Germany rearms for WW3 today, the accidental 4th Reich

[TonyGosling]

11:18 GMT: German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has said he will join the G20 declaration calling for military action against the Syrian regime.
http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

German media and politicians promote rearmament
By Christoph Dreier
29 September 2014

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/29/medi-s29.html

For months the German media and leading politicians have been calling for an end to Germany’s postwar policy of military restraint. Last week the campaign for militarism reached a new highpoint. During years of tight budget policy and cuts, any major increase in the defense budget was excluded. Now this demand has moved to the center of the media propaganda.
The media campaign has been carefully prepared. Not a day goes past without a new “unexpected” revelation regarding the dilapidated state of the German army.
According to reports on Monday, just three of the Navy’s 43 helicopters were operational. On Tuesday it was reported that six German soldiers who have been assigned to train Kurdish fighters in Iraq, were left stranded in Bulgaria due to a technical fault with their aircraft. The failure of German weapons to reach Iraq due to the failure of another plane, borrowed from the Netherlands and stranded for days in Leipzig, was also the subject of extensive TV coverage.
On Wednesday, a confidential paper from the Defence Committee was leaked to the press. The document drawn up by the inspectors of the army, air force and navy assessed the “readiness of the armed forces”. In its summary, the report concludes that the defense capability of the Bundeswehr was guaranteed. Nevertheless, the media and politicians selected certain items to portray the army as outdated and incapacitated.
In the remaining days of last week there was then a concerted campaign by all of the major newspapers demanding an increase in the defense budget.
On Thursday, Spiegel Online’s Nikolaus Blome demanded that the verbal campaign should be followed by action. “While it was correct to launch a broad debate on German responsibility and involvement in the world, it is slowly becoming ridiculous”, he writes. Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) must finally “argue about the total of the defense budget”.
On Friday Nico Fried complained in the Süddeutsche Zeitung that German soldiers were “poorly equipped and their weapons systems antiquated”. There was a “mismatch between political aspirations and military reality”. Due to public rejection of rearmament the Bundeswehr needs a “political and social lobby”.

Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen on the cover of Stern magazine.
On Thursday, the media reported with barely disguised glee that Defense Minister von der Leyen, who had traveled to the Iraqi Kurdish capital of Erbil as part of the operation to deliver German weapons, arrived empty handed due to defective transport aircraft. Fried wrote that the propaganda effect would have been greater if the defective aircraft had been used for a more popular action such as aid shipments to Africa. “Yes, it is a cynical thought”, he writes, “but it would have been even more effective if the transport aircraft had broken down carrying German aid workers for the Ebola regions, instead of weapons and trainers to Iraq”.
In Stern magazine, Tilman Gerwien, described as “one of the few in the newsroom who have served (in the army)”, was outraged that “the Germans could not care less about the Bundeswehr” and stormed: “They do not seem concerned about who provides for their security in a world in which alongside the ‘Islamic state’ other head-choppers, rapists and Christmas market suicide bombers are to be found. For decades they have convinced themselves that, after twice plunging the world into war, dying in the future and for all time should be left to others—preferably the Americans”.
The Germans must finally stop regarding the “Holocaust as an eternal privilege” that justified a military restraint, Gerwien thunders. “Europe’s biggest economy has an army whose equipment is a joke. This has been known for years and it could have been changed—with more money and more expertise in procurement”.
In previous editions of Stern Gerwien has polemicised against allegedly parasitic welfare payment recipients and against the campaign in the 1960s to uncover the role played by former Nazis in German politics.
A host of politicians are also involved in the campaign to present the Bundeswehr as decrepit and in need of urgent upgrading. Green Party chairman Cem Özdemir told the Neue Zeitung Osnabrück that Germany, as the fourth largest economy in the world, had made a laughing stock of itself. The soldiers of the Bundeswehr were very committed, but their equipment—helicopters, Eurofighters and transport equipment—could have come from a junkyard. “This is a disgrace, multiplied daily”, Özdemir said.
“The minister must now make clear where they plan to act”, demanded the defense spokesman of the SPD parliamentary group, Rainer Arnold. The CDU foreign policy expert Roderich Kiesewetter declared with regard to the defense budget: “In the medium term there is no way round an increase of budgetary resources”.
The defense expert of the Left Party, Alexander Neu, called upon von der Leyen to take responsibility for the existing problems. “Now we will see if she is serious about her announced detailed examination of all defense projects and draws consequences from the results, or whether it is all just a media show”, Neu told the Handelsblatt. Despite Germany’s €35 billion defence budget, the Bundeswehr was only partially functional.
The defence commissioner of the Bundestag, Hellmut Königshaus (FDP), said that the German army was poorly prepared for new challenges such as its latest foreign missions. CSU deputies Florian Hahn spoke of a “defective management” that threatened “military capability”.
In fact, the German defence budget is the seventh largest in the world. The abolition of compulsory military service three years ago released large parts of this budget for major defence projects. Last Thursday, Brigadier General Jörg Lebert announced at a church event that the Bundeswehr planned to purchase 16 armed drones by 2025.
Temporary problems to the army’s outdated Transall transport aircraft are due to the current ambitious upgrade projects. The acquisition of modern Airbus A400M has been delayed because the military has repeatedly submitted new requests for technical equipment.
The concerted campaign to increase the military budget on the part of the media and political circles is aimed at enforcing a massive program of rearmament in the face of growing opposition on the part of the German population that, after two world wars, is not prepared to kill and die for German economic interests. This is why journalists and politicians are so aggressive in their campaign.

[TonyGosling]

How the CIA Infiltrated Germany’s Mainstream Media

Interview with German Editor Turned CIA Whistleblower

By Global Research News
Global Research, October 20, 2014

Leading US-funded think-tanks and German secret service are accessories. Attempted suppression by legal threats. Blackout in German media.

Exclusively for RI, Dutch journalist Eric van de Beek interviews the senior German editor who is causing a sensation with his allegations that the CIA pays German media professionals to spin stories to follow US government goals.

We wrote about this two weeks ago, and the article shot up in views, becoming one of the most read articles on our site.

Udo Ulfkotte reveals in his bestseller Bought Journalists, how he was “taught to lie, to betray and not to tell the truth to the public.”

The former editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is one of Germany’s largest newspapers, was secretly on the payroll of the CIA and German secret service, spinning the news in a way that was positive for the United States and bad for its opponents.

In his latest interview, Ulfkotte alleges that some media are nothing more than propaganda outlets of political parties, secret services, international think tanks and high finance entities.

Repenting for collaborating with various agencies and organisations to manipulate the news, Ulkotte laments, “I’m ashamed I was part of it. Unfortunately I cannot reverse this.”

Some highlights from the interview:

“I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service.”
“Most journalists from respected and big media organisations are closely connected to the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantik-Brücke or other so-called transatlantic organisations…once you’re connected, you make friends with selected Americans. You think they are your friends and you start cooperating. They work on your ego, make you feel like you’re important. And one day one of them will ask you ‘Will you do me this favor’…”
“When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but I don’t mind.”
“[The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung] hasn’t sued me. They know that I have evidence on everything.”
“No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about [my] book. Otherwise he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller now that no German journalist is allowed to write or talk about.”
Here’s more from the interview:

“Bought journalists”, who are they?

“We’re talking about puppets on a string, journalists who write or say whatever their masters tell them to say or write. If you see how the mainstream media is reporting about the Ukraine conflict and if you know what’s really going on, you get the picture. The masters in the background are pushing for war with Russia and western journalists are putting on their helmets.”

And you were one of them, and now you are the first to blow the whistle.

“I’m ashamed I was part of it. Unfortunately I cannot reverse this. Although my superiors at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung approved of what I did, I’m still to blame. But yes, to my knowledge I am the first to accuse myself and to prove many others are to blame.”

How did you become a bought journalist?

“It started very soon after I started working at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. I learned to regard luxury invitations as quite acceptable and to write positive articles in return. Later on I was invited by the German Marshall Fund of The United States to travel the United States. They paid for all my expenses and put me in contact with Americans they’d like me to meet. In fact, most journalists from respected and big media organisations are closely connected to the German Marshall Fund, theAtlantik-Brücke or other so-called transatlantic organisations. Many of them are even members or ‘fellows’.

I am a fellow of the German Marshall Fund. The thing is, once you’re connected, you make friends with selected Americans. You think they are your friends and you start cooperating. They work on your ego, make you feel like you’re important. And one day one of them will ask you ‘Will you do me this favor’ and then another will ask you ‘Will you do me that favor’. Bye and bye you get completely brainwashed. I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially theBundesnachrichtendienst.”

You said your superiors approved of that?

“They did. From my private point of view, in retrospective, they even sent me to spy. For instance in 1988 they put me on a plane to Iraq, where I traveled to the border with Iran. In those days Saddam Hussein was still seen as a good guy, a close ally to the US. The Americans supported him in his war against Iran. About 35 kilometers from the border, in an Iranian place called Zubaidad, I witnessed the Iraqis killing and injuring thousands of Iranians by throwing poison gas at them.

I did exactly what my superiors had asked me to do. I made photo’s of the gas attacks. Back in Frankfurt it appeared my superiors didn’t show much interest in the atrocities I had witnessed. They allowed me to write an article about it, but they severely limited the size of it as if it wasn’t of much importance. At the same time they asked me to hand over the photo’s that I had made to the German association of chemical companies in Frankfurt, Verband der Chemischen Industrie. This poison gas that had killed so many Iranians was made in Germany.”

What’s your opinion on press trips? Journalists usually excuse themselves by saying they are perfectly able to follow their ownjudgment and that they don’t commit themselves to anything or anybody.

“I’ve been on a thousand press trips and never reported bad about those who paid all the expenses. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. That’s where corruption starts. And that’s the reason why magazines like Der Spiegel don’t allow their journalists to accept invitations to press trips unless they pay for their own expenses.”

The consequences of becoming a whistleblower can be serious. Do you have any indications people tried to prevent the publication of your book?

“When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but I don’t mind. You see, I don’t have children to take care of. And you must know I was severely injured during the gas attack I witnessed in Iran in 1988. I’m the sole German survivor from a German poison gas attack. I’m still suffering from this. I’ve had three heart attacks. I don’t expect to live for more than a few years.”

In your book you mention many names of bought journalists. How are they doing now? Are they being sacked? Are they trying to clear their names?

“No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about the book. Otherwise he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller now that no German journalist is allowed to write or talk about. More shocking: We have respected journalists who seem to have gone deep sea diving for a long time. It’s an Interesting situation. I expected and hoped that they would sue me and bring me to court. But they have no idea what to do. The respected Frankfurter Allgemeine just announced they will fire 200 employees, because they’re losing subscribers very rapidly and in high numbers. But they don’t sue me. They know that I have evidence on everything.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-cia-infiltrated-germanys-mainstre am-media/5408833

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

German government increases defence budget and plans massive rearmament
By Johannes Stern
28 March 2016
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/28/germ-m28.html
On Wednesday, the German cabinet adopted a four year budget plan that would dramatically increase spending on the military, police, and intelligence services.
German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble (Christian Democrats, CDU) did not mince words at a press conference Wednesday, declaring, “The central points of this budget and finance plan are of course the internal and external security of our country.”
In an overview on the finance ministry’s official website, it states on the key point of external security, “Given the variety and changing nature of the tasks of the German army, as part of international coalitions as well as alliance and national defence, the defence budget will be in the new finance plan by a total of around €10.2 billion.”
Specifically, the defence budget is to rise from €34.3 billion to €39.2 billion in 2020 (an increase of 14.3 percent). The majority of funds will flow into the rearmament of the army, for which fully €9.4 billion is to be set aside. The second-largest category is “international deployments” with over €1 billion.
Along with the German army, the intelligence agencies and security apparatus are being significantly strengthened. According to the finance ministry, “the spending on internal security […will be] increased by around €2.1 billion by 2020, an above average increase.” Key points would be “the new programme to strengthen the security agencies as well as the federal police.”
The interior ministry (BMI), bragged on its official website that its budget would surpass €8 billion for the first time. In its 2016 budget, the government provided an additional 750 employees for the security services and equipment worth €328 million by 2019. In addition, 3,000 new positions with the federal police have been created. The BMI would be continuing along this route with the 2017 budget. Among the items decided were “further strengthening of the security agencies with an additional security package of equipment totalling €630 million by 2020.”
In reality, spending on internal and external security is even higher. The €10 billion officially made available to “overcome the challenge of the refugee influx” will be available for, among other things, combatting the “causes of flight”—the new euphemism for the army’s interventions in North Africa and the Middle East. The federal police and ministry for migration and refugees will also receive additional funds from the “refugee pot” so they can increase personnel.
While the government is spending billions on internal and external security, other areas are being cut. “Budget discipline also means critically examining the efficacy and efficiency of measures and programmes,” the budget agreement states. Among other things, so-called spending reviews will be conducted “in the areas of housing funding and funding programmes in the sphere of energy transition and climate protection.”
It is already clear that the increases for the interior and defence ministries are only the beginning of a more comprehensive rearmament programme. In January, defence minister Ursula Von der Leyen held out the prospect of an additional €130 billion for the military by 2030 and presented a paper to the defence committee in the Bundestag calling for the purchase of hundreds of tanks, artillery pieces, naval helicopters and other large items of military equipment.
Defence policy spokespeople from the governing and opposition parties criticised the increased spending as inadequate. Florian Hahn, defence policy spokesman for the CSU, told Die Welt, “the scale is nevertheless unsatisfactory.” The “investment package demanded by the minister” was “not covered” and the insufficient injection of funds was the “wrong signal” and left “doubts among the troops whether we are confronting the shortages with sufficient seriousness.”
Rainer Arnold, the defence spokesman for the Social Democrats, went even further and described the benchmark figures as “disappointing.” The defence budget was increasing, “but given the lack of equipment and the requirement for increased personnel in the army” it “fell far short.” The adopted increases were “utterly inadequate” and “particularly given the lack of equipment, a real blow.” With an army “which in part only functions on paper”, Germany would “not be equal to the rising security policy demands.”
Green parliamentary deputy Tobias Lindner, who is a member of the budgetary and defence committee in parliament, sounded a similar note. He criticised the fact that “the defence minister’s wish list [is] much larger than the extra means allocated to her by Wolfgang Schäuble.” In addition, “the majority of the spending [is] for the period after the current electoral cycle,” and this meant it was “completely unclear whether Von der Leyen would be in office and a new government will continue this course.”
Interior minister Thomas de Maizière, who has been pushing for strengthened internal security for years, announced in a statement that by the finalization of a draft budget, he would “agree” with Schäuble “on a significant increase of personnel, particularly for the authorities concerned with combatting terrorism.” The issue was to make “the security agencies as ready to strike as possible.” For this, they would need “good protective equipment, the newest technology, weapons and vehicles.”
While politicians and the media are trying to portray the militarization of German foreign policy and the building up of a police state as a response to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, these measures have been long planned and have been the government’s goal from the outset.
The coalition deal between the CDU, CSU and SPD titled “Framing Germany’s future” identified these goals in the autumn of 2013. These included “strengthening the federal police as a competent and effective criminal police force,” “modernising the federal police’s operational equipment” and a “better cooperative relationship between the security agencies.”
In the section “Responsibility in the world,” it stated, “We support a strong defence force with modern and capable armed forces. … The Bundeswehr is an intervention army. With its new direction it will also be directed at the changed security policy conditions of the 21st century. We will firmly continue this reorientation and lead it to success,” which will require “a broad spectrum of military capabilities.”

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Horst Teubert - Germany & The EU

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZxg8JRThx4

Germany’s Dominant Role in the European Union
By Michael Werbowski
Global Research, March 14, 2013
http://www.globalresearch.ca/germanys-dominant-role-in-the-european-un ion/5326785

After nearly a quarter of a century since the fall of the wall, Berlin has become the uncontested centre of the continent in both political and economic terms. Only in military aspects is the reunited powerhouse of Europe curbing its expansionist instincts or zeal (yet with Washington’s benign consent it is now flexing its military muscles in Afghanistan and on the Syrian –Turkish border in quest of a much wider geo-political Lebensraum.

Germany today effectively runs the European Union. Its strength is daunting to some EU states like Greece, which is almost under an occupation like puppet regime, and very worrisome to former foes now close strategic allies in the U.K. and France.

France looks warily at Berlin and London increasingly seeks to withdraw from Merkel’s EU, leaving Germany to make use of its free reign on the European playground, while advancing national interests on a continental scale.

This bad playhouse which led to an inordinate shift of influence to Berlin, began of course with reunification, and then continued with the introduction of the Euro. In reality, the Euro for all intents and purposes was a political not an economic project. It was devised by two statesmen who knew first hand the dangers of an unbounded Germany on the continent: François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl. An unspoken ( officially speaking) and unsigned Franco German pact was implemented henceforth, as a means of curbing Germany’s hegemony. In return for German reunification, Berlin agreed to give up its national treasure the Deutsche Mark for the European common currency.

The project badly backfired. The ‘German Euro’ represented Berlin’s newfound dominance within the EU. When the financial global meltdown in the markets struck, Berlin seized this crisis to further strengthen its hand within the EU by further weakening less economically dynamic states. Berlin eroded the sovereignty of these states using the ‘Euro straightjacket’ as a tool for imposing austerity and hence hegemony over its clients.

The technocrats from Frankfurt’s ECB along with their enablers and handmaidens in Brussels ( the European Commission) and the IMF in Washington have since 2008 ruthlessly and brutality implemented an austerity programme throughout the Eurozone and beyond,which can only compared to the one Weimar Germany was subjected to during the inter war years.

We all know where this led.In the most acute case, the Greek economy is still reeling from “third world”like unemployment and anemic growth. Never the less, Berlin seems relentlessly to be enacting these harsh policies with an almost fiendish, if not perverse pleasure despite the growing unrest in the southern flank of the EU. The depravation on the Greek citizenry is nothing less than deplorable and horrific; bordering on the social pain only known to the impoverished Weimar Germans of yesteryear. Like the Germans of the 1920s, the Greeks have responded domestically to these austere measures (meant to repay its debt to foreign creditors,mostly German and French banks) by opting for extreme political choices as a way out of the blind alley. As Democracy is imperiled, what other choice do they have? Both the far right and far left have become palatable choices for Greek voters.

In retrospect, the overlords in Berlin do not seems to see or are unwilling to notice the parallels between the plight of the Greek government in 2013 and that ( street violence) of the post-world war one Weimar polity of 1923. Certainly the hyperinflation experienced by the wheel –barreling Germans back then, is not evident in today’s Greece. But still, the political instability and dramatic fall in living standards do bear a sinister and striking similarity to those very dark days from the long forgotten it seems, past. The politics of austerity have a historical resonance worth remembering.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

The wars of the next year (I) 05/11/2016
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58939

BERLIN (Own report) - The Bundeswehr is increased for the first time since 1990, replaced by new capacity and can increase its budget massively. This tells Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen with. Accordingly, the "human resources" of the German Armed Forces is determined flexibly in the future; he should rise by provisionally 14,300 military and 4,400 civilian employees to 2023rd The defense budget, which was still in 2000 at 23 billion euros, increased by 2020 to 39.2 billion euros. Thus, the geopolitical ambitions of Berlin, which are propagated massively since autumn 2013. materialize - with the active involvement, not least the President, which occurred repeatedly for a more aggressive German world policy, the deployment of the armed forces. Here Berlin aims to control a ring of states around Europe, which includes rich resource areas, provided especially as the "cordon sanitaire" to foreclose a prosperous European empire against adversities of all kinds. Because the EU's original plans to dominate the States Ring with political and economic means, have largely failed, the federal government is now about to open military power deployment.
turnaround
For the first time since 1990 the Bundeswehr is increased again. This announces Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen. As she explained last Monday, the recent personnel ceilings of the armed forces (185,000 soldiers, 56,000 civilian employees) are repealed. Future should the "human resources", that grew to military operations due to the continuing increase in the number, "every year for the medium-term fixed" are. Given a new "Personal Board" under the direction of the two civil servants Defence Secretaries (Gerd Hoofe, Katrin Suder) and the Bundeswehr inspector general (Volker Wieker) is used. Already next year we will initiate the "turnaround staff" and begin setting up of 7,000 new military authorities said von der Leyen. By 2023, according to the latest "medium-term" schedule around 14,300 additional soldiers and 4,400 civilian employees well are also required; This represents an increase in the military by nearly eight percent. In addition to an "internal optimization" of "structures and processes" in the troupe allow it to expand the "human resources" of the armed forces. They concern a matter of "to increase the sustainability of the Bundeswehr to strengthen the robustness and build new skills," shares the minister with. [1]
billions
To improve in this sense, "the performance of the Bundeswehr", are, according to von der Leyen 96 "single action" planned. [2] This includes the development of its own branch of service for the cyber war, which the Minister has recently announced. For this to highly qualified IT specialists are recruited. Furthermore, would the "Special Forces of the Army and Navy" strengthened explains von der Leyen; among others, will get a new "Boarding Company" that created for warfare in coastal areas Sea Battalion [3] The "capacity in managing large defense projects" would be enlarged. Moreover, the medical care of the Bundeswehr will expand at home and abroad. All this is connected to a massive increase in the military budget. Lag the German defense budget as early as 2015 with a volume of nearly 33 billion euros to more than 40 percent over that of 2000 (23.1 billion euros), so he will now continue to grow. Already in 2017 are planned 36.6 billion euros; 2020 the Bundeswehr 39.2 billion euros available. Thus in addition to the increase in staff to extensive upgrade projects are financed. The defense minister has already announced in January, to want to spend some 130 billion euros for the purchase of new military equipment by 2030 - twice as much as originally planned. [4]
Dialogue from above
The staffing of the Bundeswehr and the multibillion-dollar upgrade programs contribute to long-reaching geopolitical ambitions Berlin statement. These are offensive since the fall of 2013 temporarily propagated campaign like. Germany should show "more involvement in international politics" and noticeably stronger than before to the "solution" of global conflict - even military - involved, urged President Joachim Gauck in his speech at the German National Day 2013. [5] Berlin had "determined" occur on the world stage to the global "framework ... to form," Gauck repeated end of January 2014, on the Munich Security Conference; this could ", the use of soldiers may be required" [6] In the days before Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Defence Minister had expressed similarly von der Leyen. Germany was "too big to comment only on the outline of world politics," Steinmeier said, while said von der Leyen, "indifference" was "for a country like Germany is not an option". [7] Recently, the Federal College for Security Studies (BAKS ) announced the debate about the global political activities of Berlin more than ever to wear "in the general public". [8] in addition, new measures to connect journalists were planned, it was said at the BAKS. [9]
A ring around Europe
Planning German political strategists clearly suggest in which regions of the world, the global ambitions of Berlin demand for the coming years ever more extensive military operations. It was October 2013 - with a view of the increasing focus of the United States in the struggle for power with China - published in one of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) Strategy Paper, Germany has to raise the US "relieve", "in mainly due to the increasingly unstable expectant European environment of North Africa to the Middle East to Central Asia focus ". These are also "military operations" is needed. [10] Similarly, it said in a contribution to the debate about the new "White Paper" of the Bundeswehr, Germany and Europe were surrounded by an "arc of crisis", the "from the Baltic to the Middle East to Maghreb "rich - and the". reasons "deliver," why we armed forces "[11] in the countries of the so-called crisis arc is partly to countries that Berlin and Brussels wants to use as a raw material supplier and sales markets in neocolonial style - the oil states of North Africa and the Middle East; partly it comes to countries that are to be taken as a "cordon sanitaire" under control in order to prevent the entry of refugees and armed attacks on the EU and on European interests (Mali, Libya, Syria).
War instead Policy
About today's "arc of crisis" it said years ago in the "European Security Strategy", adopted on 12 December 2003 in Brussels: "We need to work to increase the east created the European Union and the Mediterranean borders a ring of well governed countries, which can maintain we close, cooperative relations. "- a reliable controllable Wall stable clients around a prosperous EU [12] This target has been missed vigorous, balanced at the beginning of Wolfgang Ischinger, head of the Munich Security Conference: the" vision a European Union that can both south of the Mediterranean and in Eastern Europe surrounded by a cordon sanitaire of stability, increasing prosperity and cooperation ", was" massively failed ". [13] to the German-European empire against adversities of all kinds foreclose while enabling the economic access to interest neighboring regions, soldiers are now deployed in the respective countries of Mali through Syria to Iraq - in the wars of the next few years.
As the army is prepared by increase, restructuring and upgrading to the wars of the next few years, read on german-foreign-policy.com an irregular basis in the coming weeks.
[1], [2] turnaround staff: Order of the Day of the Minister. www.bmvg.de 05/10/2016.
[3] S. to the multitool of Marine .
[4] Christian Thiel: from the Leyen 130-billion-Select. www.tagesschau.de 01/27/2016.
[5] S. to Sleeping demons .
[6], [7] p to the world framework .
[8] S. to dialogue from above .
[9] S. to all of Germany .
[10] New Power - New Responsibility. Elements of German foreign and security policy for a world in upheaval. A paper of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) and the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). October 2013. p to the remeasurement of the German world politics .
[11] Hilmar Linnenkamp, ​​Christian Mölling: The White Paper on Defence Policy. SWP Comments 21 February 2015. p to Modern Strategy understanding (II) .
[12] A Secure Europe in a Better World. European Security Strategy. Brussels, 12 December, 2013.
[13] A future challenge for the EU. International Policy, January / February 2016 p 28-32.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Merkel calls for anti-terror laws to be renewed
Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for the extension of Germany's anti-terror laws in order to prevent future attacks. But members of her coalition government want a thorough review of the laws before any renewal.
http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-calls-for-anti-terror-laws-to-be-renewed/a -15058352

Police officers escorting suspect
Authorities recently broke up a terror cell in Düsseldorf
German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her support on Saturday for renewing Germany's anti-terror laws before they expire this January.

The laws provide authorities with broad powers to access and store personal information to build suspect profiles.

"We are going to need a large portion of the regulations in the future in order to prevent terrorist attacks in Germany," Merkel told the regional daily Passauer Neue Presse on Saturday.

Merkel's statement comes days after the US commando raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Last April, German authorities arrested three alleged members of al Qaeda in the western cities of Düsseldorf and Bochum. The suspects had concrete plans for bomb attacks, according to authorities.

Data mining

Among the controversial security measures is a provision that allows authorities to secretly store personal data such as telecommunications and bank account activity.

Germany's constitutional court overturned the original measure in 2008, which allowed data to be saved for up to sixth months. Privacy advocates and civil rights groups criticized its scope, saying it would make massive amounts of personal data vulnerable to misuse.

Merkel, however, views data collection as a critical law enforcement tool.

"In light of the fight against terrorism and crime, we cannot forgo the instrument that allows us to store personal data, particularly due to the fact that we have to implement EU guidelines," Merkel said.

German plice in train station
Merkel says Germany is still vulnerable to attack
Coalition controversy

The debate over whether and for how long the anti-terrorism laws should be extended has created tension in Merkel's center-right coalition government.

Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, a member of the Free Democrats, remains skeptical of the laws and has called for a review to investigate whether or not they conform with Germany's constitution.

"There is still this reflex to sharpen the laws whenever there is an opportunity to do so, even though this has nothing to do with the concrete threat level," said Schnarrenberger, going on to say that the government should consider getting rid of certain provisions in the law.

"When I see that many of the more aggressive powers have been barely used by the intelligence agencies over the past years, there's an argument to be made that they shouldn't be left in the current law," she said.

Broad support

However, Jörg Ziercke - the head of Germany's Federal Criminal Police (BKA) - countered Schnarrenberger's statement, expressing his support for the security measures, including data collection.

"Even if I only use a security measure once and stop an attack with it, then the measure is worthwhile," Ziercke said.

Ziercke's position finds broad support among the German people, according to new polling data released by the German public broadcaster ZDF.

When asked about the anti-terror laws, 79 percent of Germans said they supported them while 16 percent said they were opposed.

Germany's anti-terror laws - which are set to expire on January 12, 2012 – were passed after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and first renewed in 2007.

Author: Spencer Kimball (Reuters, AFP, dapd)
Editor: Kyle James

DW RECOMMENDS
Flight passenger data aided in German terror arrest, says minister
Germany's interior minister wants to extend anti-terror legislation that allows Berlin to pass on flight passenger data to the US. The minister said three arrests made last week were based largely on such data. (06.05.2011)

[TonyGosling]

The end of Angela Merkel and the rise of Ursula von der Leyen, Henry Kissingers new lap dog

Montag, 5. September 2016
The end of Angela Merkel and the rise of Ursula von der Leyen, Henry Kissingers new lap dog !!....
http://news-from-the-fatherland.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/the-end-of-ange la-merkel-and-rise-of.html

Hello dear readers and fellow truth seekers,

In June I published 2 articles in this blog, predicting, that German defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen will be the next chancellor of Germany and that Angela Merkels time is up and today it
looks as if I was spot on.

from the 24th of june:
http://news-from-the-fatherland.blogspot.de/2016/06/german-defence-min ister-von-der-leyen.html

and from the 29th of June:
http://news-from-the-fatherland.blogspot.de/2016/06/the-german-defence -minister-von-der.html

And why am I so confident??....

Because yesterday there were federal elections in the German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where Merkels own constituency lies, and Merkels party, the CDU, lost these elections in catastrophic fashion. They just became the third strongest party with 19 Percent of the vote behind the new right wing anti-immigration party, the AfD with 21.8 percent and the SPD with 30,1 percent of the vote.

And today for the first time in her 11 years reign the mass media in Germany started to talk about alternatives to Angela Merkel and obviously the name Ursula von der Leyen keeps popping up,
but this is no coincidence, but very much planned and premeditated.

Please do remember and I did inform you about it already in May :

Apparently Merkel declined her invitation to the Bilderberg meeting in June in Dresden. That was the answer of her spokesperson to an official question by the German socialist parliamentary
Group 'Die Linke'. She and her chief of staff, Peter Altmaier officially DECLINED the invitaion of Mr. Kissinger and the Bilderbergers.

Normally that would have been a huge affront and may be Merkel didnt know, what she was doing, but that is rather unlikely, because she herself was installed by the Bilderbergers following their prevoius meeting in Germany in 2005 in Rottach-Egern in Bavaria.

(Merkel was there for the first time, our previous chancellor Gerhard Schröder was there and a few weeks after this Bilderberg meeting in Bavaria Schröder called for early elections with no need whatsoever to do so and allthough he was down in the polls. Subsequently he lost these elections and in October 2005 Merkel became the new chancellor of Germany. And Gerhard Schröder got a nice Job as an advicer to the Swiss branch of the Rothchild banking dynasty !! A nice consolation price indeed!!)

So it is more likely, that the Bilderbergers and Merkel came to a mutual agreement, that her time is up and that there was no need for her anymore to attend this years Bilderberg meeting. So she declined the invitation with the permission of the Bilderbergers and their chief executive Henry Kissinger and like I explained in the 2 articles above the new puppet of Kissinger and the Bilderbergers is our defense minister Ursula von der Leyen. She has been pampered and promoted by Kissingers for the last 3 years or so and right now she is very busy increasing the German army and reactivating 500 German Leopard tanks.

and look how cosy they are together:


But for which war? I dont know and your guess is as good as mine, but Iran springs to mind and that would fit in with the attempted military putsch in Turkey, I mean this military coup where Erdogan tried to putsch himself out of office, this staged false flag operation which Erdogan is using now to cleanse the Turkish army and judicial sytem of any critical elements whatsoever, probably so that the Turkish army can be used as a spearhead in the coming war against the Iran. These 2 countries have a very long common border together, so in any military operation against Iran, Turkey is of enormous importance, basicly indispensable as an ACTIVE ally. And these strategic thoughts were behind the staged coup attempt in Turkey.

All the tensions with Russia and all the sabre rattling ist just a smokecreen to divert the public Attention away from a future war against Iran and nobody will dare to attack the atomic
powerhouse Russia, that would be suicidal, eevn for the Rothchilds and Rockefellers.

And the invasion of Syria by the Turkish army was just the ouverture to the far bigger goal, the biggest objectice and the greatest price in the Middle East at all, regime change in Iran with the help of Hillary Clinton, Ursula von der Leyen and Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

And when did the Turkish invasion of Syria begin? Absolut correct. just a few days after this so called 'military putsch' and the subsequent purge of the Turkish army, judicial sytem and media outlets. This all has obviously been planned long time ago and the US-elite and the other globalist are currently just putting everything together for the attack against the Iran, the last oil-producing country in the Middle East which the USA are not controlling.

Erdogan and Turkey are on board and now they just have to wait for the American elections, for a new puppet, eeh American president and for a new German chancellor and then this little Persian 'adventure' can finally go ahead.

Ooh yes, and we will obviously need another terrorist attack, which will be blamed on Iran and the Ayatollahs. Well, thats one of the smallest tasks for the CIA and Mossad.

Look at 9/11, easy peasy....

My god, folks, the future looks very dark indeed.


Yours sincerely. Carsten Schulz...
0049 176 434 72044...

P.S.:
the next general elections in Germany will be in September or October 2017 and a new president nd head of stae will be elected in February of
the same year. So there will be regime change in Germany first
and then in Iran..........


kasimir2811@yahoo.co.uk
Querdenker.in.aktion1999@gmail.comm
Carsten_Schulz@piratenpower9999

https://www.facebook.com/carsten.schulz.3367


And please donate a small amount, so that I can keep up my independent investigative journalism:
Carsten H Schulz
Halifax UK
IBAN: GB49HLFX11041501336306
BIC: HLFXGB21M04

Thank you very much !!....

[TonyGosling]

The not-so-underground Reich: W. Germany's senior justice ministry was over 50% Nazi in 1950-70s
https://www.sott.net/article/330708-The-not-so-underground-Reich-W-Ger manys-senior-justice-ministry-was-over-50-Nazi-in-1950-70s

The majority of West German Justice Ministry officials during the post-WWII period were former Nazis that had served in Adolf Hitler's regime, a government study claims, adding that may be why so few Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes.

Between 1949 and 1973, 90 of the West German Justice Ministry's 170 judges and lawyers were ex-members of the Nazi party, an official study presented by German Justice Minister Heiko Maas revealed.

Of those 90, at least 34 had been members of the SA, the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. The SA played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power and was responsible for the crimes committed during the 1938 Kristallnacht, also known as the Night of Broken Glass, when more than 90 Jews were killed.

Many of the judges had also been members of the Nazi special tribunals which operated outside the ordinary justice system and were used by the Nazis to carry out summary executions and to crack down on dissent, the former Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, who commissioned the study while in office, told German radio station Deutschlandfunk.

"There was very large continuity," said Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.

The proportion of former Nazis among senior ministry officials in 1957 was even higher than during the 1933-45 period when the Third Reich was in power, the report stated.

"We didn't expect the figure to be this high," the study co-author Christoph Safferling told Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

The report also shed light on why so few Nazi criminals were found in post-war period - "Hitler's people" in the Justice Ministry covered each other from police.

"The Nazi-era lawyers went on to cover up old injustice rather than to uncover it and thereby created new injustice," said Maas.

"At a time when a fierce struggle was underway about punishing Nazi crimes, the old comrades were reluctant to come under the scrutiny of young, unencumbered outsiders," said Safferling, explaining that ex-Nazi justice officials always explained that they worked for the Third Reich because they had no other choice and simply followed orders.

"You never find words of regret, only justifications," he said.

The report also suggests that ex-Nazi justice officials had an impact on the present day. Some were promoting racist ideas, such as discrimination against the Jews. For example, one employee who had been involved in the Nazis' racial laws was later responsible for family law in West Germany.

"When you look today at how the use of the concept of 'national' is developing among the public, I believe it clearly shows how urgently important it is to show the facts of what happens when people refer to race or bloodlines as special, distinguishing features, marginalizing other people," Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said.

The post-WWII period was marked by a series of trials in Nuremberg held by the Allied forces that prosecuted the most prominent Nazis. The number of those convicted was relatively small - 6,650 people. Some of the war criminals received milder sentences because they proved that they had played minor roles in the Third Reich.

Until 2011, Germany underestimated the role of those who worked in so-called death and labor camps during the war. The case of John Demjanjuk - a Ukrainian who immigrated to the United States before being extradited to Germany to face charges - changed the legal situation of those who worked in death camps.

The judge presiding over his trial ruled that, while there was no clear evidence that Demjanjuk had personally killed anyone, his activities at the camp had facilitated murder. Demanjuk died in 2012 while appealing a five-year jail sentence for complicity in the murder of more than 28,000 Jews at the Sobibor death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland.

Comment: Left unsaid is that this was directly supported and facilitated by the "winner" of the war: the USA. For some like Allen Dulles, the Nazis weren't so bad. Actually, they were pretty darn great. Dulles had always been a supporter, with many Nazi friends, clients, and business associates. After the war, he did all he could to save as many of them as possible from retribution. Many were brought over to the States in Project Paperclip. Many more were put on the payroll overseas, like Reinhard Gehlen, who basically ran the CIA's anti-communism spy activities in West Germany. In truth, the Nazis were never defeated. They just teamed up with the Americans. For more of the details, see David Talbot's recent book, The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government.

[TonyGosling]

Germany's secret role in the Libya invasion

Germany's War Record (III) 2016/09/26
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58973

BERLIN/TRIPOLI (Own report) - Five years after NATO's aggression against Libya, a British parliamentary committee has issued a damning assessment of that war and its alleged causes. The allegation, Muammar Gadhafi was planning to massacre the people of Benghazi and that this must be prevented was the main pretext used by western powers for their intervention in March 2011. Internationally renowned experts found no credible evidence to substantiate this allegation, therefore it is probably false, concluded the parliamentary committee. Foreign interests, in fact, had played the decisive role. Referring to French intelligence officers, the report points out that French President Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, was interested in obtaining access to a greater share of Libyan oil, increasing French political influence in North Africa and demonstrating France's military power. The collapse of the Libyan state and the rise of militant Islamists were to be expected from the outset. Berlin can also not be exonerated from accusations. While officially rejecting the war - not least of all for reasons of German-French rivalry - Berlin actually dispatched more than a hundred German soldiers to NATO's headquarters commanding the war on Libya. The war resulted in the economic, social and political collapse of that country. Libya is on the verge of becoming consumed by a protracted full-scale civil war.
German Participation in the War
NATO's war on Libya, launched in March 2011 on France's initiative, had been waged with active German support. The German government had abstained during the UN Security Council's vote to establish a "no-fly-zone" over Libya and it did not provide combat, surveillance or refueling aircraft for attacking that country. This corresponded to its strategy to call for EU support for military operations particularly in Southeast Europe when it fits German interests, but prevent wars - whenever possible - when they are in France's interests.[1] However, immediately after the war on Libya was launched, Berlin agreed to dispatch additional German troops to Afghanistan to relieve soldiers of other NATO-countries for joining the war on Libya. In addition, Berlin not only did not repatriate its Bundeswehr officers at NATO's command structures waging the war, it even dispatched 66 officers and 37 non-commissioned officers to NATO's headquarters in command of the war on Libya. The German Ministry of Defense explicitly confirmed that German soldiers were not only handling communications in Libyan airspace, but were also involved in "target selection."[2] Moreover, politicians, today in prominent positions, have strongly criticized the government for its abstention during the UN Security Council's vote. Referring to Libya, Joachim Gauck declared in early June 2011, if rebels call for help against despots, one should "not immediately have a fearful reaction about how it could end" but with "joy that it begins."[3] Today, Gauck is the president of Germany.
PR for Intervention
Such statements, which were also propagated in German media at the time, were bluntly assessed by a report issued this month by a British parliamentary committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee was ordered to examine whether the reasons given for the war in 2011 were well founded and if the intervening powers had had a responsible strategy. To clarify these questions, the Committee invited leading international experts on Libya. Their findings were remarkable. One internationally renowned analyst expressed her shock at the lack of awareness of the history and regional complexities of Libya, when she had to confer with the competent bodies in the Foreign Office, involved in planning the war.[4] She and other experts concluded in March 2011 that there was no real evidence at the time that Muammar Gadhafi would order a massacre in insurgent Benghazi. This was the scenario used to justify western aggression against Libya. The independent experts confirmed to the committee that, neither in past upheavals nor when retaking insurgent towns, like Ajdabiya in March 2011, had Gadhafi ever ordered massacres of civilians. Particularly Libyan exiles, pursuing their own interests and the media of countries, such as Qatar (Al Jazeera), hostile to Gadhafi, had been propagating allegations to the contrary. In the UK, politicians and media had certainly been anxious to believe these allegations.
Objectives of the War
The Commission's report enumerates, in detail, the French interests leading to President at the time, Nicolas Sarkozy's initiative to go to war in February 2011. French intelligence officers are named as the sources of information. According to these officers, Sarkozy had wanted to obtain access to a greater share of the Libyan oil production, "increase French influence in North Africa," and "provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world," and to thwart Gadhafi's plans to "supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa." He was also eager to improve his own domestic prestige: Having failed to stand up to the German chancellor in solving the Euro crisis, Sarkozy was put on the defensive. This also played a role in his decision to go to war. The fact that London had had not only understanding for these interests and to some extent, even shared the same intentions, renders the question of a possible massacre in Benghazi in March 2011 quite superfluous. However, the allegation that this danger had existed, served as a convenient justification for going to war. US media later compared this pretext to the false narrative of alleged weapons of mass destruction to justify war in Iraq in 2003.[5]
State Collapse and Jihadists
The British parliamentary commission also notes that the total collapse of the Libyan state following Gadhafi's overthrow had been anything but surprising. "Libya was a country with no institutions to speak of," Libya expert Alison Pargeter told the Commission. It was clear, that "when you took Gadhafi away, you took everything away." Indeed, the repressive authorities, the judiciary, and governmental services collapsed in but a short time. According to the experts, it was evident from the very beginning of the Libyan insurgency that militant Islamists were an important factor. For attentive observers, it came as no surprise that they would play an important role following Gadhafi's overthrow and even opened the way for the "Islamic State" (IS/Daesh) and other jihadists. (german-foreign-policy.com reported [6]).
A Country Destroyed
NATO powers waged their war based on their economic and political interests and the ignorance derived from their being imbued with their own power. This war has plunged Libya into a disaster. Combat in 2011 alone, cost the lives of an estimated 20,000 people - but probably even more. It is unknown how many have been killed since. The number of the internally displaced is estimated at 400,000. The Libyan economy has plummeted. In 2010, the gross domestic product (GDP) was at around US $75 billion (an average annual per capita income of approximately US $12,250, which was comparable to the average income in some European countries). In 2014, the GDP had fallen to about $41 billion (an annual $7,820 per capita income). The deterioration continues, current reliable figures are unavailable. In 2010, the United Nations Human Development Report ranked Libya as the 53rd most advanced country for human development. In 2015, it had declined to rank 94 - and this decline continues. According to the United Nations, out of a total Libyan population of 6.3 million, 3 million are directly affected by armed conflicts in the country; 2.4 million depend on some form of humanitarian assistance. The country is currently facing a new escalation of the civil war, with militias of all sorts and heavily armed jihadists confronting each other on numerous fronts.
No Success
The western powers have yet to reach the objectives of their war in Libya and are trying - so far, in vain, and even without the prospect of success - to control the country with a "transitional government" imposed from the outside. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[7]) Even the traditional oil production has been greatly reduced and - as in the case of the Germany's Wintershall oil and gas company - has come to a complete standstill.[8] This of course does not exonerate the NATO powers of their guilt, which Germany also shares, for this war.
For more on this theme see: Germany's War Record (I), and Germany's War Record (II).
[1] See The Disengagement of France.
[2] Antwort des Parlamentarischen Staatssekretärs im Bundesverteidigungsministerium, Thomas Kossendey, auf eine schriftliche Frage des Abgeordneten Hans-Christian Ströbele. Berlin, 08.09.2011.
[3] Christian Geyer: Frech und frei. www.faz.net 05.06.2011.
[4] Quotes taken from: House of Commons, Foreign Affairs Committee: Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options. Third Report of Session 2016-17. London, September 2016.
[5] Hillary Clinton's WMD moment: US intelligence saw false narrative in Libya. The Washington Times 29.01.2015.
[6] See More Important than Human Rights and Eine Atmosphäre der Straflosigkeit.
[7] See Gegen Terror und Migration and Against Terrorism and Migration (II).
[8] See Die Erdöl-Schutztruppe.