When Germans Are Unhappy …

Just what is the German mood today? It has not taken long for the jovial demeanor projected by Germany during the recent World Cup to sour. Why the change? And what does this portend for Europe?
From the September 2006 Trumpet Print Edition

Only a couple of months ago, the world was treated to smiling, seemingly relaxed joviality from the host nation during the soccer World Cup. Germans’ initial reaction to losing the tournament on their home turf seemed one of relaxed acceptance that, despite the loss, everyone had experienced a good time. They had come so close, but in the end, even the raucous chanting of “Deutschland über alles” from the stands could not rally their team to overcome defeat by Italy, which went on to win the prestigious and coveted icon of the soccer world.

But then the crowds went home. The mood changed. Once again, Germany seems to be unhappy.

Domestic Woes

The German government is not happy right now. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s early attempts at cobbling together a consensus on certain domestic issues have split her coalition government’s votes along party lines on matters crucial to the country’s future economic stability.

The German electorate is not happy either. Merkel’s attempts at reforming the nation’s doomed national health-care scheme met with an overwhelming rejection by the German public, according to polls. This follows the great public outcry over the Merkel government’s earlier proposal to impose the largest tax hike on Germans since World War ii.

The honeymoon is over. Things aren’t working too well on the home front for Chancellor Merkel’s grand coalition government. Germany may once again be moving into crisis mode within less than a year of Angela Merkel gaining the chancellorship by the slimmest of margins.

Immediately following the German elections, Merkel shone out as the darling of the United States, Britain and Western Europe, due to the confident manner in which she handled a rash of foreign-policy decisions during her first months in office. But that image, which served her well at home to begin with, is now tarnishing.

Domestic politics, in particular attempts to force economic changes on the German population, was always destined to be Merkel’s Achilles heel. It was Merkel’s offer of the poisoned chalice of the economics portfolio that caused Bavarian Prime Minister Edmund Stoiber to pull out of the coalition leadership. Stoiber knew only too well that a major reason for the fall of the Schröder government was its failure to deal with deeply entrenched resistance by the German public to the long overdue systemic changes drastically needed to revive the national economy. Now it is Merkel’s time to face the music, and the tune from the public is increasingly discordant. The mood is darkening within Germany.

Southward Expansion

But intriguingly, away from the home turf it is a different story. Overseas, Germany is moving ahead, gung-ho, on its grand process of re-colonizing parts once ruled by Deutschland in a previous era when the nation was cloaked in more overtly imperialistic garb.

Since unifying in 1990, the German nation has rapidly spread its military forces around many theaters of conflict in all hemispheres. These initiatives have always occurred under the umbrellas of the European Union, nato or the United Nations, thus avoiding any charge that they are purely German initiatives designed to further German desires for a return to empire.

Track back to Germany’s first “out-of-area operation.” In 1992, the Kohl government sent troops to support the nato naval blockade of Yugoslavia. Later, following the deployment of troops to the UN Somalia mission in 1994, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that German troops could participate in UN peacekeeping operations outside nato territory.

What is significant about the Balkans blockade was that it was a direct result of Germany triggering the Balkan wars by recognizing Croatia and Slovenia as breakaway nations from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991. By 1999, German troops were in combat in support of nato, engaged in furthering the Balkans conflict. Today, the entire Balkan Peninsula is in process of being turned into a collection of vassal states subservient to a German-dominated EU.

With the destruction of greater Yugoslavia as a political entity, the way was clear for the European Union to impose its will on the Balkan crossroads of Europe, a most strategic piece of territory. The scene was then set for the expansion of German influence, under the EU umbrella, to extend southward via the Adriatic and the Mediterranean seas. Malta (the island that Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has called a “stepping stone to Africa”) and Cyprus fell quickly into the EU maw.

Today we find the German Navy patrolling the Mediterranean and the waters off the Horn of Africa. We also see the German military involved in a mock invasion off Africa’s west coast, on the ground in the Congo guarding German mining interests there, and preparing for involvement in the Darfur conflict in Sudan. Added to all this is Germany’s continuing troop presence in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia and off the coast of Australia in East Timor, not to mention (post-9/11), the Luftwaffe having flown security missions for the U.S. covering America’s East Coast! All that increasing global involvement is quite a leap for a united Germany that had its first post-war “out of area” military operations only 14 years ago.

Perhaps if these widespread missions were billed in the media as German initiatives, it might stir some unpleasant memories of previous combat undertaken by Germany some 60 years ago. However, the Germans have been very clever to publicize them as being much-appreciated support to both UN and nato missions. This bit of pr places a nice gloss on what may emerge as hidden German motives, but step back and view the whole picture: With a wider lens, we may see a Germany in a stunningly expansionary mood, particularly in Africa.

On to Africa

Once again, akin to the scramble for African resources in the 19th century, the rush is on in Africa.

Increasing German interest there is beginning to highlight the prospect of confrontation between Germany and China, especially in Nigeria, Angola and Sudan. At issue is access to exploitable oil reserves and Africa’s vast mineral wealth. Watch for tensions to rise between China and a German-led EU on these issues.

But of particular note is Germany’s renewed interest in the southwestern African nation of Namibia.

Previously colonized by Germany in the great rush for the rich resources of Africa that took place in the 1800s, Germany’s freshly overt interest in Namibia centers on access to its rich deposits of copper and chrome ore, and, very strategically, on control of the deep-water port of Walvis Bay. This time, unlike most other major port facilities where China has taken the initiative, it seems Germany has the jump on China. Just as the Balkans are the literal crossroads of Europe, Walvis Bay has “developed into the commercial turnstile for all of Southern Africa” (German Foreign Policy, July 3). Walvis Bay offers a faster turnaround for European/African shipping than routing via the Cape to South Africa’s ports. It is the preferred African port of call for German shipping companies.

But there is another issue that raises concern in southwest Africa. Some in Namibia still grumble about the way Imperial Germany treated an earlier generation during their colonial days. This piece of history was publicized as recently as 1985 in a UN report on the subject. Termed the “Whitaker Report,” this was a summary of a UN investigation that proved Germany was responsible for one of the earliest acts of genocide in the 20th century. It was perpetrated in Africa.

To quote details of the specific event noted in part one of that report, “General von Trotha issued an extermination order; water holes were poisoned, and the African peace emissaries were shot. In all, three quarters of the Herero Africans were killed by the Germans then colonizing present-day Namibia, and the Hereros were reduced from 80,000 to some 15,000 starving refugees.”

The question being raised in southwest Africa is, if the Germans succeed in regaining influence in that region, will history repeat itself?

Your Bible prophesies of an imperial power rising within the north (Europe) that will wield tremendous political and economic influence in the very near future, to the extent that its merchants will trade in “slaves, and souls of men” (Revelation 18:13). This power is prophesied to increase its power toward the south (Africa) and the east (Palestine). You may read of that in Daniel 8:9.

Is there a risk of the experience of slavery and genocide endured by the peoples of southwest Africa under their former Teutonic masters about to be repeated? Fearing this prospect, some concern is already being voiced at the future consequences of Germany’s increasing military presence in Africa.

Watch Africa as the competition for its resources and cheap labor heats up. Watch for Germany’s influence in Africa to be aided, abetted and encouraged by a U.S. and Britain seemingly oblivious to the stern lessons of history.

Then there’s the Middle East.

Middle East “Peacemaker”

Ever since Germany unified in 1990, the German Foreign Office has sought to become directly involved in the so-called peace process in the Middle East. Joschka Fischer, foreign minister under the former Schröder government, was particularly aggressive in promoting Germany as a “peacemaker” between the Palestinians and the Israelis. With Fischer now gone from the scene, Germany remains a deeply entrenched entity in the peace process. In the most recent conflict, German intelligence officers have been involved in Lebanon, negotiating for the release of captured Israeli soldiers. In addition, Germany has carved out for itself a role in negotiations with Iran over its development of nuclear weapons.

In respect of the war in Iraq, the former Schröder government made itself unpopular with the White House as it refused outright to aid the U.S. alliance on terror in that initiative. This, despite the same government readily acquiescing to the Bundeswehr’s involvement in Afghanistan. Yet a closer look at Germany’s traditional role in covertly supporting terrorist-sponsoring regimes in the Middle East might explain the reason for this reluctance.

Mark Aarons and John Loftus’s masterful exposé of Vatican-German intrigue, The Unholy Trinity, reveals the following: “Among the dubious achievements of Nazi science was the invention of Sarin, Tabun and Soman. These nerve gases … were so effective that the same formulae are still in use today …. During the 1970s, U.S. codebreakers found dramatic evidence that West German companies were selling the Sarin secret to several Arab nations ….” Aarons and Loftus allude to the probable involvement of the West German intelligence service (bnd) as “a merchant of death for [nations] such as Libya and Iraq.”

It is an intriguing study in itself to consider which nation supplied the technical expertise for Saddam Hussein’s sophisticated web of deep underground bunkers. Why, when the cameras zoomed in on the operating instruction templates affixed to much of the underground equipment, did those instructions display very clearly in the German language? German merchants, bankers and the German secret service have yet much to answer for in their contributions to terror regimes in the Middle East, let alone Albania, Croatia and nations within Africa. German and Austrian armaments are continually turning up in caches of terrorist arms in these countries.

The drug- and gun-running corridor that stretches from Germany via the Balkans across Eurasia and clear on down to Latin America is a well-documented reality. It would be intriguing to investigate connections between current German entrenchment in Afghanistan, presently reaping a bumper drug crop in that country, and the whole web of banking and business houses involved in the clearance of the billions of dollars reaped by the purveyors of addiction via the global drug corridors of the world.

Nuclear Aspirations

But of perhaps even deeper concern is the present German government’s tendency to reverse the anti-nuclear power policies of the former Schröder government. At the recent G-8 summit in Russia, Angela Merkel removed Germany’s resistance to endorsing the development of nuclear power as an alternative to more conventional power generation methods. The effect was that all 15 national representatives present were able to reach a unanimous vote on the question.

This may appear innocuous to the casual, non-Green observer. However, the endorsement by Merkel carries with it possibilities that bode ill for the future.

Everyone knows that Iran’s development of nuclear power is, notwithstanding the Iranians’ protestations to the contrary, destined for military use. Yet, why would we not apply the same logic to Germany? Would not the endorsement of the development of nuclear power, ostensibly for “peaceful” purposes, by a German leader be of real concern, especially given the warlike nature of the German peoples dating back to the times of ancient Assyria?

What should motivate us to an even deeper concern at this development in German policy is the probability that Germany has been clandestinely involved in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while at the same time maintaining a pacifist public face on the subject. Loftus and Aarons comment on “reports that Western Germany is behind secret proliferation of nuclear weapons.” The authors make the point that the rationale used by the former West Germany to conclude a secret nuclear protocol attached to a trade treaty with Argentina in the 1960s was that the U.S. would at some future date pull out of nato or withdraw its nuclear shield from Western Europe. During the Cold War, “it was decided to develop the nuclear weapons secretly by utilizing the large émigré communities of German scientists in Argentina and South Africa” (ibid.).

There is, however, a clear difference between Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power and that of Germany. Every sensible observer of the world scene knows that Iran is bent on leading a global crusade to Islamicize the world. Sufficient reliable intelligence exists to confirm that Iran is well advanced along the path toward developing nuclear military capability. The strident diatribes of Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad strongly indicate Iran will use every weapon at its disposal to pursue its ends.

With Germany, it is a very different situation in one glaring respect. Germany has been at pains to emphasize its role as a nation that has paid its dues for the millions of victims of two world wars it instigated. Germany has portrayed an image to the world of having become a respectable, even model, peace-loving, Western democracy.

The Bigger Picture

Grasp the bigger picture here! Germany has learned its lesson. If you want to rule the world, overt warfare in the name of your country or its dominant ideology is clearly not the way to go about it. Diplomacy, trade, “peacekeeping” and the employment of your traditional enemy’s principal ideology (democracy), plus the aggressive use of major internationally recognized bodies in pursuit of your national goals—the EU, UN, nato—this strategy will yield the results you seek!

As Germany showed the whole world recently, it can be a wonderful host: a jovial, oompah-ing, lusty, merrily singing nation, intent on sharing its largesse—good food, beer and wine, with plenty of dancing in the streets. Surely this is a nation that has come to terms with its past, a real force for peace in the world, a model nation.

But, that was the mood in Germany yesterday. Today it’s already different. Many Germans have returned to lives of introspection, facing the prospects of higher taxes, decimated social benefits and a shaky coalition government that now appears, despite the confident image portrayed by its chancellor, to be at risk of fragmentation. What is it about these people that their mood can change so quickly?

One long-time observer of the German scene, Luigi Barzini, posed the question that has perplexed students of German history since the days of Rome. “Which is the shape of the German Proteus this morning? Which will be its shape tomorrow?” (The Europeans). One of Germany’s modern philosophers, Johannes Gross, said of his fellow countrymen, “[T]he day may come when someone lifts the mask. … The face that appears may be less full-cheeked and rosy than today’s. … So long as we wear the mask, we remain hidden and continue to conceal the situation from ourselves” (ibid.).

And therein lies the supreme danger.

Wonderfully talented, organized, energetic and cultured the German people certainly are. Major contributors to the progress of modern society they certainly have been. But as long as Germany refuses to face the singular great flaw in its national character, its people risk becoming willing pawns yet again in the hands of any future demagogue who would seek to captivate their fancy. Yet again, Germany could emerge with a sense of superiority over the rest of the world—with disastrous results for all!

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote of his people, “[T]he German is acquainted with the hidden paths to chaos …” (Beyond Good and Evil). Populist leaders have taken advantage of this proclivity of the German people.

British political commentator Rodney Atkinson, a student of German history, once commented to me, “The German is expert in creating a crisis, then posing the solution, with an outcome designed to further his own ends.” We have seen that in the Balkans. We see it beginning to occur in Africa. Are we destined to see it play out yet once more, on a grand, global scale, as it has twice in recent history, since 1914?

Grave Risk

There is grave risk in Germany’s present status. It has, by far, the largest economy in Europe. It is Europe’s most strident voice in foreign policy. It deploys Europe’s most organized military forces today over an ever widening arena. It houses the world’s singular greatest national banking enterprise, as well as the European Central Bank and many globalist corporations. It increasingly controls the internal waterways, road transit systems, power generation and distribution systems, water reticulation systems, mail and courier services and major publishing houses in Europe. And it has just succeeded in having a German public relations firm retained as propaganda merchants for that grand vehicle of German ambition, the European Union.

Germany’s current great political weakness, its fragmentary coalition government, is Europe and the world’s temporary protection from an immediate repetition of the grave errors of its past—errors that cost millions of lives in the carnage of two great global wars.

But what if this was all to change? What if, in a time of crisis—rising taxes, drastic social disruption from forced changes in economy and social benefits, the threat to its security posed by a rising Islamic empire—another demagogue arose? What then? Would history repeat itself?

As a member of global society in one of the most volatile and disruptive times in the history of man, you have a responsibility—a responsibility to watch and pray! (Mark 13:33). Watch Europe! Watch Germany! Barzini posed the question of the mutable German nation as he watched Germany gradually emerge from its hidebound postwar cocoon to assert itself, yet again, on the world scene, “What is the German mood? Are they happy, as happy as human beings can reasonably be? (It is when they are disconcerted and fretful that they can be most dangerous)” (op. cit.).

Will the German nation take this world once more down the hidden path to chaos? Write now for your copy, gratis, of our informative booklet Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, and learn the answer to that very question which is shortly to become the major foreign-policy consideration of our age!