The first reunifucation document cites article 23, indicating that the GDR would enter as states (Laender) adhering to the FRG constitution, which was subject to article 29. The only other option for reunification provided for in the FRG constitution was a negotiated rewrite of the constitution, itself requiring a plebiscite, which they did not do. The “contract” does not mention article 29, but it is subject to the only two provisions in the FRG constitution for the reunification (accession if states via plebiscite and negotiated rewrite of the constitution, also requiring a plebiscite).
After the fact, liberals began coming up with explanations for why this blatantly illegal “contract” was actually fine, including things like the sourced document conflating general elections of parties with a plebiscite.
So who are you accusing of doing the wrong thing: The government of the GDR or the FRG Government, because is it still illegal annexation if the country being annexed signs a legally binding contract that it will become part of germany without a plebiscite.
Maybe it went against the GG of the FDR but then it wouldn’t really be an illegal annexation but a different crime if it wasn’t against the laws of the GDR or our definitions of annexation might differ.
I’m saying the FRG broke its own laws to annex the DDR. I haven’t said that this is inherently “the wrong thing”, I note it being illegal because liberals pretend to care about such things.
The government of the GDR or the FRG Government, because is it still illegal annexation if the country being annexed signs a legally binding contract that it will become part of germany without a plebiscite.
There is no provision for this in the FRG’s provisional constitution at the time. I linked to it and explained the two options already.
The first reunifucation document cites article 23, indicating that the GDR would enter as states (Laender) adhering to the FRG constitution, which was subject to article 29. The only other option for reunification provided for in the FRG constitution was a negotiated rewrite of the constitution, itself requiring a plebiscite, which they did not do. The “contract” does not mention article 29, but it is subject to the only two provisions in the FRG constitution for the reunification (accession if states via plebiscite and negotiated rewrite of the constitution, also requiring a plebiscite).
After the fact, liberals began coming up with explanations for why this blatantly illegal “contract” was actually fine, including things like the sourced document conflating general elections of parties with a plebiscite.
So who are you accusing of doing the wrong thing: The government of the GDR or the FRG Government, because is it still illegal annexation if the country being annexed signs a legally binding contract that it will become part of germany without a plebiscite.
Maybe it went against the GG of the FDR but then it wouldn’t really be an illegal annexation but a different crime if it wasn’t against the laws of the GDR or our definitions of annexation might differ.
I’m saying the FRG broke its own laws to annex the DDR. I haven’t said that this is inherently “the wrong thing”, I note it being illegal because liberals pretend to care about such things.
There is no provision for this in the FRG’s provisional constitution at the time. I linked to it and explained the two options already.