Europe
German historians condemn draft law on post-war expulsions
Historians in Germany are criticising the federal government’s policy regarding Eastern Germans who were “resettled” after the Second World War.
According to a statement issued by the Association of German Historians (VHD), the new draft law concerning the Flight, Expulsion, and Reconciliation Foundation—tabled in the Bundestag in mid-August—reduces the complex events of the post-Second World War “resettlement” process to “German suffering”. It ignores the necessary historical context, namely the war of annihilation waged by Germany in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, and thereby creates a “self-referential national narrative” hitherto developed primarily by expellee associations.
Historians point out that this situation jeopardises reconciliation efforts, particularly with Poland and the Czech Republic.
Because this change of focus directly affects the permanent exhibition maintained by the foundation at the Documentation Centre for Flight, Expulsion, and Reconciliation in a central district of Berlin, it will generate a broad public impact.
This development goes hand in hand with the revival of Berlin’s former “Germanness” policy towards minorities in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
Post-war German migration exhibition: where is Nazi Germany?
According to German Foreign Policy, the starting point of the recent debates surrounding the Flight, Expulsion, and Reconciliation Foundation was the permanent exhibition at the Documentation Centre for Flight, Expulsion, and Reconciliation, which is operated by the foundation and opened at the Deutschlandhaus in Berlin in 2021.
Spanning two floors, the exhibition chronicles the resettlement of the German-speaking population from Eastern and South-Eastern Europe after the Second World War. The exhibition thus addresses historical events within a two-part context.
As the historian Felix Ackermann, who teaches at the Distance-Learning University of Hagen, described by way of example, the first floor presents “the pre-history of ethnic nationalism and state-enforced migration”, particularly in the context of various cases of flight, expulsion, and resettlement in 20th-century Europe.
Building on this content, the second floor focuses on the post-war resettlement of Germans.
However, this core element of the permanent exhibition is preceded by a very brief overview of the war in which Nazi Germany occupied significant parts of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.
This aspect is of vital importance because without this knowledge, the complexity of the “resettlement” process cannot be evaluated in its proper context and adequately understood.
The Polish border issue
The overall structure of the permanent exhibition is widely described as a “compromise” reached between right-leaning expellee associations and the Scientific Advisory Board of the Flight, Expulsion, and Reconciliation Foundation.
This board also includes historians, particularly from Poland and the Czech Republic.
This compromise had hitherto been maintained by the director of the Documentation Centre, the historian Gundula Bavendamm.
However, in mid-2024, expellee associations effectively abandoned this compromise and launched a fierce attack.
For instance, in a letter sent to Bavendamm by Bernd Fabritius (CSU), then president of the Federation of Expellees (BdV), it was stated that the connection between the resettlement process and Germany’s war of annihilation had to be severed, as this “confused context with causality”.
Fabritius also argued that the Federal Republic of Germany’s 1990 recognition of Poland’s national borders should not legally be characterised as a “cession” of the former eastern territories of the German Empire.
This statement recalls that the border treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and Poland merely “confirmed” the border between the two states, described it as “inviolable”, and renounced all “territorial claims”.
The treaty contains no unconditional recognition definitively describing the border as “inviolable”. As Fabritius’s statement implies, this situation could give rise to potential loopholes.
CDU/CSU influence in German expellee associations
The offensive launched by the expellee associations gained momentum following the change of government last year.
Initially, despite the unanimous objections of the Academic Advisory Board, this led to Documentation Centre director Bavendamm’s contract not being renewed in November 2025 and the post being advertised.
Close observers noted that not only the expellee associations played a role in this process, but also the Group of Expellees, Repatriates, and German Minorities within the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, which is closely linked to them.
The leader of this group, Klaus-Peter Willsch (CDU), is a member of the board of trustees of the Flight, Expulsion, and Reconciliation Foundation.
Similarly, Stephan Mayer, deputy chairman of the Expellees Group who took over the BdV presidency from Fabritius, is also a member of this board.
The person they sought to appoint as director of the Documentation Centre to replace Bavendamm was Sven Oole.
Critics had noted that Oole had “no managerial experience in German museums” and had produced no “academic publications” on the subject, but that “as the long-time managing director of the ‘Group of Displaced Persons’, he knew the group’s historical-political goals like the back of his hand”.
Oole’s candidacy failed due to threats from the Scientific Advisory Board that it would resign en masse if he were elected.
In the end, Roland Borchers was selected, but it is said that no one knows “where he intends to lead the foundation”.
Attempts to define Germans as a community based on descent
However, the substance of Borchers’s work is likely to be severely curtailed by the new law on the Flight, Expulsion, and Reconciliation Foundation, which was adopted by the federal government in July and submitted to the Bundestag in mid-August.
The Association of German Historians (VHD) directed sharp criticism at this legislation in late May. This criticism stems partly from the fact that Bernd Fabritius, in his role as Federal Government Commissioner for Matters Related to Ethnic German Resettlers and National Minorities, will in future hold an additional seat on the foundation’s board of directors.
According to the VHD’s statement, this will effectively give the BdV “a government-backed majority position on the foundation’s supervisory board”.
In its statement, the VHD explicitly warns against “bad examples of a state-directed remembrance policy”.
Furthermore, the statement contends that the new law focuses the foundation’s work to a certain degree on “German suffering” and replaces “the historical context of flight and expulsion with a self-referential national narrative”.
This situation further exacerbates “existing threats to reconciliation efforts, particularly with the Federal Republic’s Eastern European neighbours, especially Poland and the Czech Republic”.
Finally, the statement notes that, diverging from the openness of recent years, the law “once again defines Germans as a community based on descent”.
No immigration to Germany—except for “ethnic Germans”!
The historian Felix Ackermann also recently addressed the broader political context.
According to Ackermann, the new law aims not only to strip the resettlement process of its historical context and confine commemorative activities to a narrow national framework.
In addition, the federal government is moving the Flight, Expulsion, and Reconciliation Foundation from the purview of the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media to the remit of the Federal Ministry of the Interior.
Christoph de Vries, Parliamentary State Secretary at this ministry and deputy chairman of the Expellees Group within the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, is also pushing for “the opening of new immigration channels for ethnic kin”.
Indeed, while politicians such as de Vries advocate strict restrictions on immigration, the Federal Ministry of the Interior seeks to revise immigration regulations for members of German-speaking minorities in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
This revision would allow even German speakers born after 31 December 1992 to obtain German citizenship.
As Ackermann noted, this dual focus on the concept of “Germanness” makes it possible to describe the expulsion regions, just as during the Konrad Adenauer era, as the whole of the “German East”.
The fact that the “responsibility to preserve the history of the German East” now falls once again to the Federal Ministry of the Interior—which, as is well known, is responsible for domestic and not foreign affairs—seems to Ackermann “like a bad joke”; yet, Ackermann says, in reality this situation “brings terrible consequences.”
Europe
European intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
The intelligence services of the three Baltic states, Sweden, and the Czech Republic hold differing assessments regarding a potential Russian attack.
These warnings followed statements to parliament by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who said intelligence assessments indicated that Russia could mount an attack against NATO territory with drones or missiles in the coming months as part of efforts to prove that “Article 5 is theoretical rather than practical.”
French President Emmanuel Macron also described Tusk’s warnings as “logical and well documented,” and summoned party leaders and 2027 presidential candidates to an urgent meeting in Paris on Friday.
Among other topics, the meeting addressed intelligence information concerning the growing threat from Russia.
In separate interviews with The Guardian newspaper, three European intelligence officials shared their views on the potential threat that could emanate from Moscow.
Michal Koudelka, head of the Czech Republic’s BIS security service, suggested that alongside increased drone activity, a small-scale incursion into NATO territory bordering Russia could also form part of the Kremlin’s plans.
“This is possible. It could involve a limited attack, false-flag provocations, or a large-scale influence campaign,” Koudelka said in a rare interview at the agency’s headquarters in Prague.
Stating that this scenario could unfold in “months, not years,” Koudelka added that “many people are doing their utmost to ensure it does not happen.”
Officials in the three Baltic countries bordering Russian territory, however, are acting more cautiously regarding the prospect of an invasion or another serious escalation.
They cite the strain on Moscow’s resources in Ukraine and warn that exaggerating the likelihood of an attack could play into the Kremlin’s hands.
Normunds Mežviets, director general of the Latvian State Security Service (VDD), said in an interview at the agency’s headquarters in Riga: “We see no indications that an attack is imminent.”
While Mežviets acknowledged signs that Moscow is preparing to take more decisive steps in Europe, he stated that it remains unclear whether these plans are merely part of a destabilisation strategy:
“Whether they have direct and concrete plans, or whether this is simply part of their general efforts to spread fear and uncertainty in Western society, remains an open question.”
Having criticised Western Europe for years for being soft on Russia, Baltic politicians now find themselves in a curious position: fearing that talk of an imminent invasion could harm their societies and economies, they are telling certain Western leaders to remain calm in their public messaging.
On Saturday, Jonatan Vseviov, secretary general of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, condemned the recent “social media panic” regarding a potential attack, writing on X:
“If there is reason to fear an attack, rest assured: we will state it clearly. Until then, stay calm, carry on with your lives, and support Ukraine.”
Mežviets said that, overall, Western Europe waking up to the threat from Russia is a positive development:
“Before 2022, we constantly warned our Western European partners about the threat from Russia, but our voices were largely ignored. In 2022, our partners’ approach changed. They said the Baltics and the Poles had been proven right.”
Neither Mežviets nor Koudelka wished to discuss what concrete intelligence might have been obtained regarding Russia’s alleged plans for the coming months.
Nor did they comment on whether a surprise visit to Moscow last month by CIA Director John Ratcliffe: during which he also stopped in Riga: was undertaken partly to warn the Kremlin about the dangers of attacking NATO.
Following that visit, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied rumours that Russia would attack NATO, saying: “This has nothing to do with reality, and it has nothing to do with the intentions of the Russian Federation.”
Koudelka argued that Russia’s current tactic is to “escalate to de-escalate,” stating that the Kremlin is probing vulnerabilities in Western societies to diminish their support for Ukraine’s war effort.
“They believe that if they escalate enough, European countries will decide not to support Ukraine,” Koudelka said.
Thomas Nilsson, head of the Swedish Military Intelligence and Security Service, said in an interview on the margins of a conference held in Riga: “I have seen no signs of serious consideration in Moscow regarding genuine negotiations. In my assessment, they still believe they can achieve their strategic objectives; therefore, they are merely engaging in negotiation theatre.”
All three intelligence chiefs stated that, whatever else happens, Russia’s sabotage campaign in Europe is likely to intensify in the coming months.
Nilsson described the recent armed drone incident at Leipzig airport, which German authorities attributed to Russian intelligence, as a “game-changer”:
“Sending an armed drone into a busy airport in the heart of Europe… If attacks involve the potential loss of life or the disruption of critical infrastructure with immense consequences for society, I believe that is a game-changer.”
Mežviets noted that Russia has shifted from random acts of sabotage and arson aimed at inducing panic toward specific targets connected to Western support for Ukraine. “We see them trying to target railway infrastructure and infrastructure providing support to Ukraine. We currently observe a shift toward defence industry targets,” he said. “If you do that, the psychological operations effect is already achieved; thus you accomplish both at once,” he added.
Nilsson stated that several objectives lie behind the recent intensification of Russian sabotage activities: reducing support for Ukraine, creating divisions within NATO, and unsettling European populations.
“In my view, Moscow would like nothing more than for NATO to engage in endless discussions about Article 4 consultations while taking no concrete steps,” the Swedish official said.
Koudelka noted that another effect of the sabotage campaign is that it strains the resources of intelligence services, as suspicions frequently linger even when incidents stem from other causes.
“Now, every fire or every malfunction must be investigated by intelligence services as a potential terrorist attack, and that is a good outcome for them,” the intelligence chief said.
Europe
AfD weakens CDU across state elections as Weidel offers Merz talks
Although two entirely different parties emerged victorious in two elections held in Germany at the weekend, the common denominator was that Alternative for Germany (AfD) eroded the Christian Democrats (CDU).
In the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania election in particular, the surprise was not that the AfD finished as the leading party with 38.2%, but that the CDU fell below the electoral threshold for the first time in the history of the Federal Republic.
In the Berlin election, when compared with the 2023 vote, the AfD drew most of its support from non-voters (65,000) and CDU voters (56,000).
Following the elections in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Berlin, AfD co-leader Alice Weidel reiterated her forecast that the CDU will not win any federal elections in the future.
According to Weidel, voters are no longer “swallowing the platform of an obsolete people’s party.”
Noting that the AfD did not find it regrettable that the Christian Democrats would no longer be represented in the Schwerin state parliament, Weidel cited as the reason that “the CDU had already rejected all forms of cooperation.”
Speaking of “excellent results” at a federal press conference held after the elections, Weidel argued that it was becoming increasingly clear that the AfD would replace the CDU as a people’s party (Volkspartei).
She remarked that the CDU’s “foolish firewall policy” was responsible for the strong performance of the Left Party in Berlin, thereby enabling red-red-green (Left-Greens-SPD) coalition majorities.
Weidel offered “talks” to Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz and stated that the AfD was prepared to end the “stagnation” in the state.
Calling on Merz to ensure that the CDU/CSU drew lessons from the election results, Weidel said, “If the CDU barely clears the 5% threshold in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and receives very weak results, then the Chancellor must draw the consequences.”
Criticising the government, the AfD leader also said that major reforms had “only been announced” for a year and a half, adding, “One should not just announce them; one must actually implement them.”
Meanwhile, despite the AfD’s electoral victory in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, where it outstripped the SPD, the AfD’s lead candidate Leif-Erik Holm is “not very hopeful” about being able to form a government.
Holm said they would offer talks to all other parties in the state parliament, but that he did not expect to come to power on his own.
Announcing that the AfD would nevertheless lay claim to the state parliamentary presidency because the party holds approximately 45% of the seats in the legislature, Holm also indicated that a Covid-19 investigative committee would be established.
Speaking to NDR Info, the AfD politician said, “I believe we could come to power. However, at present, it does not look as though that will be the case.”
Holm noted that it currently appeared as though a red-red-green majority would emerge, adding, “This is certainly not a good direction for our country to take.”
Holm reaffirmed his party’s claim to power. Stating that the electorate had handed this mandate to the AfD by a large majority, he said, “For this reason, we expect from the other parties that we are able to engage in dialogue with one another.”
Indicating that he wanted to conduct these talks alongside the AfD’s lead candidate Enrico Schult, Holm was defeated by Minister-President Manuela Schwesig (SPD) in the direct mandate race in Schwerin and will not enter the state parliament.
In the event that the AfD fails to join a coalition as expected, Holm plans to remain a member of the Bundestag.
Kristin Brinker, the AfD’s lead candidate in Berlin, said that the “firewall” was no longer between the Berlin CDU and the AfD, but within the CDU itself, asserting that the AfD was “the only party winning support from the conservative wing.”
Europe
AfD leader Weidel claims Left Party wants to shoot the rich
Alternative for Germany (AfD) leader Alice Weidel has claimed that Die Linke (the Left Party) will “shoot the rich and expropriate capitalists”.
Appearing live on ZDF television on Sunday, when elections were held in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the AfD leader spoke about the Berlin vote.
Weidel argued that the Left Party had become the strongest element in Berlin “because of the CDU’s ‘firewall’ policy”.
Weidel then asserted that the Left Party wanted “to expropriate, to shoot the rich, to pressure capitalists through rent caps; in other words, to implement elements of planned socialism”.
ZDF presenter Shakuntala Banerjee appeared taken aback and, stating that this claim needed to be “verified”, asked: “‘Wants to shoot the rich’?”
In fact, Weidel appears to be pointing to the words of Berlin member Sandra L. at an event organised by the Left Party in 2020. At the time, a video containing her remarks circulated online.
The incident occurred at a party strategy conference held in Kassel. While the debate was actually on energy policy, the Left Party member said: “The energy transition is necessary even after the revolution. And even if we shoot the top 1% of the rich, we will still want to heat our homes.”
The Left Party’s then co-chair Bernd Riexinger, who was present at the time, made a joke about forced labour and replied: “I just wanted to add: we won’t shoot them; we will make them do useful work.”
Sandra L. later retracted her words in a statement to dpa, saying: “This completely contradicts my political views; I am disgusted by violence against people.”
Riexinger also later expressed regret for not rejecting the comment “immediately and categorically”.
No election manifesto of the Left Party contains a call for the “execution” of the rich or the super-rich. The party states that it is committed to the rule of law and the “free democratic basic order”.
-
America1 week agoMilanovic declares global neoliberalism dead, warns of plutocracy
-
America2 weeks agoOver half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races
-
Asia2 weeks agoIran and China run secret barter network to bypass oil sanctions
-
America2 weeks agoTrump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports
-
America1 week agoFive minutes to doomsday – 4: American capitalism at the frontiers
-
Asia1 week agoDeepSeek engineer warns AI will lead to communism or Cyberpunk
-
America1 week agoBig Tech profits from AI extinction hype, Ken Klippenstein says
-
America2 weeks agoResearcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives
