Com­ment: The pol­icy that the “New” Ger­many is pur­su­ing vis a vis German-speaking minori­ties is very sim­i­lar to the for­eign pol­icy gam­bit effec­tively crafted by the Third Reich in order to jus­tify its war of aggres­sion. Claim­ing “per­se­cu­tion” of German-speaking minori­ties in neigh­bor­ing coun­tries, they ini­ti­ated mil­i­tary action in order to real­ize ter­ri­to­r­ial hegemony–this [osten­si­bly] to halt the “injustice.”

Today, Ger­many is using EU legal pro­vi­sions to estab­lish and strnegthen the Fed­eral Republic’s rela­tion­ships to Ger­manic minori­ties in neigh­bor­ing coun­tries. Ger­many is thus man­i­fest­ing the doc­trine of “volksgruppenrechte”–the rights of eth­nic minori­ties. (This is the doc­trine cham­pi­oned by Karl von Habsburg’s UNPO and cov­ered in the “Going Native” programs.)

Note that North­ern Ital­ian territory–formerly part of the Habsburg-controlled Austr0-Hungarian Empire–are once again revert­ing to Ger­manic hege­monic con­trol.

“Bor­der­lands Net­works”; german-foreign-policy.com; 3/19/2010.

Sev­eral Ger­man fed­eral states and munic­i­pal­i­ties are using a new EU legal instru­ment to pro­mote a fusion with German-speaking regions of neigh­bor­ing west­ern nations. That instru­ment (the Euro­pean cross-border coop­er­a­tion group­ings — EGCC) allows regional author­i­ties of var­i­ous nations to con­sol­i­date into com­mon admin­is­tra­tive struc­tures, enjoy­ing a large mea­sure of auton­omy. With the help of such an EGCC, the greater Stras­bourg urban com­mu­nity fused a few weeks ago with a Ger­man county. Saar­land would like to fuse with Lux­em­burg to form an EGCC, North Rhine-Westphalia is court­ing the German-speaking regions of Bel­gium. An inter­net jour­nal of EGCC Strasbourg-Ortenau pro­po­nents declared that at the Spanish-French bor­der the “reuni­fi­ca­tion of Cat­alo­nia” has been achieved in an EGCC after being “sep­a­rated” for 350 years. Other EGCCs are fus­ing Hungarian-speaking Slo­vak res­i­den­tial areas that Budapest would like to influ­ence, to Hun­gar­ian munic­i­pal­i­ties. This is how numer­ous EGCCs are pro­mot­ing eth­nic struc­tures and in the long run, an eth­nic ori­ented Europe. . . .

. . . The Aus­trian state of Tirol (“North”/“East Tirol”) seeks to found an EGCC with the Ital­ian provinces Bolzano-Alto Adige (“South Tirol”) and Trento (Welschtirol). As in other cases, the EGCC coop­er­a­tion, agreed on in Octo­ber 2009, by the Aus­trian regional state and the two Ital­ian provinces is based on already exist­ing coop­er­a­tion mod­els, while enhanc­ing the author­ity to take action. For the first time since 1918, the for­mer Hab­s­burg Crown Tirol has, with the found­ing of the local EGCC, regained its own legal per­son­al­ity. Already in the regional par­lia­ments of the par­tic­i­pat­ing enti­ties, there is talk of form­ing their own “government”. . . .

Com­ment: With the deaths of many Pol­ish gov­ern­ment officials–including the president–it is worth con­tem­plat­ing the fric­tion between Ger­many and Poland over their bor­der. Invaded in 1939 because of its alleged per­se­cu­tion of its Ger­manic minor­ity, Poland is once again at odds with the Fed­eral Repub­lic over bor­der issues, exac­er­bated by the Nazi-linked ver­triebene groups that have con­sid­er­able sway in the Ger­man government.

“Fra­ter­nity Broth­ers: Ques­tion­able Pol­ish Bor­ders”; german-foreign-policy.com; 1/19/2010.

. . . . For decades Trans­porta­tion Min­is­ter Ram­sauer (CSU) has been a mem­ber of the Franco-Bavaria Munich Fra­ter­nity, one of the approx. 120 fra­ter­ni­ties in Ger­many and Aus­tria uni­fied under the “Deutsche Burschen­schaft” DB (“Ger­man Fra­ter­nity”) umbrella orga­ni­za­tion. The DB is eth­ni­cally ori­ented. Accord­ing to its con­sti­tu­tional prin­ci­ples, it is com­mit­ted to “the free devel­op­ment of Ger­man eth­nic iden­tity in close fel­low­ship with all sec­tors of the Ger­man peo­ple” — “regard­less of national borders.“[2] In the DB man­ual one reads that “by Ger­many, we mean the realm in Cen­tral Europe inhab­ited by Ger­mans, includ­ing the regions from which Ger­mans were ille­gally expelled.“[3] They main­tain that an “ori­en­ta­tion of the father­land con­cept on the state,” is only of rel­a­tive sig­nif­i­cance “because of the brevity and imper­ma­nence of states”. In the “Man­ual” the con­se­quence is explained with an expla­na­tion of inter­na­tional law regard­ing the Novem­ber 14, 1990, Pol­ish — Ger­man Bor­der Agree­ment. Accord­ing to this argu­men­ta­tion, Poland merely has a right to “tol­er­ated use” of its west­ern ter­ri­to­ries (the “Oder — Neisse Region,”) “which pos­si­bly rep­re­sents a sort of ter­ri­to­r­ial sov­er­eignty,” while simul­ta­ne­ously “the ter­ri­to­r­ial sov­er­eignty over the east­ern region con­tin­ues to remain in Germany’s hands” [Ital­ics are mine–D.E.] . . . .