Military Occupation In Germany – Still A reality?

There are some interesting “conspiracy theories” circulating on the internet. One of them is that Germany is still occupied by the Allied Forces and that there never was a peace treaty that ended world war two officially. At least, there is no legally binding contract which is why Germany is still a country without a constitution or at least without an active constitution and occupied.

Obviously, I have already written about the dangerous “Reichsbürgerbewegung” comprised entirely of “right wing nutters” that want to overthrow the perfect government of Germany through a military coup led by Prince Reuss – who potentially is Hitler’s reincarnation – at least according to the highly objective mainstream press in Germany.

Instead of going over the usual talking points that everyone involved in this highly fruitful debate usually brings up, I decided to go straight to the source itself and take a look at the government fiscal reports to bring forth some new information that is fact-based as it comes from the holy and infallible government of Germany.

If Germany is still occupied – then there should be some evidence for this, right?

The curious case of rational journalism

Since everyone knows that government information is always correct, because only perfect human beings work for the government, I already knew the perfect place to look up the information I was searching for: the governments own websites. Only by using the immaculate information provided to me by the government can I be factually accurate – because as most fact-checkers in the main stream media outlets already know: “if you rely on alternative sources and think differently from me, you’re Hitler and a conspiracy theorist you racist f*ck, government is truth, everything else is Nazi, f*ck you.”

And I content that it’s difficult to argue with such a rational viewpoint. So, naturally, I am inclined to oblige the fact-checkers and work with government sanctioned information only, because that information is obviously always correct.

The Finanzagentur GmbH

I decided to begin my investigation looking at the website of the Finanzagentur Deutschland GmbH – which obviosly is a corporate entity, the German equivalent of a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) to be precise. This Finance agency is responsible for managing the money and debts that Germany issues and is an important piece of the German government’s financial infrastructure which is why they get the official government branding and logo on their website.

This corporate entity obviously assumes limited liability for its operations which include the maintenance of the portfolio for BUNDs – German short and long term bonds, as well as some other financial operations such as the swap market operations for German bonds and some other financial operations that pertain to operating the nation state of Germany financially.

Of course, it is somewhat odd that the first thing the site asks me is if I am a US-person, because why would US securites law matter for the soverign un-occupied nation state of Germany?

Every visitor of the Finanzagentur GmbH must agree to the terms of conditions which are that the visitor: “is not accessing the data in the name of a US person or to the benefit of a US person”, in addition to: “not sharing the data on this website with any US-person”. Weirdly, specific request, but okay.

Once you agree with the terms and conditions of the Finanzagentur GmbH you can take a look at their financial records and the types of operations they run and how they are run. They even provide you with risk profiles associated to each operation and of course – the volume of “money” that is processed by this institution in the different lending and credit swap operations they maintain.

Looking at their book, I wasn’t able to find a lot of money management, which is rather surprising given that their book refers to the listed “assets” as equity, even though it is mostly debt – but okay – nowadays money and credit are often confused with each other. The regular person, doesn’t understand the difference between debt and money and debt is definetly not money, but this is not the point of this blog post. However, since debt is a security – it would be considered a security by the SEC and that may be why the Finanzagentur GmbH is asking it’s visitors to confirm that they aren’t American, since the Finanzagentur GmbH is definetly involved in securities trading as they exclusively handle debt.

Browsing around on the website of the Finanzagentur GmbH, one can get an overview of different debts and obligations of the German state. These obligations are managed by the Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Finanzagentur GmbH and represent the equity of the German state and taxpayer. Based on their books there doesn’t seem to be any equity, since most of (if not all of) the loans are unsecured, but this is transparently provided to you by the gracious Finanzagentur GmbH in compliance with US Securities law, specifically Regulation S, which is an exception to file records with the SEC. As such, the Finanzagentur GmbH – which I highly suspect will be a trade-mark company registered in the State of Delaware, United States (Joe Biden’s State – which is an obligatory coincidence).

However, does this mean that Germany is still occupied by the United States? At this point, I am not yet sure, but let’s try to use our brains more and actually attempt to understand the regulation that is in place and why the Finanzagentur GmbH would be referencing US securities law.

US regulation in Germany – why?

As we are trying to establish if there is any evidence in the fiscal reports of the German government that might lead one to conclude that Germany could still be occupied by the Allied Forces over 70 years after World War 2 (allegedly) ended, we have to look deeper – a GmbH simply doesn’t suffice and isn’t official enough – we need data that is even more official than a GmbH that has the official branding of the German government for marketing purposes. (Marketing debt that is).

Even though I was slightly confused by the reference to US securites law on a German GmbH I decided to look deeper. As a German citizen, it does seem odd that the Finanzagentur GmbH wants to know if I am a US-person, because it should not matter. However, to claim that this is evidence for the occupation of Germany is quite a stretch, since the website references the definition of US-person from Regulation S of the U.S. Securities Act from 1933) which gives us an idea about why the Finanzagentur GmbH would be making this odd request for each site visitor.

The goal of the Securities Act is to protect investors and establish truth in securities trading – for some reason, various corporate entities that operate in the Western block (where the US dollar is important) feel the need to cite Regulation S, which is an exception for filing with the SEC under certain circumstances (for example, when the offer is made off-shore, one can be exempt from reporting the SEC). Of course, the are some plausible reasons other than US occupation for this peculiar cookie request – for example, that the dollar serves as the world reserve currency. Even though, this will not be so for much longer, the dollar has not officially been dethroned yet, and as a result everyone who has the US as a trading partner might want to make sure the SEC is happy, lest they get the ban hammer and get sanctioned like various countries have been in the past. Yes, it’s not just Russia, and no it wasn’t the first time this happened.

Naturally, everyone who depends on the USD would not want to get into trouble with the SEC and get banned from owning dollars. And since the Finanzagentur GmbH is clearly a corporate entity (GmbH is the German version of a LLC), that is engaged in corporate securities trading rather than a government entity, it would be logical for the corporate entity to try to maintain good relations with the SEC to keep their access to dollars, which is their main counter-currency when they are quoting prices for German Euro based securities. That aside, about 60% of Euro trades on the FX markets are traded against USD – so to the Finanzagentur GmbH the dollar is undiniably important. Getting barred from USD access would be quite bad for any European Securities / Financial Agency, since getting barred from dollars would have some implications for their business operations and economies. The ramifications of sudden and unexpected dollar shortages can be seen in, e.g.: Russia at the moment, a country that is much less reliant on the USD than Germany or in commodities prices which happen to fluctuate quite drastically based on some SEC or rather rash or one might even say SWIFT decisions.

Of course, I highly suspect that they are referecing US securities law, because the Finanzagentur is registered in the State of Delaware, and assume that they cite Regulation S, because they are an off-shore entity, but that is for another blog post.

However, since the Finanzagentur GmbH cleary is a commercial entity I decided to take a look elsewhere – a place that would be more official and theoretically less corporate – the German Finance Ministry.

The plot thickens

Specifically, I was interested in what the German Finance Ministry has to tell me about the equity / debt that it manages. As equity is a great indication of public wealth, I was surprised to find that nearly all of the governments “equity” was debt – which isn’t an asset, but rather a liability. Of course, today people like to pretend debt and money are the same – but I suspect that may end soon.

However, be that as it may, the German Finance Ministry does give you a report about the credit they hold on their book, which holds a sum of debt worth a total of 1.343 trillion Euros for the book year of 2021 which can be found here. Owning 1.343 trillion dollar of debt does seem rather sketchy in the absence of any real assets listed on the books, but since I am not liable for any of this I can rest easily as I won’t be the one that gets burned on the stake once the international banking cluster fuck implodes or gets printed into irrelevance. That honor will be bestowed upon other people.

Most interesting to me was a particular book entry that occurred in the most recent available book year which is 2021 (at the time of writing). This book entry has the name: “Zinsfreie Schuldverschreibung nach Militärgesetz Number 67.” I marked it with a red underlining on the image above. In English, this means: “interest-free debenture according to military law number 67”. Interestingly, a debenture would fall under the regulation of the Securties Act of 1933, but unlike the Finanzagentur GmbH the Finance Ministry does not ask me if I am a US citizen if I try to access it’s data.

The debenture in question is a liability or debt obligation that is worth a whopping 279,762,802,08 Euro for the book year 2021. This entry is listed in the column: “Fundierte Kreditmarktverbindlichkeiten” which means “sound credit (market) liability” – or in other words, “money” that the German government owes someone for the book year of 2021 under military law number 67.

At this point, I got curious, because I thought that this was a rather strange finding with an oddly specific reference to military law.

Immediately, several questions arose in my mind. What is military law 67? And perhaps, more importantly, why is the German Finance Ministry listing this debt obligation on it’s creditbook in the year 2021? World War 2 was already over right? So, why the need for this military debt obligation on the books in 2021 – Germany isn’t at war, right?

If we are no longer occupied like the government claims, would that not imply that the military law 67 should not be part of the Finance Ministry’s book entires in the year of the Lord 2021?

Reichsbürger – is there method to the madness?

Perhaps, the Reichsbürgerbewegung has a point after all, since a book entry in 2021 seems to imply that the military law and it’s associated obligations make the German government liable for expenses associated to the 67th military law’s stipulations? I had to check.

Since the entry is on the books in 2021 would this not imply that the law is still active and that the German government is still legally bound to the contractual obligation of the military law number 67? Whom does the German government owe nearly 280 million US dollars in 2021 because of military law 67? What even is military law 67?

Since this was such an intriguing question I immediately googled for the military law number 67 and found it.

Militärgesetz Number 67 refers to a law passed by the Allied forces in 1949 – the number 67 refers to this being the 67th law passed by the security council that was established after Germany lost WW2 because it’s capital (Berlin) was captured. This is under the assumption that the Treaty of the Hague is still in effect (and as Putin recently got barred from travelling abroad – much like George Bush after the Irak war) I think that this is a reasonable assumption. The Hague Treaty stipulates that a country is defeated if the enemy captures it’s capital – and that feat of strength was accomplished by Russia in 1945 – effectively ending the war.

However, what is military law 67 really about? To find out, I read and parsed the document for you and translate a bit below the following image.

Translated the text displayed above means:

Military government — Germany

American zone of control

Law number 67

Furnishing of the corporate territoty (of) Great-Berlin with money.

The military governors and supreme commanders of the British, French and American Zone have agreed that the Bank of the German federal states, has to supply the corporate territory (of) Great Berlin with the amounts in German marks that this territory has to receive in compliance with the ordinance of the commanders of the French, the British and American sectors of the corporate territory (of) Great Berlin as previously agreed on by and with the consent of the military governors and commanders-in-chief on March 20, 1949 ordinance that came into force on the establishment of the Berlin Central Bank. 

I won’t translate all the individual articles of the title, but as the headline of the title suggests, the title is establishing rules for banking on the corporate territory of Great-Berlin and establishes the form of payment which the Allies are supposed to receive from the central bank in Berlin (which they established in military law 60). Of course, the German central bank is still in Berlin today – though it has become less important, because now there is also the ECB in Frankfurt, which is a stealing all the attention away from the Bundesbank in Berlin and is the place where the big bucks are made nowadays.

Interestingly, since the central bank in Berlin is a result of the military government of the Allied forces and since the German Finance Ministry is still carrying the debt obligations of military law number 67 on it’s book today, one must conclude that this law is still in effect and that Germany is still occupied.

This makes sense, since this is also mentioned in the non-constitution of Germany, the Grundgesetz (Basic Law), because Article 139 of the Grundgesetz let’s us know that: “The legal regulations enacted for the “liberation of the German people from National Socialism and militarism” are not affected by the provisions of this Basic Law (Grundgesetz). Since the basic law doesn’t affect the military laws that were put into place to denazify Germany at all one must not be surprised that the German government is still paying and holding the debt obligation on its book. Instead, from the wording of the text that is what one would expect to happen if Germany was still occupied.

So, there you have it folks, Germany is still paying for it’s occupation under corporate rules and regulation established in 1949.

Ironically, or rather unironically, the current government in Berlin is actually acting like Nazis – so I have to agree with the assertion that Germany has not yet been denazified as the Grundgesetz mentions. Since the article is still in effect and since the German government is still paying for the maintenance of the military law 67 in 2021. Perhaps, this explains Annalena Baerbock’s fashion choice at the Qatar World Cup 2022? Remember the armband? Who else hused to wear one of those?

What’s the relevance?

If you think this is boring and not relevant, because it is outdated, I submit to you that you are wrong. In WW2 Portugal managed to stay neutral based on a treaty they signed with England 550 years prior. That treaty established the Portuguese British Alliance – and since Britain did not ask Portugal to join WW2, Portugal stayed neutral (feel free to fact check me – I am right). Thus, one should not dismiss the notion that contracts that were signed decades ago are no longer in effect – especially when it comes to national geopolitics – contracts signed on the national scale can have ramifications for centuries (e.g.: the US constitution – which is sort of a contract – though not really as it lacks counter party signature). Nonewithstanding, that document still has huge ramifications today though it’s over 250 years old. Thusly, I submit to you – things signed centuries ago could still be important today!

As Germany still has to liberate itself from Nazism according to the Basic Law – one has to wonder what the consequences of the Russian denazification effort of Ukraine mean for European geopolitics. This question will be explored in future blog posts and those will be highly entertaining and informative bringing to you premium content you will find nowhere else!

Of course, with all the Nazis moving to the Soviet Union and the United States after WW2 to continue their WW2 projects there is still a lot of things that have to be seeded into the public consciousness before Germany can become a free country again and complete it’s denazification process.

Unfortunately, my country was the first country that was captured by the Nazis because they elevated a foreign national at the helm of our government somehow (I could be more specific, but won’t be in this blog post). A foreign national winning a national election was of course illegal, but somehow it still happened and somehow Hitler was still treated as the countries ruler – though there was 0 legality involved in the entire operation. This is a familiar story of course, since Napolean was Italian when he took over France, while Stalin was Georgian when he took over Russia. Some people, may even assert that a specific political figure in recent history could have been from Kenya when he took over some other country – but that is a different story and of course totally unrelated to Nazis and their financiers who may be quite established in British banking due to a certain incident in Waterloo that they managed to exploit due to a superior intelligence network which gave them an edge based on information about the outcome of that battle.

Be this as it may, this is not a blog post to scare people, this is a blog post to bring hope to people, because we are in times of change.

As a German I am hopeful, that we may finally be able to put the world back together after proper denazification so that we may finally get our country back. As a result I expect a transition to a world of peace rather than war – even though it may not seem to be this way right now. Letting people know that we are still occupied is just a small piece of the puzzle, and there are many stories that still need to be toldWe shall see what the future brings as the future proves the past, because with time the event of the past can be understood from the perspective of the future. The veil is lifted and the uncertainty is reduced so to say. As my favourite German-American has said:

The best is yet to come.

2 thoughts on “Military Occupation In Germany – Still A reality?”

  1. I enjoy your website, obviously, but you should check the spelling on a number of your posts. A number of them have numerous spelling errors, which makes it difficult for me to tell the truth, but I will definitely return.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *