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.] . . . .