We are at war (with Germany)

29.11.2023

19:44

“Is there any final minute and final conclusion that leads from war to peace?” asks prof. Gabriella Blum of Harvard Law School and finds no answer.


For millennia, specified a “moment” was the peace treaty. The oldest known treaty dates from 1269 before Christ and ended the longstanding war of the Hittites with the Egyptians. His copy is issued at the fresh York United Nations headquarters. The first hetic version (on a burnt clay plaque) is in the Istanbul museum, and the Egyptian version can be viewed with forged hieroglyphs on the walls of 2 temples in Karnak. Since then, for nearly 3300 years, the standard of interstate relations has been a gathering of representatives of the fighting parties and negotiations culminated in the ending of the war with a solemn peace treaty.


“We are at war”

It's hard to say. The First planet War ended with a peace conference and a Treaty of Versailles, But the another 1 isn't. After the surrender of the 3rd Reich Armed Forces, a gathering of leaders of the large powers called the Podam Conference made many decisions, based on the inalienable rights of the winners, but their the final approval was mostly referred to the peace conference to be held but not held. The “final moment” mentioned at the outset of the war has not yet come to an end, which allows the German Constitutional Court to regulation that the 3rd Reich exists within the limits of 1937. prof. Witold Modzelewski commented on this situation:

Tanisha Fazal, prof. of political sciences at the University of Minnesota, estimates that in the second half of the 20th century the number of interstate armed conflicts did not decrease significantly, but the number of formal peace treaties ending wars “dramatically declined”. In her opinion, fear of work is the cause.

The proceedings and judgments of the global Military Court in Nuremberg after planet War II and the global Criminal Court for the erstwhile Yugoslavia in The Hague have made the leaders of the states and armed forces avoid formal declaration of war for fear that both politicians and the military may be charged with violations of law and war crimes before the next global Court after the end of the battles.

A crucial example is the “special military operation” in Ukraine ordered by Putin.

According to Kremlin, what happens in Ukraine is simply a police operation without formal notice, so there is no war or drastic war crimes punished in accordance with global law. And if there is no war then there is no peace treaty, and if there is no treaty, there is no place to evidence the war reparations arrangements.

Such suspension in the vacuum of the treaty's ending of war can pay off. It's just that the conflict started on its own, it quieted down and expired. Nothing to talk about. The Germans are aiming for it. If there are borders with Poland, then the final arrangement should be waited until the peace conference and the applicable treaty. As far as war reparations for Poland are concerned, “the case has long been settled.”


"Is the Reich EU associate within the 1937 limits?"

Professor Modzelewski pointed out another paradox, asking:

Does the existing Reich, within the 1937 limits, belong to the European Union?

The Treaty establishing the European Community of 25 March 1957 signed Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Secretary of State for abroad Affairs Walter Hallstein. Supposedly the case is clear, but 2 years earlier the German ‘court of last word’, the national Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe ruled (signature of Act 1 BvF 1/55) that

The Government and the Court agree that the national Republic is the sole legal successor to the German Reich and on this basis has an exclusive mandate to her lands within the limits of 1937.

It so appears that the 3rd Reich is simply a associate of the European Union. quite a few legal chaos left us with the Potsdam Conference. “When we buy an flat in Szczecin, do we become owners of it, since there is inactive this «Third Reich»? – asks prof. Modzelewski and adds: “The property right is the most crucial civilian right”. That's right, but there's nothing to be happy about.

This Harvard law prof. Gabriella Blum believes that in the case of a war, ‘earth, oil or access to trade routes are among the people in the territory of conflict’.

Berlin-controlled Eurocrats are hastily pushing the EU superstate in Brussels, in which each national state will be reduced to the administrative territory of specified a general government. The veto law will be erased. The European Court of Human Rights will most likely justice about land ownership.

In the right-wing alternate organization for Germany (AfD) Erika Steinbach has been active for 2 years, erstwhile head of the Exile Union. Those who were ordered by Reichsfuehrer Himmler to flee the Oder from the russian Army or the Potsdam Conference decision were resettled from our Earth Recovered. Germany does not accept the provisions of the Potsdam Conference due to the fact that they were not organization to it. AfD is going up hard in polls and increasing into a second political power in Germany. Erika Steinbach is already waiting in the starting pit to lead the great-grandsons of the "exiles".

Fear of fear.





Author: Dr. Rafał Brzeski
Date: 29.11.2023 19:44





Dr Rafał Brzeski: According to the German legal state the German Reich exists within the limits of 1937

15.11.2023

21:11

A fewer days ago, I followed on platform X (formerly Twitter) an interesting discussion on Polish-German relations and on the political and legal safety of the western border of Poland. This was a substantive discussion, and 1 of the participants included this year's position of the Ministry of abroad Affairs in this matter.


According to the historical reality, alternatively than a circular view, the MFA stated that

"because of the unconditional surrender of the German armed forces in May 1945 and the subsequent liquidation of the German statehood with the German Reich, there was neither a truce... nor a peace treaty." Let me remind you that on May 8, 1945, the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine capitulated at Reims and 24 hours later in Berlin. On behalf of the State, the German Reich, nobody capitulated.

In both versions (Reims and Berlin), the instrument entitled ‘War Subjection Act’ in point 4 states that it will be replaced, without prejudice to it, by ‘the general submission instrument imposed by the United Nations, or on their behalf, which will apply to all GERMANY with the German armed forces’.

Unfortunately neither the United Nations nor anyone on their behalf "imposed" the German Reich's "general surrender instrument".


The absence of a formal surrender of “the full of Germany”, i.e. the states and their armed forces, has resulted in and results in legal manoeuvres calculated on the 1 hand from Germany's work for war, war crimes, demolition and looting, and on the another hand from questioning the border between Poland and Germany and its revision in favour of Germany.

The supporting documentation is rich and the most crucial are the rulings of the national Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. Here's the choice:


‘German river exists’

The judgement of September 25, 1952 states that the German Reich inactive exists as a "state law unity".

Judgments of 4 May 1955 (signature of Act 1 BvF 1/55) in Chapter III, point 1 explains: “The Basic Act treats Germany as a state which covers the full German nation within the limits of 31 December 1937 and which besides exists today”. In point 2, the Court adds: “The national Government considers... that the national Republic of Germany is identical to the German Reich within the limits of December 31, 1937. The national Republic, however, does not form the whole, but only the full represents’. This time, the concept of “the whole” covered the full German Reich of 1937, which is besides the GDR area and our Recovered Lands.

‘The Potsdam Treaty does not apply to Germany’

In addition to the rulings, papers constituting the alleged legal position are besides important.

Professor Alfons Klafkowski, an excellent expert in global law, presented the legal position of the Lands Recovered and the Polish-German border "fresh" in 1946.

Thus, in Yalta, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin felt that "with the final appointment of its western border Poland should wait for the peace agreement". The border on Odra and Nysa was established and determined during the Potsdam Conference. However, final approval was sent back to the planned peace conference and peace treaty ending planet War II. During the pre-treatment period, lands east of the Odra-Nysa Lużycka line were placed in Potsdam on the board of the Polish State.

The crucial but German text of the Poczdam Agreement mentions in the context of these areas the "transition to the administration of the Polish State", while the French text clearly states that it is "the erstwhile German territories" which are "administered by the Polish State". The English text uses the word "administration", which in the Anglo-Saxon sense includes legislative, executive and judicial power. An example is the word American or Washington administration, that is, the full apparatus of state power, not the manager of caretakers with shovels to choice up snow, as a admin in continental Europe.

Chapter IX of the PPA besides states emphatically that Recovered Lands cannot be considered part of the russian business zone, nor are they subject to the responsibilities of the German Control Commission (German Control Commission), which ruled the German Reich occupied until 1949. The legal position resulting from the agreement demonstrates that The land lying to the east of the Polish-German border on Oder and Nysa Lužická is indisputably Polish and according to the chief British prosecutor in the Nuremberg Process of Sir Hartley Shawcross, the borders of Poland “cannot be questioned even at the final peace conference”.

German version the legal position of the lands east of the Odra-Nysa border is simply a consequence of the adopted opinion that The 1945 PPA does not legally bind GermanyBecause the German Reich was not a organization to it and did not attend the Potsdam Conference. Hence the national Constitutional Court's ruling on the existence of the German Reich within the 1937 limits and maintaining that the German issue remains open until the peace conference and the peace treaty. And if it remains open, then Poland does not have sovereign power over the Recovered Lands, but only temporarily manages them. Similarly, until the conclusion of the peace regulations with Germany at the peace conference, the Polish border on Oder and Nysa is temporary.



"The work to reconstruct the unity of the state"

This legal position is the foundation of Berlin's policy towards Warsaw, which is highlighted by the Court's ruling in Karlsruhe of 31 July 1973 (signature of Act 2 BvF 1/73), where in point (d) The Court states:


No constitutional body of the national Republic of Germany may quit the political nonsubjective of restoring the unity of the State; all constitutional bodies are obliged to act to accomplish that objective.

A small further The ruling obliges the institutions of the State to guarantee that the "claim for unification" is not forgotten in Germany and that its "persistent defence" outside the country. In this context, the Court at point (g), citing Article 23 of the Basic Act (Grundgesetz), ‘rejects the national government to adopt a subsidiary position in the Treaties that will prevent the legal, independent inclusion of another parts of Germany by making that act subject to the consent of the another organization to the Treaty’.

If the Court forbids the German apparatus of power to quit its work to "restore the unity of the state", how do we measure the value of Polish-German agreements concerning the border on Oder and Nysa?

In the position mentioned at the outset, the Polish Ministry of abroad Affairs states:

"With the successive states of the German Reich, or Germany and the GDR, treaties were concluded not bearing the nature of the peace treaty, but regulating certain matters traditionally settled in specified treaties". Speakers on platform X recalled the deal of December 7, 1970. The German position towards this agreement (and the agreement with the russian Union) defined the resolution of all the Bundestag parties of 17 May 1972, which briefly states:

Agreements do not exclude regulation of the problem Germany in the peace treaty and does not supply any legal basis for the borders that be today.

A period over “i” was set by the Constitutional Court, which ruled on 7 July 1975 that The territorial provisions of the December 1970 Agreement should be understood as a concrete denunciation of force over borders, not as their recognition. simply put, in the agreement of December 7, 1970 Germany did not recognise the border on Oder and Novus Nysa, but simply renounced the usage of force or threat of its usage to change it.

Everything can be taken from us

The Treaty signed on 14 November 1990 to confirm the existing border between Poland and Germany does not bring fresh elements compared to the 1970 agreement. What was in Article I in 1970 was found 20 years later in Articles 1, 2 and 3.

It points out much that German pragmatism has besides not undergone major changes in relation to the opinion of the national Constitutional Court that the territorial provisions of the Agreement should be understood as a concreteisation of the renunciation of force against borders alternatively than as their recognition.

That is evidenced even conducted by various economic, demographic, cultural and agential roads creeping Germanization of Polish Recovered Lands. As peaceful as possible and without force. It's not rather effective yet, but it's already incredibly dangerous. Especially now. Be careful. Everything we have left in Potsdam can be taken away.

PS: I urge the work of: Witold M. Góralski (work.) "Legal-political aspects of West German revisionism", Warsaw, 1980. Volumes 1 and 2. It is available in all better libraries, including the Sejm Library.



Author: Dr. Rafał Brzeski
Date: 15.11.2023 21:11

Witold Modzelewski

Is the current "Grows within 1937" part of the European Union?



It is said that the German Constitutional Court (although its members are "provided by politicians", for the Anti-script, is evidently not any "neotrybunal") respective times ruled that there is inactive a German Reich within the limits of 1937, which is an crucial part of the territory of the Republic of Poland belongs to individual else.

Recently I was in Wroclaw and no 1 reported that I visited another country, in addition to the fact that it existed continuously since he ruled there known from the past cards of socialist nations with a distinctive mustache and brushed with hair; educated (?) by an online method of a baby, I will remind you that Adolf Hitler was the chancellor of this Reich, and his organization (NSCAP) won the 1933 election and enjoyed until 1945 (maybe longer?) the mass support of the real Germans. I think that “Thousand-Year Reich” exists independently of the state known to us by the name of the national Republic of Germany, which “unified” itself through the anarchluss of the erstwhile German Democratic Republic in 1991.

Is it worth worrying about the delusions of any toga-dressed politicians who inactive dream of having any “Rzesz”? After all, we are not very afraid with the European Parliament's extortions, which it considers to be "illegal" any bodies of the Polish state. After all, this parliament has any power concerning us Poles, and we can only want the masters and ladies of this Court to end the pandemic as shortly as possible.

However, for the sake of order, would an organ of our country comment on the subject? Do my friends who late bought a game of land in Sudety inactive live in Poland or in (Third) “Rozes within the limits of 1937”? We have so many crucial bodies defending citizens' rights. Land ownership is the most crucial civilian right.

I don't think the erstwhile Ombudsman has taken a turn on the subject, but we don't have a fresh one, in addition to the PiS and Anti-script: will he tell us anything about it? erstwhile we buy an flat in Szczecin, do we become the owner of it since there is inactive this “Third Reich”? Of course, I know that my speech does not substance at all, due to the fact that our liberals are so committed to fighting to defend democracy against the “written government” that they do not have time for specified durells.

If there is inactive a “Third Reich”, then she is not a associate of the European Union, due to the fact that as far as I know this guy with a mustache and bangs (i.e. her last chancellor) commits suicide by the emergence of the European Union (out of fear?). So who is the body representing this country? possibly he has a government in exile or "The secret German government," akin to the 1 Piłsudski submitted to in 1914? We are inactive at war with this legal monster (no peace was signed), so we can resume the war effort to drive the Reich's "power" to 4 winds. We can take action throughout the territory of this Reich and the authorities of the existing state (RFN) should not interfere, due to the fact that we are not at war with them due to the fact that we have strong bonds of relationship as a associate not only of the European Union but above all of Mitteleuropa.

Is the national Republic of Germany besides at war with it, like its 2 chief military allies, the US and the United Kingdom? There are many questions to be answered by the authorities we know. In the state of war, this "Rzesz" was the russian Union, which has been gone since the end of 1991. This means that modern Russia should surely stand in defence of the RFN from the anschluss from this "Fruit".




Witold Modzelewski

Professor of Warsaw University

Institute for taxation Studies