German Military on the March

Getty Images

German Military on the March

As other nations refuse the U.S. further military support in Afghanistan, Germany steps up to the plate—and beyond.

“You’ve come a long way, baby” … so goes the 1989 Virginia Slims jingle for the “women’s own” cigarette. The advertisement contained the usual warning about the contents of the cigarette package having the potential to cause death to the consumer.

The same phrase from that ditty could readily apply to the rapid rise of the military power of the nation that instigated the most recent world war, its leadership at the time intent on pursuing the goal of global tyranny. But this particular package does not carry with it an explicit warning that its contents have the potential and proven history to pose death to countless millions. In fact, the world has been sold the message that its death-dealing potential is a thing of the past. This makes its return to favor ever so much more dangerous.

The Bundeswehr issued a statement last Wednesday indicating that 250 German troops will be deployed to Afghanistan with a specific combat role. On Wednesday, January 16, the Social Democratic Party’s chief defense spokesman, Rainer Arnold, “announced that the German army had begun making preparations for the deployment … adding that the mission, slated to start in July, signaled a ‘new quality’ in the German engagement in Afghanistan. Part of the new mission could include pursuing terrorists ….”

The size of this combat force may seem small. Yet that’s been the history of the German military’s return to power: softly, softly—little by little—lest we awaken old memories of darker days. In fact, the German security and defense services have come a long way indeed, from their revival, with the aid of their benevolent English-speaking captors of the mid-20th century, to their newfound 21st-century role. Indeed, it appears from recent statements made by certain German officials that Germany is positioned to take on an even greater role in Afghanistan as other nations withdraw their troops from that theater.

The Bundeswehr also reported that “With 350 Norwegian troops leaving Afghanistan by the middle of the year and Germany heading nato’s International Security and Assistance Force (isaf) in the country’s north, it is likely that the Bundeswehr will have to replace the Norwegians. ‘If other countries are no longer available to do this task after September, then we will do it ourselves,’ the head of the German Federal Armed Forces Association, Bernhard Gertz, told the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung. ‘It’s in the interest of our own soldiers.’ In a separate interview with the daily Der Tagesspiegel, Gertz added: ‘It is clear that we will take over this task’” (ibid.).

In light of this revived willingness to send its troops into combat, following decades of having to swallow humble pie following the era of Nazi atrocities, it’s interesting to track the return of Germany, from the role of the vanquished in 1945 to its rearming by stealth with the support of the Western Allies, beginning with the creation of the Bundeswehr in 1956 barely 10 years after the Allies had declared that never again would Germany be permitted to rearm and pose a threat to world peace. During the ensuing decades, the Bundeswehr became one of the most efficient and best-supplied conventional armies on the Continent. We say conventional because, despite several attempts to acquire atomic weaponry, these requests were denied.

Until the Berlin Wall fell in the autumn of 1989 and Germany united the following year, the German military forces were limited in scope by post-war constitutional restrictions on their activities and the constraints imposed on them via integration into the nato alliance. That all changed with German unification. reports, “Upon the end of negotiations for a peace treaty (the ‘2 + 4 treaty’) German troops moved forward to the western boundary of Poland (1990). The Germany military was still prohibited from the manufacture, possession or use of biological, chemical or atomic weapons, and the size of the Bundeswehr was limited (to a maximum of 345,000 persons). These restrictions did not, however, prevent military leaders from formulating far-reaching visions. With the issue of the ‘political guidelines for defense’ in 1992, the Bundeswehr left its earlier role as a ‘defensive force’ and laid claim to the role of the worldwide representative of a reunified, economically expanding Germany. According to the ‘guidelines,’ military means are a necessity in order to expand the ‘room for political action and the vigour with which German interests can be brought to bear internationally’” (emphasis mine throughout).

With the promulgation of the new guidelines for the enhanced, post-unification role of the Bundeswehr, the whole pace and extent of German military activity picked up. As Germany’s eastern neighbors were progressively swallowed up by the European Union, Germany took the initiative to start training officer candidates from those countries, taking care, with the deployment of operative units in eastern EU member states, to ensure that they depended on German military technology.

Germany’s unilateral recognition of Slovenia and Croatia in 1990 (its first foreign-policy initiative upon reunification), which destabilized the whole Balkan Peninsula, gave the Bundeswehr its first real test in a real war—in fact a war of Germany’s own making. As points out, the Balkan wars culminated “in the air bombardment of civilian targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1999). The successful completion of this use of military force without appreciable opposition encouraged Berlin to further steps” (ibid.).

There followed the resurrection of an institution that the Western Allies had vowed would never, ever exist again to threaten world peace, the old German High Command!

As in the past, this new German general staff has lost no time in working to develop a highly efficient military machine that “now controls an intervention-force with continually modernized high-tech weaponry and special units (ksk). It is subject to secrecy. The wars in Yugoslavia, Macedonia and Afghanistan (including the engagement of the German navy off the coast of Africa in 2002) were test runs for the inner state of the Bundeswehr under conditions of battle. The German forces have risen to the point of rivaling the leading armies of Europe” (ibid.).

Outside of Europe, the German military hierarchy is concentrating on deployment in Eurasia—using Afghanistan as a stepping stone—the Mediterranean, and, increasingly, the continent of Africa. Each of these regions is crucial to the continuing development of Germany’s imperialist goals under the umbrella of the European Union. Securing access to oil, natural gas and raw materials within close proximity to the European continent is the prime motive.

Quite apart from the worrying aspects of the nation with the history of greatest aggression against its neighbors acquiring such military power, out of the Germano-Vatican-instigated Balkans wars there has developed a whole new philosophy to justify aggression of one nation against the other. One of the most insightful observers of the rise of Germany to dominance within the European Union, British author John Laughland, observed that in May 1999, “nato had attacked Yugoslavia on the basis that national sovereignty was no longer the basis of the international system, and that instead there existed a ‘right of humanitarian intervention’—a right for other states to bomb a country if they believe that human rights abuses are being committed there …. National sovereignty is explicitly cast aside. Many people are tricked into believing that this is a good thing because they believe that states should be prevented from committing abuses. This is true, of course, but the problem is that international organizations can commit abuses too, as nato unquestionably did in 1999. States are at least potentially subject to control by the populations over which they wield power; international organisations are never subject to any such control. Their power is therefore more, not less dangerous than that of nation states” (, Feb. 18, 2007).

The European Union, courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty (the latest in a rash of treaties that has built this monolith from its “innocuous” beginnings as the European Coal and Steel Community into a vast imperialist regime), is designated an international organization. It is controlled by unelected representatives who have no specific accountability to any electorate within its member nations. It is perhaps the most undemocratic institution on the globe.

This centralizing European organization is destined to have its own representative high commissioner, its own Ministry of Foreign Policy. It is destined to have its own diplomatic corps that will supersede the authority of the diplomats of its once-sovereign member nations. Most of its member nations have already replaced or are moving toward replacing their sovereign means of exchange with the euro. The laws and regulations enacted by the EU trump the sovereign laws of its member nations. It is now slated to have its own security council, comprised of the seven member nations with the most powerful military forces.

And the reality of this whole European project is that it is destined to have its own EU combined military force, superseding, in authority of command, the individual general staff of each EU member nation’s previously sovereign military command.

No prizes for guessing which nation is in the box seat to take on the leadership of the existing over 2-million-strong combined force that the EU potentially has at its disposal, under its High Command especially resurrected for that purpose!

Yes, the German military has come a long way since its crushing defeat in 1945 and the elimination of its High Command “forever.”

But it was all so predictable.

In 1945, even before the Allied victory over the Nazi regime, one lone voice was declaring that there were powers within Germany that had already planned for the resurgence of the German nation and military might in consequence of a defeat in World War ii. In a letter to his co-workers, dated Jan. 23, 1945, Herbert W. Armstrong had this to say: “But even though the Germans surrender, and we gain another armistice, it will be only another recess! The Nazis will go immediately underground—plotting and preparing World War iii. We shall fail to bring about world peace, because we do not know the way to world peace!

“More and more people all over this nation are beginning to see the stark, solemn, awful fate that is prophesied for this nation! It is a fate we can avoid—if, and only if—we repent of our sins—of our Babylonish customs and our ways contrary to God’s revealed laws, and turn unitedly to Almighty God for mercy, for protection, for help, for victory, and for peace!”

Does that sound “cultish” to you?

Is that statement off the planet?

Well that’s what they thought of the One through whom those prophecies were originally delivered, and all who have since followed on, preaching that message over the past two millennia. Yet the words of those prophecies about our nations are as ringingly true today as they were when they were originally received and declared. The only difference is that today we have irrefutable proof through major world events and the increasingly deteriorating conditions of our society as to their present-day reality!

Write for our booklet titled Nahum—An End-Time Prophecy for Germany, and learn more about this powerful nation and the role it is destined to play with increasingly high profile in the current decade and just beyond.