You are reading a single comment by @itsbruce and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
never explicitly abolished the Weimarean constitution. Even when the Grundgesetz was passed, it didn't explicitly abolish its predecessor constitution.
Wasn't it that they just changed and extended it because, lacking a statement of foundational ethical principles like the U.S. declaration of independence, the Weimar constitution was entirely changeable? So its content was progressive at the time the Nazis took over but they were able to change that without violating any constitutional principles?
itsbruce
The thing is that the first part, that the German Empire never ended, is actually the prevalent legal opinion, whereas the second part, that the Bundesregierung/Bundesrepublik is illegitimate, is not. The Federal Republic was/is not a successor state to the German Empire (note that a better translation for the word "Reich" is actually 'realm' (the pun with 'reach' is apposite, as the word is cognate with German "reich-"), although this one once had emperors, of course) and is 'identical' (in the sense that it is the same legal 'subject' under international law) to the German Reich except in territorial extent, in which it is partly identical. Note that the legal concepts here take a lot more explaining--IANAL, and I certainly don't understand international law well. Obviously, the state now also has a different name, different constitution, a different territorial extent, many different laws, and in general differs from its previous shape in all the ways in which it has changed, but it is not like the Ship of Theseus--there is continuity. It is inescapably the state of which German "Reichsbürger" are citizens and to whose laws they are subject, as those detained will soon find out.
So, in a sense, the German Reich didn't end, but the Federal Republic is still legitimate because it is the German Reich--as I said, a "Reich" is really a realm and is thought to merely refer to the state of Germans, which did not cease to exist following the capitulation in 1945. You can see how this will confuse extremely literal people, and it has to be said that the whole thing is rather confusing even for others.
Many argued after the war that the German Reich had ceased to exist, and it took some years for it to become established as the orthodox opinion that it hadn't. It seems one of the main factors that won the argument was that it had never been made explicit that the German Reich had ended by any of the parties to the war, and if so, on what grounds.
I find part of the confusion understandable, as the destruction of Germany, especially its cities, was so immense that it was easy to think of it as a total collapse of everything. However, what had ceased to exist was effectively only the Nazi perversion of the Weimarean Republic, e.g. in 'governing' through emergency orders--the Nazis passed a lot of bad and unconstitutional 'legislation' but never explicitly abolished the Weimarean constitution. Even when the Grundgesetz was passed, it didn't explicitly abolish its predecessor constitution.
(Both German states claimed after the war that they were the only German state and initially didn't recognise each other, and this whole history is another huge can of worms with how the reunification was eventually handled.)
Apologies to any lawyers if some of the above is bollocks. Please do correct it if so.
It's also important to note that "Reichsbürger" have all sorts of individual views. Some are neo-Nazis, others German nationalists and want to 'go back' to the Nazi state or the Kaiserreich, respectively, as well as lots of other strange stuff. The whole thing is rather reminiscent of the cocktail of toxic and bizarre nonsense gleaned from rubbish publications that caused Hitler to develop his hateful views.