From what I have read up now the unification was not done under article 29 but with a seperate contract that the elected parties from the DDR and the BRD signed to unite the parts of germany. I am not sure if this was against the article 29 but I can’t find any information if it was or wasn’t.
The contract didn’t include anything about voting about it.
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.
From what I have read up now the unification was not done under article 29 but with a seperate contract that the elected parties from the DDR and the BRD signed to unite the parts of germany. I am not sure if this was against the article 29 but I can’t find any information if it was or wasn’t.
The contract didn’t include anything about voting about it.
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.