“Operational Plan Germany”: What threatens Berlin in the event of war – Exclusive answers
In an emergency, Germany is to become a NATO hub. BSW politician Alexander King asked the Senate what this means for Berlin – the answers were obtained exclusively by the Berliner Zeitung.
While NATO is currently massively ramping up its defense capabilities against Russia , Germany is preparing for a new role – as a logistics hub in an emergency. Ammunition, soldiers, and military equipment are to be transported through the country to the Eastern Front. In an emergency, wounded personnel and refugees are also to be repatriated. All of this is part of the so-called Operational Plan Germany (OPLAN DEU), a secret Bundeswehr plan completed in January 2025, of which only a few details are known so far.
Berlin MP Alexander King from the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) wanted to know what this plan specifically means for the capital city of Berlin. He submitted extensive written inquiries to the Senate – and received answers that the Berliner Zeitung now has exclusively obtained.
The Operational Plan Germany is a secret, constantly updated document of the Bundeswehr. It regulates not only troop and material movements, but also the integration of civilian structures—from hospitals and transport infrastructure to aid organizations. Berlin plays a key role in this: as the federal capital, transport hub, and political center.
King wanted to know: What consequences will this have for the city and its population? What resources will be used? Are there regulations for expropriation or interference with property? How will civil liberties be protected?
The Senate's answers remain vague. It repeatedly refers to the federal government's jurisdiction and the plan's "classification requirements." For example, it states succinctly: "With regard to the specific nature and design of existing coordination measures in the context of the OPLAN DEU, no information can be provided in the context of a written inquiry in view of the federal government's classification requirements."
King's questions regarding potential infringements on property rights are particularly sensitive. The Senate confirms that private property can be seized in times of tension or defense – and refers to the Federal Performance Act and the Protected Area Act. These allow vehicles, real estate, or land to be confiscated, and even living space could be used for troops.
The Senate writes: "Procedures for the military use of private property and expropriatory interventions are regulated in particular by the Federal Performance Act, the Protected Area Act, and the State Procurement Act. These also contain the corresponding compensation provisions as well as regulations on time limits and restitution."
However, King's question as to whether there is any substantive coordination between the planned Berlin framework legislation on the socialization of property and the requirements of the OPLAN was not answered.
"Anyone who thought that the implementation of the successful referendum 'Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen and Co.' is finally being addressed was quickly disappointed. That is by no means planned," King commented to the Berliner Zeitung. And little else is known about the purpose of this framework law, as the Senate emphasizes at every opportunity that it shouldn't actually be applied, says King. "So is it just a placebo designed to deflate the debate about the referendum? Perhaps. But in my opinion, a connection to the Operational Plan Germany is also possible. Unfortunately, I haven't received a response from the Senate to my question on this matter."
Shelters? None in BerlinThe situation is particularly dire when it comes to civil defense. King asked about the number of operational bunkers for the public. The result: There are no more functional shelters in Berlin.
"The public shelter concept was discontinued. The functional maintenance of the shelters was terminated following a decision in 2007. Dismantling began in 2008. There are currently no operational bunker facilities in the state of Berlin," the Senate responded.
Instead, the plan is now to examine whether subway and train stations should be converted into emergency shelters. A cross-departmental working group has been set up, but there are no concrete results yet. This means, in plain language: In an emergency, Berliners would have to seek shelter where they currently commute to work—in the tunnels and shafts of the subway. Stations like Alexanderplatz or Gesundbrunnen could be transformed from transport hubs into improvised bunkers.
"The state of Berlin should now upgrade train and subway stations in this direction to remedy the situation. For me, this would be one more reason to actively strive for peace rather than preparing for military escalation with all available resources," King said.
Questions also arise in the areas of health and infrastructure. According to the Bundeswehr , there are already plans to integrate civilian hospitals as part of "civil defense" – for the care of the wounded, but also for military needs. King wanted to know which Berlin hospitals would be affected. The Senate offered an evasive answer, citing federal responsibility.
What this means is easy to imagine: Berlin hospitals are already overburdened, treating not only accident victims and stroke patients, but also injured soldiers from potential combat deployments. Operating rooms are in constant operation, emergency beds are in the hallways, and staff are torn between providing civilian care and providing military supplies.
The situation is similar with transport infrastructure: Highways, train stations, and bridges would need to be upgraded to accommodate tank transport. Here, too, the Senate is referring the matter to the federal government. The costs for Berlin are unclear—but could be enormous.
In the third part of his question, King addressed possible obligations for the population. His questions: Should universal conscription be introduced? Will reservists be called up? Do people with key qualifications have to be deployed forcibly?
The Senate's response: Not responsible, it's all a federal matter. For King, it's clear: "The fact that the Senate is retreating in its response to federal responsibility and the level of secrecy, and isn't revealing a single millimeter of the cross-level agreements, doesn't exactly inspire confidence. In this respect, the problem is that we, as citizens and members of parliament, are no longer allowed to understand a very significant part of the background to certain measures and plans in Berlin. This is a problem for parliamentary oversight, including budget oversight, because we parliamentarians are not allowed to see either the operational plan or any subsequent plans."
Secret plans, open questionsThe fact is: In the event of war or tension, Berlin would play a central role – as a political center, as a logistical hub, as a refuge for the wounded and refugees. But Berliners and their representatives in the House of Representatives hardly know what this means for them in concrete terms.
King draws a bitter conclusion: "Which Berlin policy decision is still oriented towards the needs of the population – and which decision is oriented towards secret specifications from the Operational Plan Germany, the 'Civil Defense Hospitals' Framework Plan, or other secret military simulations?"
Berliner-zeitung
