Posts Tagged ‘Germany’

Outbreak of World War II (1939)

Saturday, November 10th, 2012

In late August 1939, Hitler and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, which incited a frenzy of worry in London and Paris. Hitler had long planned an invasion of Poland, a nation to which Great Britain and France had guaranteed military support if it was attacked by Germany. The pact with Stalin meant that Hitler would not face a war on two fronts once he invaded Poland, and would have Soviet assistance in conquering and dividing the nation itself. On September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland from the west; two days later, France and Britain declared war on Germany, beginning World War II.

On September 17, Soviet troops invaded Poland from the east. Under attack from both sides, Poland fell quickly, and by early 1940 Germany and the Soviet Union had divided control over the nation, according to a secret protocol appended to the Nonaggression Pact. Stalin’s forces then moved to occupy the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and defeated a resistant Finland in the Russo-Finish War. During the six months following the invasion of Poland, the lack of action on the part of Germany and the Allies in the west led to talk in the news media of a “phony war.” At sea, however, the British and German navies faced off in heated battle, and lethal German U-boat submarines struck at merchant shipping bound for Britain, sinking more than 100 vessels in the first four months of World War II.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Greece will have to wait for next round of cash – German minister

Friday, November 9th, 2012

Germany, the pillar of European economic stability, is skeptical that Athens will receive the next tranche of aid “in the coming weeks,” despite painful new austerity measures adopted this week in Greek Parliament.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, one of the main architects of the Greek response team, warned Thursday that it is unlikely that Greece will reach a quick deal with its international creditors on the next credit line.

“At the moment I do not see the decisions being made” that are required for a definitive agreement between the Troika of international auditors examining Greece’s finances and the Greek government, he told a conference in Hamburg.

Despite the poor assessment, the minister welcomed Athens’ new measures, which were approved on Wednesday, by saying that Greece has “a pro-European majority and it held last night despite demonstrations and a general strike. All is not lost – all is not won either, but we have no use for cynicism… the Greeks want to remain in the euro.” 

This is a conclusion with which many Greeks seem to disagree, as massive demonstrations ahead of Wednesday’s vote erupted in the capital. At least 100 people were detained as police used tear gas and water cannons to disperse a crowd that voiced anger against a rise in the retirement age to 67, cuts to minimum wage and benefit reductions.

While the rallies pushed forth with their demands, Greek Parliament agreed by a narrow margin to €18.5 billion in budget cuts demanded by creditors.

Now Greece awaits the €31.5-billion tranche of aid from the Troika – the European Central Bank, European Union and the International Monetary Fund, its fourth emergency loan package in three years.

Economics analyst Antonis Vradis says the massive new loan will simply create more debt for the country.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

In World First, Twitter Blocks Neo-Nazi Account in Germany

Saturday, October 20th, 2012

Using its country-specific content-blocking tool for the first time, Twitter has shut down access to a neo-Nazi group’s account in Germany.

“Never want to withhold content; good to have tools to do it narrowly & transparently,” Alex Macgillivray, Twitter’s general counseltweeted last night. “We announced the ability to withhold content back in Jan. We’re using it now for the first time re: a group deemed illegal in Germany.”

Dirk Hensen, a spokesman for Twitter, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the account @hannoverticker has been blocked only in Germany, where its content is considered illegal.

Twitter’s content-blocking tool is designed to enable the micro-blogging site to remove illegal content in a particular country, while allowing it to remain available for everyone else.

According to AP, the @hannoverticker account is used by a far-right fringe group—Besseres Hannover—which officials from the German state of Lower Saxony banned last month, saying it promotes Nazi ideals in an attempt to undermine Germany’s democracy.

Lower Saxony officials sent Twitter a letter, which the site posted, asking the site to “close this account immediately and not to open any substitute accounts for the organisation ‘Besseres Hannover.’“

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Oswald Boelcke

Monday, October 15th, 2012

Oswald Boelcke (1891-1916) was one of Germany‘s most successful fighter pilots until his death in 1916.

Boelcke opened his military career in a telegraph unit in 1911.  The outbreak of war in 1914 however brought him a transfer to the Flying Corps.

Regarded by many as the father of air combat – concerned with fighter tactics based upon aircraft formation rather than upon the characteristics of any individual machine – by 1916 Boelcke had amassed more ‘kills’ than any other German pilot, many above the Verdun battlefield.

Following Max Immelmann’s death at the hands of George McCubbin on 18 June 1916 Kaiser Wilhelm II ordered that Boelcke be grounded for a month in order to avoid the potential loss of two national heroes within short order.  Following a spell in the Balkans he eventually returned to combat duty at his own request in July 1916 above the Somme battlefields.

Revered at home in Germany disaster struck on 28 October 1916 – four months after Immelmann’s death – when Boelcke’s aircraft struck another German machine during a dogfight with the British and French while he attempted to avoid a French aircraft.

With his aircraft disabled Boelcke crash-landed behind German lines.  He died on impact.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Far-right singer goes on trial for song praising killing of immigrants in Germany

Monday, October 15th, 2012

The lead singer of a far-right band is on trial for incitement for a song praising the killing of immigrants by neo-Nazis.

Daniel G., 42, went on trial Monday in Meppen administrative court in Lower Saxony. He faces a possible five years in prison if convicted for singing the “Doner Killer Song,” which appeared on a 2010 CD entitled “Adolf Hitler Lives.”

The song praises killings of 10 people, primarily Turkish small businessmen, between 2000 and 2007, known in German media as the “doner killings” after the popular Turkish food.

It was not known then that neo-Nazis were allegedly behind the killings. That came to light in November after two core members were found dead after a murder-suicide and the third turned herself in.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Bombers: Germany, Zeppelins

Saturday, October 13th, 2012

Balloonshad been used in wars prior to the First World War, notably by the Americans in the civil war and the French during the siege of Paris in 1870.  This technology had been advanced by the development of dirigibles – cigar shaped airships with frames, containing many gas balloons.  Powered with multiple engines, these craft could be flown in specific directions rather than just follow the direction of the wind.

Germany had two dirigible manufacturers, the Schutte-Lanz Company, and the larger and better known Zeppelin Company.  The latter was headed by Ferdinand von Zeppelin, the world’s foremost designer of airships.  To this day his name remains synonymous with dirigibles in general.

Airships of his design had already proven themselves capable of flying as far as England and back.  This fact was not lost on the Allies, who from the very outset targeted the airship sheds.  It was also not lost on the British public, where rumours and reported sightings of Zeppelins were frequent, though unfounded, throughout 1914.

At the outbreak of the war the German army had six operational dirigibles, and the navy had one.  The army was quick to experiment with them – bombing Liege and Antwerp - despite the fact that at this stage no specially designed aerial bombs existed.  But the army’s initial experience was not encouraging – they lost three airships in the first months of the war to anti aircraft fire.

Despite this the navy was very enthusiastic.  They saw the Zeppelin as a solution to their reconnaissance problems.  If the army traditionally used the cavalry for reconnaissance, the navy traditionally used the light cruiser.  Germany had very few such ships, and an airship was viewed as being cheaper and less vulnerable.

Framework of a Zeppelin shot down over England, 23 Sep 1916Under the command of Korvettenkapitan Peter Strasser the navy quickly acquired more airships.  Throughout 1914 these were used for reconnaissance patrols over the North Sea, but the German Admiralty was pressing for permission to use them for attacks against England.  The Kaiser, somewhat reluctantly, granted such permission and on the 19th of January the Germans carried out the first Zeppelin raid against Britain, killing two and injuring sixteen.

This was the first of many raids, which continued at a rate of about two per month, in parallel with the continuing reconnaissance patrols.  The German Admiralty was very enthusiastic about the results, and asked for permission to bomb London.  This was only granted by the Kaiser after a series of raids by French bombers on German cities.  On the 31st of May 1915 the first raid was carried out against London, killing seven and injuring thirty five.

The most successful Zeppelin raid on London in the entire war was on the 8th of September 1915.  This raid caused more than half a million pounds of damage, almost all of it from the one Zeppelin, the L13, which managed to bomb central London.  This single raid caused more than half the material damage caused by all the raids against Britain in 1915.

On the night of 6-7 June 1915 Rex Warneford, a lieutenant in the RNAS, flying a Morane-Saulnier, was on a bombing mission against the Zeppelin sheds at Evere.  When he spotted a Zeppelin returning from a bombing raid against London he decided to attack it.  He tried shooting his carbine at it, his only armament, but he was driven off by the Zeppelin’s defensive machine guns.

The airship began climbing, leaving the little plane behind, but Warneford, unbeknown to the Zeppelin crew, continued the pursuit, climbing slowly over two hours to an altitude of 13,000 feet.  At this stage the airship began to descend in the direction of Brussels, and seizing his opportunity Warneford, now above the Zeppelin, dived towards it and from about two hundred feet above he dropped his six bombs on its roof.

Effects of Zeppelin attack on AntwerpThe resultant explosion destroyed the Zeppelin, and almost destroyed Warneford’s fragile monoplane.

He was forced to put the plane down, behind enemy lines, but he managed to make sufficient emergency repairs to take off again and return to his base.  LZ 37 was the first Zeppelin brought down by an airplane.

Warneford was awarded the Victoria Cross by the British, and the Knight’s Cross of the Legion d’Honneur by the French, but his triumph was short-lived.  He was killed ten days later in a flying accident.

This was an isolated incident.  Throughout the remainder of 1915 the Zeppelins raided London frequently, and with impunity.  They flew too high for most planes, and when they were intercepted by aircraft the ammunition in use at the time had little effect.  Despite this impunity the material effect of the raids, with the exception of L13′s success, was relatively slight.

Navigation was very primitive, and as the war progressed the British use of blackouts made it even harder.  Bomb aiming was far from accurate.  It is estimated that only 10% of the bombs dropped from Zeppelins actually hit their target.  The psychological impact of these raids, however, was enough to cause the British to tie up 12 squadrons on home defence.

The Germans also bombed Paris.  The first raid was on 21st of March, when two Zeppelins caused 23 deaths and injured 30.  Although the Zeppelins continued to raid Paris, London was actually a preferred and easier target.  The nearest Zeppelin base to Paris was at Metz, which meant flying close to 320 km (200 miles) over French territory each way, giving the defending airforce and anti-aircraft guns much more time to organize.

Raids against London had to cover nearly twice the distance, but most of the approach was over friendly territory and the sea.  Paris was also protected by barrage balloons, a measure only taken by the British later in the war.

Ferdinand von Zeppelin1916 did not start well for the Zeppelins.  Four of them were lost carrying out bombing raids during the Battle of Verdun, and this marked the last use of airships for tactical bombing.  But Strasser remained confident.  The Zeppelin factory was producing a new generation of airships – larger, more powerful, and with more engines.

But it was also a year of change on the British side as well.  Disappointment with the RNAS’ failure to stop the Zeppelins resulted in the responsibility of home defence being given to the RFC.  Happily for them this coincided with the arrival of improved ammunition.

Towards mid 1916 the British planes were armed with a mixture of explosive and incendiary bullets.  This mixture would prove to be deadly to the airships: the explosive bullets could pierce the Zeppelin’s tough outer skin and cause leaks on the inner gas bags.  The incendiary bullets could set those leaks on fire, and once on fire a Zeppelin was doomed.

William Leefe-Robinson, flying a BE2c, was the first to shoot down a dirigible over Britain, on the 2nd of September, 1916.  The massive fire of the burning airship was visible for over a hundred miles.  This was during a raid of twelve naval airships which were, somewhat unusually, accompanied by four army airships.  Leefe-Robinson became an instant hero.  He survived the war, only to die a month later in the influenza epidemic.

Strasser’s confidence remained unshaken.  Leefe-Robinson had shot down the SL11.  It was an army airships, not one of Strasser’s, and moreover an old Schutte-Lanz dirigible with a wooden frame.

William Leefe-RobinsonBut Strasser’s confidence was misplaced.  Three weeks later he was to lose two airships, out of a total of twelve taking part in a raid.  There were no comforting explanations.  They were naval airships.  They were the most up to date Zeppelins available.

The L33 had been hit by anti aircraft fire.  She did not catch fire, but she was forced to land in England.  The crew all survived, and set her alight before capture.  The L32 was shot down by a plane, and as in the case of Leefe-Robinson’s SL11, it caught fire.  Nor were these the last losses in 1916.

Despite flying almost four times as many sorties as in 1915, and dropping almost five times as many bombs, Strasser’s fleet caused only about two thirds as much damage as they had in 1915.

The German military was becoming disillusioned with the Zeppelins, and began using the new Gotha and Giant bombers to attack Britain, but Strasser remained convinced.  The answer was to fly higher, above the defending aircraft.  Thus was conceived the third generation of Zeppelins, the “Height Climbers”, airships capable of reaching an altitude of 20,000 feet.

In order to reach these heights defensive armaments were reduced, as was the strength of the frame.  Flying at such altitudes produced a whole new set of problems.  The extreme cold and thin oxygen affected both the engines, and the crew’s capability to function.

Bomb aiming and navigation became even harder.  But with the renewed immunity the height seemed to offer, it seemed worth the price.  Indeed, when on the night of October 19th 1917 a fleet of eleven Height-Climbers crossed the English coast they were too high to be heard, and their raid was a total surprise.

But on the return journey, over the European mainland, almost half the airships were shot down by British and French fighter aircraft as they descended towards landing.  The L55 had attempted to avoid this risk by keeping at 20,000 feet till it had cleared the western front, but this caused other problems.  The morning sun heating the hydrogen forced the L55 to a record-breaking 24,000 feet.  With most of the crew disabled by oxygen deprivation it was a struggle to bring her under almost partial control.  The L55 crash landed in central Germany.

The total amount of material damage caused by the airships in 1917 was less than 90,000 pounds.

1918 started badly for the beleaguered airship fleet, when a series of unexplained explosions at the airship base in Ahlhorn blew up four Height-Climbers, one Schutte-Lanz airship, and four sheds.  German manufacturing by this time had been greatly reduced, and they could not replenish such losses.

Hugo Eckener, Ferdinand von Zeppelin, Peter StrasserOn the 5th of August Strasser himself led the last big raid against Britain, leading a fleet of five Height-Climbers.  Strasser was flying in L70 – his most advanced airship, capable, he hoped, of flying bombing missions against New York.  But by this time the British had aircraft that could operate at about 20,000 feet as well, and L70 succumbed to a two man DH4 piloted by Egbert Cadbury.  (He was a member of the famous chocolate manufacturing family.)

The fatal shots were fired by his gunner, Robert Leckie, whose hands were almost frozen because he had not had time to put on gloves when he and Cadbury had scrambled to chase the Zeppelins.  The rest of the airships dropped their bombs on what they thought were “targets of opportunity”, but in fact they dropped them in the sea.

The Zeppelin attacks had a profound psychological impact on the Allies.  The Germans were ordered, under the treaty of Versailles, to hand over all their airships, but their crews preferred to destroy as many of them as they could.

The need to tie up numerous squadron in home defence can be marked as the Zeppelin’s greatest achievement, for as a weapon of war they proved themselves unsatisfactory.  Of the 115 Zeppelins employed by the Germans, 53 were destroyed and a further 24 were too damaged to be operational.  Strasser’s crews suffered a 40% loss rate.  The cost of constructing those 115 Zeppelins was approximately five times the cost of the damage they inflicted.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

The War in the Air

Friday, October 12th, 2012

Aircraft technology was little over a decade old when ArchdukeFranz Ferdinand’sassassination in late June 1914 ultimately resulted in the outbreak of ‘The Great War‘ a month later.

Initially deemed of little use to the armed services other than in a reconnaissance role, aircraft development exploded during wartime (all too often literally).  For example, France had fewer than 140 aircraft when her war against Germany began; four years later that number had ballooned to approximately 4,500.

This section of the website examines the role of the aircraft and associated technologies during the First World War, viewed from all sides.  In addition to an exploration of aircraft innovations – such as deflector and interrupter gear – the planes themselves are summarised, from fighter aircraft to bombers to Zeppelins to naval aircraft; and biographies are available for a great many of the war’s air aces and commanders.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

The Battle of Sandfontein, 1914

Thursday, October 11th, 2012

The campaigns in Africa, especially in the deserts of Namibia, were dominated by supplies, or lack thereof, of water.

South African General Sir Henry Lukin ought to have realized that the Germans wouldn’t let the wells of Sandfontein be captured without a fight the moment his column, known as Force A, occupied the watering hole in early September, but it didn’t unduly concern him or any of the British colony’s generals.

The commander of Germany‘s Schutztruppe (colonial defence force), Heydebreck, was a far better tactician and general.  The Schutztruppe of German South West Africa would provide a brilliant resistance that would incorporate native troops, German troops, and aircraft into a problematic front for the British high command.

Command of the German colony would make a Boer rebellion under Manie Maritz a possibility that would deny Great Britain many South African reinforcements in vital fronts such as 1914 Belgium and France, and East Africa.

In the end, however, numbers prevailed and in June 1915 the colony was surrendered by governor Seitz to Boer general Botha who commanded 60,000 troops and acted as the British representative.

The 1914 portion of the campaign was marked mainly with a string of German victories, despite the landing of 8,000 enemy troops at Luederitzbucht.  The most notable of these battles took place at Sandfontein, and opened on 26 September 1914.  The British, both Lukin and Colonel Grant, ought to have detected the German trap, but fortunately for the Germans they were entirely ignorant of it.

A large force of 135 officers, 2,463 soldiers, and 522 natives 4 thirteen pounder guns and 4,347 animals marched to the water.  The men had gone a long time in the hot sun without water, and the animals were near collapse from dehydration, and consequently little protection was set up as all the men and animals stood gathering water, with the entire formation exposed to the surrounding heights where the Germans hid.

The Germans pounced with a lesser force of 1,700 riflemen, mostly native, but all officers were German, and 4 machine gun teams and 10 artillery pieces.  After stocking up on water, a patrol was sent out, and soon returned with heavy losses and under heavy fire.  The Schutztruppe laid down a deadly cover of machine gun fire and advanced through the rocky hills toward the enemy at the wells.

Colonel Grant, whose force had come to reinforce Lukin’s small police garrison, now took command.  He made an organized and successful retreat to a defensive perimeter around the nearby Kopje mountain.  There was only a small building there and it was turned into a hospital and stable for the animals.  Mobility for the South Africans became a major problem with heavy machine gun fire pouring all over the mountain, one of the German guns was extremely well placed and had an excellent range of fire with good defences and caused significant numbers of casualties.

The South Africans soon found that their telephone lines back to Ramans Drift had all been cut.  They were surrounded with no way to call for reinforcements.  The South African artillery, placed near the base of the mountain next to the improvised hospital, opened up and stung back at the Germans, but the German artillery returned with greater fire.  The South African guns may have been outnumbered, but they continually repositioned and were extremely effective in determining range.  They returned far more fire than expected, but were eventually knocked out.

The German guns then moved forward to within 1,200 yards of the northern face of Mount Kopje.  The Germans commenced lobbing shells into the South African position, and the machine gun fire continued.  The South Africans couldn’t even return fire, despite multiple attempts.  Only half an hour after the Germans brought their guns foreword, the South Africans hoisted a white flag, and the engagement ended.

The second the fire ceased, both German and South African troops raced for the wells in no-man’s land where they congregated with great friendliness.  A later South African account congratulated von

Heydebreck on his chivalry in dealing with his newly acquired prisoners.  He sat and discussed the battle with Grant and congratulated him on his gallant defence.

When it came to burying the dead, the Germans gave the same honours to the enemy dead as they did their own.  Heydebreck did what seemed impossible, he took an outnumbered force and ambushed the enemy with such overwhelming fire that they didn’t even have the ability to attempt a break out, and then pummelled them with artillery, machine gun fire, and constant raids that forced them to surrender.  He was another example of how German commanders at the start of the First World War far surpassed the capabilities of their enemy counterparts.

Shortly after his great victory, Heydebreck died in an unfortunate accident.  His replacement was Lieutenant Colonel Franke, who showed skill that in some respects surpassed that of Germany’s other great generals of Africa.

Shortly after taking command he stormed the South African fort Nautilia with just 600 men and decisively defeated the 800 man garrison.  It was the last in a string of the German colony’s notable victories.  Between the two German victories, air power was deployed to great effect.  The three German aircraft in the colony performed reconnaissance and bombing runs.

In one instance improvised bombs were made out of stovepipes and artillery shells were dropped on the enemy at Haalen Burg on two separate occasions.  The first on the 12th of November failed, but a second on the 29th succeeded in wounding four men, killing a fifth, and damaging some vital heavy artillery equipment.  Similar air raids took place in other regions of German controlled Namibia.

Eventually the Schutztruppe succumbed to the enemy’s numbers, around 60,000, and surrendered after more than a year of effective resistance.  With the surrender, Germany lost control of perhaps the most profitable of her colonies.  Namibia, to this day, remains a valuable source of diamond and copper mining.  Despite the rocky desert that covered most of the country, much of the land provided excellent farming capabilities.

In the end, the campaigns of German South West Africa proved successful for the Germans in that it delayed the mobilisation of South African troops against the stronger German presence in East Africa, and prevented any shipment of South African troops to Europe during the decisive battles of 1914.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

The First Battle of the Masurian Lakes, 1914

Monday, September 24th, 2012

Conducted between 9-14 September 1914, the First Battle of the Masurian Lakes (of two, thesecond in February 1915) was the second victory of the war by the Germans over the Russian army, the first occurring at Tannenberg in late August.

Having successfully dealt with the Russian Second Army, commanded by Samsonov, at Tannenberg, Paul von Hindenburg’s Eighth Army – comprising 21 divisions, 18 of infantry, 3 of cavalry – turned their attention to the Russian First Army, commanded by Rennenkampf.  These two armies had been deployed as two arms of a pincer movement intended to snap up Hindenburg’s forces in East Prussia.  With one arm of the pincer broken, Hindenburg determined to neutralise the other in short order.

Hindenburg aimed to encircle Rennenkampf by breaking through a weak flank of the latter’s southern corps who had belatedly moved south to support the Second Army at Tannenberg and who had become somewhat separated from the main body in the west (who had remained passive during the earlier battle).

Rennenkampf’s army was presently moving through the Insterburg Gap between Konigsberg and the Masurian Lakes.  However, upon receiving news of the Second Army’s defeat, Rennenkampf ordered his forces to retreat to a firmer position extending from the Baltic south-east to Angerburg.

Paul von HindenburgA preliminary German attack began on 7 September, lasting two days, launched from either side of the southern lakes, its aim being to push the Russians up towards the coast.  Heavily outnumbered 3-to-1, the Russian forces dispersed, and the German advance continued northwards in pursuit of the main body of the Russian army.

Rennenkampf, who feared being outflanked, consequently authorised a further orderly withdrawal on 9 September, simultaneously ordering a counter-strike at the Germans by two divisions so as to hold up the German advance whilst his men pulled back.

In this Rennenkampf was successful, although with the retreat of his forces East Prussia had been cleared of all Russian troops by 13 September.  Furthermore, Russian casualties during the battle were high: 125,000 compared to the German figure of at most 40,000, although the Germans could ill-afford such high losses in the east.

Yakov Zhilinski, the army group commander responsible for the Russian plan of invasion, was dismissed as a consequence of the Russian army’s perceived poor performance.

The action had resulted in two defeats of the Russian army, and largely removed any threat to German forces stationed in East Prussia, although a Russian counter-attack from 25-28 September (the Battle of the Niemen) forced a German retreat back to the border and resulted in the Russian army retaking much of the ground lost in the First Masurian battle.

As a consequence of Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes – although the former battle was a much clearer cut victory than the second – Hindenburg was hailed as a hero in Germany, subsequently succeeding Falkenhayn as Chief of the German Staff in late summer 1916.

Despite Hindenburg’s fame at home, his Chief of Staff, Erich Ludendorff, was the chief architect of these, and future, Hindenburg victories.  He followed Hindenburg to Berlin as his quartermaster general upon Hindenburg’s promotion to Army Chief of Staff.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Germans could be consigned to serfdom to save the euro

Monday, September 10th, 2012

Some commentators have taken to referring to this Wednesday as “the day that could make or break the common currency”, and they’re not far off the mark. On that day, Germany’s constitutional court will announce its verdict on the legality of the European Stability Mechanism, the permanent rescue fund for struggling eurozone countries. If implemented, the ESM’s share capital of €700bn would be provided by all 17 eurozone members in proportion to their economic size. Fourteen have so far ratified the treaty – Estonia, Italy and Germany are the only ones remaining.

The German government has defended the ESM treaty, claiming it would fix Germany’s maximum liability at €190bn, and that the Bundestag would retain control over the grant of further assistance. Either German politicians have not read the treaty they have signed, or they do not understand its small print, for there is little in the document that supports their interpretation. Because the ESM is plainly unlawful.

For example, article 25(2) of the treaty states that members are jointly liable for any losses arising from loans made by the ESM. That means if one or more of the ESM members fail to meet their agreed financial contributions, the other members are liable for the shortfall. That situation is already a reality, because Greece and Portugal are unable to make any contribution.

Article 21 further authorises the ESM to borrow on the capital markets, from banks or from other financial institutions, which presumably includes the European Central Bank. There is no overall borrowing limit. The ESM effectively provides for the possibility of monetary state financing through the ECB. ESM members are again jointly and severally liable for all losses that may be incurred on money borrowed by the ESM to lend more money that cannot be repaid. Worse, those receiving the money are at the same time liable for any losses from bad debts – they are lending the money to themselves. If they are insolvent, their share of the loss will have to be borne by those still able to pay. Payer countries thus pay twice – for their share of the loss, and that share of the loss the defaulting country lent to itself.

Contrary to the position of the German government, the ESM does not contain any limit on the extent of any member state’s overall liability. If the ESM governors issue shares in excess of their nominal value, issue bonds or borrow from the ECB, and only one or two states become insolvent or leave the eurozone, Germany’s exposure under the ESM could easily rise to between €400bn and €500bn. If the crisis worsens, Germany’s likely ESM losses could exceed €700bn. That would push up its public debt to 110% of GDP and beyond.

Germany’s federal budget has a size of slightly over €300bn per annum. The ESM would, on realistic assumptions, increase Germany’s exposure to losses in the weaker eurozone economies by between one and a half and twice the size of the federal budget. If Germany’s other potential liabilities as an ECB shareholder and its additional aid to Greece, Ireland and Spain are taken into account, total exposure could reach a sum equivalent to four or five times the size of the federal budget.

Even if only part of Germany’s total claims against other eurozone governments eventually have to be written off, the loss would run into hundreds of billions and effectively extinguish the Bundestag’s financial room for manoeuvre – its budgetary autonomy – for a generation and beyond.

The ESM is not only patently in breach of the German constitution, it also violates every relevant provision of the EU treaties. Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) – which replaced the EC treaty – forbids the use of the printing press to bankroll governments and public authorities, makes it unlawful for them to borrow from the ECB or the national central banks, and expressly prohibits the sale of government bonds to the ECB.

The ESM would create a parallel “bad bank”, which would be allowed to do everything the ECB is ostensibly prevented from doing under the treaties: to buy government bonds directly, to lend to national government, to grant such loans without any prescribed limit, and to rescue insolvent banks. Once the ESM runs out of money, it can borrow directly from the ECB – which will print the funds needed.

Moreover, the ECB president, Mario Draghi, has already indicated that he would take bond buys by the ESM as a green light that the ECB is no longer bound by the restrictions of article 123. At present the ECB has about €220bn in sub-standard Greek and other southern European government bonds on its balance sheet, in addition to much a higher sum of “shaky” government debt instruments deposited by banks as “securities” for ECB loans. Draghi refuses to disclose the breakdown of government debt on the ECB’s books or their credit rating. The ESM treaty effectively provides for the mutualisation of national debt within the EU with no upper limit. Save for eurobonds, there could be no more flagrant violation of the “no bail” clause of article 125.

Unless wages can be depressed further, inflation will eventually rise significantly due to the combined effect of an increase in the money supply and a depreciation of the euro, with resulting increases in import prices – especially of oil and gas. That trend will accelerate every time the ECB fires its so-called “big bazooka”. Draghi has waited for the opportune moment, and is inaugurating the “lirafication” of the euro, the redefinition of the eurozone along Italian lines. Nothing could be more antithetical to the original “Bundesbank” model for the ECB and Article 127 TFEU, which says price stability and maintenance of the euro’s purchasing power are the ECB’s primary objectives.

Yet, despite the ESM breaching German law and EU treaties, few observers expect Germany’s constitutional court to say so, although many think it may ask for minor changes.

If implemented, the ESM will reverse the greatest 19th-century political achievement in Europe: the transfer of the power to determine taxation and expenditure from unaccountable monarchical governments to formally accountable parliaments. The eurocratic transformation will have taken place through systematic disregard by the EU institutions and its member states of practically all legal and constitutional safeguards put in place to prevent precisely the disaster that has befallen the eurozone now.

In the 18th century, the Landgrave of Hesse sold thousands of men into military service for the British crown. Today Germany’s political establishment seems committed to consigning German taxpayers to economic serfdom and stagflation for at least a generation – not for gold, to be fair, but for the euro, to assuage the markets and to appease international opinion. The issue is: will the German constitutional court take itself and the German voter seriously? Law, one had better remind oneself, is the continuation of politics by other means.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share