In Crimea the mortal remains of German soldiers are often found. They cannot be buried in the beautiful, almost celestially German military cemetery near the port city of Sevastopol, because the responsible German authorities refuse to cooperate with the Russian authorities. If you address this matter to the President of the Federal Republic, an answer will not be given. What is one to think of an administration that due to the current NATO policy behaves in this fashion towards its fallen soldiers?
It is an act of decency and responsibility for the past and future to commemorate the dead. We have seen too many of such occasions in the last century. None of this should be forgotten, because this creates new misery. Isn’t that especially applicable to Stalingrad and the immeasurable death toll that people beyond Brest paid for the German Reich’s attack on the then Soviet Union? Why were the million victims of this war seventy-five years after the end of the Stalingrad battle not commemorated? Why does the Federal Government refuse to honour the victims? Why do we let ourselves be manipulated against Russia by a mendacious and aggressive policy? This policy comes precisely from those alleged allies who wanted to destroy both Germany and the Danube Monarchy in 1914 in the war against Austria-Hungary and imperial Germany!
Why are all in Europe again talking about war against Russia, instead of finally realizing that it was Moscow which placed the key to Germany’s unity in our trustworthy hands? Should it be avoided in any case, that the huge and almost unbridgeable difference between the suffering of millions of people beyond Brest and our policies today regarding this country will be visible? Russia and its people are responding to what has been done to their country and to them with a sincere desire for good neighbourliness. Where, in God’s name, has there ever been such an attitude?
Berlin reacts as if it is not interested in this attitude. In this regard Berlin is so different from Bonn. Why do we not enforce that only the “Charter of Paris” of November 1990, created a few weeks after the German reunification, remains the defining document of European cooperation? War should be banned from Europe after the horrors of the past century. It was Bill Clinton as American President and his Foreign Minister, Ms Albright, who restored the old European order of war with the vulgar war of aggression against Yugoslavia.
It is precisely the sequence of historically significant data that highlights the dimension of aggressive action against other states and peoples. We see this in the period between 8 January 1918 and June 1919, between the notorious “14 points” of American President Wilson, the ceasefire in November 1918, and the Treaty of Versailles. Great Britain and France planned to destroy imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary. These days, in January 2018, the current British Commander-in-Chief [see also article on page 3 above] publicly blustered that one wanted to strike against the so-called Central Powers in 1912 (and not only in 1914). The complete annihilation of Germany was not possible. Ultimately Versailles was necessary to infiltrate the once flourishing pre-war Germany with the plague, so that that the military goal of destroying Germany from the inside could be set in motion.
These disgusting forces could be released in Germany only via Versailles. It is this sequence which must give every political observer the impression that in order to achieve global strategic goals, this mechanism should be started today against the Russian Federation and the state leadership in Moscow. It hit us all “out of the blue” what Obama and Ms Clinton set in motion towards our Russian neighbours at the beginning of this decade. The deployment of troops and the deadly military antics of the Cold War are nothing against it.American generals are once again chattering about the great war in Europe. One hardly believes it and considers it against the background of today’s politics for a fairy tale, that in summer 2012 the staff music corps of the German army could still play on Red Square in Moscow. More reaching out from Russia isn’t possible. And what was the German answer? German government members were actively involved in the Kiev coup and it was used against Moscow. Should Russia be knocked down by the model 1914 in order to be able to destroy it from within? We have a question: Die for Washington? This is by no means directed against the current American President Trump. While every American president seems to want to “wage his war,” President Trump has not been conspicuous when it comes to combat. However, it is questionable whether his sphere of influence extends beyond the “rose garden” at the White House, or that under the military leadership in the White House the global American military commanders have long since taken the law of action into their own hands. Only one thing does not seem to work: in the Cold War, the Soviet Union was armed to death. Today, this strategy does not seem to work. Probably the “two-percent fetishists” will prevail.1 •
1 Willy Wimmer points to the goal of the NATO states to spend two per cent of GDP on the defence budget. (Editor’s note)
km. On 6 February 2018, the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” published a lengthy contribution by James D. Bindenagel. James D. Bindenagel is an American political scientist who, in 1996 and 1997, was US Ambassador to Germany ad interim in Bonn. Bindenagel is member of numerous influential organisations, including the American Jewish Committee in Berlin, the American Council on Germany and the German Council for Foreign Affairs.
In 2014, Bindenagel was appointed to the new Chair of International Relations and International Law at the University of Bonn. This endowed professorship was established in honour (!) of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and is jointly funded by the Federal Ministry of Defence and the Federal Foreign Office. Bindenagel has received numerous awards, including the State Department’s Distinguished Service Award, the German Federal Cross of Merit and the US Presidential Meritorious Service Award.
His article in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” is titled “New World Order” and subtitled “The USA has given up its leading role, now Germany must take more responsibility.” Right from the start it is said: “Germany is the greatest hope when it comes to defending the liberal world order – whether the country wants to take the lead or not. Global power is currently shifting: because of growing nationalism in China and Russia, the international order is dissolving. […] The newly elected American president, in turn, has doubted the US’s defence obligation towards Europe. With his nationalist policy, Donald Trump gives up America’s leading role in international affairs.”
Bindenagel refers to surveys which are supposed to show that a majority believe Germany should no longer rely on the United States for its “defence policy” but should act together with other EU member states. He adds that, according to a survey by the US American Gallup Institute, “41 per cent of the respondents have supported a global leading role of Germany – more than for the United States.”
Bindenagel is aware of the German’s reservations regarding a leading military-political role of their country. He therefore addresses German history. In some black and white picture he draws a militaristic Germany until 1945 and a rather pacifist Germany after the Second World War until 1990. Germany has become a “civil power” – “Europe’s leading democracy”(!). He continues: “After the historical shift from one extreme to another [!], the question remains whether the balance between war and peace can now be found.” In a nutshell: Germany should declare its willingness to wage war again.
Bindenagel quotes the German voices that have campaigned for German participation in wars, especially at the 2014 Munich Security Conference, but also afterwards: the former Federal President Gauck, the former Foreign Minister Steinmeier, but also current Foreign Minister Gabriel and especially Chancellor Merkel.
However, Bindenagel does not call for a German unilateral initiative, but everything should take place within the framework of a EU military force and within the framework of NATO. Here, Germany, an interesting paradox, is supposed to “lead as a partner”. No German “Sonderweg” anymore. It is no coincidence that he strives for voices such as those of Jürgen Habermas or the former Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski. Habermas stands for the German U. S. orientated “New Left”, Sikorski for the first war victim of the Hitler dictatorship. In addition, the “German culture of remembrance” will ensure that there is no “excess of German leadership”. In other words, even as a leading power, Germany should not be “sovereign”.
Bindenagel concludes: “Germany is now called upon to lead Europe. For this to succeed, the country needs a bold, strategic vision […]”. It is of crucial significance to “overcome the inconsistencies in security policy between the political elites and the general public”. [Emphasis by the editors] He concludes with the sentence: “The world now wants to know whether Germany appears when it comes to leadership.”
“Die Deutschen müssen das Töten lernen” (Germans must learn to kill), was already stated in 2006 on a title of the news magazine “Der Spiegel”, when the German victims increased in Afghanistan and resistance grew among the German population to this war. The “flute tones” of the US-American James D. Bindenagel belong to this line. The German public has a right to know what the German government has committed to, as a few days after the election victory of Donald Trump Barack Obama came to Germany and took Angela Merkel’s oath.
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.