@SK19 Pretty sure that particular "trick" has been around for about as long as humans have, if not longer.

@SK19: Trump's just outspoken and brazen about it and his word can reach millions in an instant. Delusional people have been around forever, and will continue to be around forever, regardless of Trump.

@Giter I refuse to acknowledge that anyone used this technique before Trump did or that I ever heard of these Reichsbürger guys before. Therefor I can now make him solely responsible for the Reichsbürger movement. Further, the Wikipedia article on Cognitive Dissonance is completely fictional anti-Trump propaganda :)

Part of the claim i.e.that there was no peace treaty is true though. The Treaty on the Final Settlement was explicitly not a peace treaty. Mostly to dodge the question of reparations. The second part of that claim, that Germany is still legally occupied, is rubbish of course.

the last few words "and withdraw their troops and influence" are not totally accurate: there are still US troops in Germany. This not a blemish on German sovereignty because the German government explicitely agrees with their presence. In any case, this part is not in the treaty.

Also, and I'm on shakier ground here, I believe that the legal entity post the Treaty is considered a different entity to either of the German states prior. Unless the new entity explicitly re-ratified the constitution, there could be a question as to whether or not it applies to the new entity. This would be a separate question as to what, if any, contents didn't now apply.

@Evargalo: I meant occupation/defense troops and direct influence over the Germany due to it being considered an occupied nation. I'll edit the answer to make it more clear.

@Alex That would make a good question, but I believe while having a new entity emerge from the reunification was the plan from the beginning, that didn't actually happen when the time for reunification came. East germany just joined the west. The wikipedia article on german reunification sums it up in the section on constitutional merger.

@Alex: Just doubled the size of my answer to hopefully clear up any confusion as to why there's no official peace treaty and why the current government didn't re-ratify the constitution. Basically, people didn't think a peace treaty was explicitly needed, and the current government did not need to re-ratify because it is the same government that ratified it in 1949.

It is my understanding that the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany regulates only affairs between the signatory states. Greece, which was occupied by the Germans and as such surely a war opponent, as well as other states are not involved, as much as Germany would like that to be the case. I think the lack of a true peace treaty is a legal sore spot.

I'd like to shine some light on two points. 1) In its 1949 form, the "Grundgesetz" did not contain the word 'Verfassung' (constitution). They very deliberately avoided that word, because giving the FRG a constitution would have cemented Germany's separation. The new lede was added in 1990. 2) Formally, the GDR ceased to exist, and the five federal states that constituted the former GDR's territory joined the FRG and the area of application of the Grundgesetz. That's why it didn't have to be re-ratified. (Some articles -- and the lede -- were changed, though.)

@Alex, does a state need a peace treaty (with whom?) to exist?

@AnoE For the claim in question (there is no peace treaty) to be declared false: a peace treaty has to exist! In name there is none.

@AnoE A state doesn't need a peace treaty. I'm not sure anyone said it did

@PaŭloEbermann: Good point, that was a poorly worded/half finished thought on my part. Edited to be more clear.

"so perhaps the German concept/linguistics" ........ in some ways this answer is nonsensical. The entire raison d'etre of the German "Das Grundgesetz" is that it is not a constitution. You might as well say something like "The difference between 'interim treasurer' and 'treasurer' is just a semantic difference...."

@Fattie: It wasn't a constitution from 1949-1990. It was made a constitution in 1990. That's not just linguistic tricks, it has been upheld as constitution several times in court.

600 characters is too few to even begin to explain why the conflict which arose after 1945 was termed the cold war - a state of affairs that existed between East and West, in which the two parts of Germany were just the states most directly involved. The idea of having a Peace Treaty in 1990 was just considered absurd, given that hostilities between the Allies and Germany had ended 45 years before. West Germany was returned to German civilian control in 1955, and it ceased to be occupied then: Allied troops were thereafter present only to supply external (nuclear) defence.