlargement has now said that some of the West Balkan nations – Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia – should aim for EU membership in 2025.”
While lobbying for a Turkish and Balkan entry into the EU, he has also affirmed that if the EU wants to form its own military force, that Britain will not stand in their way:
“We understand the vital importance of … European countries working to strengthen our defences … If they want to come together…. with other arrangements, then we are not going to stand in their way.”
People who are upset of our critical analysis of the “Counter-jihad,” do not understand why we write what we write. Sebastian Kurz, the Chancellor of Austria and the head of the nationalist Austrian People’s Party, who ‘counter-jihadists’ like Pamela Geller were swooning over, is also lobbying for Muslim Albania to join the EU, stating:
“We certainly support all Western Balkan countries, including Albania, in their path toward the European Union … We would like to see reforms. There are several EU member countries who are critical on a few things, due to the situation inside these countries. But we support Albania and the countries of Western Balkans in their aspiration to become part of the EU”.
So, if Turkey, Albania and Bosnia merge with the European Union, so will their military forces, and in light of Germany’s policy plans, this means that they would be integrated into the German military, with Turkish, Bosnian and Albanian units fighting side by side with German soldiers. In other words, it will be the Third Reich all over again, with a Turko-Islamic pan-German axis. And why is Germany so interested in absorbing the Balkan countries? For the same reason why it allied with the Albanians against Serbia and pushed for the bombing of Yugoslavia in the 1990s: expanding German hegemony in the region. In the 1990s, Germany trained and armed the neo-Nazi Muslim terrorist organization, the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) to fight the Serbs. As Matthias Kuntzel explains:
“Just like 1991 Germany again supported a movement with a background rooted in the Nazi past, because the KLA is partly led by the sons and grandsons of extreme right-wing Albanian fighters, the heirs of those who fought during World War II in the fascist militias and the ‘Skanderbeg Volunteer SS Division’ raised by the Nazis. The ‘National Front of Albania’ (Balli Kombetar) which collaborated with Nazi leaders in 1943/44 today boasts about its influence within the KLA which has a program that seems to be a modified version of the 1943 Nazi utopia. Thus the program of “ethnic cleansing” which Germany exported into the Balkans in 1941 remained alive within the movement of the Kosovo Albanian nationalists during the 80s.”
Therefore, the German longing to control the Balkans that thrived in both World Wars is still alive today, and with Germany wanting to absorb Balkan militaries into its own military — in light of such history — it is not far-fetched to say that the same sinister goal of German militarists of old is not a history long and gone, but rather it is alive in our own times, waiting for its restrainer to be taken out of the way, and for the opportunity to finally leave its cave. And remember, the idea of a pan-European force was part of the ultimate dream of the Nazis and the fascists. For example, Joseph Goebbels said:
“In my view a nation’s conception of its own freedom must be harmonized with present-day facts and simple questions of efficiency and purpose… Our only requirement of European states is that they be sincere and enthusiastic members of Europe.” (See Varoufakis, And the Weak Suffer What They Must?, notes for ch. 7)
The identitarians — the children of the Counter-jihad — who are really nazis with modern appearance, will say that they are not Nazis because they are pan-Europeanists, while the Nazis were pan-German. But this is a play on words. The reality is that the Nazis were indeed a pan-European movement that, like the German militarists of today, wanted a pan-European bloc headed by Germany. The German militarists of today, using Islamic terrorism, American rhetoric and Russia as pretexts for their goals, are merely trying to transform Europe to conform to a pan-European bloc independent of the United States.
But its not just Brexit and Trump that Germany is blaming on for its sudden investment into its military. The Syrian Civil War, Islamic terrorism in Europe, violence in North Africa and the Sahel region, and the conflict in Ukraine, have also been used as reasons to intensify military spending, recruitment and innovation. In 2016, the EU’s policy department produced a book entitled: On the way towards a European Defence Union – A White Book as a first step. In the beginning of the book it reads:
“The European Union (EU) is facing a set of security challenges unprecedented in its history. The Libyan meltdown, the dramatic Syrian civil war as well as the presence of failed states in the Middle East and Sahel regions has unleashed such complex phenomena as transnational terrorism. The recent conflict in Ukraine has increased the awareness of Russia’s more active role in foreign policy, and recent painful events in EU capitals have turned our attention to internal terrorist threats.”
As Germany and Austria eagerly waited for Russia to deploy her troops in the beginning of the 20th century, the German militarists of today are pointing to Russia as a major reason to increase military might. In the same book from the EU, it talks about the necessity to create a military defense for both northern and eastern Europe against Russia:
“Regarding this aspect, along with the tradition of neutrality of some EU Member States, it seems evident that, for example, the north and east of Europe have their territorial defence against Russia at the core of their security strategies”
In June of 2017 Claudia Major, a Senior Associate for the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, wrote an article for Carnegie Europe entitled, Credible EU Defense Means Rethinking Sovereignty. The title is self-explanatory: European countries must give up their sovereignty to a pan-European military force. As Major writes:
“Essentially, the new defense hype is about abandoning and redefining sovereignty at the EU level, such as when states are called on to synchronize national defense-planning cycles. It is about giving up the little sovereignty states have left in defense for a greater good: jointly building a larger European capacity to act, to successfully manage real-world problems. Yet, strengthening EU defense in this way requires states to recognize that they have become powerless to address today’s challenges on their own, and that almost all the security problems they face are effectively approached only through cooperation.”
So states that are “powerless” must give up their sovereignty. But to whom? In one part of her lobbyist article, Major states: “Whereas countries like France seem to be interested in developing and using defense capabilities, Germany appears more interested in keeping the European house together.” Germany, the most powerful country in Europe, would lead this EU military force in virtue of the fact that it is the top country of the bloc. In another part of the article, Major points out that “for Germany, the topic above all implies collective defense in the East” — what is the east? She is speaking of the eastern front: eastern Europe and Russia, the same areas that Germany wanted to conquer in both World Wars, the same areas that were really the bloodbath of both the Nazis and the Soviets.
What does the future hold? With the sin of man, the tempest of the sinister never ends, and like a cutting torrent it destroys. Humanity functions like a circle, entering one epoch of chaos, and then seeing what led to his destruction, resides in a state of calm, only for posterity, frustrated with the troubles of normal life, and not wanting to live with his daily bread, looks back at the dark past, and sees a golden age needing to be revived, only to unearth the abysmal demons that bring him back to the miseries of his ancestors.
“That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)