Opinion
The Christian liar
On the occasion of Konrad Adenauer’s 150th birthday, the prevailing foundational narrative of the Federal Republic is seldom called into question. Werner Rügemer‘s sketch, however, does precisely that. It portrays Adenauer not as the architect of a democratic new beginning, but as a consistent power politician in the service of capital—from the Empire to Weimar, from the Nazi state to the yoke of the United States. A necessary act of demystification.
German Chancellor and CDU Chairman Friedrich Merz has bowed to the world’s most powerful far-right figure, US President Donald Trump. This submission entails further militarization, accompanied by the impoverishment of the majority of the population and the peril of nuclear annihilation. This has a history, and that history began with the first Chancellor and CDU Chairman, Konrad Adenauer. His current successor, Friedrich Merz, has confirmed that Adenauer “set the decisive course for the Federal Republic.”
I. Catholic Ascent in a Protestant Empire
The rise of the Catholic Adenauer began within the Protestant German Empire.
Following the end of Napoleon’s brief dominion, the Kingdom of Prussia succeeded in annexing the Ruhr and the Rhineland, including its largest city, Cologne. Prussia and rising capitalism had discarded old feudal Catholicism as an ideology: Protestantism became the state religion. After the feudal lords with their Catholic blessings, it was now the turn of the new holders of private power—the capitalists—and their profits, blessed by Protestantism.
Protestant Prussians Complete the Catholic Cologne Cathedral
Consequently, the Prussians were extremely flexible in their use of religion: Since the Rhineland and Cologne were Catholic, replete with an Archbishopric and Romanesque churches, the Prussian Protestants promoted the Catholicism of their new subjects there as well.
Thus, the Prussian kings showed benevolence and, from 1842 onwards, financed the completion of the 157-meter-high cathedral towers. What the wealthy Catholic Archbishopric of Cologne had failed to achieve in 600 years, the Protestant Prussians accomplished in a few. And the Catholics were now obliged to be grateful to the Prussians.
Incidentally, the Prussians did not achieve this alone. The Jewish owners of the Sal. Oppenheim bank, rising in tandem with Prussia, also performed political groundwork; some converted to Catholicism, but mostly to Protestantism. They became the second-largest donors for the completion of the “Catholic” cathedral. This bank, ideologically highly flexible, would play a significant role in Adenauer’s ascent as Lord Mayor (Oberbürgermeister) of Cologne and subsequently as Chancellor of the Federal Republic.
Rise in a Catholic Milieu under Prussian Patronage
Konrad, the third son of a father who had risen from a craftsman via military service to a Prussian judicial officer, was permitted to attend the Gymnasium—specifically, the Royal Catholic Apostel Gymnasium. The school was financed by the Kingdom of Prussia and built directly adjacent to the Catholic Church of the Apostles. The aim here was to support aspiring individuals from the Catholic milieu to serve in the Prussian administration, corporations, and banks. Indeed, in 1894, former Chancellor Bismarck personally congratulated the high school graduate: The 18-year-old Konrad was now “one of us.”
After high school, Konrad remained within the Catholic milieu; during his law studies in Bonn, Munich, and Freiburg, he joined the relevant Catholic student fraternities. He later began working at Hermann Kausen’s law firm in Cologne; his boss was simultaneously a Royal Prussian Notary and the chairman of the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) in the City Council. Konrad joined the Centre Party to become a Council Member in 1906 and, as early as 1909, First Deputy Mayor. This rising star was elected with the approval of the Liberal Party—that is, the entrepreneurs, bankers, and, for instance, the bosses of the dominant media clan DuMont Schauberg, whose Kölnische Zeitung was distributed throughout Prussia. Thus, at the unusually young age of 33, this ascending man took charge of the city administration; the Catholic Lord Mayor Max Wallraf, also of the Centre Party, held the office only in an honorary capacity.
Under Prussia’s three-class franchise system, only wealthy men could vote in Cologne. Rich capitalists were in the Liberal Party; artisans and civil servants were in the Centre Party. The SPD [Social Democratic Party] could not be elected at the local level; it held only a seat in the Reichstag in Berlin.
Adenauer also ensured the proliferation of his own wealth. He joined the Pudelnaß Tennis Club—not because he could, or wanted to, play tennis. Rather: The youth of Catholic high society met there. It was there he met his first wife, Emma Weyer, the daughter of the director of the Cologne Reinsurance Company. Thus, the rising Adenauer, with a suitable loan, was soon able to purchase a large plot of land in the developing Catholic villa district of Cologne-Lindenthal and have a 14-room villa with a wine cellar constructed.
Administrative Chief of the Frontline City of Cologne in WWI
As administrative chief, Adenauer had fostered the rise of Cologne’s industry, financed by the Oppenheim, Levy, Seligmann, and J.H. Stein banks. These were also the financiers of industry and railways in the Ruhr area and neighboring cities like Wuppertal.
The Lord Mayor of Cologne was subordinate to the Prussian military governor and the Prussian-appointed district president of Cologne. With the outbreak of war in 1914, martial law was declared. Thus, in World War I, Cologne became the German Empire’s frontline city against the nearby enemy states of Belgium, France, and England.
Prior to the war, Adenauer had constructed the Butzweiler Hof airfield as well as another airfield for Zeppelins, and had brought Zeppelin production to Cologne. As soon as the war began, Zeppelins rained bombs on cities in Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Lithuania, and London—the first instance in human history of the aerial bombardment of enemy cities and civilians.
Stinnes and Krupp shifted munitions production to Cologne, while Bayer in Wuppertal produced poison gas: deadly weapons had to reach the front as quickly as possible. Cologne was also a transit station for soldiers, supplies, and prisoners of war moving to and from the front. Occupied Belgium was also administered from Cologne. Adenauer cultivated close friendships with leading industrialists and took over the war economy management of the frontline city; the municipal department tasked with this had 4,500 employees.
Cologne: Execution of Christian Sailors
It was no coincidence that Cologne was chosen for the execution of sailors Albin Köbis and Max Reichpietsch, who were sentenced to death for “mutiny” in 1917 for protesting the war. Both were Christians, but members of the New Apostolic Church: This church had been founded because Pope Leo XIII had openly embraced capitalism. The “mutineers” followed early Christianity; Adenauer, the capitalist Christian, had no objection to the execution of such Christians.
When the incumbent Lord Mayor of Cologne, Wallraf, was called to the stumbling imperial government in Berlin as a (penultimate) last resort, Adenauer became his successor; no one else was even considered. Precisely because a “politician of endurance” was needed for the frontline city of Cologne in a war that could no longer be won, Adenauer, upon his demand, immediately received the highest salary of any mayor in the Empire. He concluded his inaugural speech in October 1917 with an “oath of loyalty to the Kaiser and the Empire, with the call glowing with warm gratitude: His Majesty, our all-highest Kaiser and King, hurrah, hurrah, hurrah!”
“They Died for Germany”
Together with his corporate friends, Adenauer rejected peace negotiations in 1917. Millions of dead soldiers and civilians were, for the well-ensconced Christian civil servant-politician, merely collateral damage, ruthlessly factored in.
In the final year of the war, he declared in the city council that just as “the people of Cologne have endured these hardships to this day,” Germans must “endure all the hardships of war with patience and patriotism.” He justified the 41 deaths in a British air raid on Cologne in May 1918 by stating: “They too died for Germany.”
“Germany”; this would remain a core value for Adenauer: Dependent laborers are exploited and, for the sake of capitalists masquerading as “Germany” and their privileged accomplices, are expendable even in war.
End of War: Flattering and Destroying Revolutionaries
Fighting rising democratic resistance, saving capitalism: This was Adenauer’s mission at the end of the war.
Therefore, although the SPD was banned from standing for election under Prussian electoral law, from 1916 onwards he gave compliant SPD politicians positions in the administration and the city council. The SPD politician Wilhelm Sollmann became his special adjutant.
When a Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council was formed in Cologne as well, Adenauer allocated them rooms, telephones, and typewriters in the city hall. At the same time, he ensured that Sollmann became the chairman of this council and could denounce capitalism as a warmonger at large rallies.
The Christian liar Adenauer walked around with a revolutionary armband on his sleeve, but simultaneously established the “Welfare Committee”: Here, he gathered his banker friends and entrepreneurs; Sollmann was also present. In the final year of the war, the Kaiser awarded Adenauer the Order of the Red Eagle and membership in the Prussian House of Lords, the upper house of the Reichstag.
Saving the State and City from “Bolshevism”!
When Kaiser Wilhelm II fled abroad shortly before the war ended in November 1918, Adenauer remained true to his oath and sharply condemned the Kaiser’s “shameful, ominous flight.” Now, “the country could be dragged into the embrace of Bolshevism.”
But Adenauer’s Welfare Committee outmaneuvered the penniless activists of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council, who lacked political experience. Thus, Adenauer had averted the “Bolshevik danger” on behalf of the fled Kaiser. Later, he boasted of having tricked the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council together with Sollmann, thereby “saving the city from revolution.”
It was here that he learned ruthless ideological opportunism and the merciless defense of capitalism. With this, he would continue to rise as a politician—and very soon, as a multimillionaire.
II. Continued Rise in the Hated Republic
Demagoguery regarding the “Bolshevik danger” remained Adenauer’s leitmotif. He carried as much of the monarchy as possible into the Weimar Republic: Relations with the peaks of private capital, and the continuation of the Free State of Prussia within the German Reich. In this way, he would contribute to the NSDAP [Nazi Party] coming to government by 1933.
Against the “Dictate of Versailles”
Adenauer railed against the “Dictate of Versailles”: He argued that this “intolerable slavery and bondage” destroyed “national and state existence,” ruined the German economy, caused “our children to wither,” and abandoned millions of Germans to “a slow death.” Adenauer said this as President of the German Catholics’ Day in Munich in 1922; yet he never mentioned the architect of the dictate, US President Wilson, who, by designating Germany as the sole guilty party, secured Wall Street’s war loans and the profits of US arms companies.
However, Adenauer tore into the spreading socialism that sought to “alienate the German people from Christianity.” He condemned the “lack of morality and authority” appearing in the “tortured people,” equating it with “materialism and Mammonism.”
What distinguished Adenauer from the far-right and the NSDAP was initially his concept of a solution: Catholic Christianity and the Catholic Centre Party. But since he shared the fundamental critique of the Versailles Dictate, his solution, polished with a Christian veneer, would step by step converge with the far-right solution. And as in the monarchy, he would bind himself not even to his own party, but to leading capitalists.
Thus, Adenauer expanded his personal and institutional relationships with leading capitalists to the entire German Reich and the USA.
In the Cologne Rotary Club
In 1928, Adenauer was a founding partner in the small men’s circle of the Cologne Rotary Club, established on the US model, alongside bankers Hagen (Bank Levy), the Oppenheims, Pferdmenges (Schaafhausen, later Oppenheim), and Baron von Schröder (J.H. Stein), industrialists Silverberg (Rheinbraun), Stollwerck (Chocolate), Clouth (Rubber), Tietz (Department Stores), and publisher Neven DuMont (Kölnische Zeitung). The president was Pferdmenges.
Pferdmenges’ influence had long since transcended the Rhine and Ruhr: In 1929, the Schaafhausen Bank Association merged with Deutsche Bank. During the nationalization of the bankrupt Dresdner Bank and Commerzbank in 1931, he advised the government of Chancellor Brüning (Centre Party) and in the process joined the Supervisory Board of Dresdner Bank and the Board of the Reichsbank [Central Bank].
A Favorite in the Circle of Ruhr Industrialists
The bosses of the four Cologne investment banks sat on dozens of supervisory boards of Ruhr conglomerates such as Flick, Klöckner, Thyssen, Stinnes, and IG Farben.
Consequently, Adenauer became a sought-after member of their lobbying associations:
- League for the Renewal of the Empire: With slogans like “People without Space,” “Strengthening the Führer idea,” the necessity of a “Third Reich,” and “overcoming conflicts” through a uniform “healthily structured nation,” this league formed a programmatic cross-front with Hitler’s NSDAP.
- Reich Economic Council: Coordinated industrialists and large landowners throughout the Reich with the Reich Association of German Industry (RDI).
- Ruhrlade: This secret organization financed the “conservative” parties DVP, DNVP, and Adenauer’s Centre Party, and ultimately the NSDAP.
Adenauer became the politically desired candidate here. In 1925, steel baron August Thyssen wrote to him: “I hope the hour will soon come when you, with capable people, will stand at the head of the government and understand our needs.”
“Germany’s Right to Colonies”
The German Colonial Society (DKG) had been founded in 1885. However, at Versailles, Germany had been stripped of its colonies, which were given to US allies. The DKG subsequently fought for the return of the colonies. This was also in the NSDAP’s program. Only the KPD [Communist Party] and USPD explicitly rejected it.
In 1931, Adenauer became Vice President of the DKG. The President was Heinrich Schnee, the former Governor of German East Africa. In Cologne’s great banqueting hall, the Gürzenich, Adenauer criticized the “inconsistency of the colonial guilt lie” propagated by the victorious powers.
Separatism: Prussian State, Rhenish State
Within the Weimar Republic, the Free State of Prussia was preserved as a semi-monarchical extension with its own parliament (Landtag) and government. It covered two-thirds of the German Reich and was a counterweight to the newfangled democracy of the Weimar Constitution.
President of the Prussian State Council
The Prussian State Council existed as the upper house of the Prussian Landtag from 1920 onwards. Adenauer served as its President from 1921 to 1933, attending 222 sessions. In return, he received a free residence in Berlin. The expense allowance was 12,000 Reichsmark annually, plus daily allowances.
In Berlin, he met with ambassadors of other states, the Vatican representative and later Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht, and members of the Deutsche Bank board, on whose supervisory board he sat. He also met with Wall Street banker Thomas McKittrick of the Lee Higginson investment bank, the leading lender to the German Reich.
From this perspective, too, the attitude cultivated by Adenauer and his spin doctors—that he was anti-Prussian and disliked the Prussian capital—is revealed as a lie.
Western Separatist State: Direct Capital
Adenauer and his friends felt their existing freedoms were violated not only by Versailles but also by the fashionable democracy of the Weimar Republic: Now all adults, regardless of wealth—even women!—could vote. The influence of trade unions, the SPD, and even more dangerous leftists was too great! A capital-friendly separatist state, in addition to the Prussian state, seemed like a solution to them.
The spokesman was the billionaire Ruhr baron Hugo Stinnes. Adenauer experimented with concepts named “Rhenish Republic,” “Rhenish State,” or “Rhenish-Westphalian Republic,” or sometimes “West German Republic”: In one variant, it would remain part of the German Reich; in another, it would not.
Such a separatist state was to include the predominantly German-speaking French region of Alsace, conquered by the German Empire in 1870 and forced back to France by the Treaty of Versailles. In 1923, bypassing the German Foreign Office, Stinnes took Adenauer to Paris to ask if the government there was interested in a Western European economic union. The French government and the Bank of England refused: That was the end of the project.
Secret Tax Advantages for Prestige Projects
Furthermore, after the war, the USA had established itself in Western Europe. They organized the Dawes Plan for the German Reich, named after Charles Dawes of the National City Bank in New York. US companies opened branches in Germany and opened the country to their products.
US Bonds and Ford to Cologne!
Adenauer utilized this more than any other mayor. Through Wall Street banks, he had Cologne municipal bonds sold to US investors with a 7.5 percent yield to finance his major projects: the Niehl industrial estate, the airport, the Nürburgring, the stadium, the Rhine bridge, the university, and the first section of autobahn in Germany.
Automotive giant Ford had opened its first branch in Berlin in 1926. In 1930, Adenauer brought the second Ford branch and the US company’s German headquarters to Cologne. To achieve this, he granted secret tax advantages, bypassing the city council.
Adenauer saw no harm in flattering Adolf Hitler’s most influential financier and the world’s leading antisemite. The German edition of his book “The International Jew” had reached its 26th printing by 1926.
The New Albertus Magnus University!
The University of Cologne had been founded in the 14th century but was closed by Napoleon in 1798 due to “bigotry”: The Malleus Maleficarum (“Hammer of Witches”), the theological justification for the torture and public burning of thousands of women (“witches”) until the 18th century, had originated here.
Adenauer had the university rebuilt, referring to its great past at the opening in 1919, but mentioning nothing of its diabolical aberrations. He named the university once again after its founder, the medieval theologian Albertus Magnus. Funding was provided by Adenauer’s capital friends with their Christian veneer: Bayer boss Carl Duisberg, for example, donated 200,000 RM. Banker Pferdmenges collected two million. He would remain the most important collector of legal and illegal donations for Adenauer after 1945 as well.
Courting Hitler’s Future Crown Jurist
In 1932, Adenauer secured the appointment of constitutional lawyer Carl Schmitt to the old-new university. Adenauer had been gravitating toward this intellectual father of the authoritarian “Führer State” since 1925.
Both admired Mussolini. To be close to Hitler, Schmitt was appointed to the University of Berlin as early as the summer semester of 1933, becoming the “Crown Jurist of Hitler.”
Multifaceted Self-Enrichment
Adenauer’s income and wealth were the highest of any politician in the German Reich.
Salary, Perks, Supervisory Board Memberships, Interest-Free Loans
The highest mayoral salary—twice that of the Reich President—was accompanied by the highest overt and covert perks. As of 1930: Annual salary 41,250 RM, plus pensionable housing allowance of 37,000, and 6,000 for electricity and heating. (For comparison: A worker’s annual wage: 1,680 RM; a civil servant: 2,520 RM).
Added to this were profits from stock transactions, interest-free loans from the city treasury and banker friends, and above all: income from 11 supervisory board memberships (Deutsche Bank, Lufthansa, RWE, Rheinische Braunkohle, etc.).
Millions in Loans for Stock Speculation: Never Repaid
In the spring of 1928, Glanzstoff AG, which had a branch in the Cologne industrial estate of Niehl, listed new shares of its newly founded US artificial silk subsidiary, American Glanzstoff Corporation, on the New York Stock Exchange.
Adenauer bought a package of shares with a loan of millions from Deutsche Bank. In 1928, the market value was 1.33 million Marks; by October 1929, due to the financial crisis in the US, it had fallen to just 110,000 Marks. Deutsche Bank demanded repayment of the loan.
Adenauer never repaid the loan; he did not want to, nor was he compelled to under any regime. Thus, in 1949, Adenauer would begin his duties as CDU Chairman and founding Chancellor of the Federal Republic as a speculator indebted to Deutsche Bank.
On the Road to Fascism
In 1929, Dictator Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty with the Vatican: Catholicism became the state religion. Mussolini-admirer Adenauer sent congratulations: “The name Mussolini will be written in golden letters in the history of the Catholic Church!” Mussolini thanked “dottor h.c. adenauer primo borgomastro Koeln” on behalf of all Catholics and all Italians.
Cultural Institute with Mussolini
Thus, in 1931, the Lord Mayor of Cologne signed an agreement between Cologne and Italy with the leading ideologue of Italian fascism, Minister of Culture Giovanni Gentile (“The Foundations of Fascism”): The establishment of an Italian Cultural Institute, against the will of the Reich government and with a fascism-friendly administration.
Permission to Hoist Swastika Flags
Adenauer later successfully spread the lie that he had resisted the hoisting of swastika flags in the city in February 1933. The reality was this: The NSDAP had secretly hung flags on the Mülheim Bridge to advertise a Hitler event in the Cologne exhibition halls. Adenauer had the flags removed because the bridge was municipal property! However, the Mayor permitted the NSDAP to hang flags on the exhibition halls, which also belonged to the municipality: This is how Adenauer lied using partial truths.
NSDAP into the Prussian and Reich Government!
As early as August 1932, the Centre Party demanded that the National Socialists take “open and full responsibility” in both the Prussian government and the Reich government.
On the same day in Cologne, Adenauer visited his Rotary brother Baron von Schröder, who was mediating between the Centre Party and the NSDAP. In the banker’s neighboring villa in Cologne-Lindenthal, Adenauer gave a written guarantee on his host’s letterhead: The Centre Party would “judge Hitler without prejudice solely by his actions and tolerate him as Reich Chancellor.”
On behalf of the Prussian State Council, Adenauer declared in February 1933 that in Prussia, “the formation of a government between the NSDAP and the Centre Party under the Premiership of Hermann Göring is immediately possible.” Two months later, Göring became Prussian Prime Minister. Hitler was already Reich Chancellor.
III. During the Nazi Era: Luxury Living with a State Pension
During the Nazi regime, Adenauer was able to lead a luxurious, privileged, and free life, including trips abroad, thanks to a high state pension and his status as a multimillionaire. He observed the injustice with immense knowledge and mercilessness. Yet nothing in life is as far from innocence as allowing visible injustice to persist. He had helped the Nazis into government and offered no resistance despite—or rather, because of—his highly privileged position. He made himself permanently complicit.
Defeat of a Politically Bankrupt Man
Adenauer’s Centre Party fell from power in the local elections of March 1933 because its reputation had already been ruined by high municipal debts. However, the majority for the NSDAP candidate could only be achieved because the 10 seats of the Communists were declared invalid; Adenauer and the Centre Party did not protest this.
Refuge with Enthusiastic Nazi Christians: Maria Laach Abbey
Adenauer was expelled from Cologne by the Nazi regional administration. He quickly found accommodation with his friend Ildefons Herwegen, Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey of Maria Laach in the Eifel.
In the weeks that Herwegen hosted Adenauer, the Abbot was enthusiastically greeting the Hitler government: “People and state have become one again through the action of Führer Adolf Hitler.” At a memorial service for the NSDAP martyr Albert Leo Schlageter in the Cologne Gürzenich hall on May 26, 1933, the Abbot invoked God’s blessing upon the Führer.
The Centre Party supported the Concordat Hitler concluded with the Vatican. Pope Pius XI had praised Hitler as a “reliable pioneer against Bolshevism.” Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, who had been in the Centre Party until shortly before, came to Maria Laach on July 21, 1933: The Concordat was celebrated. The rule now was: With the blessing of God and Hitler, one could be a member of the Catholic Church and the NSDAP simultaneously!
June 1933: “It Makes No Difference to Me, Hitler Will Do”
In June 1933, Adenauer wrote from the monastery to his friend, the banker’s wife Dora Pferdmenges: My party, the Centre Party, has failed because “in recent years it did not fill itself with a new spirit in time,” and: “In my conviction, our only salvation is a monarch, a Hohenzollern, or for all I care, Hitler will do; first Reich President for life, then comes the next stage. Thus the movement enters a calmer channel.”
Adenauer determined that the other bourgeois parties were also incapable of saving the existing “order” against the power of the labor movement and mass democracy. Thus, he approved of war and fascism as necessary collateral damage; incidentally, a significant side benefit emerged for Adenauer’s clientele, just as it did for Adenauer himself.
Pferdmenges: “We Follow the Will of the People’s Chancellor”
In 1933, right at the beginning of the Hitler government, Pferdmenges—Adenauer’s most important advisor and financier, who at that time sat on the supervisory boards of both Dresdner Bank and Bank Oppenheim—declared: “We follow the will of the People’s Chancellor to create work and bread for the unemployed.”
From 1932 onwards, Pferdmenges was a presbyter and treasurer on the board of the Protestant congregation in Cologne’s millionaire district of Marienburg: This congregation had adopted the newly founded Nazi church, the “German Christians.” Therefore, a new, much larger community center had to be built, with rooms for the Hitler Youth and the Nazi Women’s League.
Carved in stone at the entrance, immortalized in colossal size, was not only Martin Luther with a Christian cross, but also an SA soldier with a swastika and imperial eagle. In 1934, Pferdmenges inaugurated the community center. Thus, in Cologne, not only the Catholic but also the Protestant church entered into a demonstrative, public alliance with Hitler within the milieu of bankers and industrialists.
Free, Luxurious Mobility Under the Nazi Regime
Adenauer was not removed from office as Lord Mayor of Cologne in 1933, as he later lied; on the contrary, he was retired with a high pension.
High Pension, Compensation, Preservation of Wealth
Initially, he received an annual pension of 12,165 Reichsmark, then 15,000 RM permanently from 1937 onwards, plus compensation at market value for the villa in Cologne. His wealth remained completely intact. As part of the arrangement, Adenauer joined the NS-People’s Welfare, a Nazi organization, in 1936.
Villa Residence in Berlin
Thus, in 1934, after his stay in Maria Laach, Adenauer was able to rent the villa of an emigrated Jewish owner in the celebrity district of Griebnitzsee/Neubabelsberg in Berlin. He was able to bring his family to live with him and wanted to become a bank director.
On June 20, 1934, during Hitler’s murderous purge of the SA leadership (the Röhm Putsch), Adenauer was placed under house arrest, but this ended two days later. He was able to vacation comfortably with his wife in the Black Forest.
Land Purchase and New Villa Construction in Rhöndorf
With the compensation for his villa in Cologne, he was able to buy a large plot of 6,000 square meters in the spa and villa resort of Rhöndorf, south of Cologne. He had a residence built like his previous 14-room villa: four living levels, private and representative rooms, a wine cellar, a pantry built into the mountain, an air-raid shelter, several terraces and entrances, a farmyard for animals, and a large garden. Domestic staff were employed during the Nazi era as well. Later, as Chancellor of the Federal Republic, he would reside here.
In Intense Contact with the Organizers of the Nazi Regime
He continued to move within the wealthy milieu.
Visits to Ruhr Industrialists
In 1939, Adenauer and his wife were invited by steel industrialist and Hitler financier Peter Klöckner. A large gathering met at the Villa Hartenfels near Duisburg. The Pferdmenges couple was also present.
Long discussions were held with General Hans Günther Kluge on the comparison of German and US armament capacities; the General was knowledgeable: In 1941, he became Commander of Army Group South in the Wehrmacht’s war of annihilation against the Soviet Union.
The group stayed overnight in the spacious villa and spent the weekend together. For the return journey, Klöckner provided the Adenauers with a car and, as the host noted in a thank-you letter, sent a batch of “those exquisite wines you tasted with us” after them. In the same year, Adenauer also attended a family reception of another friend, Hitler financier Fritz Thyssen.
Baron Kurt von Schröder
The Cologne banker and Rotary brother had engineered Hitler’s chancellorship on January 4, 1933. He joined the SS and the NSDAP, and in May 1933 became President of the Cologne Chamber of Industry and Commerce. Adenauer sent him a “letter of heartfelt congratulations.” Far beyond Cologne, the banker became an ultimate actor in the Nazi system: organizer of the Circle of Friends of the Reichsführer SS (comprising 30 industrialists), spokesman for the Reich Group of Private Banks, member of the Administrative Council of the Reichsbank, and member of the Administrative Council of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, led by Thomas McKittrick—whom Adenauer had met in Berlin before 1933.
Robert Pferdmenges
Adenauer’s fundraiser Pferdmenges was also a key banker in the Nazi financial system. Adenauer asked him, for instance, whether their mutual friend Friedrich Flick (“decent and honest as a man and businessman”) had sold his RWE shares and bought a new company. Bank Oppenheim, managed by Pferdmenges and renamed Bank Pferdmenges in 1938, was a “war-essential” bank until 1945.
Goebbels and Abs Protect Adenauer’s Speculation Losses
Hermann Josef Abs had started at the Bankhaus Delbrück in Cologne in 1923. During the Nazi era, he rose to the board of Deutsche Bank: Until 1945, he organized war loans, sat on the supervisory boards of three dozen systemically important banks and companies, and organized Aryanizations (the confiscation of Jewish property). As a devout Catholic, he welcomed the attack on the Soviet Union enthusiastically, for to him, it was “the greatest enemy of freedom and humanity.”
At shareholder meetings, a small shareholder repeatedly demanded: Adenauer must repay his million-mark loan, otherwise it is a loss for Deutsche Bank and its shareholders! But Abs imposed his will: The motion will not be processed! Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels instructed the media not to report on the matter.
Adenauer: Best Informed on War and Jewish Extermination
Franz-Rudolph von Weiss, who had worked at the Swiss Consulate General in Cologne since 1920 and became Consul in 1936, became Switzerland’s Consul General for the Rhineland in 1943. Weiss had been a close friend of Adenauer since his time as mayor and would become a key advisor for Adenauer’s Swiss relations after 1945.
During the Nazi era, the two met regularly and socially. Adenauer’s wife called Weiss “dear good uncle.” The good uncle sent his reports regularly to his boss, the Swiss Ambassador in Berlin, Hans Frölicher—an enthusiastic Nazi sympathizer who secured arms deliveries from Swiss companies and financial transactions of German companies via Switzerland. At the same time, Weiss held an internationally crucial position from the start of the war: He took over the consular representation of the USA and England, which had severed diplomatic relations with Germany upon their military entry into the war.
Von Weiss maintained a “fine network with politicians, bankers, economic leaders, and high representatives of the Catholic Church.” From 1941 onwards, he reported to his government on, for example, the Warsaw Ghetto, the deportation of Cologne’s Jews, the extermination of Jews in Eastern Europe, and forced laborers in Rhineland factories.
Hitler’s secret police, the Gestapo, documented that Weiss was “one of the best sources of news for foreign countries” due to his “excellent connections to various circles of society and the economy”: Adenauer sat at the source of one of the best intelligence networks in the Nazi state.
Good Relations with the USA
US companies equipped Hitler’s army; Ford Cologne was now producing war vehicles. Adenauer’s second wife came from a Wall Street banking family. He hosted US visitors in Rhöndorf. His son Max won a scholarship to the elite US university Georgetown in Washington in 1937/38.
Adenauer’s longest-standing friend since 1920 was the US entrepreneur Daniel Heineman. Since 1905, he had managed the electrical holding company SOFINA, with its European headquarters in Brussels. In Europe, and in Cologne while Adenauer was mayor, he had built tramways. Due to his Jewish origins, he managed SOFINA from New York following the German occupation of Belgium in 1940; collaboration with the Nazi occupation continued smoothly thereafter.
From 1933 to 1937 alone, Heineman gifted Adenauer a total of 20,000 RM in 1,000-mark notes; in today’s purchasing power, over 100,000 euros. This also provided Adenauer with foreign currency for Swiss vacations without running afoul of the Nazi state’s otherwise strict foreign exchange controls. Heineman would remain an important permanent advisor on US matters for the subsequent Federal Chancellor.
On Principle: No Resistance with Anyone!
Adenauer was able to receive countless visitors undisturbed. However, he rejected all attempts to win him over for any form of resistance. In 1934, Karl Mewis of the Cologne KPD tried via a Catholic industrialist. The industrialist returned with Adenauer’s answer: “Resistance, absolute nonsense!”
In 1936, the Christian trade unionist Jakob Kaiser returned from a three-hour conversation: “He cannot be counted on.” Adenauer likewise rejected contact with the conservative Mayor of Leipzig, Carl Goerdeler, who was building a resistance circle against Hitler with military officers.
In 1944, the Christian trade unionist Heinrich Körner tried. Adenauer refused again: “I want nothing to do with it.” He mocked any resistance with his visitor Franz Thedieck, a Senior War Administration Councillor in the military command in occupied Belgium.
Luxury Detention 1944
In 1944, on the occasion of the assassination attempt on Hitler by conservative officers, he was temporarily arrested. It was a luxury detention: In the exhibition camp of the city of Cologne, Russian prisoners of war had to clean a bathtub so he could bathe. A fellow prisoner had to iron his trousers.
His daughter and wife brought him socks, shirts, and better food, and were able to chat with him for hours. Unlike his fellow prisoners from the SPD, KPD, and Centre Party, he was not drafted into labor duties or sent to a concentration camp. With a doctor’s note, he was finally transferred to the hospital in Cologne-Lindenthal, as he wished: After the war, he told the lie, “I was in a concentration camp.” (The Adenauer Foundation, Wikipedia, etc., and artificial intelligence continue to propagate such lies today.)
Without Remorse and Repentance: Forever Guilty
After the Nazi regime, as an indebted millionaire, in the capacity of CDU Chairman and Federal Chancellor, he would continue his guilt in a new form.
He would help persecute people who had offered resistance to the unjust system, even having them imprisoned, while protecting his accomplices. He would present himself as the “antithesis of the Nazi system.” He would preach Christianity and the Christian West but never fulfill Christianity’s demand for remorse and repentance.
On the contrary: He would lie. He would lie to himself and to the people he governed and administered, exposing them to new injustices and even the danger of a new war.
IV. After Hitler and the World War: “Politics of Humility”
After the war, the Western military administrations led by the USA reorganized the separated West Germany. They helped Adenauer, who had been selected long beforehand, to the chairmanship of the CDU, sidelining competitors and anti-fascists. Many decisions were made in Switzerland, where the chosen one often went disguised as a tourist and also underwent expensive cell revitalization therapy at a private clinic on the shores of Lake Geneva.
In the separatist state of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), founded with Adenauer in 1949, occupation law remained in force. This authority initially lay with the leading US banker John McCloy as US High Commissioner: His apartment in Frankfurt/Main had more staff than the Adenauer government—which was initially not allowed to have its own foreign ministry—and the secret service remained a department of the CIA. Through the Marshall Plan and the NATO clamp, the Adenauer state became a forward US bastion and a “showcase” toward the “East.”
Kissinger: Adenauer’s “Politics of Humility”
Henry Kissinger, the most important advisor to US presidents in the 20th century, published his life’s balance sheet shortly before his death: “Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy” (New York and Munich 2022). Kissinger had also advised Federal Chancellor Adenauer: The first chapter in the book was dedicated to him, under the title “The Politics of Humility.”
The meaning was this: German capitalists were allowed to keep their war profits and also the profits from the Aryanization of thousands of Jewish banks, companies, and shares; not only those in Germany but also those in occupied Austria, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Poland, Denmark, Norway, as well as the Soviet Union, Slovakia, Yugoslavia, and North Africa. 98 percent of their legal, media, and scientific accomplices also went unpunished; however, they now had to place their proven anti-communist, anti-Russian, economic, and technical potentials humbly at the service of a higher power—the USA.
Practices of Federal German Humility Before the Master
To mask this humility, this submission, with lies of “new self-confidence” and “we are somebody again”: This kind of humility was embodied and practiced at the highest level by the trained Christian liar and political actor Konrad Adenauer, and it remains decisive for his successors and the Federal Republic to this day; just as today Adenauer’s successor, Chancellor and CDU Chairman Merz, continues to stage the role—fulfilling all fundamental demands of the US government while feigning that he is increasing Europe’s sovereignty with lies.
- The Basic Law, approved by the Western military administrations led by the USA, precisely does not contain the rights decided by the UN as a result of the World War: No reference to international law, e.g., the UN Charter; no reference to the labor and social rights of the UN or its sub-organization the ILO; instead, vague, non-binding verbiage about “human dignity,” which is concretely violated millions of times.
- Parties selected, deemed suitable for government, and continuously financed by corporations and banks—primarily the CDU and CSU—were and are open to the far right, including internationally via party foundations.
- No other European state “hosts” as many US military bases as the Federal Republic: Nuclear bombs are stored here, global drone murders are committed from here, supplies for wars in other states are routed from here without the participation of the German government, and military personnel are not subject to German law.
- Adenauer approved: If the USA decides, nuclear war with Russia will be fought in Europe; this applies again now, should the exhausted US proxy warrior Ukraine be replaced by the arming European NATO states as a much larger US proxy warrior, by order of the current US President Trump.
- From Adenauer to the present day, the following applies: The Federal Republic is not a sovereign state—neither militarily, economically, nor digitally—but a provisional entity subordinate to the USA, especially in foreign and geopolitical affairs; this also applies to the construct of the European Union.
- The Western military administrations and then, from 1949, the US High Commissioner licensed the leading mainstream media (Spiegel, ZEIT, Süddeutsche, Springer, FAZ, as well as regional ones like Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger) with Nazi executive staff to this day; this includes decisive public opinion “research” (= opinion forming: The Allensbach Institute for Demoscopy, founded by Goebbels’ student Noelle-Neumann, which receives permanent commissions from federal governments to this day).
- Labor Injustice: The Federal Republic is the only Western state where political strikes are effectively banned (already banned for civil servants and in church enterprises); while millions of mostly illegal migrant low-wage women work in prostitution (Germany: “The Brothel of Europe”), construction, home care, security, gastronomy, etc., civil servants since Adenauer have become increasingly numerous and highly privileged in the public service, ministries, outsourced agencies, the military, secret services, and diplomacy.
- Since the old Nazi bankers and Nazi entrepreneurs were allowed to continue with their old privileges under Adenauer/McCloy, the “Economic Miracle” also turned out to be a lie: As early as 1967 there were 670,000 unemployed, over a million from 1975, over two million from 1983, three million in 1989; under Adenauer’s successor Helmut Kohl, East Germany was impoverished in favor of Western banks and entrepreneurs from 1990 onwards with US advisors in the Treuhand agency; then all of Germany became the “sick man of Europe” again, further deindustrialized from 2000 onwards with the help of US “locust” investors, especially in medium-sized businesses; and then came Adenauer’s successors Merkel and Merz and the very large US investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, who are now leading shareholder groups in Germany’s most important companies, such as the DAX, and are reducing employment here with high profits while investing in the USA and China. And now the accomplice Merz, Adenauer’s successor, plays the role of the great economic savior for the “new sick man of Europe” with lies.
Fulfillment of the Adenauer Legacy: Humility Before Donald Trump!
To this day, the Federal Republic has no valid constitution, only a provisional and constantly amended “Basic Law”; and under US leadership, with the technocratically named “2+4 Treaty” of 1991, there is still no peace treaty in Europe, no reparation regulations: Thus, the further advance of NATO led by the USA against Russia remains valid: Germany remains a provisional entity.
This is how Adenauer’s legacy is fulfilled today: His current successor as CDU Chairman and Federal Chancellor fulfills all key demands of the most powerful and dangerous far-right figure of the “free world”—in humility before Donald Trump.
Therefore: The demolition of the Adenauer legends is also part of the construction of a democratic, peaceful, secure, prosperous Germany and Europe within the context of a multipolar world order, in which labor and social rights are also included in human rights.
Note by author Werner Rügemer:
In autumn 2026, the comprehensive Adenauer biography with numerous new sources, many from the USA, will be published by Papyrossa Verlag, Cologne.
First appearing on the NachDenkSeiten portal on January 5, 2026, this article was translated from German to English by the Harici team, following a request from Rügemer.
Opinion
Ankara’s Second Summit: Twenty-Two Years On, NATO Returns to a Türkiye That Has Changed the Rules
Dr. Ahmed Moustafa Director & Founder, Asia Center for Studies & Translation, Egypt
Twenty-two years after Istanbul hosted NATO’s leaders in 2004, the Alliance has returned to Turkish soil, this time to the Beştepe Presidential Complex in Ankara, for a summit that arrives not as ceremony but as reckoning. The 36th NATO Summit, convened July 7–8, unfolds against a backdrop few of its architects in 2004 could have imagined: a Ukraine war grinding into its fifth year, a Middle East still smoldering from a direct US-Israel war with Iran, an American president openly questioning the value of the Alliance he is attending, and a host nation, Türkiye, that has quietly become indispensable to almost every crisis on NATO’s agenda.
Türkiye’s Moment: From Junior Partner to Power Broker
Hosting a NATO summit has always been a statement of strategic weight. But Ankara 2026 is different in kind. Türkiye arrives not merely as host but as leverage. Its defense-industrial base — anchored by companies like ASELSAN, which has attracted reported interest from global capital including BlackRock, with US Ambassador Tom Barrack said to be facilitating contacts and BlackRock’s Larry Fink having met President Erdoğan earlier this year — has positioned Türkiye as a rising node in NATO’s push for defense-industrial self-sufficiency. The Ankara Summit’s dedicated Defence Industry Forum, held alongside the political summit, underscores this: Türkiye is no longer simply a NATO member on the alliance’s southeastern flank but a manufacturing and innovation hub the Alliance now needs.
This is Erdoğan’s leverage point. As European allies scramble to meet the 5% GDP defense-spending pledge agreed last year, with 3.5% earmarked for core defense and 1.5% for resilience and infrastructure, Türkiye has positioned Ankara as a “delivery checkpoint” — a moment to translate commitments into contracts, and contracts into Turkish industrial gain. Analysts covering the summit have openly asked whether the gathering represents collective security or, in effect, the largest commercial handshake in Turkish defense history.
The Russia-China Question: Hedging in Plain Sight
Türkiye’s balancing act is not new, but it has rarely been more visible. Even as Ankara hosts NATO’s leaders, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan met his Russian counterpart in Moscow only weeks earlier, part of a pattern of parallel engagement that Ankara has never fully abandoned since the Ukraine war began. Türkiye continues to occupy a unique lane inside NATO: a member state that supplies Kyiv with Bayraktar drones while keeping Black Sea diplomatic channels to Moscow open, and one that has deepened economic and energy ties with both Russia and China without triggering the kind of alliance discipline applied to smaller members. For Ankara, NATO membership and multi-alignment with Moscow and Beijing are not contradictions to be resolved but assets to be managed simultaneously — a posture that gives Turkish diplomats outsized room to maneuver at exactly the summit meant to reaffirm collective unity.
Ukraine: Sustaining a War Without an End
The degraded state of the Ukraine war looms over every session in Ankara. NATO is expected to affirm a pledge of roughly €70 billion in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine in 2026, with allies committing to sustain at least equivalent levels into 2027. Yet the summit convenes amid reports that Italy has been resisting parts of the Ukraine funding language in the draft communiqué, exposing cracks in what NATO officials insist remains a “unity summit.” President Trump is scheduled to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines, following recent phone calls in which Trump suggested renewed prospects for a negotiated peace — even as fighting continues largely unabated and Zelenskyy has publicly flagged what he considers European inaction.
Ankara’s Trade-Off Amid the US-NATO Rift Over Iran
The most consequential subtext of this summit may be the still-raw rupture between Washington and its allies over the Strait of Hormuz. Since the US-Israel war against Iran erupted in late February — triggered by the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — Iran’s closure and periodic re-closure of Hormuz has convulsed global energy markets. When Trump called on NATO, China, Japan and South Korea to help secure the strait militarily in March, every ally declined; Germany’s defense minister flatly stated it was not Europe’s war. Trump responded by calling NATO’s refusal a “very foolish mistake” and describing the Alliance, without American backing, as a “paper tiger.”
That rift has not healed; it has merely gone quiet enough to allow a summit to proceed. A ceasefire and blockade-lifting memorandum signed in June eased the crisis, but Iran has since signaled it will impose transit fees on Hormuz shipping, with “special treatment” reportedly reserved for friendlier states — a policy Washington rejects as unworkable for any lasting deal. Strait security is now formally on this week’s NATO agenda, even though the underlying disagreement over burden-sharing on Iran was never resolved, only overtaken by events. This is the trade-off Turkish politicians are positioned to exploit: Ankara can offer itself as an indispensable interlocutor — bridging Washington’s frustration with European reluctance — while extracting defense-procurement access and diplomatic capital in return, precisely the kind of transactional leverage Erdoğan has cultivated throughout the crisis.
The Middle East Overhang: Syria, Lebanon, and a Widening Israel Rift
Türkiye’s regional posture will shape the summit’s Middle East undertone as much as any formal session. President Trump is set to hold a separate bilateral meeting in Ankara with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the former rebel commander now leading Damascus. The meeting follows Trump’s repeated suggestion — first floated at the G7 — that Syrian forces could take on Hezbollah in Lebanon more effectively than Israel, a proposal al-Sharaa has consistently declined, insisting Damascus seeks only economic channels with Beirut, not a military role reminiscent of Syria’s decades-long occupation of Lebanon. The subtext is unmistakable: Washington is testing whether it can redirect regional security burdens away from an Israeli campaign in Lebanon that has produced significant civilian casualties, toward a Syrian government still consolidating power after Assad’s fall — a maneuver that would simultaneously ease pressure on Israel and open a new channel of US engagement with post-Assad Syria, independent of Iran.
Layered atop this is an open diplomatic rupture between Ankara and Jerusalem. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, in a CNN Türk interview days before the summit, described Israel’s policies and mindset as “a burden that humanity can no longer bear” and called for international sanctions, accusing Israel of perpetrating mass killing in Gaza. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar branded the remarks “textbook incitement to genocide,” a charge Germany’s foreign minister also distanced himself from as unacceptable rhetoric, while President Isaac Herzog denounced the comments as antisemitic. Erdoğan, for his part, dismissed Israeli criticism as an attempt to deflect from its own conduct in Gaza. That this exchange erupted just as NATO’s Israeli-aligned members prepare to sit alongside Türkiye’s delegation adds a genuinely awkward undercurrent to an Alliance summit ostensibly focused on Russia and defense spending — and gives Ankara another card to play: positioning itself as the Muslim world’s most vocal NATO-member critic of Israel, a role with real currency across the Arab and Islamic world even as it strains Türkiye’s Western alliances.
The Palestinian Case and Arab Coordination
For Cairo, Islamabad, Doha, and Riyadh, the Ankara summit is being watched less for its Ukraine communiqué than for what it signals about regional alignment on Gaza and the Palestinian file. Egypt, Qatar, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have each played mediating or coordinating roles throughout the Iran crisis and its regional spillover — Islamabad brokered ceasefire talks during the Hormuz confrontation, while Qatar helped facilitate a Lebanon ceasefire alongside the United States and Iran. That same quartet’s coordination on Gaza reconstruction, Palestinian statehood diplomacy, and pressure against further escalation in Lebanon is likely to intensify in the summit’s aftermath, particularly if Fidan’s confrontational posture toward Israel hardens into a broader Turkish push to rally Muslim-majority states — inside and outside NATO — around a unified Palestinian position. Whether Ankara’s rhetoric translates into coordinated Arab-Turkish diplomatic action, or remains a unilateral Turkish gesture aimed at domestic and regional audiences, will be one of the more consequential open questions to emerge from a summit meant, on paper, to be about Russia and the Atlantic alliance — and that has become, in practice, a referendum on how far Türkiye’s ambitions now extend.
This analysis draws on reporting from NATO’s official summit documentation, Reuters, the Congressional Research Service, The National, The Jerusalem Post, Al Arabiya, and other outlets covering the Ankara Summit as of July 7, 2026.
Opinion
The Story Left Untold in the Summit Hall: The True Price of NATO Membership
As NATO leaders gather in Ankara on July 7–8 for the 36th summit, the official narrative remains undisputed: facing the threat of Soviet invasion, Türkiye entered the alliance through its heroic trial in Korea, thereby securing its safety. My study of more than one thousand documents from the Diplomatic Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye—recently opened to researchers—reveals that neither of the two primary pillars supporting this narrative rests on a documentary foundation. First: now-accessible Soviet archives reveal that Moscow never possessed an operational plan to invade Türkiye. Second: Türkiye did not enter NATO by taking refuge under a security umbrella, but by staking the blood of its own sons in the United States’ war in the Far East. And the heaviest, most enduring toll of this bargain was levied on a relationship that Ankara needs most today: China.

UN Turkish Memorial Cemetery, Busan
There Was No Invasion Plan: There Was Fear, Error, and Opportunism
First, let us correct the record on the Soviet question. The demands conveyed by Molotov to Ambassador Selim Sarper in June 1945—a military base on the Straits, and the retrocession of Kars and Ardahan—were real, and they represented a historic blunder of Soviet diplomacy; there is no defending them. Yet, the Soviet archives opened after 1990, along with Jamil Hasanli’s archival reconstructions in Azerbaijan, document a critical truth: Moscow never drafted an operational plan to seize Kars and Ardahan; the 1945 demands were a maximalist opening gambit, one which even the Kremlin itself saw little prospect of being accepted. Stalin’s retreat during the Straits Crisis of August 1946 was likewise the product of cautious calculation rather than military intent. These same archives reveal how reluctant Stalin was even in Korea: he systematically rejected Kim Il-sung’s requests to launch an attack throughout 1949, and when he finally gave his approval in January 1950, he did so on the strict condition that no major risks would be taken.
Ankara’s fear was genuine—a fear that had accumulated since the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations of 1939 and can be consistently traced through archival documents; to claim that the public was deceived by a manufactured threat narrative would be a disservice to the historical record. But the sincerity of that fear does not mean the response to it was wise. Washington turned the anxiety spawned by this egregious Soviet diplomatic error into the mortar for its own bloc architecture: it excluded Türkiye from NATO in 1949, and then set the price for cracking open the door. That price was Korea.

UN Turkish Memorial Cemetery, Busan

An Entrance Fee Paid in Blood
The archives document beyond a shadow of doubt that the Korean decision was not an act of UN idealism, but a clear trade-off. Bound by no treaty obligations, Ankara decided on July 22, 1950—after deliberations lasting less than a single day—to dispatch a brigade of 4,500 troops to the front under US command. Six days later, UN Permanent Representative Sarper publicly voiced the demand for entry into the Atlantic Pact; the minutes of his meeting with Secretary-General Trygve Lie explicitly articulate this expectation of reciprocity. As the documents demonstrate, the structural decision to admit Türkiye into the Atlantic system was effectively communicated to Ankara on November 1, 1950—that is, before the Battle of Kunu-ri, but well after Turkish blood had been placed on the bargaining table. The Turkish soldier—the Mehmetçik—was made to fight against the forces of a nation that posed no threat to Türkiye, on a peninsula where Türkiye had no national interests, all for the bloc consolidation of a superpower. To call this a success story is to write a panegyric not to those who shed their blood, but to those who sent them to shed it.
The Core of the Cost: China
The least discussed and most permanent consequence of this trade-off is the rupture with China—and herein lies the true tragedy of the story. For the two peoples pitted against one another were the standard-bearers of the twentieth century’s two great anti-imperialist struggles. As my own research demonstrates, the Chinese press of the 1920s and 30s—most notably the Shenbao—closely followed Mustafa Kemal’s Türkiye as the birthplace of the first victorious war of national liberation against imperialism, viewing Kemalist modernization as a source of inspiration for their own national awakening. A quarter of a century later, the children of these two peoples were firing bullets at each other at Kunu-ri and Kumyangjang-ni—on a front drawn by Washington that served the historical interests of neither.
Ankara’s anti-China engagement was not confined to the battlefield. While Britain recognized the People’s Republic of China in January 1950, Türkiye remained anchored in the American-led non-recognition camp. In February 1951, Türkiye was at the forefront of supporting the UN resolution declaring China an “aggressor”; in an environment where even Britain and the Dominions sought moderating formulas, Ankara aligned itself with the harshest stance, driven by a reflex—plainly legible in archival correspondence—to “appear on the side of the majority.” When a strategic embargo was being prepared against China in May 1951, Türkiye chaired the relevant committee. Even the “Chinese Ambassador” whom Foreign Minister Köprülü received in Ankara on the final day of December 1950 represented Taipei, not Beijing. The result: while bridges were burned with Soviet Russia, which had been among the first to extend a hand of friendship to Ankara during the War of Independence, relations with China—the other great nation of anti-imperialist struggle—were frozen before they could even begin. Türkiye would not recognize the People’s Republic of China until 1971. As a researcher living in China, I must add this: the Korean War—known in the Chinese memory as the “War to Resist America and Aid Korea”—is an integral part of China’s founding epic, and Türkiye’s role in that war is far more vivid in the historical memory of our Chinese interlocutors than we tend to assume.

The Other Legacy of the Same Alignment: The Xinjiang File
Another enduring consequence of this bloc choice was gestated during those very years. With the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, political figures who departed Xinjiang—led by Isa Yusuf Alptekin, the former secretary-general of the provincial government, and Mehmet Emin Buğra, a former provincial administrator—turned their gaze toward Türkiye. In 1952, the Ankara government issued a decree admitting thousands of Xinjiang emigrants arriving via Kashmir, and over the subsequent decades, Istanbul became the global epicenter of this diaspora. The Turkish public’s embrace of these people was rooted in a genuine sense of kinship, a sentiment that is not in itself open to criticism. What must be critiqued, however, is the coopting of this humanitarian issue into the bloc architecture of the Cold War: the diaspora movement was politicized within the ecosystem of the American-guided anti-communist networks of the era, becoming institutionalized as part of Türkiye’s anti-China alignment. Thus, an inherently legitimate bond of kinship was transformed into an instrument of great-power rivalry—giving rise to the most sensitive file between Ankara and Beijing today: an issue that Beijing interprets as a matter of territorial integrity, while Türkiye perceives it through the lens of kinship and humanitarian concern, making it the area where the two capitals find it hardest to understand one another. Contrary to popular belief, the roots of this file do not lie in the 1990s, but extend back to those three years when NATO membership was purchased with blood. Unless Türkiye learns to approach this issue not as a leverage point between its own conscience and its relations with China, but as a historical legacy that the two nations must discuss directly and honestly, it will remain vulnerable to the instrumentalization of this file by third parties.
1953: The Pretext Evaporates, the Dependency Remains
The final act of the story is the one least favored by the official narrative. Stalin died on March 5, 1953. On May 30, 1953, the Soviet government, in an official note to Türkiye, explicitly renounced its claims on Kars and Ardahan, as well as its demands for a revision of the Straits regime; it acknowledged that Soviet security could be ensured under conditions compatible with Türkiye’s sovereignty. In later years, Moscow would go even further through Khrushchev, admitting that the Stalin-era demands were a mistake and that this very error had driven Türkiye into the American alliance. In other words, the entire rationale for NATO membership was retracted in writing by its very source, a mere fifteen months after Türkiye joined. Yet membership was not retracted; the blood had already been spilled, the architecture of dependency had already been constructed, and the door to China had already been shut. The threat was temporary; the commitments, the bases, and the closed doors became permanent.
The Real Question for the Summit
The question that will not be asked in the Ankara summit hall, but which urgently demands an answer, is this: as a nation celebrates the seventy-fifth anniversary of a membership purchased by shedding blood on a front entirely divorced from its own historical struggle, against an invasion plan that never existed, when will it take stock of the doors that very membership closed in Asia? If Türkiye is today discussing an agenda that ranges from trade with China to the Middle Corridor, it is in fact attempting to repair a relationship that was sacrificed in 1950–52 for the account of a superpower. As the world is once again dragged into bloc politics, the lesson of history is clear: security acquired by offering blood to fuel the wars of great powers is not security at all, but a dependency whose price is paid across generations. For those who remember that anti-imperialism was the founding experience of this land, the most meaningful agenda for the summit should not be the expansion of NATO, but Türkiye’s resolve to forge relations on the basis of equality with all quarters of its own geography—including China.
Opinion
The Armenian elections, the Caucasus, and great power competition
As anticipated, the general elections held in Armenia on June 7 resulted in a victory for the Civil Contract Party, led by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, which secured approximately half of the vote. Equally expectedly, despite this victory, the party fell short of a constitutional (two-thirds) majority. This political landscape is poised to yield significant ramifications, not only for Armenia’s domestic politics but also for regional dynamics and the overarching great power competition in the Caucasus.
Why so?
Let us examine the reasons point by point:
First, despite suffering a crushing military, political, and diplomatic defeat over Karabakh—a conflict widely recognized as Azerbaijan’s just and legitimate cause—Pashinyan retained robust public support. In the wake of this defeat, his vision of a “real Armenia” rather than an “imaginary” one, combined with his intention to swiftly normalize relations with Azerbaijan and Türkiye, and his promises of economic revitalization and prosperity, clearly resonated with the electorate.
Second, upon assuming office, Pashinyan underestimated Russia’s geopolitical weight in the region, placing excessive trust in the West, specifically US and European imperialism. Observing this, Russian President Vladimir Putin chose not to chastise Pashinyan directly; instead, by refusing to restrain Azerbaijan or prevent Baku from delivering a decisive blow to Yerevan, he forced Pashinyan to confront geopolitical realities.
Third, Russia maintains a formidable presence within Armenia’s domestic politics, economy, and security apparatus, compounded by the vast Armenian diaspora residing in Russia. It is impossible for Pashinyan to dismantle this entrenched reality overnight. For a country of roughly three million people, spanning a mere 30,000 square kilometers, and burdened with a fragile economy, the structural dependency is stark: Armenia sends 90 percent of its exports to Russia, relies entirely on Russian natural gas (secured at a fraction of the price paid by European nations), and has an estimated two million citizens living in Russia. Consequently, Pashinyan cannot afford to escalate tensions with Moscow, even if he were inclined to do so. This explains why, prior to the elections, he announced that his first state visit upon victory would be to Moscow, with Brussels to follow. Despite receiving significant backing from the United States and Europe, his designation of Moscow—which actively supported his domestic opposition—as his premier foreign destination demonstrates that he has, to some extent, internalized the lessons of his early leadership failures since 2018.
Fourth, while Armenia remains eager to cultivate the closest possible relations with NATO and harbors aspirations for European Union membership, Russia has countered this ambition by making it clear that Armenia cannot simultaneously belong to both the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the EU, forcing a choice between the two. Given Armenia’s geographic isolation, trade structures, energy dependence, and Russia’s pervasive influence over Yerevan, the country is in no position to easily abandon the Eurasian Economic Union.
Fifth, Pashinyan believes that a rapid normalization of relations with Türkiye and Azerbaijan will dismantle the Armenian diaspora’s leverage over Armenia’s domestic and, in particular, foreign policy. In doing so, he hopes to place Yerevan’s relations with Western nations on a healthier, more pragmatic footing.
Sixth, Armenia’s relations with Georgia are also fraught, overshadowed by historical mistrust and remaining tepid at best. Consequently, while Armenia struggles with varying degrees of tension and complex issues with Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Georgia, it possesses only one neighbor with whom it shares amicable ties: Iran, with which it shares a brief 44-kilometer border. Yet, preoccupied with its own severe domestic and international crises, Tehran is currently unable to offer much meaningful attention or support to Yerevan, despite years of historical alignment.
Ultimately, this new era in Armenian politics carries profound implications, not merely for the nation itself, but for the wider region and the grand strategy of the major powers—specifically the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and Russia in the Caucasus.
-
Middle East2 weeks agoQatar and Saudi Arabia acquire hundreds of millions of dollars in Israeli defense technology, report says
-
Europe2 weeks agoBuckingham Palace updates King’s official role to focus on securing faith in multi-faith Britain
-
Interview2 weeks ago“Capitalism does not require a free social order”
-
Asia2 weeks agoSouth Korea unveils $518 billion plan for new southwestern semiconductor cluster
-
Europe2 weeks agoBillionaire Peter Thiel deepens ties with German and Austrian right-wing political elite
-
America2 weeks agoAnthropic withdraws covert China user tracking feature after online backlash
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany’s BSW proposes cooperation with AfD to break political ‘firewall’
-
Europe2 weeks agoEurope faces 15-year low in winter gas reserves as June storage targets fall short
