alternative concepts to the prevailing monetary and economic system. They became a danger to the beneficiaries of the existing concept and the powers that had no interest in a strong Deutsche Mark currency.
BONN’S BETRAYAL OF THE DEUTSCHE MARK
„There were only very few informers, but their numbers were sufficient to bring indescribable joy to all people.”
Fritz Wöss (1920 - 2004)
What has long been known as a well-kept secret, Germany, as a prize for the reunification had to abolish its Deutsche Mark currency. This has now been revealed by the mainstream media to the unsuspecting part of the population as news. The German weekly magazine Der Spiegel reported in 2010, after the Euro had become, against the will of the people, a firmly-anchored means of payment, that France had made the abolition of the Deutsche Mark a precondition as a prize for reunification.[22] It is interesting to note that these claims were made for years by those same media representatives and politicians who had denounced the introduction of the Euro as a conspiracy theory. The magazine CODE[23], for example, was censored, although it had on already on its frontpage for February 1992: The loser is once again called Germany – Bonn’s betrayal of the Deutsche Mark. At this point all details on this topic had been published.
What the official media continued to keep secret was the fact that the French president François Mitterand blackmailed Helmut Kohl. His supposed buddy and self-proclaimed builder of the House of Europe made the reunification dependent upon the abolition of the Deutsche Mark and the fact that an appointment was made to agree on a new single currency.[24]
According to hitherto secret documents from the archive of the German Department for Foreign Affairs, Mitterand warned bluntly: “Germany may soon stand as isolated as back in 1913”. Furthermore, he is supposed to have declared to the Spanish PM Felipe Gonzalez as early as 1987: “The power of the Germans is reflected in the Deutsche Mark. It is a very strong driving force, much stronger than the reflexes of the banker and even that of politics.”[25]
In 1988 he explained to the Council of Ministers: “The Germans are a great people who lack certain attributes of sovereignty and enjoy a reduced diplomatic status.
Germany compensates for its weakness through economic strength. In some sense, the Deutsche Mark is its nuclear power.“[26]
In this context it is worth mentioning the assassination of the chairman of Deutsche Bank, Alfred Herrhausen, on November 30th 1989. He was one of the closest councilors of Helmut Kohl and contributed significantly to his ten point program. In high political circles, the assassination, which was allegedly committed by the RAF (Red Army Fraction), was perceived to be a clear message to Chancellor Kohl. He should not get the idea that Germany would regain its sovereignty through the reunification.
On December 9th 1989, a mere few days after the fall of the wall at the summit in Strasbourg, Helmut Kohl succumbed to the pressure and joined the French in their efforts. He voted in favor of using the government conference for the creation of the fiscal union. The result of the summit he called: “All-in-all a success”. What he really thought about it, he reported in the early summer of 1997 to a small round of people: Back then “I had gone through the darkest hours of my life”. He is also reported to have said in this conversation that the unification in two years would be an economic adventure.[27]
The demise of the Deutsche Mark was sealed.
Many economists, among them Professor Dr. Wilhelm Hankel and Professor Dr. iur. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, at the time, spoke of payments to foreign countries increasing in times to come and that a European currency with a common monetary and interest policy would be impossible. Should they be forced through, despite these difficulties, it would cause additional transfer payments to the other EU countries.[28]
Similar to then, in July 2012 another set of 160 economists stood up around Hans-Werner Sinn auf, to criticize in an open letter the entry into a banking union which would mean a common responsibility for the debt of the banks in the Euro Zone.[29] Among the minions of the banking system, most of the party representatives in the German Bundestag parliament, these warnings hit on deaf ears once again. The suicide mission, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, and later François Hollande, attempted to pretend that they had the crisis tightly under control.
Some of these economics professors then, in 1998, not without good reason spoke of “a Versailles without a war”.[30] As a result, many people came to the conclusion that the Maastricht treaty would come to be judged as the third capitulation of Germany to France in less than a century.
Anatole Kaletsky, finance journalist at the Times, on November 19th, 1996 described it as a natural successor to the treaty of Versailles and Potsdam.[31]
In reality, it was the secret government of the EU, the ERT (European Round Table of Industrialists) behind the decisions that eventually led to the abolition of the Deutsche Mark[32]. Only few are aware of this organization having published a roadmap to a monetary union in the spring of 1991, that had a striking resemblance to the treaty reached in Maastricht in December of 1991.
As so often we heard nothing about this in the official media. Once the Euro had been decided on, Der Spiegel magazine dared to report in 1998 that Helmut Kohl had, according to the minutes, admitted in a confidential meeting to US Foreign Secretary James Baker on December 12th, 1989 that he took this decision “against German interests”.[33]
THE EURO – CONSPIRACY AGAINST DEMOCRACY
“We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens.
If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.” [34]
(Jean-Claude Juncker)
With these words the Luxembourgian head of government Jean-Claude Juncker explained the ideal procedure in EU politics during an interview with Der Spiegel.[35]
This is the pattern that EU bureaucrats follow in almost all of their decisions; the same goes for the decision to introduce the Euro in 1991. It is the most important project of the Eurocrats to destroy the nationalities, with catastrophic consequences for the people of Europe. Juncker should know how to deal with a “herd”: From the beginning he was presiding over the “Euro Group”, a panel of all countries with the Euro currency.
In reality however, the Euro has already failed because all of the promises made by politicians regarding the construction and stability of this artificial currency have already been broken. Not one of the central promises made to voters at the introduction of the Euro has been kept. Besides the broken promises, laws were broken in ever shorter frequencies in order to finalize new rescue packages which ultimately only served to maximize the drop height.
Among those are the determined limits for state deficits and public debt as well as the political independence of a European Central Bank, the ban on financing foreign state deficits and the most important point: The liability exclusion of every member state for the debt of another.
The minion of high finance, Juncker, said among other things: “We have come together in a common destiny for good or for evil”[36] and in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: „When it becomes serious, you have to lie“.[37] This is probably what he did in December 2009 during a congress of the European people’s party (EVP). He said that a “public bankruptcy of Greece is entirely impossible”. He went on to state that therefore no supporting measures
