German Perspectives
The big furore in parliamentary politics has been a dispute between Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz and his Foreign Minister, Johann Wadephul—both Christian Democrats (CDU). They have been on a collision course. Wadephul, back from an official visit to Syria, declared that the level of destruction there was worse than Germany faced in 1945, after the end of the Second World War. He said that Syria’s infrastructure has been almost completely destroyed. In the light of these conditions, he concluded that, on humanitarian grounds, there could be no question of repatriating Syrian refugees from Germany in the immediate future.
But Chancellor Merz dismissed this view: his tough and uncompromising verdict was:
“The Civil War in Syria is over. There are therefore no longer any grounds whatsoever for Asylum in Germany, and for that reason we can now begin to repatriate Syrian Asylum-Seekers”.
Chancellor Merz had already made controversial remarks about Asylum Seekers in a “cityscape debate”, where he claimed that foreigners and asylum seekers were to blame for all the disorders and crimes in German city centres. With this line of reasoning, the Chancellor is—probably deliberately—aligning himself with the AfD (Alliance for Germany), the right-wing nationalist party.
This stance brings into question the present nature of the Christian Democratic Union. After all, it has been the leading party in 16 Coalition Governments—Merz being the tenth CDU Chancellor. And it is once more pretty well determining policy in Berlin.
Retrospect: West Germany In February 1947
The Ahlen Programme
At the end of the War, the victorious Allies [USA, USSR, England] divided the Western part of Germany into three Occupation Zones. In Ahlen—a Westphalian Mining Town in the British Zone—a self-proclaimed Zonal Committee met in February 1947. It was composed of people with a Christian outlook on social issues who had combined to form the CDU (Christian Democratic Union). This Central Committee issued a policy statement of principles—the Ahlen Programme.
This Ahlen Programme became the central plank of the Economic and Social Programme of the CDU, largely providing the bedrock for CDU policy when it became the governing party, and the party of Capital.
Given that development, it is all the more surprising today to read the opening words of the Ahlen Programme, with their striking—almost Marxist—ring:
“The capitalist economic system has not done justice to the the governing and social interests of the German people. With the re-organisation of the nature and aims of our social and economic arrangements, the guiding spirit can no longer be the capitalist pursuit of profit and power, but only the well-being of our people.”
But the first thing we should note is that the British Occupation Forces did not care for several passages in this Ahlen Programme: in particular the words, Socialism and Socialist did not please the English! That is how the word socialist came to be replaced by the concept, providing for needs, in that Ahlen Programme!
We should also note that the Ahlen Programme took its main orientation from Christian social teachings and the Evangelical social ethic of the early 20th century. Both of these continued to influence the CDU, and gave direction to its policy of developing a “social market economy”. Moreover, given this foundation, the CDU was successful in differentiating itself from the leftist parties, going on to consistently win Federal Elections and secure parliamentary majorities.
The first elections to the German Federal Parliament took place on 14th August 1949. Even though a majority of the CDU at the time favoured a Coalition with the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany), Konrad Adenauer, the Chairman of the Party, pushed through a Coalition with the FDP (Free Democratic Party).*
Three months later Konrad Adenauer was elected the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany—a position he retained until 1963. And, as Federal Chancellor, he consistently used his authority to set out policy guidelines. He and his Government set out on a policy of reconciliation and cooperation with European neighbours. Under Adenauer, West Germany helped to create the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community—precursor of the EU. Ultimately the re-militarisation of West Germany was to start in 1955, the year the Bundeswehr (Federal Armed Forces) was founded, and of accession to NATO.
Ludwig Erhard was Adenauer’s Minister for Finance: he presided over a currency reform, with the Reichsmark being replaced by the Deutsche Mark—the D-Mark. And, with this development, it was possible to start implementing Erhard’s idea of a Social Market Economy—which can be summarised as protection of the market whilst providing for State intervention to maintain a social balance.
In short: this policy was very successful: it brought about a certain “prosperity for all”, and brought the Federal Republic of Germany into the top rank of world economies. There was talk then of the West German “economic miracle”—and it is still regarded as such today. All this means that the CDU became the main party of German Capitalism.
Merz’s Government
Friedrich Merz was not elected Federal Chancellor on the morning of the 6th May 2025. That created a sensation. Never in the history of the Federal Parliament had a candidate for Chancellor failed to be elected on the first ballot.
It needed a second round of voting in the afternoon of the same day to elect Friedrich Merz as 10th Chancellor of the Federal German Republic, with 325 votes in favour. Indeed a substantial 289 members of the Federal Parliament voted against Merz—a disastrous result for the new Chancellor, especially as several CDU MPs had voted against their own candidate.
The latest example of his unpopularity: the ‘Youth Union’, as the next generation of the CDU is termed, held its annual “JU—German Youth Forum” on 14th-16th November. Federal Chancellor Merz was invited and delivered a speech. His Address can be summed up as a ‘pensions package’—setting out the parameters for pensions in the future.
However, the Youth Union rejected this scheme, on the grounds that the provisions of the law were to remain in force up to 2031 and beyond, and also entail further expenditure of over 120 billion euros. And it is the present generation which will have to bear these future costs in full! Sparks flew in the subsequent debate between the Chancellor and the Youth Union—with subsequent press headlines ranging from “Defeat For Merz” to “Merz Scheme Shattered” etc., etc. To cut a long story short: if the Youth Union keeps up its rejection of the draft legislation in the coming Federal Parliamen vote, Merz won’t have the 18 votes of the Youth Deputies. And that would mean the defeat of the CDU/CSU-SPD pension package, and possibly jeopardise the CDU/SPD Coalition itself.
What on earth is happening in the CDU? We are seeing the ever-growing eclipse of their core social policies, derived from Christian teachings and social ethics. It has seen itself as a German Christian Democratic, socially conservative but economically liberal, party of action, set in the centre-right of the German party-political spectrum.
And responsibility for Government has rested on its shoulders for a greater length of time than any other party in the Federal Republic.
It is the CDU which pretty was to bring about the transition of Germany from its early beginnings into what has now become a capitalist and imperialist state.
Since the re-unification of Germany, the Party has been active in, if not entirely responsible for, a change of German orientation—a transition to an aggressively militarist orientation.
The present-day CDU appears to have entirely forgotten the commitment to safeguard a peaceful foreign policy, as set out in the Ahlen Programme.
Friedrich Merz—The Neo-Liberal
We won’t go into Merz’s biographical details: he celebrated his 70th birthday in mid-November—making him the second-oldest Federal Chancellor—after Konrad Adenauer. Instead we will concentrate on Friedrich Merz, the politician and economist.
And here we can rely on books he has written on these themes, the first appearing in 2002—
F. Merz: “Nur wer sich ändert, wird bestehen: Vom Ende der Wohlstandsillusion” [Only Those Who Change Will Survive: On The End Of The Illusion Of Prosperity].
F. Merz: Mut zur Zukunft: Wie Deutschland wieder an die Spitze kommt, 2005[Courage For The Future: How Germany Regains The Lead]
F. Merz: Mehr Kapitalismus wagen: Wege zu einer gerechten Gesellschaft, 2008 [Dare More Capitalism: Paths To A Just Society]
F. Merz: Neue Verantwortung: Demokratie und Soziale Marktwirtschaft im 21. Jahrhundert, 2020 [New Responsibility: Democracy And the Social Market Economy in the 21st Century, 2020].
The titles themselves show the way the wind is blowing with regard to the political, economic, monetary, and—if you will—even the character of Friedrich Merz!
And, if we also factor in where, and in what occupation, our Chancellor formerly made his money, then we no longer have to speculate about the direction he intends to take the Federal Republic.
After completing his military service in the Federal Defence Forces in 1975-1976, Friedrich Merz Jura studied Law at the Universities of Bonn and Marburg. Then he became a Judge at the District Court of Saarbrücken. In 1986 he became Legal Counsel to the Chemical Industry Association. From 2005 onwards he worked at the international law firm, Mayer Brown LLP.
In 2016 Merz became Supervisory Board Chairman of the German Branch of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset management company. BlackRock manages more assets than any other investment company worldwide. Clearly, this provided him with profound insights into how Capital can be transformed into Wealth and how Wealth can be further amplified into Capital!
Merz gave up this penetrating position at the end of March 2020 so that he could concentrate on his political work in the Christian Democratic Union.
He had joined the Party in 1970 whilst still a pupil, and was active in its Youth Union, becoming its Chairman until 1980. After that he concentrated on parliamentary activity, being elected to the European Parliament in 1989.
Merz was born in the town of Brilon in Sauerland. He became a CDU candidate for the Hochsauerland Constituency in a Federal Election,
He did well in a Federal Election, becoming a directly-elected member of the German Bundestag. In February 2000, he succeeded Wolfgang Schäuble as Chairman of the CDU/CSU [Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union] Parliamentary Group.
However F. Merz suffered a bitter setback in a confrontation with Angela Merkel who, after winning the 2000 Federal Election to the Federal Parliament, claimed the Chairmanship of the CDU Parliamentary Group. Merz became her deputy. He retired from that position in 2004, regarding the power struggle with Angela Merkel as lost. He then devoted most of his time to his law practice, while remaining an active member of the CDU.
In February 2007 Merz explained that, because of inner-party differences, he would not contest the 2009 Federal Election, leaving Parliament at the end of 2009. After that he continued to be active as a lawyer.
In this capacity, Soffin, the State Bank Bail-Out Fund, commissioned him to direct the sale of the Westlandes Bank to a private investor. In this connection there has been suggestion of a conflict of interest. He, Merz, was criticised for accepting a daily fee of €5,000—including Saturdays and Sundays! The total payment he got for this commission was 1,980,000 Euros. Several media pieces commented that this remuneration was too high for work which had been “unsuccessful” for the taxpayer. According to the Federal Association Of German Management Consultants, such a daily rate is unusual, being “at the upper limit”.
Indeed, when Friedrich Merz became a candidate for the Chairmanship of the CDU party in 2018, there was strong criticism of Merz’s egoistic behaviour in that regard. As a result of that, Merz resigned his mandate at the end of March. It 2020, he declared that he would not in future pursue any “Professional activities outside of politics”, should he be re-elected as a deputy to the Federal Parliament.
Merz As Federal Chancellor
Let us take a look at the wealth of Friedrich Merz, Federal Chancellor of the Republic, who in coalition with the SPD determines the policy direction of the German Republic.
Total Wealth approx. 12 million Euro
Share Ownership approx. 5.5 million Euro
Real Estate Ownership approx. 5 million Euro
Home in Sauerland part of Real Estate
Holiday Home on the Tegernsee part of Real Estate
Private airplane (Diamond DA62) approx. 1.3 million Euro
Political Income (2024) approx. 200,000 gross, per year
Salary as a Deputy 11.227,20€/month (approx. 135,000 p.a.)
Additional Sum as Party Leader approx. 70,000 — 130,000 €/year
Earlier Income in the Economy up to 1 million Euro per year (eg: in BlackRock)
BlackRock (2016-2020) Valued at €150,000 – 500,000 per year
Legal And Advisory Activity up to 1 million Euro per year (as quoted in ftd.de—Finanzwissen)
Below is a list of a number of Friedrich Merz’s declarations on the theme of “More Capitalism, Less Social State”, which indicate his views, and are taken from his statements and political interventions:
* “The Social State can no longer be financed” (emphasis on financial considerations)
* “It is not money that is lacking, but the political will to reform the Social State” (This formulation puts the question of priorities in the foreground)
* “We need less sharing out and more effort. More individual responsibility for the individual, less dependence on the State” (Focus on individual responsibility, instead of State support)
* “More competition and less Bureaucracy enhance enterprise and create well-being, from which all profit”. (Emphasis on the positive effect of Capitalism for society)
* “The Social State has to concentrate on its core tasks and must not become a system which makes people dependent” (Focus on the a new direction for the Social State)
* “The German economy needs more freedom, in order to remain competitive. That means citizens and business undertakings gain greater relief from social expenditures which are too high” (argument for reduced taxes and for competitiveness).
In the light of these policies we need not be surprised by the way the inheritance of the Social State is currently being dismantled!
Herbert Remmel
* A reason for Adenauer avoiding coalition with the SPD was that the party was under British sway: Ed.
NOTE: An Irish Times article (Weekend, 29.11.25) reports Merz’s visit to a Synagogue, where he broke down and wept (The Chancellor, His Family And The Nazis: German Wrestles With Its Past)
It says:
“Quoting from a memoir, he repeated a question that plagued a young girl, the child of Holocaust survivors, in postwar Germany: “Did nobody help the Jews?”
As he read that sentence, Merz’s voice broke. He sobbed, tears came, and it took a moment to gather himself.
Friedrich Merz is a talented speaker and a political professional, but this was new. Watching, gripped, I realised: this is real, but what is it?…”
There was no context provided: in particular the British-inspired Starvation Blockade which broke the spirit of civil society. Readers are directed to Eamon Dyas’s book on the matter:
* Starving The Germans by Eamon Dyas .Volume Two of The Evolution of Britain’s Strategy During The First World War, 636pp. Illus. Bibliog. Index. ISBN 978-1-872078-27-4. BHES. 20.21. €30, £25. £35 hardback
* Blockading The Germans: with an overview of 19th century maritime law by Eamon Dyas .Volume One of The Evolution of Britain’s Strategy During The First World War, 650pp. Bibliog. Index. ISBN 978-1-872078-27-4. BHES. 2016. €30, £25. £35 hardback
* The Starvation Blockade On Germany In The Great War. A Summary by Angela Clifford of Two Definitive Works by Eamon Dyas: Blockading The Germans and Starving The Germans. Belfast Historical & Educational Society. March 2022. Belfast Historical & Educational Society. 2020. ISBN: 978-1-872078-37-3. €9, £10
athol-st@atholbooks.org
Irish Times, Weekend (29.11.25):
Finance
5 min.
Arms giant Rheinmetall’s profits surge amid growing Russian threat
Düsseldorf-based firm expects turnover to grow tenfold in coming decade to about €120bn
He is the man arguably at the centre of Germany’s rearmament in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and at the heart of that country’s military industrial complex.
As chief executive of German arms giant Rheinmetall, Armin Papperger has gone from leading a relatively unknown business outside Germany to now being at the head of one of the most high-profile companies in Europe.
Under the 62-year-old’s watch, Rheinmetall’s shares have jumped from just over €90 three weeks before Russia launched its full scale invasion of Ukraine to more than €1,500 today, as that war triggered a panicked investment in defence across Europe.
In Germany, this historic shift has earned its own name – the Zeitenwende – and Rheinmetall is the chief profiteer of Berlin’s effective blank cheque approach to defence spending. Whatever Rheinmetall can make, Berlin will buy.
In the last three years, the listed Düsseldorf-based firm has agreed so many new contracts, plants and partnerships – from Finland to Bulgaria – that it expects its turnover to grown tenfold in the coming decade to around €120 billion.
Rheinmetall is profiting not from war, Papperger argues, but a realisation around Europe that many overdid it with the post-Cold War peace dividend and invested “almost nothing” in defence and security.
‘Weak spot’
“What we want is peace on earth,” says Papperger in conversation with the Berlin foreign press. “But we need a certain level of security and deterrence potential so that no one attacks us. One aggressor or the other views this lack of investment as a weak spot.”
In recent decades, Rheinmetall – with a century-old history that includes arming Germany in two world wars – operated discreetly away from the spotlight.
But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 changed the lighting drastically. Even traditionally pacifist-leftist parties here accept that, with a war going on a train-ride away from Berlin, pacifism in 2025 requires investment in security, too.
So is defence – not attack – once again the best form of defence?
“What we all want is that we aren’t attacked but the terrible thing is we have a situation where many in politics and in intelligence services say that in all likelihood there will be attempts to play with fire on the Nato outer border,” says Papperger. “We want to be an essential part of making Nato ready to defend itself.”
He is referring to Nato risk assessments that, after its war with Ukraine, Russia may turn its attentions to smaller Nato members in the Baltics.
German foreign minister Johann Wadephul went public with those concerns this week, saying “at the very least, Russia is creating the option for itself to wage war against Nato by 2029”.
Not everyone in Germany is happy that one future option is being hyped up as the most likely scenario. More than 100 MPs from the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), junior coalition partners in Berlin, have signed a manifesto demanding as much effort and investment in diplomacy as cash for arms.
Pushing the worst-case-scenario means even more business for Rheinmetall, of course, but Papperger insists his firm is only a recipient – not author – of such Nato risk assessments.
It is up to states to place orders they feel appropriate but, given the recent rush, he thinks capitals should “think more strategically rather than in day-to-day, operative, do-gooder terms”.
“Sadly many people are dying in Ukraine because of this negligent thinking,” he says.
Rheinmetall’s biggest divisions are weapons, ammunition, vehicles and artillery and Papperger disputes the argument that Ukraine shows the need to invest less in conventional arms and more in drones.
Their rise, Papperger argues, merely reflects the static nature of the Russian-Ukraine conflict. Even now, he says, 95 per cent of drones there are shot down with conventional equipment such as its Skyranger. The real race, he thinks, is to make such equipment cheaper to make drones uneconomical.
In either case, a potential Russian attack on a Nato state would look very different from the Ukrainian invasion, says Rheinmetall’s salesman-in-chief.
Assassination plot
Any full-scale invasion would require traditional armoured systems to push back any invader, backed with lots of artillery “because that’s cheaper than anything else”.
All this profit has come at a personal cost for Papperger. A reported Russian assassination plot means he and his family now live with permanent police protection, at state expense.
Looking to the future, Papperger sees greater potential for closer European defence co-operation – once, that is, the deals are lead by Rheinmetall.
He brushes off criticism of dominance from, in particular from France, as sour grapes from cumbersome state-run firms faced with more agile privately held operations like his.
“Rheinmetall reacts like a start-up and grows like a start-up,” he says, “and has the profitability of a blue-chip.”
So far, Papperger has steered Rheinmetall’s share price from €40 to around €1,600 now. Ever the salesman, he suggests a recent dip means the firm is now, if anything, undervalued.
“I am a major investor in this firm,” he adds, “and I am very relaxed.”
Irish Political Review 