Protests are mounting against a draft law approved by the federal government to expand the powers of German intelligence agencies.

Through the new legislation, the government aims to grant German intelligence agencies sweeping new powers.

The bill seeks, among other things, to facilitate agency access to information technology systems, extend data retention periods, and automate data analysis.

Agencies will also be permitted to conduct “online searches” in the future.

According to German Foreign Policy, a major change is that, for the first time since the end of German fascism, intelligence agencies will once again possess the authority to implement “operational measures”.

Under the banner of “defence against hybrid attacks”, Berlin is further blurring the lines separating the police, intelligence agencies, and the military, while increasingly eliminating the distinction between external enemies and domestic critics.

The new intelligence law marks another step by the Federal Republic towards “strategic autonomy”.

A hefty “wish list” for intelligence services

With the draft law on the “reform of the Intelligence Service Act”, the federal government aims to systematically expand the powers of German intelligence services in almost every area.

In this context, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt explicitly thanked Defence Minister Boris Pistorius. Working in close cooperation, the two ministries succeeded in completely rewriting the Intelligence Services Act, doing so “quietly”.

According to the British newspaper The Guardian, the new law fulfills the “wish list of the intelligence services”.

Under these provisions, intelligence agencies will in the future be able to retain collected telecommunications data for longer periods (content data for up to six months and metadata for up to twelve months). This will enable them to analyse this data “retrospectively” as well.

The law also aims to streamline the analytical process, for instance by permitting AI-supported automated analyses and “removing administrative obstacles”.

The “use of tools for biometric comparison of image data, the application of artificial intelligence, and the further processing of data for research and development purposes”, as well as the transfer of data to “other state agencies and private entities”, will be facilitated.

According to the explanation, the overall objective is to “strengthen access to information technology systems” ranging from “smart refrigerators” to private mobile phones and CCTV cameras in public spaces.

BND granted operational powers

Under this legislation, the federal government is also granting the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution comprehensive powers that, in the words of Interior Minister Dobrindt, “go far beyond intelligence gathering”.

The objective is not merely for the agencies to “see and hear better” in the future, but above all to “take active measures against enemies”.

Alongside online searches, this includes permission to “tamper with” data in the future. The minister justifies this by stating, “This is our mission.”

This measure appears to represent a historical turning point. For the first time since the defeat of Nazism, German intelligence agencies are being granted permission to employ “operational powers”—namely, to take “active measures”. These powers had been reserved exclusively for the police since 1945.

The new powers explicitly encompass “tampering with instruments used in crimes […]”. They also permit “manipulating goods shipments by inserting defective components, targeted intrusion into IT systems in drone factories or chemical weapons laboratories for sabotage purposes, or shutting down or disabling servers belonging to state-sponsored cyberattack groups or disinformation actors”.

Furthermore, all of these actions may now be carried out “proactively”.

Opposition reactions

The proposed draft bill has drawn widespread criticism. For instance, Konstantin von Notz (Alliance 90/The Greens), former chairman of the Parliamentary Oversight Panel for the intelligence services, criticises the bill for failing to distinguish between police work and intelligence work.

Notz supports expanding the powers of the foreign intelligence service (BND), but considers granting the same powers to the domestic intelligence service (BfV) to be “questionable in terms of the rule of law”, as well as “poorly designed and dangerous”.

Under the new law, the domestic intelligence service will in the future be able to enter doctors’ and therapists’ practices undetected, for example.

Consequently, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV) and the German Medical Association sharply criticised the measure on the grounds that it would “undermine medical confidentiality and violate the confidential doctor-patient relationship, which must be protected”.

The president of the Hesse State Medical Association regards the draft as “disrespectful to the medical profession”, stating that it damages the relationship of trust between doctor and patient.

Dobrindt rejected this criticism, stating, “I do not agree with this at all, because we always act appropriately.”

The German Journalists’ Association (DJV) emphasised in a statement that “very broad terms” are used in the draft bill. According to the DJV, this means that “even peaceful activities” could fall under intelligence agency surveillance.

Journalists will no longer be able to guarantee the protection of sources in the future. In addition, the “grading of intervention thresholds based on nationality and place of residence” is unconstitutional.

According to the association, contrary to what is envisaged in the bill, foreign journalists and German journalists working abroad must also be protected from the intelligence services.

Who will oversee the intelligence agencies?

Former Federal Data Protection Commissioner Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider had previously warned against centralising oversight authority over the BND within the Independent Oversight Body.

Ulrich Kelber, an honorary professor of data ethics and Specht-Riemenschneider’s predecessor, shares this criticism: intelligence agencies will themselves take the “final decision” regarding “what can be subjected to oversight”.

According to the data protection expert’s assessment, the Independent Oversight Body, which will serve as the sole oversight body in the future, will not be able to appeal against denied access.

The “state of consent” introduced in the bill grants the BND “extensive special powers” while further restricting oversight options.

Moreover, the agency will be able to do this without requiring the Bundestag to declare a state of tension or a state of defence, which had been necessary until now.

Kelber regards this as an “unconstitutional shift of power away from the elected parliament”.

The draft law, which the federal government supports partly by pointing to a purported improvement in oversight mechanisms, gives him the “impression that independent oversight of the intelligence services is being deliberately sabotaged”.

Intelligence treats incidents of unclear origin as “Russian attacks”

Dobrindt also justifies this domestic move by citing a threat emanating from Russia.

Dobrindt asserts that Germany is “the target of hybrid warfare every day”, stating that expanding the powers of the intelligence agencies is merely “a response to the current threat situation”.

During a hearing before the parliamentary oversight committee, Sinan Selen, Vice President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, admitted that his agency also classifies incidents that cannot be clearly attributed to a specific source as Russian “hybrid attacks”.

This situation further blurs the distinction between external enemies and domestic opponents.

Consequently, under the new law, the domestic intelligence service will in the future be able to use not only real or alleged “hybrid attacks”, but also “significant unrest among broad sections of the population”, as justification for operational measures.

Berlin anticipates that the public would show resistance in the event of war, should NATO troops transit through Germany on their way to the new Eastern Front.

German “strategic autonomy” goes hand in hand with militarisation

Interior Minister Dobrindt asserts that Germany has hitherto been dependent on the support of foreign intelligence services.

Berlin hopes that strengthened German intelligence services will give it a better standing vis-a-vis Washington, Paris, and London, turning it into a serious interlocutor on “equal terms” and moving it away from being a junior partner.

The proposed draft bill aims to ensure that German intelligence agencies “no longer lag behind other European partners”.

According to the minister, this will enable Berlin to “justify its claim to a leadership role in European security policy”.

While European Union countries spend the summer months battling massive wildfires, reductions in firefighting budgets are drawing fierce criticism.

According to a report by EUobserver, firefighters have grown tired of being branded “heroes” by politicians.

“We don’t want to be called heroes; we want to be given resources,” said Ludovic Goblet, a representative of the French firefighters’ union Spasdis-CFTC.

His remarks came days after fresh EU figures revealed that the number of professional firefighters across Europe fell by 18,000 during the worst wildfire year on record.

That decline included a reduction of more than 4,000 personnel in France alone.

French firefighters set out three urgent demands

A coalition of trade unions representing France’s fire and rescue services held a meeting lasting approximately two hours with Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez last Thursday.

The coalition put forward three primary demands: additional resources to cope with the surge in emergency calls, the mass recruitment of professional firefighters, and new legislation to modernise civil protection services.

“The minister failed to meet our expectations; we received no concrete response. We have no guarantees regarding funding, funding strategy, or the content of the legislation,” said union spokesperson Xavier Boy.

Boy noted that the resources allocated to fire services have not kept pace with the rising number of interventions and multiplying crises.

Lack of resources fuels strike call for September

Unions have called for a “major mobilisation” on 29 September, a day when public sector workers are also planning to strike.

David Saquet of the UNSA firefighters’ union told AFP that professional firefighters also plan to stage a protest at Place de la Republique in Paris three days earlier.

Firefighters say they are exhausted following one of the worst wildfire seasons in French history, with provisional estimates indicating that at least 120,000 hectares have burned since the beginning of the summer.

Of the 256,400 firefighters registered with the French Interior Ministry, only 44,000—or approximately 17%—are either professional or military personnel.

In recent weeks, applications to become volunteer firefighters have doubled, and in some departments tripled.

Fire officials report that, driven in part by a wave of public gratitude, they have had to process as many applications in a few weeks as they typically receive in six months.

French interior minister plays for time

Nuñez said on Thursday that long-awaited draft legislation to reorganize the country’s civil protection services would be presented on 8 September.

Launched in mid-2024, the initiative aimed to modernise a system widely seen as on the verge of collapse by providing additional financial support. However, the process had ground to a halt since then.

The interior minister welcomed the “very frank discussions” held with unions on Thursday.

The minister stated that the proposal to be presented in September would “more clearly define the missions” of French firefighters, who “currently have to respond to personal medical emergencies just as frequently as they respond to disasters or fires.”

In a statement published on the social media platform X, Nuñez added that discussions regarding the funding of fire services remain ongoing, with additional resources expected to be allocated in the 2027 budget.

European Commission enforces fiscal austerity

Ahead of this summer, the European Commission told member states that they needed to ensure they maintained an “adequately sized and well-prepared” firefighting force.

Yet the Commission is simultaneously enforcing the EU’s strict fiscal rules, which have led to spending cuts in public services, including fire departments.

Poland, for example, recorded the largest drop in firefighter numbers last year. Alongside France, it was placed under the Excessive Deficit Procedure in 2024.

Belgium faces a similar situation: the country’s fire services are tackling wildfires with a 10% reduction in staffing in 2024 and a further loss of 200 firefighters in 2025.

This development is not only hazardous for the public and firefighters. Damage caused by wildfires this summer has already exceeded 3 billion euros.

Conversely, the same fiscal logic is not applied to defence, where massive investments are being channelled into military equipment.

According to EUobserver, in the face of mounting and increasingly complex threats, austerity policies have left Europe weaker, more divided, and less prepared in almost every respect for the challenges ahead.

German historian Manfred Kittel has claimed that Soviet leader Josef Stalin, who gave the “green light” for Germany to invade Poland, was responsible for World War II.

Previously known for his “revisionist” views on the war, Kittel articulated these arguments in a full-page article published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), one of Germany’s influential mainstream newspapers.

According to Kittel, driven by the “impetus of a need for war in Europe”, the Soviet Union gave Germany the “green light” to invade Poland by signing the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact on 23 August 1939.

The article argues that this made it possible for Adolf Hitler’s “almost instinctive disposition” towards war to “unfold destructively”.

Accordingly, “a deliberately acting Stalin” thus became an “accomplice” in World War II.

Manfred Kittel made headlines years ago when extreme revisionist tendencies emerged under his leadership at the Berlin-based Flight, Expulsion, Reconciliation Foundation.

At present, Kittel criticises Stalin’s “complicity” in the outbreak of the war in 1939 and attempts to demonstrate “plainly and clearly […] the fatal role of Russian imperialism”.

In 2025, Kittel also described Russia’s war against Ukraine as a “war of annihilation”.

Mainstreaming of “revisionism” continues in Germany

According to German Foreign Policy, Kittel began to gain wider public recognition from 2009 onwards.

At that time, he was appointed director of the Flight, Expulsion, Reconciliation Foundation, which had been established in late 2008 to create a documentation centre in Berlin on forced migration.

The centre’s focus was to address the resettlement of German-speaking populations from various countries across Eastern and South-Eastern Europe as a consequence of mass crimes committed by Germans during World War II.

Kittel was appointed director of the foundation despite the thematic focus of his dissertation, published in 1993.

In his thesis, the historian argued that Nazi crimes had already been sufficiently addressed during the era of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer—namely in the early years of the Federal Republic—and claimed that anyone disputing this was paving the way for a “penitence mentality”.

He contended that trying to encourage the “broad masses of the population” to “come to terms with the past” amounted to “misguided public education”.

In 2008, under Kittel’s co-ordination, a “feasibility study” on the Nazi past of officials in refugee associations was conducted at the taxpayer-funded Munich Institute of Contemporary History (IfZ).

Regarding an SS-Obersturmfuehrer involved in mass atrocities, the author claimed that it could not be determined “whether he was inwardly a National Socialist”.

Poland viewed as “occupied East Prussia”

Under Kittel’s leadership, the Flight, Expulsion, Reconciliation Foundation generated headlines on several occasions.

In the summer of 2010, it emerged that both full and alternate members of the foundation’s board held openly revisionist views.

For instance, one board member had once described a trip to north-eastern Poland (“East Prussia”) as a “journey to an occupied country”.

An alternate member suggested in a newspaper article that Poland might bear some responsibility for World War II.

The article also argued that it was Great Britain that “turned the Battle of Danzig into a global conflict”.

Exaggeration of “German suffering”

In the autumn of 2014, the foundation under Kittel’s leadership caused a final scandal by opening an exhibition at the Deutsches Historisches Museum [German Historical Museum] in Berlin.

This exhibition served as a precursor project to the planned documentation centre focused on forced migration.

The exhibition not only disregarded Nazi mass crimes as the cause for the resettlement of German-speaking populations from Eastern and South-Eastern European countries, but it also drastically exaggerated the number of victims.

For example, the exhibition claimed that “more than two million Germans died during the forced expulsions from Poland, Bohemia, and East Prussia”.

In contrast, the German Historical Museum stated that “at most 600,000” people died during the resettlement processes between 1944 and 1947, a figure supported by scientific evidence.

Post-war German expulsions labelled “genocide”

At the time, the exhibition proved to be the final straw. Following years of protests from Polish and Czech historians, as well as the Central Council of Jews, whose representatives withdrew temporarily or permanently from the foundation’s governing bodies, Kittel was forced to resign from his post in late 2014.

Nevertheless, Kittel remained a prominent figure among representatives of displaced German communities.

Among other honours, he received the Human Rights Award from the Sudeten German Homeland Association in 2015.

He has repeatedly and openly advocated for classifying the resettlement of German-speaking populations in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe as “genocide”.

For some time, the historian has also commented more frequently on the policies of the Soviet Union and Russia.

For instance, writing in April 2025, Kittel argued that the resettlement process was supported by the Kremlin because it provided an opportunity to create “an overpopulated crisis hotspot in the heart of Central Europe” in post-war Germany.

In his view, displaced Germans from the East were intended to become a “source of unrest and social decay”, which constituted the “Russian imperial context” of the events.

Kittel stated that “Great Russian imperialism” existed long before Hitler and continued “to this day, even without Hitler”, such as in the form of the “ongoing war of annihilation” against Ukraine.

“Complicity” of the Soviet Union

Last week, Kittel went so far as to attribute “complicity” in World War II to the Soviet Union, thereby denying that Nazi Germany bore sole responsibility.

In a full-page article published in the FAZ, Kittel primarily cited historian Klaus Hildebrand.

Hildebrand had been accused of making “relativising” statements about National Socialism during the “Historians’ Dispute” (Historikerstreit) of 1986 and 1987.

According to Hildebrand, Soviet policy was dictated by the “need for war in Europe”.

Kittel wrote that through the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939, Moscow gave the German Reich the “green light”, “supported the German war effort”, and thereby enabled Hitler’s “almost instinctive disposition” towards war to “unfold destructively”.

In his personal assessment, Kittel concluded that “a deliberately acting Stalin” had made himself an “accomplice” as early as 1939.

This claim is directed at the country that suffered by far the greatest loss of life in the German war of annihilation, with approximately 27 million dead.

Kittel consistently defends the actions of the Western powers, from condoning the annexation of parts of Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement to refusing to co-operate with Moscow against the Nazi Reich.

Proposal for national memorial day against pact

Ultimately, Kittel attributes an “imbalance in the culture of remembrance” to the Federal Republic.

That is, he argues there is an imbalance between the “increasingly intense focus on the crimes of Nazi annihilation imperialism” on the one hand, and the “suppressed sins of more traditional territorial imperialism of the Tsarist or Stalinist type in Russia” on the other.

Kittel considers this an imbalance “with serious political consequences”. He notes that he “struggles to understand” why then Foreign Minister Heiko Maas insisted in May 2020 that “Germany alone unleashed the war against Poland in 1939” and therefore bore responsibility for World War II.

Kittel believes it is “‘more important than ever’ to demonstrate plainly and clearly Stalin’s complicity in the outbreak of the war in 1939 and the catastrophic, ongoing role of Russian imperialism”.

To advance his aim, Kittel wants 23 August to be declared a “national day of remembrance” in Germany as the “commemoration day of the Hitler-Stalin Pact”.

The European Parliament undertook a similar initiative in September 2019. At that time, it adopted a resolution calling for 23 August to be designated EU-wide as the “European Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Totalitarian Regimes”.

The resolution asserted, among other points, that World War II “broke out as an immediate result of the notorious non-aggression treaty between the National Socialist German Reich and the Soviet Union, also known as the Hitler-Stalin Pact”.

According to the European Parliament, these two states were “totalitarian regimes (…) pursuing the goal of world conquest to an equal degree”.