Can you please point out where in my source it states that it was the type of election you say it is because to me it seems to say they made public votes about the unification.
If you were interested you could read it yourself and look at the dates and what they are referring to with their proper nouns. Every election they listed was a general election of parties / candidates, not a plebiscite on reuniting.
“Bei der einzigen freien Volkskammerwahl am 18. März 1990 erzielte die Allianz für Deutschland, das Wahlbündnis für eine möglichst schnelle Vereinigung, 48 Prozent der Stimmen”
Do you know what Allianz fuer Deutschland was? It was a coalition of parties. When they refer to them getting 48% of votea, they are referring to their party coalition getting those votes. Liberals go on and on about this election, they even xall it the first free election in the GDR since the Nazis took over.
“Dieses Ergebnis wurde in den Kommunalwahlen am 6. Mai 1990 der Größenordnung nach bestätigt: Wieder wurden die Parteien der Allianz für Deutschland mit landesweit 35 Prozent am stärksten, hinzu kamen die Liberalen mit nun sogar 7,3 Prozent.”
This is the local elections in the GDR a little later. Again they are referring to political parties receiving votes.
“Die dritte Wahl fand am 14. Oktober 1990 statt, elf Tage nach dem Vollzug der staatlichen Wiedervereinigung. Die CDU errang teilweise zusammen mit der FDP in vier der fünf neuen Bundesländern die klare Mehrheit, die Einheitsgegner der PDS verloren leicht. Ein ähnliches Ergebnis brachte die erste gesamtdeutsche Bundestagswahl am 2. Dezember 1990.”
This is referring to elections after reunification day. This time at the state level and national. Again they refer to parties getting percentages of votes: CDU, FDP.
Maybe there is something lost in translation as I am reading the german version and you might not be or something else.
I can read German.
This is also the part I need a source for: That the elections were made out to be a vote about the unification process.
Your own source is saying exactly that. Its examples are all general elections for party representation in legislative bodies. Your own source calls this, “Im Einheitsjahr 1990 stimmte die Bevölkerung der DDR zweimal vor und zweimal nach dem Stichtag über die Wiedrevereinigung ab.” For those who do not speak German, this is saying, more or less, “in Unification Year 1990 the citizens of the GDR voted twice before and twice after the reunification deadline”. It says they voted for unificatikn four times but every example is a general election of parties.
The Article you stated from the GG just states what we already agreed on: That there was a vote to be held and if the vote turns out not in favor it will not happen.
No vote on the decision was held. None. Article 29 is quite cleae that the people must vote explicitly on the decision to join. It even says there cannot be more than 2 choices presented on the ballot.
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.
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.
If you were interested you could read it yourself and look at the dates and what they are referring to with their proper nouns. Every election they listed was a general election of parties / candidates, not a plebiscite on reuniting.
“Bei der einzigen freien Volkskammerwahl am 18. März 1990 erzielte die Allianz für Deutschland, das Wahlbündnis für eine möglichst schnelle Vereinigung, 48 Prozent der Stimmen”
Do you know what Allianz fuer Deutschland was? It was a coalition of parties. When they refer to them getting 48% of votea, they are referring to their party coalition getting those votes. Liberals go on and on about this election, they even xall it the first free election in the GDR since the Nazis took over.
“Dieses Ergebnis wurde in den Kommunalwahlen am 6. Mai 1990 der Größenordnung nach bestätigt: Wieder wurden die Parteien der Allianz für Deutschland mit landesweit 35 Prozent am stärksten, hinzu kamen die Liberalen mit nun sogar 7,3 Prozent.”
This is the local elections in the GDR a little later. Again they are referring to political parties receiving votes.
“Die dritte Wahl fand am 14. Oktober 1990 statt, elf Tage nach dem Vollzug der staatlichen Wiedervereinigung. Die CDU errang teilweise zusammen mit der FDP in vier der fünf neuen Bundesländern die klare Mehrheit, die Einheitsgegner der PDS verloren leicht. Ein ähnliches Ergebnis brachte die erste gesamtdeutsche Bundestagswahl am 2. Dezember 1990.”
This is referring to elections after reunification day. This time at the state level and national. Again they refer to parties getting percentages of votes: CDU, FDP.
I can read German.
Your own source is saying exactly that. Its examples are all general elections for party representation in legislative bodies. Your own source calls this, “Im Einheitsjahr 1990 stimmte die Bevölkerung der DDR zweimal vor und zweimal nach dem Stichtag über die Wiedrevereinigung ab.” For those who do not speak German, this is saying, more or less, “in Unification Year 1990 the citizens of the GDR voted twice before and twice after the reunification deadline”. It says they voted for unificatikn four times but every example is a general election of parties.
No vote on the decision was held. None. Article 29 is quite cleae that the people must vote explicitly on the decision to join. It even says there cannot be more than 2 choices presented on the ballot.
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.
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.