NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=769

POTSDAM, Germany – The Allied occupation of Germany began 58 years ago this month and in the eyes of many Germans has not yet ended. Foreign armies are still based on German soil and Europe’s largest and most prosperous “democracy” still lacks a constitution and a peace treaty putting a formal end to the Second World War.

For Germany, World War II, like the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, lacks formal legal closure because a peace treaty has never been signed between the Allies and Germany.


For all you angst-ridden Germans who are upset about Iraq, perhaps you should be more upset about your home.

So since there's no peace treaty could the US get away with firebombing Dresden again?

Wasn’t the main reason for its occupation because it was probably going to be the frontline in any war with the Russians. There’s even more British troops there than Americans in fact, most of the British army’s legal and logistical headquarters are there I think too. In reality they probably wont leave seeing as they will eventually get merged into a European super army in 50-60 years

Nice. :rolleyes:

since the reunion with the german democratic republic (DDR) in 1990 we germans are at last a free country - until then we were occupied county thats true. the only contracs between germany and the allies was a peace-contract - no bombing-run-danger

but since 1990 we are free - and total out of money -.-

since the reunion with the german democratic republic (DDR) in 1990 we germans are at last a free country - until then we were occupied county thats true

but since 1990 we are free - and total out of money -.-

Isn't the Basic Law still in place?

yes, the basic law is still alive and in place. the formerly GDR was gone and the land was "occupied" by west germany ;)

Great Britain does not have a constitution and never has done. We have had some constitutional documents (Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are the foremost examples) but mostly we use precedent as there is no written set of rules. Having no constitution is not in a sin: in fact it is a blessing as the modern British governments aren't as bound to the antiquated and mostly irrelevant documents of yesteryear (see American Constitution and the right to own firearms). Precedent is far more flexible than a constitution and it is flexibilty balanced with with firm precedent that has allowed Britain to survive this long.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=769

POTSDAM, Germany – The Allied occupation of Germany began 58 years ago this month and in the eyes of many Germans has not yet ended. Foreign armies are still based on German soil and Europe’s largest and most prosperous “democracy” still lacks a constitution and a peace treaty putting a formal end to the Second World War.

For Germany, World War II, like the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, lacks formal legal closure because a peace treaty has never been signed between the Allies and Germany.


For all you angst-ridden Germans who are upset about Iraq, perhaps you should be more upset about your home.


Hmm.. I always thought article 32 of the basic law confered traty power on the federal government. (In fact it grants limited treaty power to the lander (<-- can't find umlaut) as well).

Edit: And they have 'God' in their constitution.

For all you angst-ridden Germans who are upset about Iraq, perhaps you should be more upset about your home.

I do not care about Iraq.
It is time you people take your military out of our country.
I allways find it funny when non-German people feel they know more about the situation in Germany and past German affairs then we do and feel the urge to lecture us about it.

Why is the US military still in Germany anyway? It's not like the USSR is going to reunite and roll accross Europe anytime soon.

I do not care about Iraq.
It is time you people take your military out of our country.
I allways find it funny when non-German people feel they know more about the situation in Germany and past German affairs then we do and feel the urge to lecture us about it.

current Department of Defense plans are to do just that... and move to Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic... who want US bases...

and if I remember the news correctly, a lot of locals who depend on the US bases for their paychecks aren't real happy about that.

I seem to recall that a peace treaty was signed in 1992... does anyone else remember or have a link to that? I simply could be wrong I suppose.

So since there's no peace treaty could the US get away with firebombing Dresden again?


Yes, this would be interesting. Wouldnt take as many planes this time for sure.

I do not care about Iraq.
It is time you people take your military out of our country.
I allways find it funny when non-German people feel they know more about the situation in Germany and past German affairs then we do and feel the urge to lecture us about it.


Gee, wasnt it the US that landed troops in Iceland so that you wouldn't fall to the fatherland?

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=769
For all you angst-ridden Germans who are upset about Iraq, perhaps you should be more upset about your home.
Aren't we supposed to be moving all our bases out of Germany and into more strategic regions ?I thought that was Rumsfelds' whole plan.

Here is a pretty good article about all the new bases the US is buidling around Iran and China in Central Asia. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GC30Ag01.html

Aren't we supposed to be moving all our bases out of Germany and into more strategic regions ?I thought that was Rumsfelds' whole plan.

Here is a pretty good article about all the new bases the US is buidling around Iran and China in Central Asia. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GC30Ag01.html


That is the plan. But it would take reading by some of our fellow NS'rs to realize this. Sadly they don't do enough of this.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=769

POTSDAM, Germany – The Allied occupation of Germany began 58 years ago this month and in the eyes of many Germans has not yet ended. Foreign armies are still based on German soil and Europe’s largest and most prosperous “democracy” still lacks a constitution and a peace treaty putting a formal end to the Second World War.

For Germany, World War II, like the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, lacks formal legal closure because a peace treaty has never been signed between the Allies and Germany.


For all you angst-ridden Germans who are upset about Iraq, perhaps you should be more upset about your home.

I did recall correctly.... a peace treaty was signed ending World War 2 officially with Germany in 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_With_Respect_to_Germany

those kind of minor details will derail the most zealous rant, won't it?

US, British, French, Canadian, Belgian and Dutch troops were in (and still are) West Germany because of the North Atlantic Treaty, which remains in effect and of course Germany could chose to pull out of NATO should it desire.

Although I don't think the French would be to happy about it, or the Poles, or the Danes, or the Dutch, or the Belgians, or for that matter, the Russians.

Could it have something to do with German aggression in World War 2?

I did recall correctly.... a peace treaty was signed ending World War 2 officially with Germany in 1990
You are right. Until then we were just an "occupied" county...


Could it have something to do with German aggression in World War 2?
The biggest part of the agression from Germany was forced by a sick-minded dictator. most of the small people did not know anything about the KZs and the homicide of the jewish people

So since there's no peace treaty could the US get away with firebombing Dresden again?

That was the UK as I recall, they were Lancaster bombers. 733 of them to be exact

As the son of a dispossessed Pommeranian aristocrat, I have more than a little dissatifaction with the situation. However, the idea of re-incorporating those lands is ridiculous at this point. SOVIET (not Polish) ethnic cleansing left next to nothing left of German culture and peoples in those areas.

My relatives still left in Germany (now moved to Rhineland) don't really rate the lack of a constitution as a major issue. Several pointed out (as New Britsh Glory already did here) that the UK has done wonderfully without one. Amongst those of my father's genration and older, the most important thing in regards to the entire mess that was WWII is that the bastard Nazis are long gone. A VERY good thing, even considering the lands and titles our family lost (titles left over from an antiquated system, I might add)

I did recall correctly.... a peace treaty was signed ending World War 2 officially with Germany in 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_With_Respect_to_Germany

those kind of minor details will derail the most zealous rant, won't it?

US, British, French, Canadian, Belgian and Dutch troops were in (and still are) West Germany because of the North Atlantic Treaty, which remains in effect and of course Germany could chose to pull out of NATO should it desire.

Although I don't think the French would be to happy about it, or the Poles, or the Danes, or the Dutch, or the Belgians, or for that matter, the Russians.

Could it have something to do with German aggression in World War 2?

Thanks for saving me the trouble. :)

So since there's no peace treaty could the US get away with firebombing Dresden again?

Hey, you think someone could get away with flying another plane into a US building? Maybe kill more people this time.[/sarcasm]

Have some respect for the innocent civilians killed in that atrocity.

Gee, wasnt it the US that landed troops in Iceland so that you wouldn't fall to the fatherland?
No, that was the British.

Quoting from the article that sparked this (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=769):
"Finally, on Sept. 27, 2000, Ebel was appointed chancellor of the German Reich (Reichskanzler) by Ernst Matscheko, a representative of the U.S. Dept. of Justice. Matscheko reportedly asked Ebel to name a Reichspräsident and a special ambassador to the United Nations. "

Ebel is unknown in Germany. The German Reich as well as the office of Reichskanzler ceased to exist when the Federal Republic was founded. The current chancellor is Gerhard Schröder - he was democratically elected by representative voting and the Americans had absolutely nothing to do with that, except by giving him an opportunity to turn Anti-Iraq-War and Anti-American voices into votes for himself.
Imho, this article is bs and any serious newspaper would be laughed at for printing it.

Angst ridden Germans... rofl... this from an Angst ridden and arrogant Ami. Lmao. :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']Angst ridden Germans... rofl... this from an Angst ridden and arrogant Ami. Lmao. :rolleyes:

You're the country that just elected a Bush lover, right?

Top three reasons for NATO:

Keep the Russians out,
The Germans down,
and the Americans in.

Top three reasons for NATO:

Keep the Russians out,
The Germans down,
and the Americans in.

Originally, yes. But now it looks like a mechanism for European and US nations to take military action without waiting for the UN.

You remember Kosovo, neh? The UN impotence, followed by NATO action?

Nice tool to keep in your back pocket.

My relatives still left in Germany (now moved to Rhineland) don't really rate the lack of a constitution as a major issue. Several pointed out (as New Britsh Glory already did here) that the UK has done wonderfully without one.

Actually the FRG HAS a constitution. The "Grundgesetz" (roughly: "basic law", though the translation doesn't really do the higher meaning justice) while not officially called a "constitution" pretty much is what - e.g. a guy from the US - could refer to as the German constitution.

The only reason why the US hasn't left the FRG so far are:

a) because we cannot "order" them to leave
b) they haven't found a better place to go yet

That simple.

And to that guy who said firebomb Dresden again: You're full of shit, go and boil your head little man.

Top three reasons for NATO:

Keep the Russians out,
The Germans down,
and the Americans in.

Too bad Germany was and will always be the third most important nation in NATO.

*whistles*

"a) because we cannot "order" them to leave
b) they haven't found a better place to go yet"

Utter rubbish. The reason they haven't left is that everytime someone proposes it, German businesses go nuts about losing all those US dollars.

US troops are in Germany to keep Germans in business.

Of course, with Shroeder in charge, German business needs all the help it can get.

Not that many US troops left in Germany.

Most of the bases have been closed.

But it's funny - at any one time, 1/4 to 1/3 of the German air force is in the United States - flying low level training missions.

The Germans don't want their own air force flying low over towns and villages, so they do that sort of thing in the US.

Nothing like being in a small town out West, and seeing a German Tornado fly over.

US troops are in Germany to keep Germans in business.


Nuts.

The little money spent by the US government on their bases and forts here is...

...

...

IRRELEVANT to the German economy as a whole. In fact, some people argue it might actually have been damaging the economy as it artificially kept some small regions alive which should have been abandoned a long time ago.


But it's funny - at any one time, 1/4 to 1/3 of the German air force is in the United States - flying low level training missions.

The Germans don't want their own air force flying low over towns and villages, so they do that sort of thing in the US.

Nothing like being in a small town out West, and seeing a German Tornado fly over.

Several reasons:

1. The cooperation between Luftwaffe and USAF has always been excellent and of great profit to both sides. Never mess with a working system, eh?

2. Most regions of Germany aren't suited to practice low level flight thanks to infrastucture or geography. That's why most of that training is done elsewhere. In the US, in Canada and in Italy.

I always wondered why. I guess people are bothered by the noise. Oh well. There is worse. Like artillery shooting over residential areas from one training ground at targets placed in some other training ground 30 or 40 kloms away.

I'd trade airplane noise over that any day. ;)

"German artillery doesn't know friend of foe - they just know good targets." :eek:

Originally, yes. But now it looks like a mechanism for European and US nations to take military action without waiting for the UN.

You remember Kosovo, neh? The UN impotence, followed by NATO action?

Nice tool to keep in your back pocket.
And how successful that was! The Islamic militants (you remember them? Called themselves the KLA?) promptly slaughtered all the serbs in Kosovo then started causing trouble in Macedonia!
Did the US bomb them? No! America supported them because you were still supporting Islamic extremist nutcases all over the planet. :headbang:
And now this scum is running most of the slave trade in Europe. So, the US actually made things worse. Congratulations!

And how successful that was! The Islamic militants (you remember them? Called themselves the KLA?) promptly slaughtered all the serbs in Kosovo then started causing trouble in Macedonia!
Did you bomb them? No! You supported them because you were still supporting Islamic extremist nutcases all over the planet. :headbang:

Don't blame the US. That was a NATO action.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=769

POTSDAM, Germany – The Allied occupation of Germany began 58 years ago this month and in the eyes of many Germans has not yet ended. Foreign armies are still based on German soil and Europe’s largest and most prosperous “democracy” still lacks a constitution and a peace treaty putting a formal end to the Second World War.

For Germany, World War II, like the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, lacks formal legal closure because a peace treaty has never been signed between the Allies and Germany.


For all you angst-ridden Germans who are upset about Iraq, perhaps you should be more upset about your home.
Which only goes to prove the old adage: "Don't start something you can't finish."

Don't blame the US. That was a NATO action.
Ok. I admit it. That was funny.
Which only goes to prove the old adage: "Don't start something you can't finish."
So was that.

Ok. I admit it. That was funny.
Anything done by a committee is a greater mistake than something done by someone who cooks up the idea all by themselves.

Great Britain does not have a constitution and never has done. We have had some constitutional documents (Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are the foremost examples) but mostly we use precedent as there is no written set of rules. Having no constitution is not in a sin: in fact it is a blessing as the modern British governments aren't as bound to the antiquated and mostly irrelevant documents of yesteryear (see American Constitution and the right to own firearms). Precedent is far more flexible than a constitution and it is flexibilty balanced with with firm precedent that has allowed Britain to survive this long.

Your quote points out whats wrong with British government. To much flexibility leads to problems. The liberal overrunning of your country is a prime example. There should always be a default set of rules. Precedent leaves alot of loopholes. As far as the right to own firearms. Everyone should have it. It is not antiquated by any measure.

I allways find it funny when non-German people feel they know more about the situation in Germany and past German affairs then we do and feel the urge to lecture us about it.

A funny sentiment, huh? Kind of sums up what Americans feel everytime a non-Amercian critiques us.

So since there's no peace treaty could the US get away with firebombing Dresden again?


I thought it was the Brits that did that? My WWII history is weak though

Not that many US troops left in Germany.

Most of the bases have been closed.

But it's funny - at any one time, 1/4 to 1/3 of the German air force is in the United States - flying low level training missions.

The Germans don't want their own air force flying low over towns and villages, so they do that sort of thing in the US.

Nothing like being in a small town out West, and seeing a German Tornado fly over.

Hmm... so does that mean the Germans are occupying USA??!
;)

A funny sentiment, huh? Kind of sums up what Americans feel everytime a non-Amercian critiques us.
Oh no that's wrong. You see Europe is an enlightened and socially progressive place which understands that our way of life is fundamentally better to everyone else's because, well, we're Europe! When we comment about you we know what we're talking about because of our superior moral and...
*sarcasm overload, head explodes*

Hmm... so does that mean the Germans are occupying USA??!
;)

Nope. It means that both countries are using each other's countries for training purposes.

The number of US troops in Germany is far, far lower than most people know. Most of the bases were closed in the early 1990s.

Nope. It means that both countries are using each other's countries for training purposes.

The number of US troops in Germany is far, far lower than most people know. Most of the bases were closed in the early 1990s.

:) I was joking!

:) I was joking!
I know, but some people might not know that.

I remember being stationed in Germany in the late 1980s - and the drop in troops levels after 1991 was precipitous.

I know, but some people might not know that.

I remember being stationed in Germany in the late 1980s - and the drop in troops levels after 1991 was precipitous.
ha ha... to be honest, people who couldn't tell probably shouldn't be out in public unsupervised less still be accessing the internet! :D

It's like CNN when it shows a location such as "Rome, Italy" or "Sydney, Australia". You feel like saying, "aaargh, that Rome".

Hmm... so does that mean the Germans are occupying USA??!
;)

They're certainly occupying a good chunk Milwaukee. :D

ha ha... to be honest, people who couldn't tell probably shouldn't be out in public unsupervised less still be accessing the internet! :D

It's like CNN when it shows a location such as "Rome, Italy" or "Sydney, Australia". You feel like saying, "aaargh, that Rome".

Are you saying that Rome, New York is less important? ;)

Are you saying that Rome, New York is less important? ;)
No, but you know what I mean - these things are worth it if the context isn't obvious... but you can kind of tell if the story is about the Pope or Silvio Berlusconi or Ferrari, that they're just a little bit more likely to be in the Italian Rome, rather than the New York one.

Apply this example to other duplicates... :-)

Mind you, maybe it is worth included, I do remember the American who asked me "What's the Swedish capital, Norway, like?". Hmmm.

No, but you know what I mean - these things are worth it if the context isn't obvious... but you can kind of tell if the story is about the Pope or Silvio Berlusconi or Ferrari, that they're just a little bit more likely to be in the Italian Rome, rather than the New York one.

Apply this example to other duplicates... :-)

Mind you, maybe it is worth included, I do remember the American who asked me "What's the Swedish capital, Norway, like?". Hmmm.

Yep. Thus the ;) (PS: Greetings from Berlin, Connecticut!)

Yeah, but it's all relative. My cousin in Slovakia had no idea what the capital of Ohio was.

Yep. Thus the ;) (PS: Greetings from Berlin, Connecticut!)

Yeah, but it's all relative. My cousin in Slovakia had no idea what the capital of Ohio was.

oh no, nor would I, but it's not a national capital. Maybe at a guess Columbus, as it was important in your recent Presidential election, and it's the only place I know in Ohio.. actually, is Dayton there?
I guess what I mean is, why doesn't US tv use those location things intelligently on a case-by-case basis. Or do they assume the viewer to be brain-dead?

Oh dear, the off-topic alarm just sounded very loudly.. sorry !!

You're the country that just elected a Bush lover, right?
Angie Merchel isn't elected yet and I bet she won't be elected. Most people here remember her Bush ass-suckling during the Iraq crisis. Thus - you're as usual talking out of your ass without any knowledge of the issue at hand. How typical, Whispering Legs... :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']Angie Merchel isn't elected yet and I bet she won't be elected. Most people here remember her Bush ass-suckling during the Iraq crisis. Thus - you're as usual talking out of your ass without any knowledge of the issue at hand. How typical, Whispering Legs... :rolleyes:

I'm betting she will. How much shall I put you down for on the bet?

Half you people are clueless.. the Germans want the foreign troops to stay in their country because of the huge benefit the bases provide to the local economy.

The troops are not there against Germany's will.

Half you people are clueless.. the Germans want the foreign troops to stay in their country because of the huge benefit the bases provide to the local economy.

The troops are not there against Germany's will.

You're clueless. There are hardly any US troops left in Germany, and most of the bases are closed already.

Were you asleep in the early 1990s?

I'm betting she will. How much shall I put you down for on the bet?
Her ugly face won't become Chancellor. The rag can go and suck Bush's ass in another country. We don't want Merchel, Stoiber, Westerqualle.

You're clueless. There are hardly any US troops left in Germany, and most of the bases are closed already.

Were you asleep in the early 1990s?
There are lots of British troops there, silly child.

Ein Deutscher']Her ugly face won't become Chancellor. The rag can go and suck Bush's ass in another country. We don't want Merchel, Stoiber, Westerqualle.

I think you're actually surprised that the CDU made such a comeback, aren't you? And that the Germans are flushing the Green Party down the toilet?

So since there's no peace treaty could the US get away with firebombing Dresden again?


I'm afraid that incident was caused by RAF lancasters at night, the american b-14s flew in the day, they carried a third of the bomb load of the lancaster and had a bigger crew

A funny sentiment, huh? Kind of sums up what Americans feel everytime a non-Amercian critiques us.


Please reread his statement. He was talking about internal German affairs and teh situation in Germany, meaning stuff that concerns Germany itself. The crap you have been pulling of for the last couple of years concerns the whole world. Therefore everybody has a right to voice his oppinion about it. Face it you're not the Terminator. You might be able to elect him but that doesn't allow you to go around the world like him and shut everybody up that doesn't agree with you.

Please reread his statement. He was talking about internal German affairs and teh situation in Germany, meaning stuff that concerns Germany itself. The crap you have been pulling of for the last couple of years concerns the whole world. Therefore everybody has a right to voice his oppinion about it. Face it you're not the Terminator. You might be able to elect him but that doesn't allow you to go around the world like him and shut everybody up that doesn't agree with you.

Actually, even if we wanted to, we can't elect the Terminator (unless you live in California), he wasn't born in the USA, and the Constitution's pretty sticky about it. (Maybe pass an amendment?) Then again, it may not be the cleverest move to elect an Austrian Populist Conservative as the head of state of a nation not-of-his-birth, just look at what happened last time someone did that...

I think you're actually surprised that the CDU made such a comeback, aren't you? And that the Germans are flushing the Green Party down the toilet?
No, I was not surprised. They completely deserved it. But Merchel & Co. are just as incompetent and corrupt as Schroeder and his posse of clowns.

Ein Deutscher']No, I was not surprised. They completely deserved it. But Merchel & Co. are just as incompetent and corrupt as Schroeder and his posse of clowns.

That doesn't mean they won't get elected on a small wave of momentum.

After all, Schroeder and his posse of clowns managed to get elected for a while. Maybe some other idiots can have a turn at it.

Ein Deutscher']No, I was not surprised. They completely deserved it. But Merchel & Co. are just as incompetent and corrupt as Schroeder and his posse of clowns.

If you're competent these days, you don't do politics. There's not enough money in it...
If you want competent people, I'm afraid you'll have to turn to the bigger companies.

Please reread his statement. He was talking about internal German affairs and teh situation in Germany, meaning stuff that concerns Germany itself. The crap you have been pulling of for the last couple of years concerns the whole world. Therefore everybody has a right to voice his oppinion about it. Face it you're not the Terminator. You might be able to elect him but that doesn't allow you to go around the world like him and shut everybody up that doesn't agree with you.


Thats what I was talking about too.
Lose the attitude-you dont know what you're talking about.
Maybe you could consider shutting your yap without having to be told.

I think people have already forgotten how much Angela Merkel cuddled with the Bushies. The voting population has an extremely short short term memory and no long term memory at all just like they fall for the cheapest propaganda.

I have already begun to tremble in fear of the upcoming election. Unless the "polls" I saw are right and the PDS really does get 44% - but I don't really believe it.

I think people have already forgotten how much Angela Merkel cuddled with the Bushies. The voting population has an extremely short short term memory and no long term memory at all just like they fall for the cheapest propaganda.

I have already begun to tremble in fear of the upcoming election. Unless the "polls" I saw are right and the PDS really does get 44% - but I don't really believe it.

One question about this upcoming election... How come everybody says Schroeder will force an election in autumn? According to German law he can't call and election, he will have to wait until his term ends...

Lose the attitude-you dont know what you're talking about.
Maybe you could consider shutting your yap without having to be told.

One thing you have to realize about me is that I never shut up. Especially not after such a comment. Also you have no clue what I know so don't judge my competence.
I know that you can't elect Schwarzenegger for president right now but then I didn't say president did I? But I believe to have heard that there's already something being worked out in that direction. Might be wrong though.

One question about this upcoming election... How come everybody says Schroeder will force an election in autumn? According to German law he can't call and election, he will have to wait until his term ends...
According to German law, the chancellor needs to convince the president that he is unable to rule and thus, the president can dissolve parliament within 21 days after the "Vertrauensfrage" - the question of confidence. If Schroeder does not get his party members to back him in parliament, he'll have demonstrated that he can no longer make decisions (which would be blocked in the higher house by the CDU majority). Early elections are thus possible and a scenario like this has happened in 1982 when Helmut Kohl reaffirmed his policies by doing the same thing. The chances that Schroeder loses, however, are very high.

One question about this upcoming election... How come everybody says Schroeder will force an election in autumn? According to German law he can't call and election, he will have to wait until his term ends...

Following article 68 of the Grundgesetz, he has to ask the so called Vertrauensfrage in the Bundestag, meaning he has to ask if he still has the trust of the representatives. If he doesn't get a majority the president can dissolve the Bundestag unless the parliament doesn't elect a new chancellor. If the Bundestag is dissolved, there will be new elctions.

edit: damn, to slow

Ein Deutscher']According to German law, the chancellor needs to convince the president that he is unable to rule and thus, the president can dissolve parliament within 21 days after the "Vertrauensfrage" - the question of confidence. If Schroeder does not get his party members to back him in parliament, he'll have demonstrated that he can no longer make decisions (which would be blocked in the higher house by the CDU majority). Early elections are thus possible and a scenario like this has happened in 1982 when Helmut Kohl reaffirmed his policies by doing the same thing. The chances that Schroeder loses, however, are very high.

For all I know, the president has the option to ask the Bundesverfassungsgericht if the Vertrauensfrage is justified. Most likely they would decide against that, I guess. After all, this concept was designed as a means to get some discipline to the Bundestag rather than to allow a chancellor to call for early elections. Though, if I remember correctly, Schmidt did the same thing and got himself another term in office that way...

The British army is out there to train German troops, or so I have been informed. I'm not very up on the situation at the moment in Germany, but I know someone who is, and he, incidentally, is German.

My uncle used to be based in Ramstein, and lived in Gielenkerschen.

The British training German troops? Rofl... :rolleyes:

For all I know, the president has the option to ask the Bundesverfassungsgericht if the Vertrauensfrage is justified. Most likely they would decide against that, I guess. After all, this concept was designed as a means to get some discipline to the Bundestag rather than to allow a chancellor to call for early elections. Though, if I remember correctly, Schmidt did the same thing and got himself another term in office that way...


true there has to be a serious crisis of the government. but I don't think the Bundesverfassungsgericht decides about that. Besides, there is a crisis at hand. The Bundesrat is now controlled by the opposition making it effectively impossible for the government ot pass any law without them.

true there has to be a serious crisis of the government. but I don't think the Bundesverfassungsgericht decides about that. Besides, there is a crisis at hand. The Bundesrat is now controlled by the opposition making it effectively impossible for the government ot pass any law without them.

I didn't say they have to decide it. But it is an option for the president to pass the decision to the judges...

One thing you have to realize about me is that I never shut up. Especially not after such a comment. Also you have no clue what I know so don't judge my competence.
I know that you can't elect Schwarzenegger for president right now but then I didn't say president did I? But I believe to have heard that there's already something being worked out in that direction. Might be wrong though.



I know. And yet, Germany was blamed, not Austria. First they start WW I and we get blamed for it. Then one of them starts WW II and again we get blamed for it...the world is so unfair :rolleyes:


The second time you quoted me there was incorrect-that wasnt my quote. So, in addition to not shutting your mouth, you are posting altered quotes?

I'm hardly surprised.

http://www.deutsches-reich.com/bilder/flyer-1-e.jpg

Oh, then you could be right. I'm not so save with these procedures...but I don't think it would be necessary this time. But to be true, Schröder has my respect for making this decision. The SPD is in a pretty bad situation right now, with polls being very low for them. To call for new elections at a time like this makes me think he a) is an idiot, which he has proven not to be or b)has some realiability and honesty left, today rarely found among politicians.

Ein Deutscher']The British training German troops? Rofl... :rolleyes:


More likely just keeping a good close eye on them.

The second time you quoted me there was incorrect-that wasnt my quote. So, in addition to not shutting your mouth, you are posting altered quotes?

I'm hardly surprised.

Apologies for that, made a mistake with the copy&paste there. Sorry, I took it out immediately.
But it's funny how fast you make judgements about people you know nothing about. Again, I won't shut my mouth, just because you feel offended by me talking. :rolleyes:

Apologies for that, made a mistake with the copy&paste there. Sorry, I took it out immediately.
But it's funny how fast you make judgements about people you know nothing about. Again, I won't shut my mouth, just because you feel offended by me talking. :rolleyes:


No problem.

I wasnt offended by you talking-I merely took the sentiment of a non American and adapted it to apply to comments made about America.
I was right,you misunderstood and and felt the need to judge me and make generalizations about me and The US.

And I dont feel offended. I take things from where they come. You're not capable of offending me.

More likely just keeping a good close eye on them.
I heard the queen of England is going to visit Canada soon and keeping an eye on this British colony aswell :p

Ein Deutscher']I heard the queen of England is going to visit Canada soon and keeping an eye on this British colony aswell :p


She should. They need supervision. :D

I was right,you misunderstood and and felt the need to judge me and make generalizations about me and The US.


I didn't generalize. I made a comment based on your remark. I know that not every American supports Bush, or his wars or his laws. And I am thankful for that. But I'm going to bed now anyway so i won't bother with a good remark with quotes anymore. At least not with people that jsut tell me to shut up because they don't want me talking or because they don't like what I say. :rolleyes:

I didn't generalize. I made a comment based on your remark. I know that not every American supports Bush, or his wars or his laws. And I am thankful for that. But I'm going to bed now anyway so i won't bother with a good remark with quotes anymore. At least not with people that jsut tell me to shut up because they don't want me talking or because they don't like what I say. :rolleyes:

Ok-thanks.

Sleep well.

So far I've only noticed one person out the obvious (I couldn't stomach reading all the pages...) although not with much conviction. Germany has a constitution. For a start it needs one to set out the powers and areas of responsibility between National and Regional levels of government. Having a Federal rather than a Unitary system of government and all...

Check this out

The German word Grundgesetz may be translated as either 'Basic Law' or 'Fundamental Law'. The usual word for 'constitution' in German is Verfassung but Grundgesetz was chosen for the title of the document adopted in 1949 in order to suggest that both the new constitution, and the West German state it created, were merely provisional and would serve only until the achievement of reunification. The belief at the time was that this would not take long; however, the emergence of the Cold War caused the division of Germany to last more than forty years.

In 1990 reunification came about in the form of East Germany joining the Federal Republic. Since this time the Basic Law has continued in force as the constitution of all of Germany. The Basic Law has not been renamed but some amendments with respect to reunification were made in 1991 and 1994.

The only nations that can be said to be without written, or rather "codified", Constitutions are the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, to a certain extent Israel (the core code of laws could be seen as one...) and similarly New Zealand (based off the treaty of Waitangi.) I have a feeling I've made an omission, but the real unwritten constitutions exist in UK and Saudi. The reason is historical.
1) Neither of these nations have ever been subject to invasion and occupation.
2) They havne't experienced a revolution (Cromwell lead a civil war not a revolution btw.)
3) They weren't freed/liberated/decolonialised by another nation.

The US I suppose falls into both catagories 1 and 3, we all know that story! Commonwealth countries, Ireland and Zimbabwe are all in catagory 3, and their constitutions are based on the British Parliamentary system (some with formal federalised aspects.) The former 'Axis' nations Germany, Italy, Japan along with most of Europe count as category 3 having had their current constitutions drawn up as a result of the Second World War or the collapse of the Soviet Union.

France is a peculiar exception, her current constitution having been established by de Gaulle along with the 5th Republic in 1958, as a result of instability rather than any of the above catagories.

As stated above, Israel and New Zealand are also in a strange situation, but are generally regarded as having written constitutions.

Hope I didn't bore you too much guys ;)

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=769
POTSDAM, Germany – The Allied occupation of Germany began 58 years ago this month and in the eyes of many Germans has not yet ended. Foreign armies are still based on German soil and Europe’s largest and most prosperous “democracy” still lacks a constitution and a peace treaty putting a formal end to the Second World War.
For Germany, World War II, like the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, lacks formal legal closure because a peace treaty has never been signed between the Allies and Germany.
For all you angst-ridden Germans who are upset about Iraq, perhaps you should be more upset about your home.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! That article is so full of mistakes, I'm amazed your IQ didn't sink below the level where you lost the ability to read...
Ever since the reunification of Germany and the 2+4 treaty, Germany is independant. We don't need a constitution, our Grundgesetz has been installed in 1949.
As for the peace treaty - all of that business was also included in the 2+4 treaty.
The foreign troops are still in Germany because of the NATO. And because the U.S. won't give up Rammstein any time soon.
So since there's no peace treaty could the US get away with firebombing Dresden again?
They can try. But last time it has been the Royal Airforce, not the Amis.
Wasn’t the main reason for its occupation because it was probably going to be the frontline in any war with the Russians. There’s even more British troops there than Americans in fact, most of the British army’s legal and logistical headquarters are there I think too. In reality they probably wont leave seeing as they will eventually get merged into a European super army in 50-60 years
Please give some support to your claim. As if the British would place their army's HQ on foreign soil - Bah!
yes, the basic law is still alive and in place. the formerly GDR was gone and the land was "occupied" by west germany ;)
We didn't occupy East Germany - the 5 new Federal States which formed the GDR formally joined the FRG.
And they have 'God' in their constitution.
Yes. The preamble states (I translated this): "Aware of its responsibility before God and mankind, driven by the will to serve peace in the world as an equal member of the united Europe, the German people has given itself this Basic Constitutional Law by means of its constituent power."
I do not care about Iraq.
It is time you people take your military out of our country.
I allways find it funny when non-German people feel they know more about the situation in Germany and past German affairs then we do and feel the urge to lecture us about it.
I do care about the Iraqi people - just look at the blood toll over the last weeks - they are running so short on blood they can't even keep up a basic medical provision...
Yes. Go play somewhere else.
Funny you should say that - I had exactly the same thought when I ran across this thread.
Why is the US military still in Germany anyway? It's not like the USSR is going to reunite and roll accross Europe anytime soon.
Because the U.S. haven't installed big airbases in the new NATO member states yet and they frigging need their damned airbases here. Leave. Now.
You're the country that just elected a Bush lover, right?
Oh, for crying out loud!!! That election was in a single German Federal State, not in the whole country.
... But now it looks like a mechanism for European and US nations to take military action without waiting for the UN.
You remember Kosovo, neh? The UN impotence, followed by NATO action?
Nice tool to keep in your back pocket.
JFC!!! Stop ranting about the UN, please. The UN is only as capable of acting as their member states and the Security Council allow it to be. How often do people be reminded that the UN does not have their own military?!?
Utter rubbish. The reason they haven't left is that everytime someone proposes it, German businesses go nuts about losing all those US dollars.
US troops are in Germany to keep Germans in business.
BS!
Not that many US troops left in Germany.
Most of the bases have been closed.
But it's funny - at any one time, 1/4 to 1/3 of the German air force is in the United States - flying low level training missions.
The Germans don't want their own air force flying low over towns and villages, so they do that sort of thing in the US.
Nothing like being in a small town out West, and seeing a German Tornado fly over.
They also have Tornados stationed in Canada for the same reasons - I think what people tend to forget is that Germany is as large as Maine but has a population of 85 million - do the math and you will discover that there isn't much space to do the 90 feet low flying without disregarding airspace safety regulations. That, plus all the commercial airline traffic.
Be glad that they don't train their bombing runs on those small towns in the West (just kidding!).
Don't blame the US. That was a NATO action.
And the US didn't have anything to do with it, right? And you didn't lose that F-117 either, right? And you seem to contradict yourself if you compared your posts from above...
Anything done by a committee is a greater mistake than something done by someone who cooks up the idea all by themselves.
That doesn't even make sense. In which context? To what extent? With which results?
A funny sentiment, huh? Kind of sums up what Americans feel everytime a non-Amercian critiques us.
Yes, true. I'll give you that much. Maybe half an inch. Not more. Half a pinky.
Then again, look at the bloody mess the US has created with Iraq and you oppose us to pointing that out?
You see Europe is an enlightened and socially progressive place which understands that our way of life is fundamentally better to everyone else's because, well, we're Europe! When we comment about you we know what we're talking about because of our superior moral and...
... because especially Germany has learned a lesson from its history that the US yet have to accomplish. We've managed to keep the big countries from fighting for the last 60 years - something that hasn't happened in all those centuries before. For the fairly young nation that the US is historically, they sure do brag alot (and to my taste way too much) about bettering the world without even considering anything that has an impact on the rest of the world.
Ein Deutscher']Angie Merchel isn't elected yet and I bet she won't be elected. Most people here remember her Bush ass-suckling during the Iraq crisis. Thus - you're as usual talking out of your ass without any knowledge of the issue at hand. How typical, Whispering Legs... :rolleyes:
A little bit too harsh a sentiment, but yes. I really do hope that the people of Germany are smart enough (yeah, right!) to not elect her Chancellorette. People should rather be afraid and angst-ridden of that future Germany than spread false information.
Please reread his statement. He was talking about internal German affairs and teh situation in Germany, meaning stuff that concerns Germany itself. The crap you have been pulling of for the last couple of years concerns the whole world. Therefore everybody has a right to voice his oppinion about it. Face it you're not the Terminator. You might be able to elect him but that doesn't allow you to go around the world like him and shut everybody up that doesn't agree with you.
Thank you for making that clear.

That's it for now - I'll go see now how much has been posted while I worked on this reply!

Ein Deutscher']I heard the queen of England is going to visit Canada soon and keeping an eye on this British colony aswell :p

You Germans always call us England! :) After all we've only the United Kingdom for 300 odd years after all ;)

For all I know, the president has the option to ask the Bundesverfassungsgericht if the Vertrauensfrage is justified. Most likely they would decide against that, I guess. After all, this concept was designed as a means to get some discipline to the Bundestag rather than to allow a chancellor to call for early elections. Though, if I remember correctly, Schmidt did the same thing and got himself another term in office that way...
The Federal Court of Justice has already ruled on that topic when Kohl and the gang pulled their stunt and the members of the ruling coalition unanimously voted against the chancellor... Therefore, Schröder will link the vote of non-confidence with a factual issue of which he can be sure not to receive a majority. Like the reform of business taxation...

You Germans always call us England! :) After all we've only the United Kingdom for 300 odd years after all ;)
As far as I can remember, Queen Elisabeth II. is the Queen of England?

Yes, true. I'll give you that much. Maybe half an inch. Not more. Half a pinky.
Then again, look at the bloody mess the US has created with Iraq and you oppose us to pointing that out?



Well,thanks professor. You can keep that half inch of yours in your pants though. I'm hardly interested.

The British army is out there to train German troops, or so I have been informed. I'm not very up on the situation at the moment in Germany, but I know someone who is, and he, incidentally, is German.
If anything, they practise together, but we do the training of our troop ourselves, thank you very much.

Well,thanks professor. You can keep that half inch of yours in your pants though. I'm hardly interested.
Hehe, you're so predictable! I was just waiting for that from you.

The Federal Court of Justice has already ruled on that topic when Kohl and the gang pulled their stunt and the members of the ruling coalition unanimously voted against the chancellor... Therefore, Schröder will link the vote of non-confidence with a factual issue of which he can be sure not to receive a majority. Like the reform of business taxation...

Not that I care, I don't have the right to vote there any more anyways, but...
Isn't that a descicion the the Bundesverfassungsgericht, when consulted, has to decide case to case? The idea is to find out if it is justified in THIS SPECIFIC situation to call the vote of no confidence

More likely just keeping a good close eye on them.
They can probably even learn something!

http://www.deutsches-reich.com/bilder/flyer-1-e.jpg
And you probably believe that as well, don't you? The FRG is the legal successor of the German Reich, so please stop posting that kind of nationalistic BS.
BTW, your name is preposterous. Speak for yourself!

As far as I can remember, Queen Elisabeth II. is the Queen of England?

Queen Elizabeth is Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England, Scotland and Wales make up Great Britain. But its not just Germans. Most Americans think that Scotland is part of England.

Queen Elizabeth is Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England, Scotland and Wales make up Great Britain. But its not just Germans. Most Americans think that Scotland is part of England.

She is in fact officially in UK:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

see here: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II

She has other titles applicable in other countries (e.g. Canada, Australia).

She must have big business cards!

Hehe, you're so predictable! I was just waiting for that from you.


Thats hardly likely.

Says who? You? Pfft.

No, but you know what I mean - these things are worth it if the context isn't obvious... but you can kind of tell if the story is about the Pope or Silvio Berlusconi or Ferrari, that they're just a little bit more likely to be in the Italian Rome, rather than the New York one.

Apply this example to other duplicates... :-)

Mind you, maybe it is worth included, I do remember the American who asked me "What's the Swedish capital, Norway, like?". Hmmm.

personally, I always liked Paris and Odessa, both towns in Texas :)

seriously though, the Federal Republic of Germany is the successor of the Third Reich which the sucessor of the Weimer Republic which is the successor of Imperial Germany according to the UN, and ample precedent such as West German payments to Israel for many years after the independence of Israel, and West German payments to Tanzanians who served in the Imperial German Army during World War I. The DDR did not have such a claim.

Its pretty clear according to previous posts that from an objective viewpoint Germany is NOT occupied by anybody. The peace treaty is signed (see post above) and the war is about as over as it will ever be until at least all the survivors die off. The bases and troops from the US, Britian, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France that remain in Germany do so under the NATO force agreements that Germany is free to renegotiate at any time, and just because German elected officials don't agree necessarily with the views of a couple of posters in this thread doesn't mean that Germany is occupied by a foreign power or enemy and that those elected officials are tools of Bush.

Bush can barely speak English (just look at his speeches... chuckle), and his strategic judgements are questionable, so any accusations made that he is controlling Germany are fairly amusing. At least to me.

Incidently, technically the USAAF and the RAF bombed Dresden. The RAF launched three night raids, the worst of which caused the firestorms that killed somewhere between 30,000 - 150,000 depending on which historian is quoted. However, the 8th Air Force did launch a bombing raid the day after the firestorm involving several hundred bombers. It was the last USAAF bombing raid of the war as after that all of the heavies were switched over to missions involving dropping food to the Dutch (who were busy starving until VE day)

I recall Eisenhower and Marshall condemning the raid and asking pointed questions about what its purpose was. Churchill did as well. The Dresden raids military necessity in hindsight is highly questionable. But that debate has been thoroughly hashed out a couple of times in this very forum over the last few months.

Germany will not have a renewed stability until a Hohenzollern is back on the throne.

Germany will not have a renewed stability until a Hohenzollern is back on the throne.

I heard the current heir to the Habsburg line on NPR not long ago... he sounds available. Will he do?

And you probably believe that as well, don't you? The FRG is the legal successor of the German Reich, so please stop posting that kind of nationalistic BS.
BTW, your name is preposterous. Speak for yourself!
The FRG is not the legal successor of the German Reich. :rolleyes:

I'd love to see a Habsburg and Hohenzollern on their prospective thrones again.
Let Austria and Hungary flourish aswell and stop the decay.
Shoot I'll cheer for the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire.

Ein Deutscher']The FRG is not the legal successor of the German Reich. :rolleyes:

see above post... it is the de facto and under the peace treaty of 1992 the legal successor to the Third Reich, which was the legal successor via election to the Weimer Republic, which took power after the collapse of the German Empire.

The FRG paid and continues to pay debts owed by the German Empire to Tanzanians who served in the German Colonial Forces in World War I.

It paid cash payments to Israel all through the Cold War period and after

If that doesn't make it a de facto successor, what does? By assuming financial obligations governments become the de facto successor of the obligator.

The peace treaty named the FGR as the representative government of Germany, ending World War 2 officially. Thus legal representation. In addition, the FGR still has a UN seat, the DDR doesn't and no other goverment has existed since World War 2.

You just don't like the FGR government apparently. Doesn't mean your right though.

I'd love to see a Habsburg and Hohenzollern on their prospective thrones again.
Let Austria and Hungary flourish aswell and stop the decay.
Shoot I'll cheer for the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire.

the Habsburg heir sounded pretty old.... better hurry in his case.

If that was infact Dr. Otto Von Habsburg he's like 90 something. I think he gave up his rights. But he has several children who may or may not feel that way.
Shoot if they want the throne back I'll go join the militia.

The United States is actually preparing to withdraw all of its troops out of Germany and move them to Romania and Poland.

Why is the US military still in Germany anyway? It's not like the USSR is going to reunite and roll accross Europe anytime soon.
We have a treaty committment with Germany and other european nations to keep troops there. But the US has recently said it is going to back out of that treaty so it can move the troops where they are needed most. Of course, the Germans will lose the money they got from us having troops their but I'm sure they can find a replacement.
Now of course, if the Germans were to support changing said treaty commitments.....

see above post... it is the de facto and under the peace treaty of 1992 the legal successor to the Third Reich, which was the legal successor via election to the Weimer Republic, which took power after the collapse of the German Empire.

The FRG paid and continues to pay debts owed by the German Empire to Tanzanians who served in the German Colonial Forces in World War I.

It paid cash payments to Israel all through the Cold War period and after

If that doesn't make it a de facto successor, what does? By assuming financial obligations governments become the de facto successor of the obligator.

The peace treaty named the FGR as the representative government of Germany, ending World War 2 officially. Thus legal representation. In addition, the FGR still has a UN seat, the DDR doesn't and no other goverment has existed since World War 2.

You just don't like the FGR government apparently. Doesn't mean your right though.

It's a bit more difficult. See, the German Reich never officially ceased to exist. Therefore, technically, the FRG is more or less a completely new state on the soil of the German Reich. It may see itself as the successor and it took over debts and responsibilities from the German Reich but it really isn't.
Of course these are all just technicalities. But if you want to have it correct ...

Now of course, if the Germans were to support changing said treaty commitments.....

Why should we? We don't want American troops in Germany. At least I don't and from what I've read several Germans here share that oppinion.

Why should we? We don't want American troops in Germany. At least I don't and from what I've read several Germans here share that oppinion.
so how come you are complaining about their plans to leave? The proposal to move the troops out of Germany was made public and your government protested it.

most of the small people did not know anything about the KZs and the homicide of the jewish people

Or rather ignored it, which is much worse. Like the small people ignoring Iraq and voting for a tax cut now.

For the record, I have no opinion either way on American bases in Germany, though I am uneasy thinking about the possibility of the US storing nuclear weapons here. I don't know if they are, and if they are, I'd very much prefer they didn't.

Great Britain does not have a constitution and never has done. We have had some constitutional documents (Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are the foremost examples) but mostly we use precedent as there is no written set of rules. Having no constitution is not in a sin: in fact it is a blessing as the modern British governments aren't as bound to the antiquated and mostly irrelevant documents of yesteryear (see American Constitution and the right to own firearms). Precedent is far more flexible than a constitution and it is flexibilty balanced with with firm precedent that has allowed Britain to survive this long.

Not that stupid, in fact...

I'd love to see a Habsburg and Hohenzollern on their prospective thrones again.
Let Austria and Hungary flourish aswell and stop the decay.
Shoot I'll cheer for the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire.

Slovakia is doing fine, thanks, and we have no desire to see a new Austro-Hungarian Empire. ;)

see above post... it is the de facto and under the peace treaty of 1992 the legal successor to the Third Reich, which was the legal successor via election to the Weimer Republic, which took power after the collapse of the German Empire.

The FRG paid and continues to pay debts owed by the German Empire to Tanzanians who served in the German Colonial Forces in World War I.

It paid cash payments to Israel all through the Cold War period and after

If that doesn't make it a de facto successor, what does? By assuming financial obligations governments become the de facto successor of the obligator.

The peace treaty named the FGR as the representative government of Germany, ending World War 2 officially. Thus legal representation. In addition, the FGR still has a UN seat, the DDR doesn't and no other goverment has existed since World War 2.

You just don't like the FGR government apparently. Doesn't mean your right though.
It's not quite that easy. The Third Reich never ceased to exist, thus the FRG is actually illegal. The "Basic Law" we have is not a constitution made by the people. It was supposed to be replaced with a constitution at the reunification, which did not happen. So we still have the law of the allies that was imposed on us when the allies won WW2. There is no peace treaty at all.

Ein Deutscher']It's not quite that easy. The Third Reich never ceased to exist, thus the FRG is actually illegal. The "Basic Law" we have is not a constitution made by the people. It was supposed to be replaced with a constitution at the reunification, which did not happen. So we still have the law of the allies that was imposed on us when the allies won WW2. There is no peace treaty at all.

Wow, there's something on which you actually agree with me.

Wow, there's something on which you actually agree with me.
Happens rarely enough that you state something that is historically correct :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']Happens rarely enough that you state something that is historically correct :rolleyes:

Try not to be so friendly.

Ein Deutscher']It's not quite that easy. The Third Reich never ceased to exist, thus the FRG is actually illegal. The "Basic Law" we have is not a constitution made by the people. It was supposed to be replaced with a constitution at the reunification, which did not happen. So we still have the law of the allies that was imposed on us when the allies won WW2. There is no peace treaty at all.

WTF?!? :eek:

Ein Deutscher']It's not quite that easy. The Third Reich never ceased to exist, thus the FRG is actually illegal. The "Basic Law" we have is not a constitution made by the people. It was supposed to be replaced with a constitution at the reunification, which did not happen. So we still have the law of the allies that was imposed on us when the allies won WW2. There is no peace treaty at all.

I am afraid that it most conclusively did cease to exist when it surrendered unconditionally on May 9, 1945 and all of its government leaders above the rank of local tax collector where thrown into prison and in many cases tried and convicted of a wide variety of crimes (unless they were in the Soviet Occupation zone, where they often just got a free ticket to Siberia for 10 years without formalities in many cases).

there was no German government at all beyond the local level for a good part of the early occupation period, and the West German government was created after that time.

You are indeed a stubborn one Ein Deutcher... care to back up your assertion? My statement is backed by a literal mountain of evidence and a well known event called the Nuremburg Trials

WTF?!? :eek:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8954141&postcount=138

...he is, if nothing else, consistent.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=769



For all you angst-ridden Germans who are upset about Iraq, perhaps you should be more upset about your home.
Why? Cause there are no German coffins coming back from the US's newest colony Iraq?

So since there's no peace treaty could the US get away with firebombing Dresden again?
Sure. The US put that in the UN charter.

since the reunion with the german democratic republic (DDR) in 1990 we germans are at last a free country - until then we were occupied county thats true. the only contracs between germany and the allies was a peace-contract - no bombing-run-danger

but since 1990 we are free
Yeah right. :rolleyes: Who told you that BS?

I am afraid that it most conclusively did cease to exist when it surrendered unconditionally on May 9, 1945 and all of its government leaders above the rank of local tax collector where thrown into prison and in many cases tried and convicted of a wide variety of crimes (unless they were in the Soviet Occupation zone, where they often just got a free ticket to Siberia for 10 years without formalities in many cases).

there was no German government at all beyond the local level for a good part of the early occupation period, and the West German government was created after that time.

You are indeed a stubborn one Ein Deutcher... care to back up your assertion? My statement is backed by a literal mountain of evidence and a well known event called the Nuremburg Trials
Once again - the country did not surrender as a whole. The German Wehrmacht surrendered. The country did not cease to exist. That victor's justice was applied to many people in 1945, doesn't make it right. The Nuremberg Trials were a farce and would today be a violation of international law.

You're the country that just elected a Bush lover, right?
Not yet.

Ein Deutscher']Once again - the country did not surrender as a whole. The German Wehrmacht surrendered. The country did not cease to exist. That victor's justice was applied to many people in 1945, doesn't make it right. The Nuremberg Trials were a farce and would today be a violation of international law.

ROTFLMAO!

As opposed to the invasions of Poland, the USSR, France, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Norway? As opposed to killing Jews, Slavs and Gypsies in an orgy of murder? And you speak about law?!?

I am afraid that it most conclusively did cease to exist when it surrendered unconditionally on May 9, 1945 and all of its government leaders


There were no government leaders present at the surrender. The surrender was for the Wehrmacht not the nation as itself. The German federal court ruled on that on july 31, 1973:

Das Deutsche Reich existiert fort, besitzt nach wie vor Rechtsfähigkeit, ist allerdings als Gesamtstaat mangels Organisation, insbesondere mangels institutionalisierter Organe selbst nicht handlungsfähig.
Mit der Errichtung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde nicht ein neuer westdeutscher Staat gegründet, sondern ein Teil Deutschlands neu organisiert (...). Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist also nicht "Rechtsnachfolger" des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat "Deutsches Reich", - in bezug auf seine räumliche Ausdehnung allerdings "teilidentisch", so daß insoweit die Identität keine Ausschließlichkeit beansprucht. (...) Sie beschränkt staatsrechtlich ihre Hoheitsgewalt auf den "Geltungsbereich des Grundgesetzes"

Ein Deutscher']It's not quite that easy. The Third Reich never ceased to exist, thus the FRG is actually illegal. The "Basic Law" we have is not a constitution made by the people. It was supposed to be replaced with a constitution at the reunification, which did not happen. So we still have the law of the allies that was imposed on us when the allies won WW2. There is no peace treaty at all.
Don't confuse the 3rd Reich with the Deutsche Reich.

There were no government leaders present at the surrender. The surrender was for the Wehrmacht not the nation as itself. The German federal court ruled on that on july 31, 1973:

Das Deutsche Reich existiert fort, besitzt nach wie vor Rechtsfähigkeit, ist allerdings als Gesamtstaat mangels Organisation, insbesondere mangels institutionalisierter Organe selbst nicht handlungsfähig.
Mit der Errichtung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde nicht ein neuer westdeutscher Staat gegründet, sondern ein Teil Deutschlands neu organisiert (...). Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist also nicht "Rechtsnachfolger" des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat "Deutsches Reich", - in bezug auf seine räumliche Ausdehnung allerdings "teilidentisch", so daß insoweit die Identität keine Ausschließlichkeit beansprucht. (...) Sie beschränkt staatsrechtlich ihre Hoheitsgewalt auf den "Geltungsbereich des Grundgesetzes"

Translation please? :confused:

ROTFLMAO!

As opposed to the invasions of Poland, the USSR, France, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Norway? As opposed to killing Jews, Slavs and Gypsies in an orgy of murder? And you speak about law?!?
The Nazi-leaders of that time definitely deserved to be tried, but not in the form it happened. What the allies did had nothing to do with justice, but with revenge.

And you probably believe that as well, don't you? The FRG is the legal successor of the German Reich, so please stop posting that kind of nationalistic BS.
BTW, your name is preposterous. Speak for yourself!
No. It's not.

Ein Deutscher']


ROTFLMAO!

As opposed to the invasions of Poland, the USSR, France, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Norway? As opposed to killing Jews, Slavs and Gypsies in an orgy of murder? And you speak about law?!?


The Nazi-leaders of that time definitely deserved to be tried, but not in the form it happened. What the allies did had nothing to do with justice, but with revenge.

Not in the form?!? Wha??? There were 3 accquitals at Nuremburg. The Soviets would have shot the lot of them... even filed an official complaint that those three should not have been acquitted.

Revenge? You've got to be kidding. There was no Treaty of Versailles here. The US included West Germany in the Marshal Plan (and offered help to East Germany, though it was refused vis-a-vis the Communists).

No. It's not.

Actually it is. The FRG (not FGR - it's Federal Republic of Germany and not "fedeal german republic") IS the legal successor to the Weimar Republic. The Weimar Republic ceased to exist in 1945 as it's last government (see: Hitler) collapsed. A short period of "anarchy" followed until a new nationstate - the Federal Republic of Germany - was founded.

Translation please? :confused:
Unnngh!!! Don't you have a dictionary or something? :mad:
*Sigh* Here goes....I don't garantuee 100% correctness in the translation.
Das Deutsche Reich existiert fort, besitzt nach wie vor Rechtsfähigkeit, ist allerdings als Gesamtstaat mangels Organisation, insbesondere mangels institutionalisierter Organe selbst nicht handlungsfähig.
Mit der Errichtung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde nicht ein neuer westdeutscher Staat gegründet, sondern ein Teil Deutschlands neu organisiert (...). Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist also nicht "Rechtsnachfolger" des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat "Deutsches Reich", - in bezug auf seine räumliche Ausdehnung allerdings "teilidentisch", so daß insoweit die Identität keine Ausschließlichkeit beansprucht. (...) Sie beschränkt staatsrechtlich ihre Hoheitsgewalt auf den "Geltungsbereich des Grundgesetzes"
The German Empire continues to exist, and still posseses legality, but is due to a lack of organisation, specificly institutionel organs incapabel of eeemm well basicly doing stuff itself. I dunno a correct translation for that word.
The founding of the FRG was not the founding of a new West-german state but the reorganisation of a part of Germany. So the FRG is not the legal heir of the German Empire, but identical with the state known as the German Empire, but partialy in the aspect of terretory.

Actually it is. The FRG (not FGR - it's Federal Republic of Germany and not "fedeal german republic") IS the legal successor to the Weimar Republic. The Weimar Republic ceased to exist in 1945 as it's last government (see: Hitler) collapsed. A short period of "anarchy" followed until a new nationstate - the Federal Republic of Germany - was founded.
Bundesverfassungsgericht. Und nein.

Revenge?
Exactly.

Bundesverfassungsgericht. Und nein.

Poppycock!

The Weimar Republic has ceased to exist. Legally.

And you probably believe that as well, don't you? The FRG is the legal successor of the German Reich, so please stop posting that kind of nationalistic BS.
BTW, your name is preposterous. Speak for yourself!

No. It's not.

Actually, I have to go with VW here. The FRG was not the legal successor of the German Reich. The Second Reich fell with the Kaiser in 1918, on 9 September when the Weimar Republic was declared by Philipp Scheidemann.

With the fire in the Reichstag in 1933, the government ceased to be legitimate, since President Hindenburg had to sign the "Emergency Decree for the Protection of the People and the State". Thus no Weimar Republic.

So the FRG was a legal government formed after the destruction of the illegal Third Reich. Stunde Null.

Poppycock!

The Weimar Republic has ceased to exist. Legally.
Es geht nicht um die Weimarer Republik du hirni. And aren't you forgetting a state which succeeded the Weimarer Republik? Which by the way wasn't it's official name anyway.

Yes, Germany is still occupied! By wee little green men.

Unnngh!!! Don't you have a dictionary or something? :mad:
*Sigh* Here goes....I don't garantuee 100% correctness in the translation.
*snip
The German Empire continues to exist, and still posseses legality, but is due to a lack of organisation, specificly institutionel organs incapabel of eeemm well basicly doing stuff itself. I dunno a correct translation for that word.
The founding of the FRG was not the founding of a new West-german state but the reorganisation of a part of Germany. So the FRG is not the legal heir of the German Empire, but identical with the state known as the German Empire, but partialy in the aspect of terretory.

Thanks. So technically by that the FRG is not a legimate state. Wow. So that means, that should have actually created a new constitution and state back in 1990 when the unification happened? Didn't think it was actually all that complicated... :eek:

And folks, I'll rest my case on why (aside from other EU countries voting against the EU Constitution) there will never be a united Europe.

Too many people who weren't even alive in 1945 are still really upset.

I remember talking to far too many upset Germans when I was stationed there - not just upset at Ameicans stationed in their country, but at all of the Allies and the treatment of Germany in general.

There might be a unified Europe if it was under German control, but otherwise, there will be a considerable amount of unrelieved issues.

Thanks. So technically by that the FRG is not a legimate state. Wow. So that means, that should have actually created a new constitution and state back in 1990 when the unification happened? Didn't think it was actually all that complicated... :eek:
An official peace treaty would be the way to start. And changing the UN charter. And the 2+4 dictate.

An official peace treaty would be the way to start. And changing the UN charter. And the 2+4 dictate.
Oh, and letting the Germans write their own Constitution.

I´m sorry for that there exists today some political streams who maybe wished this evil bastard back... i sometimes thought about leaving my country before it`s getting worser when i see how the situation develops..
Please don`t take some examples for indicating how the whole people are ;)
Some people just have to make the same errors againor are only to low minded to know better and easily could be blinded. I think every kind of extremity in the right or left, causes only bad things.. even if they are meant only good.. violence only causses counter-violence...

To those who whishes the US stationed Bases leaving... hm don`t you think about the economy in that regions? Think about some 100.000 soldats and their families who spend their money in the region they live and now are leaving... It`s not so easy at all... saying leave is easy ok.. but if you think a little bit further as to the tip of your nose you will see that economys are networked far more then you think and would have more effects then you thought of. Not to mention that the children raised up in this country and have their friends an social contacts. In fact that country become their home in a way.

I´m sorry for that there exists today some political streams who maybe wished this evil bastard back... i sometimes thought about leaving my country before it`s getting worser when i see how the situation develops..
Please don`t take some examples for indicating how the whole people are ;)
Some people just have to make the same errors againor are only to low minded to know better and easily could be blinded. I think every kind of extremity in the right or left, causes only bad things.. even if they are meant only good.. violence only causses counter-violence...

To those who whishes the US stationed Bases leaving... hm don`t you think about the economy in that regions? Think about some 100.000 soldats and their families who spend their money in the region they live and now are leaving... It`s not so easy at all... saying leave is easy ok.. but if you think a little bit further as to the tip of your nose you will see that economys are networked far more then you think and would have more effects then you thought of. Not to mention that the children raised up in this country and have their friends an social contacts. In fact that country become their home in a way.

There are less than 24,000 US soldiers in Germany at this time. Down from 700,000 (down from 300,000 when I was there).

hmm k sorry but i was to lazy to search for the actual numbers... but 24,000 is enough through.. and that 24,000 don`t count their family members living with them there, or?

Oh, and letting the Germans write their own Constitution.
Yes. That too.

If the Axis Powers *are* still occupied, then where are my German maid/cook and my Japanese gardener? Why aren't German soldiers in Iraq as American Jannisaries? Why is there even an EU?

Sorry, it just doesn't wash.

Oh, and letting the Germans write their own Constitution.

We DID write our own constitution.

We DID write our own constitution.
IIRC, the Basic Law was written by an American.

IIRC, the Basic Law was written by an American.

Bollocks.

Bollocks.
While the partly reunified German nation is considered a modern European democracy, it has no constitution other than the temporary Basic Law (Grundgesetz) originally written in 1948 under the guidance of the U.S. military occupation forces and originally meant only to apply to the western parts of Germany under U.S. control. One of the Basic Law’s final articles says it is to be replaced when Germany obtains a constitution.

While the partly reunified German nation is considered a modern European democracy, it has no constitution other than the temporary Basic Law (Grundgesetz) originally written in 1948 under the guidance of the U.S. military occupation forces and originally meant only to apply to the western parts of Germany under U.S. control. One of the Basic Law’s final articles says it is to be replaced when Germany obtains a constitution.

You still don't get it. After the reunification the Grundgesetz has been adopted AS the German constitution. A couple of amendments (spelling?) have been added though.

And it was written under guidance, but without any interference of the occupation council.

You still don't get it. After the reunification the Grundgesetz has been adopted AS the German constitution. A couple of amendments (spelling?) have been added though.

And it was written under guidance, but without any interference of the occupation council.
Article 23 defining the legal jurisdiction of the Basic Law was removed at the request of former Secretary of State James Baker at a Paris conference of the Allied powers and the two former German states on July 17, 1990. The two German states were legally abolished at this conference and their foreign ministers were only informed of the changes after it had been done. As a result of these changes, the Basic Law does not legally apply to the reunified German state, according to some legal experts.

In any case, the Basic Law is incomplete and contradictory and, therefore, cannot serve as a proper constitution. For example, Article 139 states that “legal provisions” concerning Nazism and German militarism are “not affected” by the Basic Law. This article indicates that the numerous Allied occupation laws and proclamations remain in effect in spite of the Basic Law.

Article 23 defining the legal jurisdiction of the Basic Law was removed at the request of former Secretary of State James Baker at a Paris conference of the Allied powers and the two former German states on July 17, 1990. The two German states were legally abolished at this conference and their foreign ministers were only informed of the changes after it had been done. As a result of these changes, the Basic Law does not legally apply to the reunified German state, according to some legal experts.

it does not matter what "some legal experts" claim, fact is: The Grundgesetz is the legal basis of German law.

In any case, the Basic Law is incomplete and contradictory and, therefore, cannot serve as a proper constitution.

Says who? You?

Mind you, amendments have been made and article 139 says ZIG about "militarism" or "nazism". Article 139 says something about free sundays and holidays.

BTW, you do realize the GG was amended Oct 3rd 1990 to adress the issues of the reunifcation, right?

BTW, you do realize the GG was amended Oct 3rd 1990 to adress the issues of the reunifcation, right?
The problem is, that many Germans, including some scholars, believe otherwise. They believe, as some of the German posters here do (not including you) that Germany was somehow occupied, robbed, and forced into its current borders and government against the popular will by illegal methods.

There seem to be enough people, even on the left, who think this way, that I believe it will make a unified EU impossible (even if I leave out the French not wanting to do it either).

I feel that there's a strong undercurrent of mistrust in France, Germany, and Britain - yes, they like economic unification - but they're not willing to give up the slightest amount of sovereignty or national identity because they all think the other countries are out to screw them.

The resentment is not as great as the German resentment after World War I, but it's there, and I've seen it first hand.

The problem is, that many Germans, including some scholars, believe otherwise. They believe, as some of the German posters here do (not including you) that Germany was somehow occupied, robbed, and forced into its current borders and government against the popular will by illegal methods.

Well, they can believe what they want. ;)

The Grundgesetz was written "by Germans for Germans" and later yes-nodded by the allied control council. Suggesting it the Grundgesetz was forced upon us is bordering to insanity.

The Grundgesetz stood the test of time, especially the essential articles (the so-called "Verfassungskern" [roughly: constitutional core laws] ).

Of course Germany was occupied in the first few years, but right after the FRG has been founded the occupation effectivley ended. Everyone had to cooperate at the time - just to keep the Russians at bay.

being the "fortress" of Europe against the "bolshevik hordes" it was just a logical consequence to base foreign troops here, in addition to our own armies.


There seem to be enough people, even on the left, who think this way, that I believe it will make a unified EU impossible (even if I leave out the French not wanting to do it either).


Agreed.

I feel that there's a strong undercurrent of mistrust in France, Germany, and Britain - yes, they like economic unification - but they're not willing to give up the slightest amount of sovereignty or national identity because they all think the other countries are out to screw them.

The resentment is not as great as the German resentment after World War I, but it's there, and I've seen it first hand.

Paranoia, eh?

BTW, I fucked up that article 139 thing, checked the wrong book...

Though the Grundgesetz was amended after the reunfication to cope with the changes. Too bad the English wikipedia article is so short, the German one is very comprehensive (especially on the matter of 1990-today).

Ein Deutscher']Once again - the country did not surrender as a whole. The German Wehrmacht surrendered. The country did not cease to exist. That victor's justice was applied to many people in 1945, doesn't make it right. The Nuremberg Trials were a farce and would today be a violation of international law.

Doenitz, in addition to being head of the Kreigsmarine, was named the legal successor to Hitler by Hitler and was the head of the German government at the time of the surrender. I cannot remember if he signed the surrender document (I know Keitel and Jodl did, not sure of the others), but it doesn't matter. He personally surrendered to British authorities shortly after the general surrender and went to prison until Nuremburg. As he was the second and last head of the Third Reich, and the senior remaining member of the Nazi Party not stripped of power by Hitler before his death, he was the government. No Doenitz, no government, and since he surrendered, so did the civilian Nazi government. By simple logic if nothing else.

Nuremburg, although flawed in many ways, was an international trial held by the international community at large and is recognized legal precedent under international law. Yes, it was victors justice, but one could hardly say that the Nazis tried and convicted in those trials didn't deserve the worst punishment that could be handed to them and got less than they could have (a truly JUST punishment would have been to hand over many of those convicted to survivors of the concentration camps for more primitive justice, but that wouldn't exactly have been the rule of law).

Doenitz, in addition to being head of the Kreigsmarine, was named the legal successor to Hitler by Hitler and was the head of the German government at the time of the surrender. I cannot remember if he signed the surrender document (I know Keitel and Jodl did, not sure of the others), but it doesn't matter. He personally surrendered to British authorities shortly after the general surrender and went to prison until Nuremburg. As he was the second and last head of the Third Reich, and the senior remaining member of the Nazi Party not stripped of power by Hitler before his death, he was the government. No Doenitz, no government, and since he surrendered, so did the civilian Nazi government. By simple logic if nothing else.

Nuremburg, although flawed in many ways, was an international trial held by the international community at large and is recognized legal precedent under international law. Yes, it was victors justice, but one could hardly say that the Nazis tried and convicted in those trials didn't deserve the worst punishment that could be handed to them and got less than they could have (a truly JUST punishment would have been to hand over many of those convicted to survivors of the concentration camps for more primitive justice, but that wouldn't exactly have been the rule of law).
Illegal victor's justice doesn't make it right ever. It wasn't the rule of law that decided their punishments, but the thirst for bloody revenge with no evidence in favour of those being tried, allowed into the court. It was a joke, a rape of law - biased, wrong, and the outcome a laughable farce due to the way these trials were done and those who did them.

Ein Deutscher']Illegal victor's justice doesn't make it right ever. It wasn't the rule of law that decided their punishments, but the thirst for bloody revenge with no evidence in favour of those being tried, allowed into the court. It was a joke, a rape of law - biased, wrong, and the outcome a laughable farce due to the way these trials were done and those who did them.

"The tribunals shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. They shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which they deem to have probative value. Without limiting the foregoing general rules, the following shall be deemed admissible if they appear to the tribunal to contain information of probative value relating to the charges; affidavits, depositions, interrogations and other statements, diaries, letters, the records, findings, statements and judgments of the military tribunals and the reviewing and confirming authorities of any of the United Nations, and copies of any document or secondary evidence of the contents of any document, if the original is not readily available or cannot be produced without delay. The tribunal shall afford the opposing party such opportunity to question the authenticity or probative value of such evidence as in the opinion of the tribunal the ends of justice require. Control Council Ordinance No. 7, Article 7.

http://lawofwar.org/Tokyo%20Nurembueg%20article.htm

Looks reasonable to me.

Also, how do you account for the acquittals of Schacht, Von Papen and Fritzsche?

The Allies had over 55,000 witnesses to war crimes, plus access to the entire German governmental archives. I think that there was plenty of proof to go around. :rolleyes:

Never mind that this was the first time an international court ruled on such a thing... "Victor's Justice"? More like you're applying the perspective of today on the laws and ways of yesterday.

Mind you, soem of the later trials - especially against low ranking members of the Wehrmacht - have been quite dubious. Starting from biased Russian judges who got appointed despite their inital suggestion of "executing one out of five German males" as revenge for Russias fallen to extremley harsh punishment for slightest infractions of the articles of war. Death sentences have been cast and carried out by the dozen on some days with little or basically no evidence.

Lyndie Englang got a few years in prison for horrible abuse of prisoners. If she were German after WWII she'd get hung for it.

all things considered, Nuremburg was a lot better from the perspective of Germany than some of the other options...

Serious suggestions were made in the US Administration to completely dismantle German industry and prevent Germany from being anything but an agrian state. Luckily cooler heads prevailed in the US. At Yalta, suggestions were made to simply shoot all German officers above the rank of colonel too, which opened the door for actual trials as it was a saner option.

Those kind of suggestions if implimented would have been 'victors vengeance', not formal trials were German lawyers were allowed to defend their clients.

But for a true example of what 'victors vengeance' looked like, take a look at the massive evacuation and flight of Germans from East Prussia from the Soviet advance in the winter of January 1945. And the wholesale rapes and murders that the Soviets carried out (although can anyone really, really blame them considering what the Germans did in Soviet territory?)

There are fewer cases of reported rape in British of American occupation zones than in just the city of Berlin alone after its fall to Soviet forces.

Perspective is an important thing. Nuremburg was mild in perspective to that.

so how come you are complaining about their plans to leave? The proposal to move the troops out of Germany was made public and your government protested it.

Because our governemnt is fucked up? Where did I say that I agree with everything teh German government decides?

sorry for the language

Because our governemnt is fucked up? Where did I say that I agree with everything teh German government decides?

sorry for the language
doesn't your government do eveyrything you tell it to?

doesn't your government do eveyrything you tell it to?


erm...right....in Germany politicans are bound to their conscience. After the election they could theorectically change all their political views if they think it's right...alright, this is exaggeration but that's mroe or less how it is. Politican here are bound to what they believe to be right, not what the people that voted for them might think about something.
But I think this is the case in every modern democracy, simply because you can't ask the people on every single decision made. Just impractical.

erm...right....in Germany politicans are bound to their conscience. After the election they could theorectically change all their political views if they think it's right...alright, this is exaggeration but that's mroe or less how it is. Politican here are bound to what they believe to be right, not what the people that voted for them might think about something.
But I think this is the case in every modern democracy, simply because you can't ask the people on every single decision made. Just impractical.

Not that that is any different to what can happen in any other country in the world, including the US. In fact, I believe the Chancellor actually has less power to simply change his views than the President, since the President gets more powers than the Chancellor.
Plus there's heaps more parties in Germany, such that one cannot flip views as easily (and expect a ridiculous joke of an opposition to flip with you or risk being called liberal)).
And yes, I strongly believe that the Americans should get the hell out! In fact, I'd rather have pretty much any army on this planet have bases in my country than the Americans (and have them store nukes there too).
That is provided they can behave themselves as well as the Amis, what with the occasional rape allegations in Okinawa and all....