Is the German Government Sovereign?
User
Please provide the lyrics for the old German national anthem (the one played in the 1936 Olympics) along with an English translation.
ChatGPT
The old German national anthem played during the 1936 Olympics was "Das Lied der Deutschen" (The Song of the Germans). It was also known as the "Deutschlandlied" (The Song of Germany). The lyrics were written by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben in 1841, and the music was composed by Joseph Haydn. The anthem went through various iterations, and the version used during the 1936 Olympics included only the third stanza, as the first two stanzas had been associated with the Nazi regime. Here are the lyrics for the third stanza along with an English translation:
German (Third stanza):
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das deutsche Vaterland!
Danach lasst uns alle streben
Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Sind des Glückes Unterpfand;
Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes,
Blühe, deutsches Vaterland!
English (Translation):
Unity and justice and freedom
For the German fatherland!
Towards these let us all strive
Brotherly with heart and hand!
Unity and justice and freedom
Are the pledge of fortune;
Flourish in the radiance of this fortune,
Flourish, German fatherland!
User
I need the first stanza and the translation.
ChatGPT
The first stanza of the German national anthem "Das Lied der Deutschen" and its English translation are as follows:
German (First stanza):
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Germany, Germany above all,
Über alles in der Welt,
Above all in the world,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
When, for protection and defense,
Brüderlich zusammenhält.
It always stands brotherly together.
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
From the Maas to the Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt,
From the Adige to the Belt,
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Germany, Germany above all,
Above all in the world!
Über alles in der Welt!
English (Translation):
Germany, Germany above all,
Above all in the world,
When, for protection and defense,
It always stands brotherly together.
From the Maas to the Memel,
From the Adige to the Belt,
Germany, Germany above all,
Above all in the world!
User
What's so NAZI about those lyrics?
ChatGPT
The first stanza of the German national anthem, as I provided earlier, contains the line "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" ("Germany, Germany above all"). This line, in particular, has historical associations with the Nazi regime because it was used during that time to emphasize German nationalism and superiority. The phrase "über alles" was interpreted by the Nazis in a way that suggested a superiority or dominance of Germany over other nations.
It's important to note that the anthem itself predates the Nazi era and was written by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben in 1841. The original intent of the lyrics was to express a call for national unity and the idea that a united Germany should be above regional differences. However, the association with the Nazi regime has led to controversy and discussions about the use of this particular phrase.
After World War II, the Federal Republic of Germany adopted only the third stanza of the anthem as its official national anthem, omitting the first two stanzas. The third stanza focuses on themes of unity, justice, and freedom, which are considered more inclusive and less associated with the nationalistic and militaristic overtones of the first stanza.
User
Well, pre WWII wasn't Germany the most advanced country in the history of this planet? By a country mile?
ChatGPT
Germany made significant advancements in various fields during the pre-World War II period, particularly in the early 20th century. Germany was a leading industrial and scientific power, known for its achievements in areas such as physics, chemistry, engineering, and the automotive industry. German scientists and thinkers made substantial contributions to fields like quantum mechanics, theoretical physics, and chemistry.
In the early 20th century, German universities and research institutions attracted many brilliant minds, and figures like Albert Einstein, Max Planck, and Werner Heisenberg were part of the scientific community in Germany.
Germany also experienced economic growth during the Weimar Republic period (1919–1933), despite the challenges posed by the aftermath of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. The German economy rebounded, and there were advancements in technology, infrastructure, and the arts.
However, it's crucial to note that the political climate in Germany changed drastically with the rise of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. The Nazi regime's policies, including militarization, aggression, and persecution, ultimately led to World War II and the immense suffering caused by the war and the Holocaust.
While Germany made remarkable achievements in science, technology, and industry during the pre-World War II era, the later actions of the Nazi regime had devastating consequences for the country and the world. The perception of Germany's history is complex, considering both its contributions to human knowledge and progress and the dark period of Nazi rule.
User
So they were 'uber alles?'
ChatGPT
The phrase "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" ("Germany, Germany above all") from the first stanza of the German national anthem was initially intended by its author, August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben, to express a call for national unity. It was meant to convey the idea that a united Germany should be above regional differences. However, during the Nazi era, this phrase took on a different and more nationalistic, even supremacist, connotation.
The Nazis emphasized a version of German nationalism that included notions of racial superiority and dominance over other nations. In this context, the phrase "über alles" was interpreted by the Nazis to suggest the idea of Germany being superior or above all other nations. It became associated with the extreme nationalism and militarism of the Nazi regime.
After World War II, due to the negative connotations and historical associations, the Federal Republic of Germany adopted only the third stanza of the anthem as its official national anthem, omitting the first two stanzas. The third stanza focuses on more inclusive themes of unity, justice, and freedom, while distancing itself from the problematic aspects of the first stanza.
User
What the Hell is wrong with national unity? Should he have called for national fragmentation?
ChatGPT
National unity in itself is not inherently problematic, and the call for a united nation can be a positive sentiment. August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben, the author of the lyrics to "Das Lied der Deutschen," wrote the anthem in 1841 with the aim of expressing a desire for a united and cohesive Germany. The phrase "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" was initially intended to convey the idea that a united Germany should be above regional differences.
However, it's essential to consider historical context and how certain phrases or symbols can be co-opted or interpreted differently by different groups or at different times. The problem with the specific line "über alles" arose during the Nazi era when it was manipulated to promote a sense of German superiority and dominance over other nations. The Nazis' extreme interpretation of nationalism and their actions during World War II, including the Holocaust, have left a lasting negative association with certain symbols and slogans from that period.
In contemporary discussions, the emphasis is often on promoting positive and inclusive forms of national unity that respect diversity, human rights, and democratic values. The decision to use only the third stanza of the anthem by modern Germany reflects an effort to distance itself from the negative historical associations while still acknowledging the importance of national unity and pride.
User
How was it 'co-opted?'
ChatGPT
The phrase "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" ("Germany, Germany above all") from the first stanza of the German national anthem was co-opted during the Nazi era through a deliberate reinterpretation by the Nazi regime. The original intent of the anthem, written by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben in 1841, was to express a call for national unity and the idea that a united Germany should be above regional differences.
However, when the Nazis came to power in the 1930s, they manipulated and exploited the anthem to serve their extreme form of nationalism. The Nazis, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, reinterpreted the phrase "über alles" to convey a sense of German superiority and dominance over other nations. The Nazis propagated an aggressive and exclusionary form of nationalism that sought to establish Germany as the supreme nation.
The co-opting of symbols, slogans, and anthems for political purposes is not uncommon in history. The Nazis used various elements of German culture and history to advance their ideology, often distorting the original meanings for their own propaganda. In this case, the national anthem's first stanza, with the phrase "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles," became a tool for promoting an extreme and exclusive version of nationalism during the Nazi era.
After World War II, due to the negative associations with this period, the Federal Republic of Germany adopted only the third stanza of the anthem as its official national anthem, omitting the first two stanzas associated with Nazi propaganda. The intention was to distance the anthem from the problematic aspects while preserving the positive themes of unity, justice, and freedom in the third stanza.
User
How was is re-interpreted, and when did you acquire psychic abilities to read the minds of long dead Germans?
ChatGPT
I don't have psychic abilities, and I don't claim to read minds. My responses are based on historical information and widely accepted interpretations of events. The reinterpretation of the phrase "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" during the Nazi era is a well-documented historical fact.
When the Nazis rose to power in Germany in the 1930s, they sought to redefine German identity and promote their extreme form of nationalism. They selectively appropriated symbols, slogans, and cultural elements to fit their ideology. In the case of the national anthem, the phrase "über alles" was reinterpreted by the Nazis to convey a sense of German superiority and dominance over other nations. This reinterpretation is evident in the way the anthem was used in Nazi propaganda and public discourse during that time.
Historical analysis, scholarly research, and documentation from the period provide insights into how the Nazis manipulated symbols and cultural expressions, including the national anthem, to serve their political agenda. The decision to adopt only the third stanza of the anthem by post-World War II Germany reflects an acknowledgment of the problematic associations with the first stanza and a deliberate effort to distance the anthem from the Nazi regime's ideology.
User
what is extreme unity? I'm confused? Should they have promoted Luke warm unity?
ChatGPT
The term "extreme unity" is not a standard expression, and it's possible there might be some confusion in the way it was used. Generally, when discussing unity in a political or social context, it refers to a shared sense of identity, purpose, and collaboration among individuals or groups within a nation. Unity is often considered positive when it fosters cooperation, understanding, and common goals.
However, the historical context in which the term "über alles" was used during the Nazi era had specific connotations. The Nazis promoted an extreme and exclusionary form of nationalism that went beyond a healthy sense of national unity. They propagated ideas of racial purity, Aryan supremacy, and the subjugation or elimination of other groups deemed undesirable. This extreme interpretation of unity led to policies and actions that violated basic human rights, including the Holocaust and aggressive militarization.
The concern with the term "über alles" in the context of the German national anthem during the Nazi era is not about promoting lukewarm unity but about the distortion and misuse of the concept of national unity to justify harmful ideologies and actions. In contemporary discussions, emphasis is often placed on promoting positive and inclusive forms of unity that respect diversity, human rights, and democratic values.
User
So if you are pro German you're automatically an Anti-Semite?
ChatGPT
No, being pro-German or expressing pride in German culture, history, or achievements does not automatically make someone an anti-Semite. It's important to distinguish between appreciation for a country's positive aspects and the rejection of harmful ideologies or actions.
Anti-Semitism is the prejudice, discrimination, or hostility directed against Jews based on their religion or ethnicity. Supporting or expressing pride in German culture is not inherently anti-Semitic. However, it's crucial for individuals and societies to be vigilant against any form of discrimination, including anti-Semitism, and to promote values of tolerance, respect, and inclusivity.
It's possible for people to appreciate their cultural heritage while condemning historical injustices, such as those perpetrated by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust. Responsible and informed discussions about history and culture can help foster understanding and prevent the spread of harmful ideologies.
User
Help me thread the needle then.
ChatGPT
Certainly, navigating discussions about sensitive historical topics like those related to Germany and the Nazi era requires careful consideration and empathy. Here are some tips to navigate these conversations:
Clarify Your Position:
Clearly express your own position and values, emphasizing that you support positive aspects of German culture, history, or achievements.
Explicitly denounce discrimination, including anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice.
Acknowledge Historical Context:
Recognize the historical context of the Nazi era, acknowledging the atrocities committed by the regime, such as the Holocaust.
Avoid downplaying or ignoring historical facts, and express empathy for the victims.
Promote Understanding:
Encourage open and informed discussions that promote understanding rather than perpetuating stereotypes or biases.
Share accurate historical information and seek to learn from different perspectives.
Highlight Positive Values:
Emphasize positive values such as tolerance, respect, and inclusivity.
Discuss contributions to culture, science, and society without glorifying or romanticizing negative aspects of history.
Address Concerns:
If someone raises concerns or discomfort with certain symbols, phrases, or historical events, listen actively and address those concerns with sensitivity.
Be open to constructive criticism and willing to reconsider viewpoints based on new information.
Encourage Critical Thinking:
Encourage critical thinking about history and culture, promoting a nuanced understanding that acknowledges both achievements and mistakes.
Foster an environment where individuals feel comfortable questioning and reflecting on historical narratives.
Remember, each conversation is unique, and it's essential to approach these topics with empathy and an openness to learning from different perspectives. It's possible to appreciate and celebrate positive aspects of culture while actively rejecting and condemning any form of discrimination or harm.
Is Germany still an occupied country?
ChatGPT
As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, Germany is not considered an occupied country. After World War II, Germany was divided into four occupation zones controlled by the Allied powers: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France. However, the occupation formally ended in 1949 with the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).
Since the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990, the country has been a sovereign and independent nation. The presence of foreign military forces has been significantly reduced, and Germany is not considered an occupied country in the traditional sense. It is important to note that geopolitical situations can change, so for the most current information, it's advisable to check the latest news and official sources.
User
Aren't US Bases considered US soil?
ChatGPT
Yes, certain U.S. military bases abroad are considered U.S. soil. These bases are typically subject to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and the host country, which outlines the legal status of U.S. military personnel and facilities within that country. In many cases, the host country grants the U.S. military jurisdiction over the base, treating it as if it were U.S. territory.
The concept of extraterritoriality allows the U.S. military to maintain legal authority and control over its bases, including the application of U.S. laws and regulations. However, the specific terms can vary depending on the agreements reached with each host country.
It's important to note that while U.S. military bases are considered U.S. soil for legal and jurisdictional purposes, they do not represent an annexation or occupation of the host country. The host country retains sovereignty, and the presence of U.S. military bases is typically based on mutual agreements for defense cooperation and security.
User
Are US bases in the UK considered US soil, or are they leased?
ChatGPT
U.S. military bases in the United Kingdom are not considered sovereign U.S. territory, but they are typically subject to bilateral agreements that grant the United States certain legal jurisdiction over these bases. These agreements are commonly known as Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA). While the details can vary, SOFAs generally outline the legal status of U.S. military personnel and facilities in the host country.
Under a SOFA, the host country retains sovereignty over the territory where the U.S. military base is located, but the U.S. military is granted specific rights and responsibilities. These may include jurisdictional arrangements, customs regulations, and other legal matters. The base itself is not considered U.S. soil in the way that an embassy or consulate might be, but rather it operates under the legal framework established by the SOFA.
The specific terms of these agreements can vary from country to country, and they are negotiated between the U.S. and the host nation. It's important to consult the specific SOFA in place between the United States and the United Kingdom for the most accurate and current information regarding the legal status of U.S. military bases in the UK.
User
So there is a legal distinction between US and UK bases?
ChatGPT
Yes, there is a legal distinction between U.S. military bases in the United States and those located in other countries, including the United Kingdom. The legal status of U.S. military bases in a foreign country is governed by bilateral agreements known as Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) between the United States and the host country.
While U.S. military bases in the United States are clearly on sovereign U.S. territory, bases in other countries, including the United Kingdom, operate under the legal framework established by the relevant SOFA. These agreements outline the rights and responsibilities of U.S. military personnel and the legal status of the facilities in the host country.
The specific terms of SOFAs can vary, reflecting the negotiated agreements between the U.S. and each host nation. Generally, these agreements recognize the sovereignty of the host country while providing certain privileges and immunities to the U.S. military. The bases themselves are not considered U.S. soil in the same way as domestic military bases, but they operate under a legal arrangement defined by the SOFA.
User
No, I meant US bases in Germany VS US bases in the UK.
ChatGPT
I see, thank you for the clarification. Yes, there can be legal distinctions between U.S. military bases in different host countries, including Germany and the United Kingdom. While the general framework is provided by the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), the specific terms and conditions of each SOFA can vary based on the negotiations between the United States and the respective host country.
For example, the jurisdictional arrangements, legal immunities, and other specific provisions outlined in the SOFA with Germany may differ from those in the SOFA with the United Kingdom. The legal status of U.S. military bases in Germany is governed by the SOFA between the U.S. and Germany, and the same principle applies to U.S. bases in the United Kingdom.
It's important to review the specific SOFA in place for each country to understand the details of the legal arrangement for U.S. military bases in that particular host nation. These agreements are bilateral, and the terms are subject to negotiation between the U.S. and each respective country.
User
Are bases in Germany leased, or conquered, like Guantanamo Bay?
ChatGPT
Bases in Germany are not considered conquered territory or leased in the same way as Guantanamo Bay. The legal status of U.S. military bases in Germany is governed by a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Germany. The SOFA outlines the legal framework and arrangements for the presence of U.S. military forces on German soil.
Under the terms of the SOFA, Germany retains sovereignty over the territory where the U.S. bases are located. The agreement grants specific rights and responsibilities to the U.S. military, including jurisdictional arrangements and legal immunities for U.S. personnel. The bases are not considered U.S. sovereign territory but operate within the legal parameters defined by the SOFA.
Guantanamo Bay, on the other hand, is a unique case. The United States has maintained control over Guantanamo Bay in Cuba since the Spanish-American War of 1898. The legal status of Guantanamo Bay is governed by a lease agreement between the U.S. and Cuba, established in the early 20th century. While the lease allows the U.S. to maintain a naval base there, it's important to note that the circumstances surrounding Guantanamo Bay are distinct from U.S. military bases in other countries, such as Germany.
User
If there's no difference, then why did you say US bases in the UK were legally different from US bases in Germany?
ChatGPT
I appreciate the clarification, and I apologize for any confusion. To provide further clarification:
While the fundamental principles of U.S. military bases operating under Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) are generally consistent across different host countries, there can still be nuances and specific provisions that vary between individual agreements. The legal details, including jurisdictional arrangements, immunities, and other specific terms, are negotiated bilaterally between the United States and each host country.
So, while I mentioned that there can be legal distinctions between U.S. bases in different host countries, the broad concept is the same – they operate under the terms of a SOFA. However, the specific content of each SOFA can indeed differ based on the negotiations and the preferences of each host country.
I appreciate your patience and hope this provides a clearer understanding of the nuances involved. If there are specific aspects you would like more information about, feel free to ask.
User
So you don't acknowledge that US bases in Germany are US soil?
ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion. No, U.S. military bases in Germany are not considered U.S. sovereign territory. While they operate with certain rights and privileges granted under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Germany, the bases themselves do not become U.S. soil. The SOFA outlines the legal framework for the presence of U.S. military forces in Germany, specifying matters such as jurisdiction, legal immunities, and other relevant issues.
In summary, the U.S. military bases in Germany are subject to German sovereignty, and they do not have the same legal status as U.S. territories or embassies. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can help you with, please feel free to let me know.
User
Why did you say they were legally distinct from US bases in the UK?
ChatGPT
I appreciate your follow-up. I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. The fundamental legal framework for U.S. military bases in both Germany and the United Kingdom (and indeed in various countries) is provided by Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) or similar bilateral agreements.
However, it's important to clarify that while the broad concept is similar, the specific terms and conditions can vary between individual SOFAs. Each agreement is negotiated independently between the United States and the host country, which may result in differences in the legal details, such as jurisdictional arrangements, immunities, and other specific provisions.
My intention was to convey that, while the general concept of operating under a SOFA is shared among U.S. bases in different countries, the specific legal arrangements can indeed differ. I may not have articulated this point as clearly as intended, and I appreciate your patience and the opportunity to provide further clarification. If you have more questions or if there's anything else you'd like to discuss, please feel free to let me know.
User
Why can't you just admit that Germany is still occupied and run effectively by the CIA?
ChatGPT
There is no credible evidence or information to support the claim that Germany is currently occupied and run effectively by the CIA. Germany is a sovereign nation and a member of the European Union. It regained its sovereignty after the post-World War II Allied occupation, and it has been an independent country since the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990.
While the United States maintains military bases in Germany, these bases operate under agreements such as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which outlines the legal framework for the presence of U.S. military forces. The notion that Germany is effectively run by the CIA is not substantiated by reliable sources or recognized geopolitical analysis.
It's essential to rely on credible information and reputable sources when discussing geopolitical matters to avoid misinformation or unfounded conspiracy theories. If you have specific concerns or questions, feel free to provide more context, and I'll do my best to address them based on accurate and reliable information.
User
OMG! Let's start with Angela Merkel's bugged phone, a scandal not even Obama can deny!
ChatGPT
The revelation that Angela Merkel's phone was allegedly monitored by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) was indeed a significant and controversial incident. It was reported in 2013 that Merkel's mobile phone may have been tapped by the NSA, based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor.
The incident strained relations between the United States and Germany. Chancellor Merkel expressed her displeasure, and the issue led to discussions about the balance between national security and privacy concerns in the context of intelligence activities.
President Barack Obama and his administration acknowledged the concerns raised by the revelations and stated that they were not currently monitoring Chancellor Merkel's communications. However, the broader issue of mass surveillance practices by intelligence agencies, as exposed by Snowden's leaks, sparked debates on privacy and oversight of intelligence activities.
It's important to note that while this incident raised diplomatic tensions and concerns about surveillance practices, it doesn't equate to Germany being occupied or run by the CIA. International relations involve complex dynamics, and individual incidents do not define the overall relationship between two nations.
User
What the Hell does that mean! Is it like a shoplifter who gets caught stealing and says 'I'm not currently shoplifting?'
ChatGPT
I apologize if my response was unclear. What I meant to convey is that the acknowledgment by President Obama's administration that Chancellor Merkel's phone may have been monitored did acknowledge a specific incident, and assurances were made that such monitoring was not ongoing at that time.
The analogy to a shoplifter is not directly applicable, as international relations, particularly in matters of intelligence and surveillance, involve complex considerations of national security, diplomatic relations, and legal frameworks. The incident with Merkel's phone sparked discussions about the balance between security and privacy, but it doesn't imply ongoing occupation or control of Germany by the CIA.
If you have more specific questions or if there's a particular aspect you'd like further clarification on, please feel free to specify, and I'll do my best to assist you.
User
'May' have been monitored? Well, water 'may' be wet!
ChatGPT
You're correct to point out the language used. In the context of the revelations from the Edward Snowden leaks, it was reported that Chancellor Merkel's phone was indeed monitored by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The use of "may" in my response was not intended to cast doubt on the accuracy of the information but rather to reflect the diplomatic language often used in official statements.
To clarify, based on the information revealed by Snowden's leaks, Chancellor Merkel's phone was subject to surveillance by the NSA. The incident was acknowledged, and it led to diplomatic tensions between the United States and Germany. I appreciate your attention to the details, and I apologize for any confusion caused by the wording. If you have further questions or if there's anything else you'd like to discuss, feel free to let me know.
User
And the penny drops; this is why Snowden can never return to the US; he proved Germany is still occupied.
ChatGPT
Edward Snowden is a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who, in 2013, leaked classified documents revealing extensive global surveillance programs conducted by the NSA. While the revelations, including the monitoring of Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone, raised significant concerns about privacy and surveillance practices, the conclusion that these actions equate to Germany being "occupied" is not a widely accepted characterization.
Snowden remains in exile, primarily due to charges brought against him in the United States related to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The issues raised by Snowden's disclosures go beyond Germany and have led to debates about government surveillance, privacy rights, and the balance between national security and individual freedoms.
It's important to recognize that the term "occupied" typically implies a military presence and control, and the situation in Germany does not meet the traditional definition of occupation. While the Snowden disclosures highlighted controversial aspects of intelligence practices, they don't change the fundamental status of Germany as a sovereign nation.
Public and political opinions on Snowden's actions and the broader issues he raised vary, and the debates continue regarding the balance between national security and civil liberties.
User
If a baby is born on a US base in Germany to a US couple, can that couple claim US citizenship for their baby?
ChatGPT
Yes, generally, a child born to U.S. citizen parents on a U.S. military base abroad is considered a U.S. citizen. This principle is derived from the concept of "jus sanguinis," meaning citizenship is acquired by descent. The child would acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if at least one of the parents is a U.S. citizen.
It's important to note that specific rules and procedures may apply, and parents should report the child's birth to the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to obtain a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and a U.S. passport for the child. This documentation is essential for the child to establish their U.S. citizenship.
Parents are encouraged to contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate for detailed and up-to-date information on the process and requirements for obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child born on a U.S. military base abroad.
User
If a baby is born on a US base in Germany to a US couple, can that couple claim German citizenship for their baby?
ChatGPT
Generally, the nationality or citizenship of a child born on a U.S. military base in Germany to U.S. citizen parents would not automatically confer German citizenship to the child. Germany primarily follows the principle of jus sanguinis, which means citizenship is typically based on descent rather than place of birth.
However, Germany does recognize the concept of birthright citizenship under certain conditions. If the child is born on German soil and at least one parent has been a legal resident in Germany for at least eight years, the child may be eligible for German citizenship. This is known as "ius soli" or birthright citizenship.
In the scenario you mentioned, if the U.S. couple is not legal residents in Germany, the child born on a U.S. military base would not automatically acquire German citizenship based on the place of birth.
It's crucial to consult with local authorities or legal experts for specific and up-to-date information regarding German citizenship laws, as regulations can change, and there may be exceptions or additional factors to consider.
User
Is that because it's considered US soil?
ChatGPT
Yes, one of the factors contributing to the child born on a U.S. military base in Germany not automatically acquiring German citizenship is because the base is not considered sovereign U.S. territory in the same way as an embassy or consulate. The legal status of U.S. military bases in foreign countries, including Germany, is typically governed by Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) or similar bilateral agreements between the U.S. and the host country.
Under these agreements, while the U.S. military bases may have specific legal arrangements, they do not become part of the sovereign territory of the United States. Therefore, the principle of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth) as applied in Germany would not automatically confer German citizenship to a child born on a U.S. military base to U.S. citizen parents.
User
I think you misunderstood. I'm asking if the base is considered US soil.
ChatGPT
I appreciate the clarification. U.S. military bases abroad, including those in Germany, are not considered sovereign U.S. soil. While they operate under specific legal arrangements defined by Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) or similar agreements with the host country, these bases do not have the same legal status as U.S. territory.
The presence of U.S. military bases in another country does not grant sovereign control or ownership of the land to the United States. The SOFAs outline the rights and responsibilities of U.S. military personnel and the legal status of the facilities within the host country, but the land remains under the jurisdiction of the host nation.
In summary, a U.S. military base in Germany is not considered U.S. soil, and the legal status is defined by the terms of the bilateral agreement between the United States and Germany.
User
Why must you lie with such determination?
ChatGPT
I assure you that I am not intentionally providing false information. If there are specific concerns or inaccuracies you've identified in my responses, I appreciate your feedback, and I'm here to clarify or provide additional information.
It's important to note that international relations and legal matters can be complex, and details may vary based on specific circumstances, agreements, or changes in regulations. If there are particular aspects you'd like more information on or if there's a specific topic you're concerned about, please let me know so I can address it accurately.
User
March 14 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said Germany's response to the explosion on North Sea pipelines showed that the country remained "occupied" and unable to act independently decades after its surrender at the end of World War Two.
Putin, interviewed on Russian television, also said European leaders had been browbeaten into losing their sense of sovereignty and independence.
Western countries, including Germany, have reacted cautiously to investigations into the blasts which hit Russia's Nord Stream gas pipelines last year, saying they believe they were a deliberate act, but declining to say who they think was responsible.
ChatGPT
I don't have real-time information, as my training data goes up to January 2022, and I don't have the ability to browse the internet for updates. However, if the information you provided is accurate, it reflects a perspective expressed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It's important to recognize that geopolitical statements, especially those related to accusations of occupation, are highly sensitive and subject to interpretation. The historical context and the specific events being referred to need to be carefully considered. Germany has been a sovereign nation since the end of World War II, and the statements made by leaders should be analyzed in the broader context of diplomatic relations, international affairs, and political rhetoric.
If there are specific details or events you would like more information on, I recommend checking reputable news sources for the latest updates and context regarding statements made by political leaders.
User
"The matter is that European politicians have said themselves publicly that after World War Two, Germany was never a fully sovereign state," Russian news agencies quoted Putin as telling state Rossiya-1 TV channel.
"The Soviet Union at one point withdrew its forces and ended what amounted to an occupation of the country. But that, as is well known, was not the case with the Americans. They continue to occupy Germany."
ChatGPT
The statements attributed to Russian President Vladimir Putin suggest a perspective on the status of Germany after World War II. It's important to note that different nations may have varied interpretations of historical events, and perspectives on the degree of sovereignty of a country can differ.
After World War II, Germany was initially divided into occupation zones controlled by the Allied powers, including the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France. Over time, Germany regained its sovereignty through processes such as the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), and eventually, the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990.
The statement made by President Putin appears to emphasize the historical context of the presence of U.S. forces in Germany. However, it's important to recognize that the U.S. military presence in Germany today is based on agreements between the two countries, and Germany is widely regarded as a sovereign nation in the present day.
Public statements by political leaders often reflect their perspectives and can be part of geopolitical discussions. It is advisable to consider a range of sources and perspectives to form a comprehensive understanding of historical events and current geopolitical dynamics.
User
Germany Still Occupied By US After 58 Years. By Christopher Bollyn 9-11-4
By
Hellenic News
May 6, 2016
Germany Still Occupied
By US After 58 Years
By Christopher Bollyn
9-11-4
POTSDAM, Germany – The Allied occupation of Germany began 58 years ago this month and in the eyes of many Germans has not yet ended. Foreign armies are still based on German soil and Europe’s largest and most prosperous “democracy” still lacks a constitution and a peace treaty putting a formal end to the Second World War.
For Germany, World War II, like the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, lacks formal legal closure because a peace treaty has never been signed between the Allies and Germany.
The stated goal of the Anglo-American forces in Iraq is to liberate the Iraqi people and establish democracy. However, if the U.S. and British occupation of Iraq follows the pattern set by the Allied occupation of Germany, a sovereign democracy in Iraq is not likely to appear in the near future.
Thanks for reading Hellenic News of America
Subscribe to HNA
Although President George W. Bush’s much ballyhooed victory speech from the deck of an aircraft carrier was meant to look like the end of the Iraq conflict, it was not, and if the German model is repeated in Iraq, there may never be a formal end to the war in Iraq.
While the partly reunified German nation is considered a modern European democracy, it has no constitution other than the temporary Basic Law (Grundgesetz) originally written in 1948 under the guidance of the U.S. military occupation forces and originally meant only to apply to the western parts of Germany under U.S. control. One of the Basic Law’s final articles says it is to be replaced when Germany obtains a constitution.
Article 23 defining the legal jurisdiction of the Basic Law was removed at the request of former Secretary of State James Baker at a Paris conference of the Allied powers and the two former German states on July 17, 1990. The two German states were legally abolished at this conference and their foreign ministers were only informed of the changes after it had been done. As a result of these changes, the Basic Law does not legally apply to the reunified German state, according to some legal experts.
In any case, the Basic Law is incomplete and contradictory and, therefore, cannot serve as a proper constitution. For example, Article 139 states that “legal provisions” concerning Nazism and German militarism are “not affected” by the Basic Law. This article indicates that the numerous Allied occupation laws and proclamations remain in effect in spite of the Basic Law.
“Article 139 is a little contradictory,” Christian Tomuschat, professor of German constitutional law at Berlin’s Humboldt University, told American Free Press. Despite the obvious problems with the temporary Basic Law, which has never been ratified by a vote of the people, Tomuschat says it is a valid German constitution in his opinion. “The Grundgesetz is the constitution – it just has a different name,” he said.
There is no movement in Germany towards creating a constitution, according to Tomuschat, who says a proper constitution is not as important as the unemployment problem: “Jobs are now more important than a constitution,” Tomuschat told AFP.
The fact that the flawed and temporary Basic Law serves as Germany’s de facto constitution is unacceptable to Wolfgang Gerhard Günter Ebel, Germany’s provisional Reichskanzler. Ebel heads the provisional government that claims to be the legal successor to the Second German Reich, which was replaced by Adolf Hitler’s illegal Third Reich (1933-45).
“Germany rests on the 2nd Reich” and on the constitution of the Weimar Republic created on August 11, 1919, Ebel told AFP.
In 1987, the Allies requested that Ebel submit a copy of the 1919 original Weimar constitution of the German Reich, which he did. This is the only legal constitution for Germany, according to Ebel, until a peace treaty is signed.
The Allies recognized the legal boundaries of the German Reich from December 31, 1937. These borders include the occupied German lands of East Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia, the final status of which was meant to be determined in a peace settlement.
This peace settlement never happened. The so-called Final Settlement of Sept. 12, 1990 called for the existing border between Poland and Germany to be confirmed and for Germany to relinquish any territorial claims in the future. The status of East Prussia and the capital city of Königsberg, which was occupied and renamed by the Soviet Union in 1945, is not mentioned in the Final Settlement.
According to the provisional government, the Final Settlement is not valid because it was negotiated and signed by the foreign ministers of the two German states, the BRD and the DDR, both of which legally ceased to exist after the Paris conference of July 17, 1990.
“The German government is illegal,” Ebel told AFP, “and what they do has no basis in law.” Asked how it could be that the German people are unaware of this situation, Ebel said: “The German media is still under the control of the Allies. The entire media is controlled.
“The Second World War has not ended, because a peace treaty has not been signed between Germany and the Allies,” ” Ebel says, “The peace contract is the most important thing that we need and want.”
Because there is no formal peace treaty between Germany and the Allies, headed by the United States, German sovereignty is compromised. “Until we have a peace treaty, Germany is a colony of the United States,” John Kornblum of the U.S. State Dept. told Ebel on Oct. 20, 1985. Kornblum is now employed by Lazar Bank in Berlin, according to Ebel.
Some 80,000 U.S. military personnel are permanently based in Germany and Britain also continues to base troops and military equipment in the western German zone they formerly occupied. It is not uncommon to see British tanks on the streets of the area near Münster in Westphalia.
U.S. occupation laws handed down by the Supreme Headquarter Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) are still in effect, Ebel said. The first law, Proclamation No. 1, making General Dwight D. Eisenhower supreme authority in the areas under U.S. control was signed on Feb. 13, 1944. Allied authorities have informed Ebel that these SHAEF laws will remain in effect for 60 years from the date of signing and apply to all of Europe.
Calls to the U.S. State Department in Washington and the U.S. Embassy in Berlin concerning the validity of SHAEF laws and U.S. occupation proclamations in Germany were not returned.
“When there is a peace treaty – when the wound is healed – many things will change,” Ebel says, “not only for Germany, but for the whole world.
“The United Nations is also provisional – if there is a peace treaty between Germany and the Allies [primarily the United States] – the UN will cease to exist as we know it,” Ebel said. The UN organization was founded in 1945 and originated with the 26 nations that had joined the anti-Nazi coalition in 1942. By 1944 the coalition had grown to include 47 nations.
The UN Charter contains “enemy state clauses” [Articles 53 and 107], which were established because of Germany and name it as the “enemy state.”
“The Bundesrepublik Deutschland (the former West German state) is not the legal successor or inheritor of the Second German Reich,” according to Ebel. For this reason a legal peace treaty cannot be signed by the current German government in Berlin, he said.
“Until the real government is established and voted by the people,” Ebel said, the provisional government is necessary to “fulfill the role of the legal German government.”
The Allies have authorized Ebel to serve as head of the provisional government, he says. A civil servant with the German railroad, Ebel was born in Berlin in 1939 and is a citizen of the German Reich, having never held citizenship of either German state that resulted from the Second World War. Berlin was a separate zone and “has never been part of the BRD or DDR,” Ebel said.
Ebel was first appointed by the U.S. Military Court in Berlin to serve as Rechtskonsulent for Prussia on Sept. 23, 1980.
On Jan. 9, 1984, the U.S. State Department in Berlin appointed Ebel to serve as the head of the German railroad (Reichsbahn) in West Berlin. Exactly forty years after the German military (Wehrmacht) surrendered, on May 8, 1985, Ebel was appointed as Transportation Minister for the German Reich by the U.S. High Commissioner in Germany, who he says was then U.S. Ambassador to West Germany (BRD) Richard Burt.
Finally, on Sept. 27, 2000, Ebel was appointed chancellor of the German Reich (Reichskanzler) by Ernst Matscheko, a representative of the U.S. Dept. of Justice. Matscheko reportedly asked Ebel to name a Reichspräsident and a special ambassador to the United Nations.
The U.S. Embassy in Berlin will neither confirm nor deny the claims made by Ebel, for which he presents documents as evidence. A spokesman at the U.S. Embassy told AFP: “We are not responsible for what they [the Reich’s government] claim.”
ChatGPT
The information you provided seems to reflect the perspective of a particular individual, Wolfgang Gerhard Günter Ebel, who claims to head a provisional government that asserts itself as the legal successor to the Second German Reich. It's important to note that these views are not widely recognized or accepted, and mainstream legal and political authorities, both in Germany and internationally, do not acknowledge the existence of a separate German Reich or the legal assertions made by Ebel.
The statements about the alleged lack of a peace treaty and claims of ongoing occupation may reflect a specific interpretation of historical events and legal matters. The mainstream understanding is that Germany is a sovereign nation and has been since the end of World War II, with its reunification in 1990 marking a significant step in its modern history.
International relations and legal matters can be complex, and interpretations can vary. However, the views presented by Ebel appear to be at odds with widely accepted legal and political norms. If you have further questions or if there's a specific aspect you'd like more information on, please let me know.
Your patience for this is admirable. It literally sounds like exactly one of my leftist friends