- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #919 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 2: German Ostpolitik, Part 2

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained HERE [1]. The new drive is a 32-gigabyte drive that is current as of the programs and articles posted by early winter of 2016. The new drive (available for a tax-deductible contribution of $65.00 or more.) (The previous flash drive was current through the end of May of 2012.)

WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE [2].

You can subscribe to e-mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3].

You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [4].

You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself HERE [5].

This broadcast was recorded in one, 60-minute segment [6].

MeinKampf [7]

Waffen SS-clad World War II reenactors, in original photo used by Trump [8]

Waffen SS-clad World War II reenactors, in original photo used by Trump

Introduction: This program continues analysis from FTR #918 [9].

Whereas GOP Presidential nominee Donald Trump’s pronouncements about Russia and Ukraine, in combination with his former campaign manager Paul Manafort’s work for the Russian-allied Yanukovich government, have fed talk of Trump as a “Russian/Kremlin/Putin” dupe/agent, available evidence suggests that “The Donald” is a cat’s paw for powerful German/Underground Reich elements, who are manifesting traditional German Ostpolitik.

Beginning with discussion of Manafort, the evidence weighs overwhelmingly against the prevailing theory that Manafort is a Russian puppet, therefore Trump is a Russian puppet, etc.

Manafort worked for Ferdinand Marcos when Marcos was helping himself to a large amount of  Golden Lily loot in the Philippines. The U.S. wanted to use more of the gold for their own purposes, and Marcos was ultimately removed [10] in the “people power” coup/covert operation. Ultimately, Corazon Aquino, the widow of Benigno Aquino, a long-time CIA agent and protege of Edward Lansdale [11] replaced him. (Lansdale was one of the main U.S. agents involved with the Golden Lily recovery program.) Interestingly and significantly, Aquino’s vice-presidential candidate was Salvador Laurel, the son of Jose Laurel, the puppet ruler [12] of the Philippines for the Japanese occupation government during World War II.

Manafort appears to be something of an advance agent/fixer. In all probability he was helping to pave the way for the Maidan coup. Remember: the cardinal rule for a good double agent–“make yourself indispensable to the effort.”

IlDuceIlDouche [13]By the twisted rationale presented by our media establishment, we could come up with this: Petro Poroshenko, the current head of state of Ukraine, was Yanukovich’s finance minister, presiding over the former’s ineffective and corrupt government. The West, including the U.S., backs Poroshenko. Therefore, the West, including the U.S.

Martin Bormann (right) with Himmler [14]

Martin Bormann (right) with Himmler

Fundamental to the analysis presented here is corporate Germany, its relationship to the Bormann capital network [15] and, in turn, Donald Trump and people connected with him. The Bormann network dominates [16] corporate Germany: ” . . . Atop an organizational pyramid that dominates the industry of West Germany through banks, voting rights enjoyed by majority shareholders in significant cartels, and the professional input of a relatively young leadership group of lawyers, investment specialists, bankers, and industrialists, he [Bormann] is satisfied that he achieved his aim of helping the Fatherland back on its feet. To ensure continuity of purpose and direction, a close watch is maintained on the profit statements and management reports of corporations under its control elsewhere. This leadership group of twenty, which is in fact a board of directors, is chaired by Bormann, but power has shifted to the younger men who will carry on the initiative that grew from that historic meeting in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. Old Heinrich Mueller, chief of security for the NSDAP in South America, is the most feared of all, having the power of life and death over those deemed not to be acting in the best interests of the organization. Some still envision a Fourth Reich. . . What will not pass is the economic influences of the Bormann organization, whose commercial directives are obeyed almost without question by the highest echelons of West German finance and industry. ‘All orders come from the shareholders in South America,’ I have been told by a spokesman for Martin Bormann. . . .

Before returning to the subject of Joseph E. Schmitz and highlighting the complex, opaque Trump real estate dealings with prominent Germans and corporate interests, the program reviews some of the essential elements of analysis from FTR #918 [9].

In our previous program, we presented a 1949  “Open Letter to Stalin” published [17] in the Buerger Zeitung, a leading German-language paper in the United States. Noteworthy for our purposes here is the fact that the paper is the de-facto outlet for the Steuben Society, the top pan-German organization in the United States. As will be seen below, the Steuben Society was part of the Nazi Fifth Column in the U.S. before World War II and part of the Underground Reich infrastructure in this country after the war. In the latter capacity, it advocated for the release and rehabilitation of Nazis, including war criminals.

Also of significance is the fact that the author, Bruno Fricke, was an associate of Otto Strasser. Strasser, along with his brother Gregor, was part of Ernst Rohm’s SA. Rohm was liquidated in the Night of the Long Knives, along with Gregor Strasser. Otto escaped to Czechoslavakia.

Tthe Buerger Zeitung was very anti-Communist and strongly supportive of Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunts. Donald Trump’s lawyer for years was Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s top aide.

Waffen SS-clad World War II reenactors, in original photo used by Trump [8]

Waffen SS-clad World War II reenactors, in original photo used by Trump

Three years after that letter was published in the Buerger Zeitung, the Soviet Union responded [17] with its Soviet Note of 3/10/1952. One of the most important aspect of the analysis of this event is the German plan to achieve a united Europe under German domination, which has, of course, been achieved. ” . . . In the pro-Adenauer press, including the The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Christ und Welt, The Deutsche Zeitung of Stuttgart, editorials have been written assuring the Russians that Dr. Adenauer’s policy aims to create the security necessary for both the Germans and the Russians, and that this can only be brought about after Germany had become a third power factor which could employ its influence in such a way as to deter the United States “from starting a preventive war.” [The aggressive U.S./NATO stance toward Ukraine and Russia are impressing many around the world in a fashion that would be familiar to those in the early 1950’s–D.E.] Thus, while, in the short run, the Bonn Government aims to create a United Europe, it hopes ultimately to reach a solid understanding with the Soviets at the expense of the United States. . . .”

This “Europa Germanica”–the EU in the event–was, in turn, to become a Third Force. In exchange for moving away from the push for a Third World War and pulling Europe out of NATO, this Third Force would gain concessions from the Soviets. Also of note is the fact that a major feature of this United Europe would be an all-European army, also under German domination.

” . . . The German Chancellor’s plan is that the U.S.A. is now so deeply committed to her European defense pledge that she will readily sacrifice dozens of billions of dollars in the strengthening and the rearming of a German-dominated Europe. After is this accomplished, Dr. Adenauer’s grandiose concept envisions negotiations with Russia with the prospect of getting substantial territorial concessions from the Kremlin in Eastern Europe for which Germany in return will break away, with the whole of Western Europe, from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. . . .” Trump’s pronouncements about NATO are to be seen in this context.

As we shall see in this broadcast, a major push is underway to establish a “Euro-corps”–precisely the sort of German-dominated European army that was envisioned in the early 1950s.

” . . . . The reaction of the German strategists to the Soviet Note of March 10, 1952, however, exposes their true designs. German geo-political journals speak of it as “the highest trump card in the hands of the Chancellor” which will enable him to mow down the resistance of France against Germany’s concept of a united Europe. The pro-Adenauer press interpreted the Russian Note as a tremendous asset in speeding up the timetable for the creation of a European army under German domination. . . .”

NOTE: It is our view that the Trump pronouncements serve a purpose similar to the “Open Letter to Stalin” published in the Buerger Zeitung–a communique designed to promote what the pro-Adenauer press characterized as: ” . . . the heated atmosphere of an auction room where two eager opponents outbid each other. . . .”

We feel that a vehicle for the communication of policy vis a vis Russia, Ukraine and NATO to Trump is Joseph E. Schmitz, an ultra-right wing Germanophile and Von Steuben-obsessed former Department of Defense Inspector General. In turn, we believe that German corporate and Underground Reich connections to both Trump and the Schmitz family underlie Trump’s public utterances.

The Trump pronouncements that have drawn so much media fire are, in our opinion, functioning in a manner analogous to the “Open Letter to Stalin” published by Nazi veterans Fricke and Otto Strasser in the Buerger Zeitungto signal a bidding war between the U.S. and Russia, to Germany’s ultimate benefit.

Joseph E. Schmitz’s brother John P. Schmitz [18] represents powerful German corporations, helping them network with their American counterparts: ” . . . John’s clients have included the US Chamber of Commerce, General Electric, Bayer AG, Bertelsmann, Bosch GmbH, Deutsche Welle, Gillette, Pfizer, Microsoft, Verizon, Eli Lilly Co., Ford Motor Co., and Arkema., among others. . . .”

Trump’s altogether opaque real estate projects have eluded even The New York Times’ investigative abilities. What the Times did manage to uncover are powerful relationships [19] between the Byzantine Trump real estate empire and German interests that are almost certainly linked to the Bormann capital network and the Underground Reich: ” . . . In a typically complex deal, loan documents show that four lenders — German American Capital, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank; UBS Real Estate Securities; Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company; and Bank of China — agreed in November 2012 to lend $950 million to the three companies that own the building. Those companies, obscurely named HWA 1290 III LLC, HWA 1290 IV LLC and HWA 1290 V LLC, are owned by three other companies in which Mr. Trump has stakes. . . . .  At 40 Wall Street, Mr. Trump does not own even a sliver of the actual land; his long-term ground lease gives him the right to improve and manage the building. The land is owned by two limited liability companies; Mr. Trump pays the two entities a total of $1.6 million a year for the ground lease, according to documents filed with the S.E.C.

The majority owner, 40 Wall Street Holdings Corporation, owns 80 percent of the land; New Scandic Wall Limited Partnership owns the rest, according to public documents. New Scandic Wall Limited Partnership’s chief executive is Joachim Ferdinand von Grumme-Douglas, a businessman based in Europe, according to these documents.

The people behind 40 Wall Street Holdings are harder to identify. For years, Germany’s Hinneberg family [20], which made its fortune in the shipping industry, controlled the property through a company called 40 Wall Limited Partnership. In late 2014, their interest in the land was transferred to a new company, 40 Wall Street Holdings. The Times was not able to identify the owner or owners of this company, and the Trump Organization declined to comment. . . .”

The complex, opaque nature of the Trump real estate holdings is characteristic of the Bormann capital network’s operating structure. Again, we are of the opinion that the presence of Joseph E. Schmitz as a key Trump foreign policy adviser, the Trump real estate operations’ apparent relationship with German corporate interests and John P. Schmitz’s German corporate links are central to Trump’s pronouncements about Russia, Ukraine and NATO.

At the same time as Trump is signaling German Ostpolitik, many of the key features of what Adenauer articulated in the early 1950s are being proposed and/or implemented by Germany at this time:

The program concludes with a transitional element to our next program: Joseph E. Schmitz’s reported [25] anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism: ” . . . Daniel Meyer, a senior official within the intelligence community, described Schmitz’s remarks in his complaint file. ‘His summary of his tenure’s achievement reported as ‘…I fired the Jews,’ ‘ wrote Meyer, a former official in the Pentagon inspector general’s office whose grievance was obtained by McClatchy. Meyer . . . cited in his complaint another former top Pentagon official, John Crane, as the source and witness to the remarks. Crane worked with Schmitz, who served as inspector general between April 2002 and September 2005. In his complaint, Meyer said Crane also said Schmitz played down the extent of the Holocaust. ‘In his final days, he allegedly lectured Mr. Crane on the details of concentration camps and how the ovens were too small to kill 6 million Jews,’ . . . “

Program Highlights Include:

1. Noting the background of Paul Manafort, the evidence weighs overwhelmingly against the prevailing theory that Manafort is a Russian puppet, therefore Trump is a Russian puppet, etc.

Manafort worked for Ferdinand Marcos when Marcos was helping himself to a large amount of  Golden Lily loot in the Philippines. The U.S. wanted to use more of the gold for their own purposes, and Marcos was ultimately removed [10] in the “people power” coup/covert operation. Ultimately, Corazon Aquino, the widow of Benigno Aquino, a long-time CIA agent and protege of Edward Lansdale [11] replaced him. (Lansdale was one of the main U.S. agents involved with the Golden Lily recovery program.) Interestingly and significantly, Aquino’s vice-presidential candidate was Salvador Laurel, the son of Jose Laurel, the puppet ruler [12] of the Philippines for the Japanese occupation government during World War II.

Manafort appears to be something of an advance agent/fixer. In all probability he was helping to pave the way for the Maidan coup. Remember: the cardinal rule for a good double agent–“make yourself indispensable to the effort.”

By the twisted rationale presented by our media establishment, we could come up with this: Petro Poroshenko, the current head of state of Ukraine, was Yanukovich’s finance minister, presiding over the former’s ineffective and corrupt government. The West, including the U.S., backs Poroshenko. Therefore, the West, including the U.S.

“Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump’s Campaign Chief” by Andrew E. Kramer, Mike McIntire and Barry Meier; The New York Times; 8/14/2016. [26]

. . . . The developments in Ukraine underscore the risky nature of the international consulting that has been a staple of Mr. Manafort’s business since the 1980s, when he went to work for the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Before joining Mr. Trump’s campaign this spring, Mr. Manafort’s most prominent recent client was Mr. Yanukovych, who — like Mr. Marcos — was deposed in a popular uprising. . . .

2. In our previous program, we presented a 1949  “Open Letter to Stalin” published [17] in the Buerger Zeitung, a leading German-language paper in the United States. Noteworthy for our purposes here is the fact that the paper is the de-facto outlet for the Steuben Society, the top pan-German organization in the United States. As will be seen below, the Steuben Society was part of the Nazi Fifth Column in the U.S. before World War II and part of the Underground Reich infrastructure in this country after the war. In the latter capacity, it advocated for the release and rehabilitation of Nazis, including war criminals.

Also of significance is the fact that the author, Bruno Fricke, was an associate of Otto Strasser. Strasser, along with his brother Gregor, was part of Ernst Rohm’s SA. Rohm was liquidated in the Night of the Long Knives, along with Gregor Strasser. Otto escaped to Czechoslavakia.

Tthe Buerger Zeitung was very anti-Communist and strongly supportive of Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunts. Donald Trump’s lawyer for years was Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s top aide.

Waffen SS-clad World War II reenactors, in original photo used by Trump [8]

Waffen SS-clad World War II reenactors, in original photo used by Trump

Three years after that letter was published in the Buerger Zeitung, the Soviet Union responded [17] with its Soviet Note of 3/10/1952. One of the most important aspect of the analysis of this event is the German plan to achieve a united Europe under German domination, which has, of course, been achieved. ” . . . In the pro-Adenauer press, including the The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Christ und Welt, The Deutsche Zeitung of Stuttgart, editorials have been written assuring the Russians that Dr. Adenauer’s policy aims to create the security necessary for both the Germans and the Russians, and that this can only be brought about after Germany had become a third power factor which could employ its influence in such a way as to deter the United States “from starting a preventive war.” [The aggressive U.S./NATO stance toward Ukraine and Russia are impressing many around the world in a fashion that would be familiar to those in the early 1950’s–D.E.] Thus, while, in the short run, the Bonn Government aims to create a United Europe, it hopes ultimately to reach a solid understanding with the Soviets at the expense of the United States. . . .”

This “Europa Germanica”–the EU in the event–was, in turn, to become a Third Force. In exchange for moving away from the push for a Third World War and pulling Europe out of NATO, this Third Force would gain concessions from the Soviets. Also of note is the fact that a major feature of this United Europe would be an all-European army, also under German domination.

” . . . The German Chancellor’s plan is that the U.S.A. is now so deeply committed to her European defense pledge that she will readily sacrifice dozens of billions of dollars in the strengthening and the rearming of a German-dominated Europe. After is this accomplished, Dr. Adenauer’s grandiose concept envisions negotiations with Russia with the prospect of getting substantial territorial concessions from the Kremlin in Eastern Europe for which Germany in return will break away, with the whole of Western Europe, from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. . . .” Trump’s pronouncements about NATO are to be seen in this context.

As we shall see in this broadcast, a major push is underway to establish a “Euro-corps”–precisely the sort of German-dominated European army that was envisioned in the early 1950s.

” . . . . The reaction of the German strategists to the Soviet Note of March 10, 1952, however, exposes their true designs. German geo-political journals speak of it as “the highest trump card in the hands of the Chancellor” which will enable him to mow down the resistance of France against Germany’s concept of a united Europe. The pro-Adenauer press interpreted the Russian Note as a tremendous asset in speeding up the timetable for the creation of a European army under German domination. . . .”

3a. We learned something more about Donald Trump’s intended foreign policy goals: he appears to be considering a US pull out of NATO. We ruminate about one of his foreign policy advisors, Joseph E. Schmitz, former inspector general of the Department of Defense.

“Donald Trump’s New Foreign Policy Advisers Are as Rotten as His Steaks” by Shane Harris; The Daily Beast; 3/21/2016. [27]

. . . . These are the minds advising Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on foreign policy and national security.Trump, who has been pressed for months to name his council of advisers, revealed five in a meeting with the Washington Post editorial board on Tuesday: Keith Kellogg, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Walid Phares, and Joseph E. Schmitz. . . .

. . . . Trump revealed little about what specific advice they’d given so far, or how any of them may have shaped Trump’s surprising new position that the U.S. should rethink whether it needs to remain in the seven-decades-old NATO alliance with Europe.

Sounding more like a CFO than a commander-in-chief, Trump said of the alliance, “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” adding, “NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”

U.S. officials, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said that European allies have to shoulder a bigger burden of NATO’s cost. But calling for the possible U.S. withdrawal from the treaty is a radical departure for a presidential candidate—even a candidate who has been endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It also wasn’t clear how Trump’s arguably anti-interventionist position on the alliance squared with his choice of advisers.

Another Trump adviser, Schmitz, has served in government, as the Defense Department inspector general. Schmitz was brought in during the first term of President George W. Bush with a mandate to reform the watchdog office, but he eventually found himself the subject of scrutiny.

“Schmitz slowed or blocked investigations of senior Bush administration officials, spent taxpayer money on pet projects and accepted gifts that may have violated ethics guidelines,” according to an investigation by the Los Angeles Times in 2005. Current and former colleagues described him as “an intelligent but easily distracted leader who seemed to obsess over details,” including the hiring of a speechwriter and designs for a bathroom.

Schmitz also raised eyebrows for what the paper’s sources described as his “unusual” fascination with Baron Friedrich Von Steuben, a Revolutionary War hero who’s regarded as the military’s first inspector general. Schmitz reportedly replaced the Defense Department IG’s seal in its office across the country with a new one bearing the Von Steuben family motto, Sub Tutela Altissimi Semper, “under the protection of the Almighty always.”. . . .

3b. It’s also worth noting that Joseph’s brother, John P. Schmitz, is a lawyer who specializes in US/German regulatory issues who’s clients include Bayer AG, Bertelsmann, Bosch GmbH, Deutsche Welle.

Major German corporations might well benefit if the Schmitz’s once again return to influential positions in a US administration. Especially of Joseph ends up overseeing more investigations, since, as this 2005 LA Times article notes, Joseph didn’t just exhibit an obsession Baron Von Steuben while serving as the Defense Department’s Inspector General. He also had an obsession with preventing politically sensitive investigations:

“The Scrutinizer Finds Himself Under Scrutiny” by T. Christian Miller; The Los Angeles Times; 9/25/2005. [28]

. . . . Schmitz slowed or blocked investigations of senior Bush administration officials, spent taxpayer money on pet projects and accepted gifts that may have violated ethics guidelines, according to interviews with current and former senior officials in the inspector general’s office, congressional investigators and a review of internal e-mail and other documents.Schmitz also drew scrutiny for his unusual fascination with Baron Friedrich Von Steuben, a Revolutionary War hero who is considered the military’s first true inspector general. Schmitz even replaced the official inspector general’s seal in offices nationwide with a new one bearing the Von Steuben family motto, according to the documents and interviews. . . .

. . . . His father was the ultraconservative Orange County congressman John G. Schmitz, who once ran for president but whose political career ended after he admitted having an affair with a German immigrant suspected of child abuse. Schmitz’s sister is Mary Kay Letourneau, the Washington state teacher who served more than seven years in prison after a 1997 conviction for rape after having sex with a sixth-grade pupil with whom she had two children. After Letourneau’s release from prison, she and the former pupil, now an adult, married each other.

Schmitz, who resigned on Sept. 10 to take a job with the parent company of defense contractor Blackwater USA, is now the target of a congressional inquiry and a review by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, the oversight body responsible for investigating inspectors general, according to the documents and interviews. . . .

. . . . Schmitz’s allies said he was being persecuted. One senior Pentagon official defended Schmitz by saying that he was concerned about protecting the reputation of senior officials in Washington, where political enemies can cause trouble with an anonymous hotline tip. . . .

. . . . He paid close attention, however, to the investigations of senior Bush administration appointees. At one point, investigators even stopped telling Schmitz who was under investigation, substituting letter codes for the names of individuals during weekly briefings for fear that Schmitz would leak the information to Pentagon superiors, according to a senior Pentagon official. “He became very involved in political investigations that he had no business getting involved in,” said another senior official in the inspector general’s office. . . .

. . . . Instead, the official said that Schmitz created a new policy that made it more difficult to get information by subpoena by requiring additional bureaucratic steps. During his tenure, Schmitz also made it harder to initiate an investigation of a political appointee, requiring high-ranking approval before investigators could proceed. . . .

. . . . Some of the more unusual complaints regarding Schmitz deal with what senior officials called an “obsession” with Von Steuben, the Revolutionary War hero who worked with George Washington to instill discipline in the military. Von Steuben reportedly fled Germany after learning that he was going to be tried for homosexual activities. Shortly after taking office, Schmitz made Von Steuben’s legacy a focus. He spent three months personally redesigning the inspector general’s seal to include the Von Steuben family motto, “Always under the protection of the Almighty.”

He dictated the number of stars, laurel leaves and colors of the seal. He also asked for a new eagle, saying that the one featured on the old seal “looked like a chicken,” current and former officials said.

In July 2004, he escorted Henning Von Steuben, a German journalist and head of the Von Steuben Family Assn., to a U.S. Marine Corps event. He also feted Von Steuben at an $800 meal allegedly paid for by public funds, according to Grassley, and hired Von Steuben’s son to work as an unpaid intern in the inspector general’s office, a former Defense official said.

He also called off a $200,000 trip to attend a ceremony at a Von Steuben statue earlier this year in Germany after Grassley questioned it.

Finally, Schmitz’s son, Phillip J. Schmitz, has a business relationship with a group tied to Von Steuben. Schmitz, who runs a technology firm, provides web-hosting services for the World Security Network, a nonprofit news service focused on peace and conflict issues. Von Steuben serves on the network’s advisory board.

Hubertus Hoffmann, a German businessman who founded the network, said Von Steuben played no role in assigning the contract to Phillip Schmitz, who is paid a “modest sum” for his work. Schmitz said he first made contact with Hoffmann through his father but that he had never met Von Steuben.

The relationships troubled many at the Pentagon.

“He was consumed with all things German and all things Von Steuben,” said the former Defense official, who did not want to be identified because of the ongoing inquiries. “He was obsessed.” . . . .

3c. Donald Trump, himself, is not stranger to the milieu of the Steuben Society:

“Donald Trump;”  wikipedia. [29]

. . . . Trump has said that he is proud of his German heritage; he served as grand marshal [30] of the 1999 German-American Steuben Parade [31] in New York City.[12] [32][nb 1] [33]. . . . .

4. It’s also worth noting that Joseph’s brother, John P. Schmitz, is a lawyer who specializes in US/German regulatory issues who’s clients include Bayer AG, Bertelsmann, Bosch GmbH, Deutsche Welle.

Note that, as we spoke of in FTR #476 [34],  Schmitz has a strong link with Bundestag member Matthias Wissman, with whom he worked as a Bosch Foundation scholar. Wissman and Schmitz worked for Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, a firm that defended German and Swiss interests in suits by Holocaust survivors.

“John P. Schmitz”; Schmitz Global Partners LLP. [18]

John Schmitz represents US and European companies in complex international transactions and regulatory matters, with a focus on antitrust, media and telecommunications, energy and environmental issues. He has special emphasis on US and German political regulatory concerns, and has experience with numerous high-profile business and regulatory matters involving both American and German public policy and legal activities. John’s clients have included the US Chamber of Commerce, General Electric, Bayer AG, Bertelsmann, Bosch GmbH, Deutsche Welle, Gillette, Pfizer, Microsoft, Verizon, Eli Lilly Co., Ford Motor Co., and Arkema., among others.

In September 2009, together with former Ambassador C. Boyden Gray, John established Gray & Schmitz LLP in September 2009 (renamed Schmitz Global Partners LLP in 2011). In 1993, John joined Mayer Brown as a partner to open its first German office in Berlin. From 1993 to 2009, John helped lead and develop a prominent and thriving German practice at Mayer Brown. Before joining Mayer Brown in 1993, John held a wide range of significant public policy positions. Between 1985 and 1993, he served as Deputy Counsel to George H. W. Bush in both the White House and the Office of the Vice President. . . .

. . . . John has also held a number of high-profile fellowships. In Germany, under a Robert Bosch Foundation Fellowship, he served at the Office of Bundestag Member Matthias Wissmann (Bonn), and the Office of General Counsel, Robert Bosch, GmbH (Stuttgart). . . .

5. Noting the “bidding war” alluded to in Germany Plots with the Kremlin: ” . . . He [Adenauer] assured his listeners that Russia’s conciliatory attitude was most helpful to Germany’s aspirations and that other Russian offers were to be expected in which even greater concessions would be made to Germany, especially on the territorial question of the Oder-Neisse Line. The Chancellor hinted in his talks that the Soviet Note had created the heated atmosphere of an auction room where two eager opponents outbid each other. . . .”

We note in that regard, that Trump’s obliquely conciliatory remarks about Putin and Ukraine are consistent with the attitudes of German corporations, many of which would like to see the sanctions lifted, so that they may regain lost economic leverage.

German corporate elements, in concert with other European companies, also envisage possible cooperation with Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union. With another trans-Atlantic trade agreement pending between the U.S. and EU/Germany, we may well be seeing another bidding war between Russia and the West.

German political and national security elements have been pursuing a hard line against Russia over Ukraine, at the same time that other political and economic elements have pursued a policy of detente.

The U.S., of course, is playing “bad cop” to Germany’s corporate/political “good cop.”

“Dispute over Sanctions on Russia (II);” german-foreign-policy.com; 5/03/2016.http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58936 [22]

German business circles and proxy foreign policy organizations are campaigning to have the sanctions against Russia lifted. More than two-thirds of the people in Germany are in favor of lifting sanctions, reports Koerber Foundation (Hamburg) based on a current opinion poll. More than four-fifths want close cooperation with Russia, and 95 percent consider a rapprochement in the next few years to either be “important” or “very important.” The Koerber Foundation, an influential organization in the field of foreign policy, has, for years, been engaged in developing cooperation between Germany and Russia. The hope of an early lifting of sanctions was also the subject of the 4th East Forum Berlin, an economic forum with top-rank participants, held in mid-April, at which a state secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spoke in favor of new contacts between the EU and the Moscow-initiated Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The objective is the creation of a common “economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” The initiatives taken in Germany are being met with approval in several EU countries, including Italy and Austria.

Growing Discontent

Demands to abandon the sanctions policy against Moscow have been growing louder in various EU member countries, such as Italy, for which Russia is one of its most important business partners. Already in mid-March, the foreign ministers of Italy and Hungary had opposed an automatic prolongation of the sanctions without a debate. Following talks in Moscow in early April, the President of Austria, Heinz Fischer, announced he was also working toward halting the punitive measures.[1] Last week, France’s National Assembly passed a plea to end the sanctions.[2] Anger is also apparent in Greece. Moreover, resistance is growing within German business circles, who, if the sanctions are soon lifted, hope for a new start of their business with Eastern Europe. Exports to Russia have plummeted from an annual volume of 39 billion Euros to less that 22 billion, since 2012 alone. If sanctions are lifted, German companies are counting on being able to redeem at least part of these losses.

From Lisbon to Vladivostok

Similar views were recently expressed at the “East Forum Berlin,” convened by the German Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations (OA) together with the Metro Group and Italy’s UniCredit, for the fourth time in the German capital. More than 400 participants – including the recently fired Ukrainian Minister of Finances, Natalie Jaresko, and Russia’s First Deputy Minister of Economic Development, Alexey Likhachev – discussed the development of an “economic space extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” In a survey of 180 participants of this top-rank forum, more than 80 percent clearly favored negotiations between the EU and the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on the establishment of a common “economic space.”[3] They found sympathetic listeners. In his “East Forum,” opening speech, State Secretary in Germany’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Stephan Steinlein, confirmed that the German government supports “contacts between the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union.” “Technical standards, trade rules, cross-border infrastructure and simplified exchange procedures” should be discussed.[4] Sanctions against Russia was another important issue discussed at the East Forum. Thirty five percent of those surveyed predicted an end to the sanctions in the course of this year, while 27 percent predicted 2017. Only slightly more than a third thought the sanctions would last longer than 2017.

A New Start Required

Last week, Hamburg’s Koerber Foundation, one of Germany’s foreign policy organizations, which has promoted closer cooperation between Germany and Russia for years, took a stand. “Dialogue and understanding” between the two countries have, “for decades, been an important element of our work,” declared the foundation. Currently, “with its focus on ‘Russia in Europe,’ the Koerber Foundation devotes itself to the rejuvenation of an open, critical, and constructive dialogue between Russia and its European neighbors.”[5] Within this framework, the organization convokes a “German-Russian International Dialogue” twice annually, in which experts and politicians of the two countries can discuss “questions of European security and EU-Russia relations in a confidential atmosphere” in Moscow or Berlin.”[6] The Koerber Foundation reached the conclusion after its most recent meeting, which took place December 5, 2015 in Moscow, that “the EU-Russian relations require a new start.” In this sense, “future dialogue should focus on interests and explore against this backdrop the possibilities for cooperation.” “Economic issues” are “an area of common interests that provide specific opportunities for cooperation.”

Desired Rapprochement

To underline its quest, the Koerber Foundation has just recently published the results of a representative survey conducted on its behalf in both Germany and Russia by TNS Infratest in late February and early March. The survey shows that two years after escalation of the Ukrainian conflict, a significant estrangement between the populations of the two countries can be noticed. 48% of the Germans perceive Russia as a “threat,” only 50% believe – emphatically – that Russia belongs to “Europe.” More than half of the German population considers the EU’s policy toward Russia as “appropriate.” However, when asked which country Germany should work more closely with, 81% of those 1000 Germans, participating in the survey, opted for Russia – in second place behind France (89%) and far ahead of the USA (59%). In Russia, 62% of the respondents chose Germany as their favorite cooperation partner (ahead of China and France with 61% each). 69% of the Germans favor lifting the sanctions on Russia. And lastly, 95% believe that it is “important” or “very important” that Germany and Russia develop closer relations over the next few years.[7]

The Benefit of Cooperation

A first step toward rapprochement was actually accomplished on April 20, with the NATO-Russia Council’s first meeting in two years – promoted particularly by the German government. After the meeting, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke of “profound and persistent disagreements.” But he also confirmed that the dialog would be continued.[8] Berlin therefore succeeded in reviving the dialog between Moscow and the western war alliance. At the same time, the German chancellor has announced a de facto permanent deployment of German soldiers – as part of a NATO battalion – in Lithuania. This would be a breach of the NATO-Russia Founding Act and would further escalate the conflict between the West and Russia.[9] Russian protests against this deployment would, more than likely, be easier to placate within a NATO-Russia Council than in the absence of an established framework for dialog – a tactical advantage for a highly profitable economic cooperation.

For more information on the subject of sanctions against Russian see: Dispute over Sanctions on Russia (I).

[1] Russland-Sanktionen: Fischer “loyal” zu EU-Linie. diepresse.com 06.04.2016.
[2] L’Assemblée nationale demande la levée des sanctions contre la Russie. www.latribune.fr 28.04.2016.
[3] 4. east forum Berlin mit Rekordbeteiligung. www.ost-ausschuss.de 19.04.2016.
[4] Keynote von Staatssekretär Stephan Steinlein bei der Eröffnung des 4. east forum Berlin am 18.04.2016.
[5] Annäherung oder Abschottung? Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Umfrage von TNS Infratest. Hamburg 2016.
[6] Russland und die EU: Zusammenarbeit in Zeiten der Krise. Körber-Stiftung Internationale Politik, März 2016.
[7] Annäherung oder Abschottung? Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Umfrage von TNS Infratest. Hamburg 2016.
[8] “Tiefgreifende und andauernde Differenzen”. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 21.04.2016.
[9] See Dispute over Sanctions on Russia (I).

6. At the same time that Trump is casting a jaundiced rhetorical on NATO, Germany and the EU are looking to fulfill the development of a “Euro-Corps”

“The European War Union”; german-foreign-policy.com; 6/28/2016. [21]

Together with his French counterpart, the German foreign minister has announced the EU’s transformation to become a “political union” and its resolute militarization for global military operations. In a joint position paper, Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) and Jean-Marc Ayrault (PS) are calling for the EU’s comprehensive military buildup, based on a division of labor, to enable future global military operations. Following the Brexit, the EU should, step-by-step, become an “independent” and “global” actor. All forces must be mobilized and all “of the EU’s political instruments” must be consolidated into an “integrated” EU foreign and military policy. Steinmeier and Ayrault are therefore pushing for a “European Security Compact,” which calls for maintaining “employable high-readiness forces” and establishing “standing maritime forces.” The European Council should meet once a year as “European Security Council.” Before this paper was made public, Germany’s foreign minister and chancellor had made comments also promoting a German global policy and massive rearmament, possibly also with EU-support.

The EU’s Global Mission

In a joint position paper propagated by the German foreign ministry yesterday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) along with his French counterpart, Jean-Marc Ayrault (PS) announced steps toward a political union. They noted that Britain’s withdrawal from the EU has created “a new situation” with consequences “for the entire EU.”[1] Berlin and Paris “firmly believe” that the EU provides “a historically unique and indispensable framework” not only for “the pursuit of freedom, prosperity, and security in Europe,” but also “for contributing to peace and stability in the world.” Therefore, further steps will be made “towards a political union in Europe” and “other European states” are invited “to join us in this endeavor.” The EU should become “more coherent and more assertive on the world stage.” It is not only an actor “in its direct neighborhood” but also on “a global scale.” In their paper, Steinmeier and Ayrault wrote, “on a more contested and competitive international scene, France and Germany will promote the EU as an independent [!] and global [!] actor.”

European Security Compact

To implement the EU policies of global power, Steinmeier and his French counterpart drew up elements for a “European Security Compact.” “External crises” have become “more numerous” and have moved geographically “closer to Europe both east and south of its borders.” There is no mention that the EU and its major powers have significantly contributed to the fomenting war and civil war – euphemized by Steinmeier and Ayrault as “crises”: In Ukraine, by seeking, through the Association Agreement, to fully integrate the country into its sphere of hegemony;[2] in Libya, through its aggression, ousting the Gaddafi government;[3] or in Syria, through its political and low-intensity military support of an increasingly jihadist-controlled insurgency.[4] Nevertheless, the German foreign minister and his French counterpart announce that they not only support “the emerging government of national accord in Libya,” but that they are also “convinced that Africa needs a continuous commitment, being a continent of great challenges and opportunities.”

Maximum of Insecurity

According to Steinmeier and Ayrault, the “European Security Compact” will be comprehensive and include “all aspects of security and defense dealt with at the European level.” The foreign ministers write that the EU must “ensure the security of our citizens.” However, the concrete demands indicate that the “European Security Compact” will, of course, not bring greater security, but rather the contrary, a maximum of insecurity – an increase in EU-provoked wars and the inevitable effects, they will have on the centers of European prosperity.[5]

Everything for Policies of Global Power

As a first step, the paper written by France and Germany’s foreign ministers proposes that “a common analysis of our strategic environment” be made. These reviews will be regularly prepared “by an independent situation assessment capability, based on the EU intelligence and situation centre” and submitted and discussed at the “Foreign Affairs Council and at the European Council.” On the basis of this common “understanding,” the EU should “establish agreed strategic priorities for its foreign and security policy.” It is political experience that reaching an “understanding” in the process of foreign and military policy standardization, the standpoint of the strongest member-state – Germany – will be taken particularly into consideration. The results should then be “more effectively” than ever, implemented “as real policy,” according to the paper. The objective is an “integrated EU foreign and security policy bringing together all [!] EU policy instruments.”

Arms, Arms, Arms

Steinmeier and Ayrault write in detail that to “plan and conduct civil and military operations more effectively,” the EU should institute a “permanent civil-military chain of command.” In addition, it must “be able to rely on employable high-readiness forces.” In order to “live up to the growing security challenges,” Europeans need “to step up their defense efforts.” For this, the European member states should “reaffirm and abide by the commitments made collectively on defense budgets and the portion of spending dedicated to the procurement of equipment and to research and technology (R and T).” A few days ago, Chancellor Angela Merkel had already taken the first step in this direction, when she declared that Germany’s defense budget should now begin to converge with that of the United States, in terms of their respective GDP percentages – Germany spends 1.2 percent of its GDP on military, while the US spends 3.4 percent.[6] Next, Steinmeier and Ayrault explain that a “European semester” should support the coordination of the individual member countries’ future military planning. “Synergism” is the objective. Throughout the EU, an arms buildup must be as coordinated and efficient as possible. The EU should provide common financing for its operations. “Member states” could establish permanent structured cooperation in the field of defense “or push ahead to launch operations.” Particularly important is “establishing standing maritime forces” or acquiring “EU-owned capabilities in other key areas.”

More Domestic Repression

The Social Democrat Steinmeier and the Socialist Ayrault write that to ensure “internal security,” the “operational capacity” must be enhanced at the EU level. This includes making the best use of “retention of flight passenger data (PNR)” – the “data exchange within the EU” must be “improved” – but also “making the best use of Europol and its counterterrorism centre.” “In the medium term,” there should otherwise be the “creation of a European platform for intelligence cooperation.” Last weekend, SPD Chair, Sigmar Gabriel and the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz (SPD) called for the extension of domestic repression as well as the creation of a “European FBI.”[7]

Seize the Opportunity

Just a few days ago, Foreign Minister Steinmeier declared in the US journal “Foreign Affairs” that Germany has become “a major power” and will “try its best” on the world stage “to hold as much ground as possible.”[8] With Britain, which had always adamantly opposed an integrated EU military policy, leaving the EU, Berlin sees an opportunity for reviving its efforts at restructuring the EU’s military and mobilizing as many member countries as possible for the EU’s future wars.

[1] This and the following quotes are taken from “A strong Europe in a World of Uncertainties” – Joint contribution by the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. www.auswaertiges-amt.de.
[2] See Expansive Ambitions and Die Verantwortung Berlins.
[3] See Vom Westen befreit (II).
[4] See Forced to Flee (I).
[5] Zu den Rückwirkungen der von europäischen Staaten geführten Kriege s. etwa Der Krieg kehrt heim, Der Krieg kehrt heim (II) and Der Krieg kehrt heim (III).
[6] See Auf Weltmachtniveau.
[7] See Flexible Union with a European FBI.
[8] See Auf Weltmachtniveau.

7. The development of an EU “security establishment” would include the creation of a European-wide FBI. In past discussions of L’Affaire Snowden, we noted that the EU was also working toward an EU-wide equivalent of the NSA [24].

“Flexible Union with a European FBI”; german-foreign-policy.com; 6/27/2016. [23]

Berlin is applying intense pressure in the aftermath of the Brexit, to reorganize the EU. Under the slogan, “flexible Union,” initial steps are being taken to establish a “core Europe.” This would mean an EU, led by a small, tight-knit core of countries, with the rest of the EU member countries being subordinated to second-class status. At the same time, the President of the European Parliament and Germany’s Minister of the Economy (both SPD) are calling for the communitarization of the EU’s foreign policy, reinforcement of its external borders, the enhancement of domestic repression and the creation of a “European FBI.” The German chancellor has invited France’s president and Italy’s prime minister to Berlin on Monday to stipulate in advance, measures to be taken at the EU-summit on Tuesday. German media commentators are speaking in terms of the EU’s “new directorate” under Berlin’s leadership. At the same time, Berlin is intensifying pressure on London. The chair of the Bundestag’s EU Commission predicts a new Scottish referendum on secession and calls for Scotland’s rapid integration into the EU. German politicians in the European Parliament are exerting pressure for rapidly implementing the Brexit and reorganizing the EU. Chancellor Merkel has reiterated her veiled threat that “reconciliation and peace” in Europe are “anything but self-evident,” should European countries choose to no longer be integrated in the EU.

Core Europe

Already earlier this year, Berlin had initiated preparations for transforming the EU into a “flexible Union” and creating a “core Europe.” On February 9, the foreign ministers of the six founding EU countries [1] held an exclusive meeting in Rome to discuss the EU’s various current crises. This unusual meeting format was also considered to be a counterpoint to the Visegrád-Group [2], which had been particularly critical of Berlin’s refugee policy. The discussion in Rome was focused not only on the refugee policy, but also included a possible Brexit.[3] In their Joint Communiqué, the six foreign ministers underlined the “different paths of integration,” provided for by the Lisbon Treaty – a hint at the option of a “flexible Union.”[4] The foreign ministers of the six founding countries again met on Mai 20, at the Val Duchesse Castle south of Brussels, this time explicitly to discuss the EU’s development in case of a Brexit. They met again last Saturday to discuss a paper jointly presented by the German and French foreign ministers, literally demanding a “flexible Union.”[5] The common declaration, agreed upon by the six ministers on Saturday, does not mention that polarizing term, while paraphrasing their aspired core Europe. There is a need to “recognize” that among the member countries there are “different levels of ambition towards European integration.”[6]

The Strong Man behind Juncker

Using this format of the founding countries, Berlin is pushing for a “flexible Union” that is particularly rejected by those member countries, to be relegated to second-class status. At the same time, Berlin is exerting pressure at other levels. Already on May 23, an initial official meeting within the framework of the EU Commission, was held, to make arrangements for a possible Brexit.[7] The invitation had been extended by the German jurist, Martin Selmayr, Chef de Cabinet of Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission. From 2001 to 2004, Selmayr managed the Bertelsman AG office in Brussels. He subsequently became spokesperson and then Chef de Cabinet for EU Commissioner Viviane Reding (Luxembourg). Observers, referring to his influence, noted that some considered Reding to be the “dummy of the ventriloquist, Selmayr.”[8] According to German media, Selmayr, the strong man behind Juncker,[9] had extended the invitation for the May 23 strategy meeting, not only to representatives of Slovakia and Malta – the two countries to assume EU presidency in July and January, respectively, but also to Uwe Corsepius, Merkel’s European policy advisor. Corsepius is considered one of Berlin’s most important European policy strategists.[10]

The New Directorate

Beyond such long-term agreements, Chancellor Angela Merkel has invited France’s President, François Hollande, Italy’s Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi and EU Council President Donald Tusk to Berlin, Monday to discuss the EU’s future, after Great Britain’s withdrawal. The objective is to agree upon important stipulations prior to the EU’s Tuesday summit – which is similar to the 2010 – 2011 meetings she had held with the French president at the time, Nicolas Sarkozy (“Merkozy”), to set the guidelines for the EU’s handling of the Euro crisis. Observes point to the fact that Merkel’s inviting Renzi along with Hollande has ostentatiously demoted France’s status. Simultaneously, German media are speaking in terms of the EU’s “new directorate.” Of course, there is no doubt that “Germany remains the most important EU nation, both politically as well as economically.”[11] In practice, the “directorate” serves the function – as in the previous cases of Merkel’s Sarkozy meetings – primarily of transmission of German specifications to the EU’s other member countries.

The Central Role

Berlin’s predominance within the EU is being, more or less, officially confirmed by the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. Also in the future, Germany will “continue to play a central role, if not an even more significant role, in the European Union,” Juncker declared.[12]

Supranational Repression

Parallel to preparations for the transformation of the European Union, leading German Social Democrats are calling for supplementary steps for the political-economic streamlining the EU or its core.[13] For example, in their position paper entitled “Re-Found Europe,” Germany’s Minister of the Economy, Sigmar Gabriel, and the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, are calling for an expansion of the EU’s single market, under the topic an “economic Schengen.” In the process, across the board “central” job market reforms must be implemented. The masses in the French population are currently up in arms fighting the imposition of these job market reforms.[14] In addition, Gabriel and Schulz are calling on the EU to “more than ever” “act as a unified governing force,” which would signify that the “communitarization” of the EU’s foreign policy. The implementation of this communitarization, would mean Germany’s global interests being pursued via institutions in Brussels due, to a large extent, to Berlin’s predominance within the EU. Finally, the German social democrats are calling for the systematic creation and expansion of supra-national structures of repression. For example, institutions warding off refugees from the EU must be systematically reinforced (“effectively securing European external borders”) and cooperation between domestic repressive authorities intensified. The creation, for example, of a “European FBI” should be an objective.

Project Deterrence

To deter other EU countries from holding referendums, Berlin is massively intensifying pressure on London. To avoid needless dissention, the British government seeks to conscientiously prepare and carry out the negotiations. President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, declared in the form of an ultimatum, that he “expects” the British government to present its withdrawal application at the EU summit on Tuesday. Chair of the EPP parliamentary caucus, Manfred Weber (CSU) called on Britain to withdraw “within the planned two-year delay, and even better, within a year.”[15] Brussels has already created a “Brexit Task Force” and an “Article 50 Task Force” – the latter named after the respective article of the Lisbon Treaty regulating a member state’s withdrawal from the EU. Above all, leading German politicians are fanning Scottish secessionist plans. “The EU will continue to consist of 28 member countries,” declared Gunther Krichbaum (CDU), Chair of the EU Affairs Committee in the German Bundestag, “because I expect a renewed independence referendum in Scotland, which will be successful this time.” Krichbaum says, “we should promptly reply to this pro-EU country’s membership application.”[16] The German media is also energetically firing on Scottish separatism. Since 1945, the Federal Republic of Germany has possibly never engaged in such unabashed encouragement of the disintegration of a West European country.

War in Europe

In Berlin, this is all being flanked by statements that cannot be otherwise interpreted as oblique war threats. “Although it is difficult for us to imagine,” one should “never forget” that “the idea of a united Europe, had been an idea of peace,” claims the German Chancellor.[17] The allegation corresponds less to historical reality,[18] than to the EU’s self-promotion. Yet, Merkel declares that in Europe, “reconciliation and peace” are both currently and in the future “anything other than self-evident.” The chancellor has expressed this point of view in various EU crisis situations. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[19]) According to this view, the potential of European countries settling their disputes militarily remains essentially unaltered and can be unleashed, should they no longer choose integration in a German-dominated EU.

For more on this theme: The First Exit.

[1] Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien, Belgien, Niederlande, Luxemburg.
[2] Der Visegrád-Gruppe gehören Polen, Tschechien, die Slowakei und Ungarn an.
[3] EU-Gründerstaaten: “Europäische Dreifachkrise” und “Herausfordernde Zeiten”. de.euronews.com 10.02.2016.
[4] Joint Communiqué. Charting the way ahead. An EU Founding Members’ initiative on strengthening Cohesion in the European Union. www.esteri.it 09.02.2016.
[5] Berlin und Paris schlagen “flexible EU” vor. www.handelsblatt.com 24.06.2016.
[6] Gemeinsame Erklärung der Außenminister Belgiens, Deutschlands, Frankreichs, Italiens, Luxemburgs und der Niederlande am 25. Juni 2016.
[7] EU rüstet sich für Brexit-Ernstfall. www.spiegel.de 27.05.2016.
[8] Hendrick Kafsack, Werner Mussler: Die EU spricht deutsch. www.faz.net 26.06.2014. See Particularly Close to Germany.
[9] Hendrick Kafsack: Der starke Mann hinter Juncker. www.faz.net 10.09.2014.
[10] See Under the German Whip (I).
[11] Nikolas Busse: Das neue Direktorium. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 25.06.2016.
[12] Juncker sieht starke Rolle für Deutschland. www.handelsblatt.com 25.06.2016.
[13] Sigmar Gabriel, Martin Schulz: Europa neu gründen. www.spd.de.
[14] See The Price of Deregulation.
[15] EU-Parlamentspräsident Schulz fordert Austrittsantrag der Briten bis Dienstag. www.sueddeutsche.de 25.06.2016.
[16] Jacques Schuster, Daniel Friedrich Sturm: Und zurück bleiben die verwirrten Staaten von Europa. www.welt.de 26.06.2016.
[17] Pressestatement von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel zum Ausgang des Referendums über den Verbleib Großbritanniens in der Europäischen Union am 24. Juni 2016 in Berlin.
[18] Die “Einigung” des europäischen Kontinents unter deutscher Dominanz gehörte bereits zu den deutschen Kriegszielen im Ersten Weltkrieg; damals sprach beispielsweise Reichskanzler Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg von der Gründung eines “mitteleuropäischen Wirtschaftsverbands”. Auch im NS-Staat wurden entsprechende “Einigungs”-Strategien vertreten. Mehr dazu: Europas Einiger.
[19] See A Question of Peace or War in Europe, Management with a Crowbar and Vom Krieg in Europa.

8a. We have noted Trump’s real estate dealings in the past, and the opaque nature of his relationships. Organized crime elements are one of the elements for which Trump’s real estate empire apparently “fronts.”

A New York Times investigation revealed that German corporate elements are another major player in the complex Trump real estate dealings. The nature of the relationships is so complex that not even The Times could unravel some of the relationships.

Deutsche Bank and the Union Bank of Switzerland are major Bormann capital network players. The Hineberg company, as a dominant international shipping concern and a major German corporation is almost certainly a major Bormann capital network player.

“Trump’s Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties” by Susanne Craig; The New York Times; 8/21/2016. [19]

. . . .Yet The Times’s examination underscored how much of Mr. Trump’s business remains shrouded in mystery. He has declined to disclose his tax returns or allow an independent valuation of his assets.

Earlier in the campaign, Mr. Trump submitted a 104-page federal financial disclosure form. It said his businesses owed at least $315 million to a relatively small group of lenders and listed ties to more than 500 limited liability companies. Though he answered the questions, the form appears to have been designed for candidates with simpler finances than his, and did not require disclosure of portions of his business activities. . . .

. . . .The Times found three other instances in which Mr. Trump had an ownership interest in a building but did not disclose the debt associated with it. In all three cases, Mr. Trump had passive investments in limited liability companies that had borrowed significant amounts of money.

One of these investments involves an office tower at 1290 Avenue of Americas, near Rockefeller Center. In a typically complex deal, loan documents show that four lenders — German American Capital, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank; UBS Real Estate Securities; Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company; and Bank of China — agreed in November 2012 to lend $950 million to the three companies that own the building. Those companies, obscurely named HWA 1290 III LLC, HWA 1290 IV LLC and HWA 1290 V LLC, are owned by three other companies in which Mr. Trump has stakes. . . . .

. . . .At 40 Wall Street in Manhattan, a limited liability company, or L.L.C., controlled by Mr. Trump holds the ground lease — the lease for the land on which the building stands. In 2015, Mr. Trump borrowed $160 million from Ladder Capital, a small New York firm, using that long-term lease as collateral. On his financial disclosure form that debt is listed as valued at more than $50 million. . . .

. . . .Tracing the ownership of many of Mr. Trump’s buildings can be a complicated task. Sometimes he owns a building and the land underneath it; sometimes, he holds a partial interest or just the commercial portion of a property.

And in some cases, the identities of his business partners are obscured behind limited liability companies — raising the prospect of a president with unknown business ties.

At 40 Wall Street, Mr. Trump does not own even a sliver of the actual land; his long-term ground lease gives him the right to improve and manage the building. The land is owned by two limited liability companies; Mr. Trump pays the two entities a total of $1.6 million a year for the ground lease, according to documents filed with the S.E.C.

The majority owner, 40 Wall Street Holdings Corporation, owns 80 percent of the land; New Scandic Wall Limited Partnership owns the rest, according to public documents. New Scandic Wall Limited Partnership’s chief executive is Joachim Ferdinand von Grumme-Douglas, a businessman based in Europe, according to these documents.

The people behind 40 Wall Street Holdings are harder to identify. For years, Germany’s Hinneberg family, which made its fortune in the shipping industry, controlled the property through a company called 40 Wall Limited Partnership. In late 2014, their interest in the land was transferred to a new company, 40 Wall Street Holdings. The Times was not able to identify the owner or owners of this company, and the Trump Organization declined to comment. . . .

8b. In connection both with Trump’s real estate holdings and John P. Schmitz’s corporate work, we review the control of German industry and finance by the Bormann network.

Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile by Paul Manning; Copyright 1981 by Paul Manning; Lyle Stuart Inc. [HC]; ISBN 0-8184-0309-B; pp. 284-285. [15]

. . . Atop an organizational pyramid that dominates the industry of West Germany through banks, voting rights enjoyed by majority shareholders in significant cartels, and the professional input of a relatively young leadership group of lawyers, investment specialists, bankers, and industrialists, he [Bormann] is satisfied that he achieved his aim of helping the Fatherland back on its feet. To ensure continuity of purpose and direction, a close watch is maintained on the profit statements and management reports of corporations under its control elsewhere. This leadership group of twenty, which is in fact a board of directors, is chaired by Bormann, but power has shifted to the younger men who will carry on the initiative that grew from that historic meeting in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. Old Heinrich Mueller, chief of security for the NSDAP in South America, is the most feared of all, having the power of life and death over those deemed not to be acting in the best interests of the organization. Some still envision a Fourth Reich. . . What will not pass is the economic influences of the Bormann organization, whose commercial directives are obeyed almost without question by the highest echelons of West German finance and industry. ‘All orders come from the shareholders in South America,’ I have been told by a spokesman for Martin Bormann. . . . 

9. Coming on the heels of the Trump campaign’s latest public embrace of the “Alt Right”, news that one of Trump’s advisors has been accused of enthusiastically firing Jews and Holocaust denialism while he was the DoD’s Inspector General almost qualifies as ‘dog bites man’ news at this point. Still, it’s news. Very ominous ‘dog bites man’ news:

“Trump Adviser Accused of Making Anti-Semitic Remarks” by Marisa Taylor and William Douglas; McClatchy News Bureau; 8/18/2016. [25]

Allegations of anti-Semitism have surfaced against one of Donald Trump’s foreign policy advisers, raising further questions about the guidance the Republican presidential nominee is receiving.

Joseph Schmitz, named as one of five advisers by the Trump campaign in March, is accused of bragging when he was Defense Department inspector general a decade ago that he pushed out Jewish employees.

The revelations feed two themes that his opponent Hillary Clinton has used to erode Trump’s credibility: That he is a foreign policy neophyte, and that his campaign, at times, has offended Jews and other minorities.

Schmitz, who is a lawyer in private practice in Washington, says the allegations against him are lies. All three people who have cited the remarks, including one who testified under oath about them, have pending employment grievances with the federal government.

Daniel Meyer, a senior official within the intelligence community, described Schmitz’s remarks in his complaint file.

“His summary of his tenure’s achievement reported as ‘…I fired the Jews,’ ” wrote Meyer, a former official in the Pentagon inspector general’s office whose grievance was obtained by McClatchy.

Meyer, who declined to comment about the matter, cited in his complaint another former top Pentagon official, John Crane, as the source and witness to the remarks. Crane worked with Schmitz, who served as inspector general between April 2002 and September 2005.

In his complaint, Meyer said Crane also said Schmitz played down the extent of the Holocaust.

“In his final days, he allegedly lectured Mr. Crane on the details of concentration camps and how the ovens were too small to kill 6 million Jews,” wrote Meyer, whose complaint is before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

Schmitz said that Crane was the source of other false accusations against him.

“The allegations are completely false and defamatory,” Schmitz said in an interview Tuesday.

“I do not recall ever even hearing of any ‘allegations of anti-Semitism against [me],’ which would be preposterously false and defamatory because, among other reason(s), I am quite proud of the Jewish heritage of my wife of 38 years,” he wrote in an email.

Later in a phone interview, he said his wife was not a practicing Jew but “ethnically Jewish” because her maternal grandmother was a Jew.

Meyer, who previously oversaw the Defense Department’s decisions on whistleblowing cases, said he could not comment because his case is still pending. Meyer is now the Obama administration’s top official overseeing how intelligence agencies handle whistleblower complaints.

Crane would not comment directly about his conversation with Schmitz but said, “if, when, I am required to testify under oath in a MSPB hearing, I would then comment on the statement attributed to me by Mr. Meyer.”

“Statements made under oath at the request of a judge in a formal proceeding would also remove my vulnerability to any potential civil litigation by any party involved in the filings by Mr. Meyer,” he added.

Crane’s lawyer, Andrew Bakaj, also refuted Schmitz’s charges about Crane. He said Crane “has had no association or involvement with any of the numerous news accounts challenging the actions or decisions made by Mr. Schmitz when he was Inspector General.”

The anti-Semitic allegations have also become part of another case.

David Tenenbaum, an Army engineer at the Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) in Warren, Michigan, is now citing the allegations in a letter this week to Acting Pentagon Inspector General Glenn Fine as new evidence that current and former Pentagon officials helped perpetrate an anti-Semitic culture within the military that left him vulnerable.

“The anti-Semitic environment began under a prior Inspector General, Mr. Joseph Schmitz,” the letter from Tenenbaum’s lawyer Mayer Morganroth of Birmingham, Mich., states.

Trump’s campaign did not return multiple calls and emails over a week about Schmitz.

The allegations against Schmitz are in Meyer’s employment grievance that was filed in June with the MSPB, which decides such cases filed by federal employees. In the complaint, Meyer alleges former and current Defense Department Inspector General officials discriminated against him as a gay man and retaliated against him for investigating and reporting misconduct by high-level Pentagon officials.

Crane, a former assistant Defense Department inspector general, resigned in 2013 when he learned he was going to be fired after an administrative inquiry. He filed a whistleblower disclosure saying retaliation had forced his resignation. The disclosure is still before the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates such complaints.

The letter from Tenenbaum’s lawyer Mayer Morganroth also alleges Schmitz made remarks about firing Jews and playing down the extent of the Holocaust, citing a “sworn statement” from an unnamed source with knowledge of the Tenenbaum case.

A federal official with knowledge of the matter told McClatchy that Crane testified, under oath, about anti-Semitic remarks Schmitz made to him. Crane was interviewed in at least two investigations involving Pentagon inspector general officials.

Schmitz was accused of shielding Bush administration officials from investigations, including an inquiry into a Boeing contract. He was cleared of the allegations.

Schmitz left the government to become general counsel of the parent company of the defense contractor then known as Blackwater.

A fellow Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, was one of Schmitz’s biggest critics.

Grassley, for example, complained to the Pentagon about Schmitz’s plans to send Pentagon officials to an event in Germany honoring Baron Friedrich Von Steuben, a Prussian-born Army officer who served under George Washington during the Revolutionary War.

Schmitz, who speaks German, was described as fascinated with Von Steuben, who was known as the nation’s first U.S. inspector general.

Schmitz’s father, the late Republican Congressman John Schmitz who represented California, was a fervent anti-Communist and drew criticism in 1981 for remarks about Jews, including his press release that called the audience at abortion hearings “a sea of hard, Jewish and (arguably) female faces.”

Bart Buechner, Joseph Schmitz’s former military assistant at the inspector general’s office, said he had frequent contact with Schmitz and never witnessed any anti-Semitism.

“He would not say anything negative or pejorative about any ethnic group,” Buechner said.

Former Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney, who served during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, said he was surprised to hear Trump picked Schmitz as his adviser.

“I was shocked,” Devaney said. “In fact, a bunch of us former inspectors general called each other when we saw the news, and we couldn’t stop laughing because it was so ridiculous that someone so odd and out of the mainstream would be selected, particularly for that position.”

Tenenbaum, who is alleging officials in the Pentagon inspector general’s office contributed to anti-Semitism against him, was targeted as an Israeli spy by the Army, which launched a criminal investigation of him.

Bridget Serchak, a Pentagon inspector general’s office spokeswoman, declined to comment on the case. Her office concluded in 2008 that Tenenbaum had been singled out for “unusual and unwelcome scrutiny because of his faith” as an Orthodox Jew.

His treatment from 1992 to 1997, the inspector general’s report concluded, amounted to discrimination.

Tenenbaum got his security clearance back and it was even increased to top secret. He was never charged with any wrongdoing. In his letter this week to Pentagon authorities, he asked the inspector general to review his case because he said the office never intervened on his behalf.

“… In light of the information recently obtained, (we) believe your office has and continues to engage in discriminatory behavior,” his lawyer wrote.

Though Schmitz left the government in 2005, he has inserted himself in public affairs often through writing editorials and giving speeches.

Schmitz spoke to law students in March 2015 at Southern Methodist University in Dallas in a forum about communism and its impact on society.

Renwei Chung, a student who took notes of Schmitz’s speech, said it appeared to him that Schmitz was calling Obama a communist. He described how Schmitz held up the book: “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis – The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor” and said to the forum, “The Chinese worship Mao. They have pictures of Mao everywhere. Do you know who the second most popular person in China is? Obama. … Why is that?”

Jeffrey Kahn, a professor who also spoke at the forum, said the encounter with Schmitz left him “chilled.”

Kahn wrote in an opinion piece published in July in the Dallas Morning News that “I had witnessed a ghost from McCarthy’s staff,” a reference to former Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who was obsessed with exposing communists in the 1950s.

“What foreign policy advice will Schmitz whisper into Trump’s ear?” Kahn wrote. “I shudder to think what he might do in such a position of power.”