Recently we have often received requests for status posts such as:

“The Federal Republic is not a sovereign state and is still at war due to the lack of a peace treaty”

“The Federal Republic of Germany is in the hands of the Allies”

“The Federal Republic of Germany is a GmbH and we are all employees – hence the PERSONAL ID card”

“You don’t need a driver’s license because the laws can’t come into force.”

“The jurisdiction is invalid”

...and a whole host of other claims. We have already written one or two reports .

However, questions still remained unanswered and arguments were repeatedly found that apparently supported these theories. Therefore, here is an attempt to clarify all questions as comprehensively and completely as possible.

This article is a little longer than the average ZDDK article, but in order to untangle the tangle of pseudo-legalese and - if I may say so - nonsense, we have to go a little further.

So let's get started:

What these conspiracy theorists, Reich citizens or tinfoil hat wearers have in common is that they are firmly of the opinion that Germany, contrary to verifiable evidence, is still an occupied country at war and is considered an enemy state according to the United Nations Charter which is already a contradiction in the entire chain of argument - as we will explain later.

but one after anonther

First of all, it is correct that the much-quoted Articles 53 and 107, the so-called enemy state clauses, state that Germany is an enemy state.

Is that what these articles really say? Yes and no.

No , because Germany itself is not mentioned by name.

Yes , because it refers to the states that fought in World War II.

Stop stop! That was also the USA, France, Great Britain and the then USSR, Japan, Italy, etc.

Confused? Then, for the sake of simplicity, we will list the articles in question here.

Article 53

(1) The Security Council shall, where appropriate, use such regional arrangements or facilities to carry out coercive measures under its authority. Coercive measures based on regional agreements or by regional bodies may not be taken without the authorization of the Security Council; Excluded are measures against an enemy state within the meaning of paragraph 2, insofar as they are provided for in Article 107 or in regional agreements aimed at resuming the offensive policy of such a state; the exception applies until the organization is assigned the task of preventing new attacks by such a state at the request of the governments involved.

(2) The term “enemy State” in paragraph 1 means any State which was an enemy of a signatory to this Charter during the Second World War.

Article 107

Measures taken or authorized by the relevant Governments as a result of the Second World War in relation to a State which was an enemy of a signatory State to this Charter during that war shall not be abrogated or prohibited by this Charter.

Well, if you look at the date of the document, it is not surprising that Germany is branded as an enemy state.

The United Nations Charter was on June 26, 1945 .

However, the preparations for this date back to 1944, right in the middle of the hottest phase of the Second World War.

At that time it was quite understandable that Germany was viewed as an enemy state.

Became? Or will? Yes, what now?

The fact is that the articles listed above can still be found in the current version of the United Nations Charter.

But it is also a fact that these articles are obsolete and are no longer used.

The fact that such articles are not quickly removed or changed is entirely understandable after all the horror and suffering that the Second World War brought with it.

In addition, changing a contract at this level is a very complicated matter and not even easy to do.

So it's better to let them exist, but don't use them anymore. In addition, the United Nations has other concerns at the moment (and in the past) than dealing with these articles.

It makes no difference for Germany, as it is recognized within the international community and valued as a reliable partner.

Okay, okay. But we are still not a sovereign state and we are still at war, I can already hear the voices of those who doubt that.

Yes, Germany is a sovereign state, no, we are no longer at war.

If Germany were still at war, the Allied victorious powers would not have:

The holding of a constituent assembly was approved and the Basic Law, and thus the founding of the Federal Republic , was approved

In 1952, the “Treaty on Relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Three Powers” signed, which guaranteed the still young Federal Republic full sovereignty in internal and external affairs.

Quoted from it:

article 1

(1) Upon the entry into force of this Treaty, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the French Republic (also referred to as the “Three Powers” in this Treaty and the Additional Treaties) will end the occupation regime in the Federal Republic Repeal the Occupation Statute and dissolve the Allied High Commission and the offices of the State Commissioners in the Federal Republic.

(2) The Federal Republic will therefore have the full power of a sovereign state over its internal and external affairs.

Yes, but they still had troops stationed, so we were still an occupied state.

No, we weren't. Because the Three Powers that signed this treaty only acted in accordance with the situation that the Federal Republic of Germany would have been defenseless in the event of an attack because it did not yet have an army to defend itself.

Therefore, the rights and obligations of the three states were also regulated in the said contract.

Article 2

In view of the international situation which has hitherto prevented the reunification of Germany and the conclusion of a peace treaty, the Three Powers retain the rights and responsibilities previously exercised or held by them with regard to Berlin and to Germany as a whole, including the reunification of Germany and a peace treaty Regulation. The rights and responsibilities retained by the Three Powers with respect to the stationing of armed forces in Germany and the protection of the security of those armed forces shall be governed by Articles 4 and 5 of this Treaty.

Article 4

(1) Until the agreements on the German defense contribution come into force, the Three Powers will continue to retain the rights they have previously exercised or held with regard to the stationing of armed forces in the Federal Republic. The task of these armed forces will be the defense of the free world, which includes the Federal Republic and Berlin. Subject to the provisions of Article 5 paragraph (2) of this Treaty, the rights and obligations of these armed forces are determined by the Treaty on the Rights and Obligations of Foreign Armed Forces and their Members in the Federal Republic of Germany (hereinafter referred to as the “Forces Treaty”), referred to in Article 8 paragraph (1) of this Treaty is referred to.

(2) The rights hitherto exercised or held and to be retained by the Three Powers with regard to the stationing of armed forces in Germany shall not be affected by the provisions of this Article insofar as they are necessary for the exercise of the rights referred to in the first sentence of Article 2 of this Treaty required are. The Federal Republic agrees that from the entry into force of the agreements on the German defense contribution to armed forces of the same nationality and effective strength as at the time of this entry into force may be stationed in the Federal Republic. With regard to the legal status of the Federal Republic as described in Article 1 Paragraph (2) of this Treaty and with regard to the fact that the Three Powers are willing to exercise their rights regarding the stationing of armed forces in the Federal Republic, as far as this is concerned, only in full agreement of the Federal Republic, this question is regulated in a special contract.

Article 5

(1) The following provisions apply to the armed forces stationed in the Federal Republic until the agreements on the German defense contribution come into force:

a) The Three Powers will consult the Federal Government on all questions relating to the stationing of these armed forces, to the extent that the military situation permits.
The Federal Republic will cooperate in accordance with this Treaty and the additional treaties within the framework of its Basic Law in order to make their task easier for these armed forces. b) The Three Powers will only station troops of a state that does not currently provide contingents as part of their armed forces in federal territory with the prior consent of the Federal Republic. However, in the event of an attack or imminent threat of attack, such contingents may be brought into federal territory without the consent of the Federal Republic, but may only remain there after the danger has been eliminated with the consent of the Federal Republic.

(2) The rights previously held or exercised by the Three Powers with regard to the protection of the security of armed forces stationed in the Federal Republic, which are temporarily retained by the Three Powers, expire as soon as the competent German authorities receive corresponding powers under German legislation and are thereby able to take effective measures to protect the security of these armed forces, including the ability to respond to a serious disturbance of public security and order. To the extent that these rights can continue to be exercised, they will only be exercised after consultation with the Federal Government, provided that the military situation does not preclude such consultation and if the Federal Government agrees that the circumstances require the exercise of such rights. Otherwise, the protection of the security of these armed forces is determined by the provisions of the military contract or the provisions of the contract that replaces the military contract, and by German law, unless otherwise provided for in an applicable contract.

If you do a little research, you will find that the Bundeswehr was only founded in 1955. In the same year, Germany also joins NATO.

Here you should ask yourself a few questions:

Do you include an enemy state in your defense alliance? Hardly likely.

Furthermore, the Federal Republic has all the characteristics that a sovereign state must have. This can be derived from the so-called “3 element theory” put forward by Georg Jellinek, which is internationally recognized. Admittedly, there are constitutional lawyers who are of the opinion that this is not enough. But more on that in a moment. This theory states that a state must have 3 elements in order to be considered a state.

The national territory (determined by the following treaties: 2+4 Treaty , the Moscow Treaty , the Warsaw Treaty .)
The people, that is, each of us.
The state power, here divided into: executive judicial and legislative

This would make the Federal Republic of Germany a state because it meets all the requirements. In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany is recognized by other states. This can be easily deduced from the fact that if you have business relationships with a country (import/export, contracts on tax matters, etc.) you also have to recognize that country.

The following example shows that the Federal Republic of Germany is a sovereign state:

The request for military assistance from Germany by the USA in 2001/2002, which was refused by the then Chancellor Schröder.

Do not seek help from an enemy.
If the Federal Republic of Germany were not a sovereign state, the USA could have ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to do so. End.
Afghanistan is a good example of the fact that Germany and Europe are closed. The Federal Republic of Germany would not be able to consider withdrawing from Afghanistan if an EU state or the USA were to dominate us.
Formally, there are international treaties between the EU countries.
Without a sovereign or being recognized as a sovereign state, the EU would exist without the Federal Republic of Germany. We have the right to veto this.

So either we are sovereign because of this or all states recognize the Federal Republic of Germany - which alone makes it a sovereign state recognized under international law.

It is also worth taking a look at the Warsaw and Moscow Treaties, where in the opening explanations there is strikingly often talk of peace in which the respective states have lived since 1945.

The basic treaty of 1972 and accession to the UN

Basically, all of these theories about the non-existence of the Federal Republic of Germany say that we as citizens are all being led by the nose.

In 1972, the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR signed the so-called Basic Treaty, which regulates the relationship between the two German states. This was finally ratified in 1973 and came into force. Following this treaty, both German states joined the UN. By now we would have had a problem: There are currently 193 states in the UN, all of which recognize the Federal Republic of Germany. If the Federal Republic of Germany were really such a lying construct, then whoever was behind it would literally have to lie to the entire rest of the world. That would be quite an achievement. And seriously: That's just not possible.

So: If it wasn't yet clear whether the Federal Republic of Germany is an independent state, then everything would probably be settled now. Still not? Well, there is still the 2+4 contract:

The 2+4 contract

The so often cited 2+4 Treaty, or officially also known as the “Treaty on the Final Settlement with regard to Germany”, regulates the affairs of the Federal Republic with regard to reunification with the GDR and therefore also the withdrawal of Soviet troops. A photograph of all sides of the beautiful original can be found .

Quote from this:

Article 7

(1) The French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America hereby terminate their rights and responsibilities with respect to Berlin and Germany as a whole. As a result, the relevant related quadripartite agreements, resolutions and practices will be terminated and all relevant institutions of the Four Powers will be dissolved.

(2) The united Germany therefore has full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs.

So here too, full sovereignty in black and white. At least now we are sovereign.

However, opinions vary widely here:

Is the 2+4 treaty equivalent to a peace treaty or not?

According to the prevailing opinion (“prevailing opinion” in the legal sense, i.e. the prevailing opinion among the lawyers dealing with this problem), the 2 + 4 treaty definitely represents a peace treaty . The Federal Republic of Germany did not want to have a “real” peace treaty either, since this was All states (around 50) with which they were at war should have been negotiated - quite apart from the question of possible reparations that then arose. Especially in view of the fact that it regulated everything that needed to be regulated for a united Germany. Even if some believe that the GDR was annexed at that time, this is irrelevant when it comes to assessing the sovereignty of a state.

One could also speak of the EU. The EU represents a peaceful union of European states that want to and do come closer together in many areas, especially legislation. There has also often been talk of the EU becoming a large state. Sounds absurd? The USA has shown this. So this can work. But that would be a thing of the future.

So we are a sovereign, peaceful state after all.

Courts and judgments

What is striking is that the so-called “Reich Citizens” vehemently deny that this is the case and, surprisingly, are trying to dispute this in court. A jurisdiction that they doubt. It's hard to find a better example of an oxymoron: a contradiction in terms.

Here are just 4 examples from many similar judgments of how far this stubbornness goes:

In this judgment , a citizen who doubts the statehood of the Federal Republic of Germany requests a “declaration that the judging judges are German citizens and have taken the oath in accordance with the SHAEF Military Law No. 2”. There are also further arguments from the law that he himself should actually reject. If you would like to read the judgment in more detail, please click here .

Furthermore, a judgment on a man who often concerns the courts. First he proclaims himself a king, then he asks to have his own health insurance company and then he gives up his driver's license because he thinks he doesn't need it. Trying to fight for everything in a jurisdiction that you reject hardly makes any sense. Read here .

The sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany is also often disputed because no taxes should be paid. And here too, this is being tried again in a court that is supposedly not legitimate. Here the man is asking for the tax assessments to be repealed. Read here .

Last but not least, one more from thousands of examples .

What is particularly interesting here is another “argument” about this state’s inability to act. Because he claims that the organs and authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany are unable to act. According to the demands of the Allies, the Basic Law (GG) was never ratified . As a result of the repeal of Article 23 of the Basic Law in the course of reunification, the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany expired.

Um, what?

Apparently this man did not understand what the 2+4 contract regulates. This is exactly what regulates the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. The current Article 23 GG deals with Europe. What is meant here is the aF (“old version”). This was:

“This Basic Law initially applies in the areas of Baden, Bavaria, Bremen, Greater Berlin, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein, Württemberg-Baden and Württemberg-Hohenzollern. In the other parts of Germany it must come into force after their accession.”

The states that fall under the federal government, i.e. the Federal Republic of Germany, are listed here. Of course, the new federal states are missing here, as they were still part of the GDR at the time. The reason for this is simply that when the division was divided, the aim was to merge quickly. This can also be seen from the sentence: “In other parts of Germany it must come into force after their accession.” (cf. Art. 23 aF GG).

Basic Law and Constitution

Another argument that is almost always made is the lack of a constitution. The Federal Republic of Germany “only” has the GG, which does not represent a constitution. And then there is Article 146 GG which states:

“This Basic Law, which applies to the entire German people after the unity and freedom of Germany has been completed, loses its validity on the day on which a constitution that has been freely decided by the German people comes into force.”

However, there would have to be a new constitution for this. This is not the case. The Basic Law - and there should be no two opinions on this - represents the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany. What exactly is disturbing here is absolutely unclear. And this basic law came into being properly and was merely “approved” by the victorious powers. A quote from Willy Brandt is also often used here, who said:

“The Americans, to put it mildly, recommended this basic law to us. You could also say, imposed.” However, that is a little irrelevant. The Basic Law came into being properly and let's be honest: who has anything against the Basic Law? It gives us peace and secures us an incredible number of rights for which we can go to the Federal Constitutional Court - and if they decide “wrongly”, the ECJ is also ready. But speaking of Willy Brandt: “We shouldn’t expect or even demand miracles from democracy. It remains afflicted with weaknesses and imperfections, and there will always be arguments.”

Article 120 GG is also often mentioned. This is about the occupation costs that must be borne by Germany. However, only those that resulted from the consequences of the Second World War. Today, however, the article is no longer used - it is therefore obsolete and no longer has any effect. It could certainly be deleted - and that would be a good idea to discuss. But whether it exists or not: it makes no difference because it is no longer used.

Still questions? So actually there shouldn't be any more questions.

It is also argued that the Basic Law no longer has a list of which areas fall into it. But this can also be found in the preamble. And it is clear: the GG applies in the Federal Republic of Germany. The area was defined, among other things, with the 2+4 contract.

It is also often argued that the GG was not changed by the people and is therefore invalid. The changes were requested and pushed through by a US Secretary of State.

This is another myth. It states that Article 23 of the Basic Law was repealed on July 17, 1990 by US Secretary of State James Baker. This would eliminate the definition of the scope of the Basic Law, which is why it would automatically become void. And that is why the Federal Republic of Germany was dissolved de jure. Since the Federal Republic does not exist, no (FRG) judges would of course be able to be appointed. This quote is from a forum that (once again) asked a question from someone who fell for this - and there is no other way to call it - nonsense. The entire discussion is well worth reading. If interested, here . The GG can be changed by a 2/3 majority in the Bundestag. And this happened in 1990.

By the way: I (Marcel) have been on this forum for years. I've come across stories like this before Facebook. Unfortunately, things like this spread even faster thanks to Facebook and all we can ask at this point is: DO NOT believe this nonsense! If you really want to know, just visit a university where state organization law is taught. Here you are fed arguments - which can be read, understood and proven and are not devoid of any logic or truth!

But this “opinion” has been around for a long time. It is spread every now and then.

For all those who still do not want to be convinced that the Federal Republic of Germany is a sovereign state living in peace, we recommend this article “ State formation for beginners and advanced people 😉 http://www.juraforum.de/forum/t/grundgesetz-und-staat-gerichte.484227/

Now let's turn to the business part of it all:

Many people claim that Germany is not a state in the true sense, but a company and that we are therefore just employees. That is why the term “identity card” would also be used.

*cough* … then let’s look at the matter from different perspectives:

One point of the claim is that we are not a state, but a company (preferably a GmbH)

Now let's take it slow: a company is not a company.

Let's take a look at the following paragraph:

§ 17

(1) A merchant's company name is the name under which he conducts his business and signs.

(2) A merchant can sue and be sued under his company name.

Well, that's cleared up now. The company (name of the company) would therefore be the Federal Republic of Germany.

Well, the originality of this company name can admittedly be debated.

But now let's look at some points that are important for a company.

The legal form would be:

There are AG, GmbH, OHG, GBR, KG, KGaA, GmbH &Co KG and many more.

The fact is that the goal of every business is to make money. There can be no question of this at the “Federal Republic” company in recent decades. On the contrary, with the annual new indebtedness and increasing debt level, this company should actually have been insolvent and therefore liquidated a long time ago.

debt burden is currently increasing by €1,556 per second

In order not to confuse things too much, we will only take two of the many business forms here: the AG and the much-quoted GmbH.

A corporation is a company that sells its shares to shareholders; This sale generates capital.

The investors, the so-called shareholders, want a dividend for the capital made available, i.e. part of the profit that is intended to be distributed to the shareholders. The amount is proposed by the board and decided by the general meeting by a simple majority.

Well, the so-called tax breaks or gifts could definitely be seen as dividends.

Is The Federal Republic a company after all?

Not a GmbH, but an AG?

We would have everything we need: the board of directors (government), the supervisory board (Federal Council) and the general meeting (Bundestag)... but the only thing missing is the most important thing, profit: no profit, no dividend. Broke. Booth closed, sale.

Ok, then a GmbH?

No, because there is no clear business area in which BRD GmbH would be active. Does it import or export? Financial services? Training company? Arms dealer? Questions about questions.

But the following point at the latest causes the GmbH theory to fail spectacularly: the horrendous over-indebtedness. A GmbH is only able to act up to the amount of its share capital. If you are over-indebted, you must file for insolvency. This is not available for the Federal Republic of Germany, so here too: Nothing is wrong with GmbH.

In addition, the goal is to get money from employees through their employment. That's why we don't understand why the tax office always looks at us so stupidly when we go there and say that they should pay us our salary instead of demanding it from us in the form of taxes.

Seriously. founded a GmbH ( Federal Republic of Germany – Finanzagentur GmbH for short: German Finance Agency

The aforementioned Federal Republic of Germany – Finanzagentur GmbH has clearly defined requirements as to what it has to do for the state.

When it comes to this topic, many people always cry out why the Bundestag has its own tax number. Well, the Bundestag is a so-called “legal entity” and also has some business areas, such as the canteen, which are operated and which are subject to normal tax law.

We doubt, for example, that the supplier of the breakfast rolls in the canteen or the maintenance service for the Bundestag printers goes to the Chancellor and says “Hello, as always, 500 rolls were delivered, which makes XY €”, or “7 toners were exchanged, that costs XY €”. This, and many other financial processes that serve the company, are regulated by this financial agency.

In addition, the canteen or the Bundestag administration would not be able to claim input tax if it did not have a tax identification number.

A short excursion into tax law

VAT, which everyone loves, is a continuous item for entrepreneurs, which means that the entrepreneur pays the VAT due to the supplier when ordering goods (e.g. rolls), but passes this on to the customer.

Now some might say: The government pays taxes?

Well, maybe not them, but the canteen or the company that runs it. It cannot be assumed that the MPs themselves take turns and spread the word 😉

Well, the point above was still simple. However, it becomes more problematic if, for example, a company pays more in VAT than it takes in or can pass on to the customer.

As an example:

New machines are purchased, the resulting VAT can then be deducted as so-called input tax, thus reducing the VAT payable to the tax office.

Since the Bundestag itself is not taxable, some would think that it would not need a tax identification number.

Correct, not the Bundestag, but the administration of the Bundestag. The offices that work in the background, the canteen in the example above, etc. need these tax identification numbers in order to allocate the taxes to be paid.

Conclusion

The analysis of the legal situation and the corresponding contracts shows that the arguments of the so-called Reich citizens are only valid at first glance. In order to believe this, one must completely or partially ignore certain other facts or contracts, otherwise the logic on which these theories are based collapses.

The logic that the proponents of these theories use when they want to take them to courts that, in their opinion, have no legal basis, also speaks for itself.

And the business aspect cannot work as the FRG claims would have us believe. Not only the question of in which country the BRD GmbH should be a legal entity if the Federal Republic of Germany does not exist shows that this cannot be true, but the analysis of the balance sheet and tax situation also speaks for itself.

One cannot be satisfied with the politics in the Federal Republic of Germany, but still nothing changes the fact that it is a sovereign state.

Authors: Marcel, Mimikama.at

Further sources and references:

Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )

War and Peace – Selling Out the Federal Republic of Germany?