Important Questions about the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)
What the German people should know about their state

1. Historical and Legal Classification of the FRG
   The FRG was founded in 1949 under the supervision of the Western Allies. It is not the legal successor of the German Reich but a partial state with a provisional Basic Law. The Federal Constitutional Court confirmed in 1973: The German Reich continues to exist as a subject of international law – the FRG is not its full successor state.
2. No Full Sovereignty
   To this day, doubts remain about the full sovereignty of the FRG:

• Enemy State Clause: Articles 53 & 107 of the UN Charter still list Germany as a former enemy state.
• No Peace Treaties: Germany has not concluded a comprehensive peace treaty with the Allies.
• Foreign Military Bases: US bases such as Ramstein are not subject to German law.

3. Basic Law or Genuine Constitution?
   The Basic Law was never adopted by the people. Article 146 GG leaves open the possibility that a genuine constitution is to be created by the sovereign people. Such a referendum has never taken place.
4. Media Taboos and Opinion Formation
   Terms like “self-determination,” “peace treaty,” or “constitution by the people” are often defamed. Critical voices that refer to international law are regularly portrayed as extremist – even though their arguments are legally well-founded.
5. External Influence

• EU, NATO, UN: Many German laws are aligned with supranational directives.
• WEF, WHO: Private organizations exert indirect influence on politics and media.
• NGOs and transatlantic networks: Shape debates and funding in line with global agendas.

6. Property, Resources, Gold Reserves
   A large portion of Germany’s gold reserves is held abroad. Over recent decades, German infrastructure has been widely privatized – including the postal service, railways, housing, and energy supply. Repatriation or restructuring has not yet occurred.
7. Judiciary and Administration
   The separation of powers in Germany is, according to many critics, limited. Judges are appointed along party lines, and the independence of the judiciary is regularly questioned. Many authorities operate without transparency or a citizen-oriented approach.
8. The Demands of the National Liberation Movement (NBB)

• Convening a constituent national assembly in accordance with Article 146 GG
• Full restoration of national sovereignty
• Ending external influence on media, education, justice, and politics
• Referendums on matters of peace policy, neutrality, and identity

The FRG must be reformed – based on international law and the free will of the German people.

1. Legal and Historical Clarification of Germany’s Statehood

The legal question of Germany’s statehood is central to any discussion on sovereignty, constitution, and international law. It is necessary to distinguish between three historical constructs:

• German Reich (1871–1945): A state entity recognized under international law that did not cease to exist after 1945.
• Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) (since 1949): A provisional partial state with limited sovereignty, founded under Allied supervision.
• German Democratic Republic (GDR) (1949–1990): Also a partial state, which joined the FRG in 1990 (not a reunification in the constitutional sense).

Continuation of the German Reich

In its ruling of July 31, 1973 (BVerfGE 36, 1 – “Solange II”), the Federal Constitutional Court stated:

“The German Reich continues to exist and has not perished […] it has merely become incapable of acting as an overall state.”

This constitutes recognition under international law that the FRG is not the legal successor, but rather shares partial identity with the German Reich. The German Reich was not a “Nazi state” but a complex historical state entity that was misused.

No New Foundation of Germany in 1990

With the accession of the GDR to the FRG on October 3, 1990, no constitutional refoundation of Germany took place. The FRG was simply extended to include the former GDR territories. A constituent referendum in accordance with Article 146 GG never occurred.

Unresolved Questions in International Law

• Why was Germany never newly constituted under international law?
• Why does a comprehensive peace treaty still not exist?
• Why does the enemy state clause in the UN Charter remain in force?

These questions show: the German statehood issue remains legally unresolved – it has never been conclusively settled by an act under international law.

Conclusion

The FRG is a construct under Allied supremacy that, formally, still lacks full sovereignty under international law. The German Reich continues to exist – legally, though not militarily or politically.

A constituent national assembly would be the logical next step toward the creation of a sovereign German state legitimized by its people.

2. What Is the Role of the Allies Today?

Although the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) is officially regarded as a sovereign state, de facto and legal structures of influence by the former World War II victors—especially the United States—still persist.

2.1. Military Presence on German Soil

• USA: Over 30,000 U.S. soldiers are permanently stationed in Germany (e.g., Ramstein, Wiesbaden, Stuttgart).
• U.S. Bases: Ramstein Air Base functions as a global command center for drone operations.
• Nuclear Weapons: U.S. nuclear bombs are stored in Büchel (Rhineland-Palatinate) – against the expressed will of many citizens.

These facilities are not under full control of German authorities. From the standpoint of international law, they represent special rights of the occupying powers.

2.2. Control Rights under the Occupation Statute

Until 1990, many laws of the FRG required approval from the Allies. Even after reunification, it was never publicly clarified which rights were fully rescinded.

One notable example is the so-called “Secret Supplementary Agreement” to the Paris Treaties (1954), which allegedly granted the Allies a say in media oversight – a matter that remains opaque to this day.

2.3. Intelligence Cooperation

• NSA Affair (2013): The FRG was a target of extensive surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies – including the highest levels of government.
• BND: Numerous revelations demonstrate close coordination with the CIA and NSA – including the transfer of German state data.
• “Five Eyes”: Germany is not an official member but effectively cooperates with the Anglo-Saxon intelligence alliance.

2.4. Legally Unresolved: The Missing Peace Treaty

To date, there is no comprehensive peace treaty between Germany and all former wartime adversaries. The “Two Plus Four Treaty” of 1990 does not fully substitute such a treaty.

The enemy state clauses in the UN Charter (Articles 53 and 107) remain in effect. Theoretically, they permit sanctions or actions against Germany without a resolution from the UN Security Council.

Conclusion

The FRG remains embedded in a web of dependencies arising from military presence, intelligence coordination, and diplomatic influence.

True sovereignty requires the dismantling of these postwar structures.

3. Basic Law – Interim Solution or Legitimate Constitution?

The Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG) was introduced on May 23, 1949 – not as a final constitution, but as a transitional solution under Western Allied supervision. It was drafted by the Parliamentary Council but never adopted by the German people in a free referendum.

3.1. Origins of the Basic Law

• Drafted on behalf of the Western occupying powers (USA, Great Britain, France)
• Passed by state parliaments, not through a popular vote
• Described in the preamble as valid “for a transitional period”

3.2. Article 146 – The Mandate for a Constitution

Article 146 GG explicitly states:

“This Basic Law shall cease to apply on the day on which a constitution freely adopted by the German people takes effect.”

To date, no such constitution has been adopted through a free vote by the people. Thus, the Basic Law is formally not a constitutionally legitimate social contract.

3.3. Difference: Basic Law vs. Constitution

Feature	Basic Law	Constitution
Referendum	No	Yes (mandatory)
Origin	Allied control, Parliamentary Council	Directly legitimized by the people
Scope of Application	West Germany (from 1949), All of Germany (from 1990)	National foundational framework

3.4. What the Basic Law Lacks

• No democratic origin by the people
• No clear territorial definition of Germany
• No constituent national assembly
• Unclear status of Allied reserve rights

Conclusion

The Basic Law was a constitution-like compromise, but not a constitution in the sense of international law. The demand for a genuine constitution adopted by the people remains unfulfilled to this day – and is explicitly envisaged by Article 146 GG.

4. Public Obfuscation vs. Constitutional Reality

The debate about Germany’s sovereignty, the absence of a constitution, and the role of the Allies is often avoided, downplayed, or discredited in politics and the media. Yet these are central questions of democratic self-determination.

4.1. Taboo Instead of Enlightenment

• Those who refer to Article 146 GG or the UN Charter are often labeled as “conspiracy theorists.”
• The term “self-determination of the people” is politically associated with extremism – despite being anchored in international law.
• Debates about the missing peace treaty, Allied influence, or the Basic Law are rarely addressed in mainstream media.

4.2. Why Is It Being Obscured?

Many political and economic structures depend on the stability of the status quo. An open discussion about Germany’s legal status under international law would entail:

• A fundamental reassessment of the FRG as a state
• Questioning of existing alliances (EU, NATO)
• Disclosure of historical and legal gaps in the state’s founding

4.3. Media Power and Interpretive Authority

Media opinion formation in Germany is largely shaped by major, state-affiliated networks. These include:

• Public broadcasters (ARD, ZDF): state-funded and staffed by broadcasting councils with party representatives
• Transatlantic networks: e.g., Atlantik-Brücke, German Marshall Fund
• Fact-checkers and NGO actors: often funded by government or corporate sources

4.4. Lack of Public Debate

Although Article 146 GG allows for a new constitution, there is no governmental initiative to start such a process. Likewise, the education system rarely addresses issues of national identity, sovereignty, or international law.

Conclusion

A free, democratic state must allow open discussions about its foundations. Obscuring constitutional realities undermines public trust in the state, media, and institutions.

Only an honest debate about Germany’s international legal status can lead to secure and legitimate self-determination in the long term.

5. Media Power & Opinion Formation

Opinion formation in Germany is significantly shaped by a centralized media landscape, which is, in many areas, state-funded or politically aligned. A truly independent and pluralistic media culture exists only to a limited extent.

5.1. Public Broadcasting

• ARD, ZDF, and Deutschlandfunk are financed through mandatory fees (the “broadcasting contribution”).
• The governing bodies of these broadcasters include representatives from political parties, churches, and organizations.
• Criticism: “State proximity” and lack of balance on geopolitical, constitutional, and sovereignty-related topics.

5.2. Private Mainstream Media & Transatlantic Networks

Many major media companies are members of networks such as:

• Atlantik-Brücke
• German Marshall Fund
• Aspen Institute

These organizations promote transatlantic narratives that are rarely questioned. Critical voices regarding NATO, the USA, WHO, or WEF are often labeled as “conspiracy” or “disinformation.”

5.3. Diversity of Opinion or Uniformity?

Instead of a culture of free debate, there is a tendency toward homogenized opinion:

• “Fact-checkers” monitor dissenting opinions and cooperate with digital platforms.
• Social media platforms are censored – under the pretext of “combating disinformation.”
• Government, NGOs, and private corporations actively influence digital discourse.

5.4. Educational Media and School Textbooks

School education also conveys a strongly simplified understanding of the state. Critical reflection on the Basic Law, the UN Charter, or Article 146 GG is rarely addressed in curricula.

Conclusion

A functioning democracy requires free, pluralistic, and controversial media. As long as certain topics are excluded or defamed, the people cannot gain a comprehensive understanding of the state of their nation.

Freedom of the press also means allowing criticism of the state – not suppressing it.

6. The Issue of Peace Treaties and International Law

A central yet largely ignored topic in Germany’s postwar history is the absence of a binding peace treaty under international law. This concerns both Germany’s sovereignty and its international legal status within the global community.

6.3. International Legal Perspectives

International law recognizes the right of peoples to self-determination as a fundamental principle:

• UN Charter, Article 1(2): “Respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”
• UN Resolution 1514 (XV) – 1960: Ending colonial structures
• UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) – 1970: The right of every people to freely determine their political status

These principles do not apply solely to colonies – they are universal, and therefore apply to the German people as well.

6.4. Relevance for Germany

As long as there is no peace treaty and no constitution legitimized by the people, Germany’s international legal status remains open and disputed. This is not an extremist claim, but a justified and legally grounded observation.

Conclusion

The lack of a peace settlement and the continued presence of postwar structures clearly indicate: Germany remains in a special international legal status that has not been politically resolved.

The National Liberation Movement calls for legal clarification under international law through a true constitution by the people and a sovereignty treaty negotiated as equals with the global community.

7. Fate of State Property, Gold Reserves, and Reparations

Another central but rarely discussed aspect of Germany’s postwar history concerns the fate of state property, assets, and gold reserves of the German Reich. Questions surrounding reparations and expropriations also remain largely unresolved.

7.1. Assets of the German Reich

After 1945, extensive assets of the German Reich were seized or divided by the Allies – including real estate, rail lines, industrial facilities, and cultural treasures.

• Many of these assets were never officially accounted for or returned within the Federal Republic.
• Some of the property was quietly absorbed into federal ownership without any new regulation under international law.

7.2. German Gold Reserves

According to the Bundesbank, Germany holds approximately 3,355 tons of gold (as of 2023) – stored across locations in Frankfurt, New York, London, and Paris.

• A significant portion is held outside of German jurisdiction – including at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York.
• Questions concerning full repatriation, auditing, and control of these gold reserves remain unanswered.

7.3. Reparations and Compensation Claims

Unresolved claims from World War II persist to this day:

• Greece continues to demand reparations in the billions.
• Poland has officially asserted claims exceeding €1.3 trillion.
• The FRG refers to an allegedly “settled arrangement” – yet a binding peace treaty under international law is still missing.

7.4. Expropriations in the East

With the establishment of the GDR, systematic expropriations of private property and Reich assets took place – particularly in agriculture and industry.

• Many former property owners were never compensated.
• Ownership rights were not fully clarified in the Unification Treaty.

Conclusion

The question of Germany’s national assets remains legally unresolved. The national substance – in the form of property, gold, and cultural heritage – has neither been fully accounted for nor legally secured.

The National Liberation Movement (NBB) calls for full transparency regarding all state assets and an international legal resolution of property rights, reparations, and compensation.

8. Rule of Law or Administrative Structure?

The Federal Republic of Germany is internationally regarded as a democratic rule-of-law state. However, upon closer examination, one must ask: Is it truly a constitutional state with democratic legitimacy – or rather an administrative structure based on a Basic Law not ratified by popular vote?

8.1. Definition of a Rule-of-Law State

A rule-of-law state means that governmental actions are bound by law, organized through separation of powers, and subject to independent judicial oversight.

• A core principle: All state authority emanates from the people (Art. 20 para. 2 GG).
• Prerequisite: A constitution legitimately adopted by the people.

8.2. Administrative Reality of the FRG

• The FRG is not a republic with its own adopted constitution but relies on the Basic Law of 1949 as a “temporary solution.”
• Many core institutions function as administrative bodies (with agency status), lacking constitutional legitimacy.
• The term “FRG” is not legally defined – there is no foundational document in the classical sense.

8.3. Federal States as Administrative Units?

Even the federal states are based on Allied administrative boundaries. Many areas – especially in the new federal states – were restructured after 1990 without historical legitimacy.

8.4. Judiciary and Trust Structures?

There are ongoing questions about whether German courts are truly independent and constitutionally established – or merely administrative extensions.

• Many courts and authorities are listed in commercial registers or under DUNS numbers (economic identifiers).
• Numerous institutions operate as public-law entities – not as sovereign state bodies under international law.

Conclusion

A genuine rule-of-law state requires constitutional legitimacy by the people, transparent separation of powers, and legal clarity regarding the structure of the state.

The National Liberation Movement (NBB) calls for an open legal review of the current state structure and the initiation of a constitutional process under Article 146 GG.