NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the important contentions of the German extreme right is that the Federal Republic is an illegal regime, imposed upon the German people by the Western Allies.

Similarly, they believe that the actual German government ceased to exist in 1945. When Hindenburg gave the office of Chancellor to Hitler in '39, that was pretty much legal under the Weimar Constitution.

But in 1945, when the Allies won WWII, they pretty much declared the German Empire (or "Reich" if you want, I think it's silly to use the German word since it's not actually a name) null and void. Wiped it from the map. All institutions, organisations, laws and so on were taken down.

The Federal Republic was then founded with a clean sheet of paper in front of the politicians.

So, I'm wondering...how much of that argument holds water? Was it legal under international law to replace the German Empire with the Federal Republic like it happened?

Example (in German, I'm afraid): Website of the "German government in exile" (http://friedensvertrag.info/cont/cms/)

It works and there certainly isn’t any strong competitor. The legality of it is insignificant.

One of the important contentions of the German extreme right is that the Federal Republic is an illegal regime, imposed upon the German people by the Western Allies.
Why do you and your threads always have to frustrate me so? I knew about their grievances regarding the "imposed", but I wasn't even aware of the "illegal" part.

*sighs, and runs off skipping and whistling, forever to stay ignorant of issues of historical import*

One of the important contentions of the German extreme right is that the Federal Republic is an illegal regime, imposed upon the German people by the Western Allies.


Does the Federal Republic enjoy widespread legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens? This is basically what any issue of "legal" or "illegal" ultimately boils down to. If the People aren't happy, they'll do something about it.

So, I'm wondering...how much of that argument holds water? Was it legal under international law to replace the German Empire with the Federal Republic like it happened?

Example (in German, I'm afraid): Website of the "German government in exile" (http://friedensvertrag.info/cont/cms/)

Of course it's legal. The winners said it was. Whiners can, well, whine quietly. Unless they can form a larger army and reverse the prior decision.

Why do you and your threads always have to frustrate me so?
Frustration is healthy. It's like with a glass of wine every day. :p

Governments are imposed all the time by winners in a war; if the people don't like it, they need to rebel or raise an army strong enough to change it. The South definitely didn't like the government imposed upon it after the Civil War, but since it ultimately couldn't do anything about it and the successor generations didn't really have a problem with it, they never bothered to try for independence again.

Of course it's legal. The winners said it was. Whiners can, well, whine quietly. Unless they can form a larger army and reverse the prior decision.

Die Vorlosung ist dass mann nur fickt sie im arschen und dann sie wird ihren maulen gehaltet

It's legal because if continues to be democratically ratified with each new government.

Besides, pre-1945 Germany surrendered to the allies unconditionally. That would be essentially giving carte blanche to the victorious side to recreate the governing conditions.

Die Vorlosung ist dass mann nur fickt sie im arschen und dann sie wird ihren maulen gehaltet

Wow, that's harsh...

Die Vorlosung ist dass mann nur fickt sie im arschen und dann sie wird ihren maulen gehaltet
Schließen Sie der Mund!




....(I think?)

One of the important contentions of the German extreme right is that the Federal Republic is an illegal regime, imposed upon the German people by the Western Allies.

Similarly, they believe that the actual German government ceased to exist in 1945. When Hindenburg gave the office of Chancellor to Hitler in '39, that was pretty much legal under the Weimar Constitution.

But in 1945, when the Allies won WWII, they pretty much declared the German Empire (or "Reich" if you want, I think it's silly to use the German word since it's not actually a name) null and void. Wiped it from the map. All institutions, organisations, laws and so on were taken down.

The Federal Republic was then founded with a clean sheet of paper in front of the politicians.

So, I'm wondering...how much of that argument holds water? Was it legal under international law to replace the German Empire with the Federal Republic like it happened?

Example (in German, I'm afraid): Website of the "German government in exile" (http://friedensvertrag.info/cont/cms/)


Considering that the Grundgesetz was drafted and passed by the German Laender (with the exception of Bavaria, of course), I would say the Federal Republic had all the legal justification needed.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/german-cases/cases_bverg.shtml?31jul1973

Hmmm...this is a little bit strange. But I guess it offers something of an answer.

III.

The Treaty regulates the bases of relationships between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic. In assessing it is necessary to consider what the Basic Law has to say as to the legal status of Germany:

1. The Basic Law - not merely some proposition of the theory of international law or of constitutional law - takes it that the German Reich outlasted the collapse in 1945 and did not later perish either with the capitulation nor with the exercise of foreign sovereignty in Germany by the Allied occupation powers nor later; as follows from the preamble, from Article 16, Article 23, Article 116 and Article 146 Basic Law. It is also in accord with the consistent case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, which the Senate upholds. The German Reich continues to exist (BVerfGE 2, 226 [277]; 3, 288 [319 f.]; 5, 85 [126]; 6, 309 [336, 363]), continues to possess legal capacity, though it is as an overall State, from lack of organization, in particular for lack of institutionalized organs, not itself capable of action. The view of the overall German national people and the overall German State power is "anchored" also in the Basic Law (BVerfGE 2, 266 [277]). Responsibility for "Germany as a whole" is borne - also - by the Four Powers (BVerfGE 1, 351 [362 f., 367]).

With the setting up of the Federal Republic of Germany it was not a new West German State that was founded, but part of Germany that was newly organized (cf. Carlo Schmid at the 6th session of the Parliamentary Council - StenBer. p.70). The Federal Republic of Germany is accordingly not the "legal successor" of the German Reich, but is as a State identical with the State called the "German Reich" - though as far as its spatial extension is concerned "partially identical", so that to that extent the identity does not lay claim to exclusivity.

Accordingly, the Federal Republic does not, as far its national people and national territory are concerned, cover the whole of Germany, irrespective of the fact that it recognizes a unitary national people of the subject of international law "Germany" (German Reich), to which its own population belongs as an inseparable part, and a unitary State territory of "Germany" (German Reich) to which its own State territory belongs as an equally inseparable part. Constitutionally, it confines its sovereign power to the "area to which the Basic Law applies" (cf. BVerfGE 3, 288 [319 f.]; 6, 309 [338, 363]), but also feels itself responsible for the whole of Germany (cf. the preamble to the Basic Law). At present the Federal Republic consists of the Länder mentioned in Article 23 Basic Law, including Berlin; the status of Land Berlin of the Federal Republic of Germany is only reduced and burdened by the so-called reservation of the governors of the Western powers (BVerfGE 7, 1 [7 ff.]; 19, 377 [388]; 20, 257 [266]). The German Democratic Republic is part of Germany and cannot be regarded as a foreign country in relationship to the Federal Republic of Germany (BVerfGE 11, 150 [158]). Accordingly, for instance, inter-zonal trade was not foreign trade, and the similar German internal trade is not either (BVerfGE 18, 353 [354]).

One of the important contentions of the German extreme right is that the Federal Republic is an illegal regime,
Has to be a very small right-wing sect...even the DVU acknowledges the legitimacy of the Grundgesetz.

Has to be a very small right-wing sect...even the DVU acknowledges the legitimacy of the Grundgesetz.
Well, I guess there's a spectrum of stupidity along which one can pick a spot. :p

Has to be a very small right-wing sect...even the DVU acknowledges the legitimacy of the Grundgesetz.
^ I totally knew that. Pfft, I look right through you, silly thread. :p

Example (in German, I'm afraid): Website of the "German government in exile" (http://friedensvertrag.info/cont/cms/)

Babel Fish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/)

You could give a wiki link...

1 Benutzer ist zur Zeit auf der SeiteHehehehe. "One user is currently visiting this site." Mighty popular indeed :D

Has to be a very small right-wing sect...even the DVU acknowledges the legitimacy of the Grundgesetz.They also consider themselves the CSU of the North...

ive got a few things to say to that. 1st...the far right in germany are nazi's. 2nd...the weimar government was completely obliterated after WWII, everything was null and void, for a time being germany, in a legal sense, didnt even exist. so yes a federal repbulic is completely legal. (if we wanted to follow the idea that government couldnt change and that any change was illegal, we'd be living in a Hobbsian totalitarian paradise) 3rd...when you look at it closely, what is government? What is any government? it is a cleverly worded document with signatures of seemingly important people who have been dead for hundreds of years. Government is an entity, it doesnt exist, except on paper.


(no im not an anarchist, thats just a revelation i had a few days ago in government class)

I think the current level of tacit consent by the German populace is plenty enough to make the Budesrepublik fully and completely legal.

After all, when the framers were writing the US Constitution, what they were doing was quite illegal under the law of the Articles of Confederation. They actually had the military imposing security around Independence Hall, and required that the windows be shut and locked, even in the middle of summer, to keep the proceedings secret.

Of course it's legal. The winners said it was. Whiners can, well, whine quietly. Unless they can form a larger army and reverse the prior decision.

Hey, 9/11 was legal!

I consider the BRD to be legal, but not legitimate. One of my way out-there ambitions is to overthrow the BRD, and install a new "State of Germany" encompassing Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, and eventually, the stolen territories.

All statist governments are illegitimate. *waves black flag* :p

Oh, and more on topic, I suppose the BRD could be considered illegal; it was/is basically an occupation puppet state. So was the DDR. The East had a big puppet state, and the West had a big puppet state, now the world has a very big puppet state.

I consider the BRD to be legal, but not legitimate. One of my way out-there ambitions is to overthrow the BRD, and install a new "State of Germany" encompassing Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, and eventually, the stolen territories.
I ain't livin' in no state with no Austrians!

I consider the BRD to be legal, but not legitimate. One of my way out-there ambitions is to overthrow the BRD, and install a new "State of Germany" encompassing Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, and eventually, the stolen territories.

I like you. You're funny.

I ain't livin' in no state with no Austrians!

Right now, you aren't living in a state with any Germans, let alone with Austrians. :rolleyes:

I consider the BRD to be legal, but not legitimate. One of my way out-there ambitions is to overthrow the BRD, and install a new "State of Germany" encompassing Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, and eventually, the stolen territories.

Please, Switzerland doesnt want to join a European economic community....let alone lose its soverignty to a Großdeutschland type thing.

Please, Switzerland doesnt want to join a European economic community....let alone lose its soverignty to a Großdeutschland type thing.

They won't have a choice. I will anschluss them, and I will anschluss them hardcore.

I ain't livin' in no state with no Austrians!

And Switzerland's my backup country, goddamit!

If Germanys illegal, can we return it and get our money back?

If Germanys illegal, can we return it and get our money back?

You already got your money back; it's called the Marshall Plan.

This is very similar to the Republic of Texas Interim Government. (http://www.republic-of-texas.net/index2.shtml)

You already got your money back; it's called the Marshall Plan.

Now I'm really lost. Wasn't the Marshall Plan US -> Germany, not the other way around? Or am I wrong and did the Nazionalsozialisten win?

Now I'm really lost. Wasn't the Marshall Plan US -> Germany, not the other way around? Or am I wrong and did the Nazionalsozialisten win?

They gave Germany money through the Marshall Plan, and Germany paid it back.

They gave Germany money through the Marshall Plan, and Germany paid it back.
Not cent for cent though. I want the rest back. The US gave somewhere up around 2 billion or so, but Germany was only required to pay back around 1 billion.

Not cent for cent though. I want the rest back. The US gave somewhere up around 2 billion or so, but Germany was only required to pay back around 1 billion.

Compared to the US debt, 1 billion dollars won't help you.

Compared to the US debt, 1 billion dollars won't help you.

Inflation adjusted.

Inflation adjusted.

Inflation adjusted, you might as well just disband the BRD and go back to the 30-something states that existed before the unification.

...

So, would you like that cash or cheque?

Inflation adjusted, you might as well just disband the BRD and go back to the 30-something states that existed before the unification.

*cackles evilly*

They also consider themselves the CSU of the North...

Another CSU? Like the bavarian one wouldn't be enough...

but as there are so many unsignificant nutjob parties and organisations in Germany (like the PBC...the MLPD...the Kaisertreue Jugend...), who cares about one more bunch of idiots.

If Germanys illegal, can we return it and get our money back?

Sorry, but Germany's warranty expired in 1991.

Right now, you aren't living in a state with any Germans, let alone with Austrians. :rolleyes:
Hehe, fair enough.

Either way, I have my doubts whether the Austrians or the Swiss for that matter would have much interest in playing along.
And if you're gonna start talking Eastern Prussia and all that...don't you think one gigantic load of expensive crap (translation: the former GDR) is enough to pay for? The unemployment rate in Poland is 18.2% (!!!) right now. I think the German taxpayer can do without that.

The arguments on the page are quite rubbish...

It's legal alright.

Now I'm really lost. Wasn't the Marshall Plan US -> Germany, not the other way around? Or am I wrong and did the Nazionalsozialisten win?No, but Germany paid that money back.

Either way, I have my doubts whether the Austrians or the Swiss for that matter would have much interest in playing along.

They'll play nice, or play dead.

And if you're gonna start talking Eastern Prussia and all that...don't you think one gigantic load of expensive crap (translation: the former GDR) is enough to pay for? The unemployment rate in Poland is 18.2% (!!!) right now. I think the German taxpayer can do without that.

That's because right now, the stolen territories are full of Poles. I want to reverse the expulsions.

Perfectly legal. They call it unconditional surrender for a reason.

Perfectly legal. They call it unconditional surrender for a reason.

Unconditional surrender doesn't circumvent international law.

Unconditional surrender doesn't circumvent international law.

I say reinstate the Kaiser as well!


But on topic, it is quite an interesting perspective, the BRD is not legal but a legitemate government, and it doesn't have to be legal as long as the people are happy with it, it can remain an illegal government I suppose. Unless Potato Factory overthrows it first :)

One of the important contentions of the German extreme right is that the Federal Republic is an illegal regime, imposed upon the German people by the Western Allies.

Similarly, they believe that the actual German government ceased to exist in 1945. When Hindenburg gave the office of Chancellor to Hitler in '39, that was pretty much legal under the Weimar Constitution.

But in 1945, when the Allies won WWII, they pretty much declared the German Empire (or "Reich" if you want, I think it's silly to use the German word since it's not actually a name) null and void. Wiped it from the map. All institutions, organisations, laws and so on were taken down.

The Federal Republic was then founded with a clean sheet of paper in front of the politicians.

So, I'm wondering...how much of that argument holds water? Was it legal under international law to replace the German Empire with the Federal Republic like it happened?

Example (in German, I'm afraid): Website of the "German government in exile" (http://friedensvertrag.info/cont/cms/)

Who do you mean to impress with your Nazi website? Surely not any Germans (except maybe for a few irrelevant elements).
What you seem to not undestand is the fact that the people make the state and not the laws. And after WW2 not Germany ceased to exist, only the way of government was changed and the democratic process was altered. And when the first elections were held the Germans through their participation in the election made the new government legal also. And Germans identify very much with their state and their democratic institutions so the question for legality is not one to split Germany anytime soon.

the only thing that bothers me is that they made it a federation. ITS TOO SMALL TO BE DIVEDED LIKE THAT.

the only thing that bothers me is that they made it a federation. ITS TOO SMALL TO BE DIVEDED LIKE THAT.

They were probably afraid of Bavaria seceding if they didn't. Bavaria already rejected the constitution on the initial vote. Even today Bavarians are a bit different then the rest of the Germans, also through their overt conservatism in comparison with the rest of Germany.

That's because right now, the stolen territories are full of Poles. I want to reverse the expulsions.
That'll be a big, empty space. Germans aren't having enough kids, remember?

And besides, even under Bismarck Poles made up quite a significant portion of the population of the Empire. Germany was never as ethnically homogenous as later propaganda let some to believe.

That'll be a big, empty space. Germans aren't having enough kids, remember?

I'll make higher birthrates, if it means cloning massive numbers of babies in petree dishes.