I would elaborate, but your choice of "sources" regarding the German "annexation" basically says it all. (Two articles about the Russian Duma "evaluating" whether they want to call it thus, in 2015, and a couple of explicitly anti-German blogs.) If you'd present it as a possible viewpoint, OK, but positing it as fact crosses the line IMHO.

@DevSolar Correct. But I write of "would count" and "opinions out there" (I hope it's clear that I record but do not endorse)? How shall I make it clearer?

You also say "of course that would count", "nationalistic", equating the FRG with Nazi-Germany including "funny" snide remark, claiming that "NATO rolled in" etc. etc. -- reporting instead of endorsing sounds different.

@DevSolar NATO did roll in, and legally the reunification was an annexation. The GDR no longer exists, Germany is the successor of West Germany. It would be different if both GDR and FRG had ceased to exist and a new nation had been founded in place of both, but that is not what happened.

You make a contractually agreed-upon four-year transition period sound like a surprise military operation, and there are things that can make one state cease to exist other than annexations. The real problem is that you make it sound as if no other opinion could exist, which means you're endorsing those sources, not reporting. Doesn't that make your comment from 20 minutes ago an outright lie?

@DevSolar Not sure if you're addressing LangLangC or myself. Is a peaceful annexation not an annexation?

@gerrit: Ah, sorry... I am on my mobile and didn't notice the different username. I've been there in a different question. "Annexation" implies "by force", and is generally considered illegal. So, especially with regards to the German reunification, the answer would be an emphatic "no".

The key thing regarding the Germany case is that the GDR decided to join the FRG. The population had an inaccurate idea of the economic consequences, but in both German states there was a clear majority for candidates who favored some sort of reunification.

@LangLangC: Former owners complicates things. I changed the term into "natives"/"previous inhabitants". In that sense you don't need to go back to times immemorial to speak of "ownership". What I meant is majority populations living in the area before, part of them getting conquered and then regaining back the control of the territory. I am not looking for such cases.

People ascribing opinions to others is one of my biggest pet peeves. Just read the answer for what it says and don't try to ascribe any kind of political stance to the author that isn't clearly expressed. Describing things from the viewpoint of either side of an issue is a way to make an argument and doesn't necessarily reflect opinion. LangLangC is pointing out an issue with how people see the word "annexation" by bringing up various historical events and framing them from a different perspective than we're used to. I see no attempt to actually drive any kind of political narrative.

@o.m. Russia would argue that the people of Crimea desired and decided the same.

@Kapten-N: Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether there's a clear political narrative expressed here or not...

@gerrit, there were Russian troops in the Crimea during the vote, and Russian troops in East Germany during that vote. Yet the East Germans elected pro-Reunification parties.

@o.m. It is completely besides the point my answer tries to make, but copared to Trump election the unification also did not catch the popular vote (abs maj), most parties in the Volkskammer either opposed to the process or not signalling clear intentions. Only Allianz für Deutschland promising DM via unity, fast. No one in the GDR voted for the exact procedure via Art 23 and no-one voter ratified the treaty or was allowed to work on the constitution as prescribed in the GG. Compare GDR results to >90% approval in Crimea? Hm, maybe, but I will surely not! Please re-read the complete answer

@o.m. There are certainly major problems with the process in which Crimea became Russian, it does seems plausible that the largely Russian population of Crimea would prefer to belong to Russia than to a Ukraine that is at odds with Russia, even if that does not follow from the disputed referendum and even if Russias motives were likely not altruistic.

(Italian Wikipedia)[[it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferragosto]](it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferragosto]), since apparently Wikipedia stubs are sources here, has 1st of August as the original date for Ferragosta. It was moved to 15th to be a celebration of the Assumption of Mary (retaining its former name). Do you have any substance to the claim that Italy is celebrating the annexation of Egypt on that day?

Also I'm confused. Are you arguing that annexation is a loaded term, or that the annexation of East Germany by West Germany and the annexation of Crimea by Russia are equivalent morally and/or legally?

@sgf I could add srcs: historians arguing for the real origin of Ferragosto, but that would distract from the point that the fascists expanded back on the then Catholic meaning and people today care for neither, despite the date being celebrated for 2000 years. // I hope its clear that "annexation" should hilight the problematic use and ideologically or politically clouded meaning now. For this answer I just don't care whether both are really "comparable/justified" etc, just that one side sometimes claims what the other denies, making both cases "compared" (aka judged) by others.

@LangLangC, are you aware of the party congress of the eastern CDU in December 89? They called for "the unity of the nation" ("Einheit der Nation") and later got some 40% of the vote.

@o.m. Just yesterday I re-read the relevant party-prgs, newpaper articles, flyers, election spots, later Volkskammer debates etc. I am actually thinking about asking a Q here that asks for concrete evidence that GDR electorate would even be able to vote or even discern Art 23/146 or voted referendum like on that matter. When Merkel was a member of the AfD ;) the DA spot televised mentioned "unity, fast" for 5 secs in a 5 min rambling about other issues presented by Schnur, the Stasi man. From that election to what representatives decided it was tumultuous, but that VK-vote is no plebsicite.

@LangLangC, I seriously doubt that the voters understood all implications of the different options for Reunification. Neither did the political leaders, but they would have a somewhat clearer idea. But I think the voters understood the difference between "unity at once, and on FRG terms", "unity soon" and "stay separate for now." Did you come across Kommt die D-Mark bleiben wir, kommt sie nicht, geh'n wir zu ihr?

@o.m. "Naturally". Wir sind das became Wir sind ein. I 'concede' that before the sec is over. Very dynamic times. What I dispute is that the election was anything more than legitimising the representatives to do what they did then later. The election was just that but is painted as a referendum, despite people being uneducated about that or openly opposed to at that time to what was then decided – chaotically – by the VK. They were in such a hurry that they even voted in VK so that only the VK, not the GDR! acceded to the BRD-GG on Oct3 (quickly corrected tho, thanks to Gysi, no less)

Sorry, but mentioning the German unification makes the answer simply wrong.

@MartinSchröder If you are able to explain why, you might argue over that with Habermas. Please reread the question and this answer, then ask why one's identity hinges so much on the definition of one word that unquestionable authorities use in a way that one does not like. I explain, argue, cite and quote. Claiming that to be wrong then isn't factual, or grounded in reason but driven by ideology?

@LangLangC: "but an invasion which is celebrated by the invaders, as a glorious event." - it wasn't an invasion. But yes, it wasn't a merger of equals.

@MartinSchröder Compare word usage in eg British Invasion with dictionary and then the rhetoric of victory over socialism, Treuhand-effects, Buschzulage, de-industrialisation, colonisation, BW/NATO expansion into the East etc – from both sides of the former wall. Again this is over one ill-defined word from the Q and opinion over the monotheistic definition of one word. I present multiple perspectives and narratives, arguing against "the one and only". How can all sides b simply wrong

@LangLangC You say "I present multiple perspectives and narratives, arguing against 'the one and only'", but that's not quite true. You are not neutral. You are arguing for a specific point of view, and (with the exception of Habermas and probably Gray & Wilke) you quote mostly fringe sources (FDJ? Seriously?). Another problem may be translation: Habermas never says "Annexion" in the original German text. He uses the word "Anschluss", which is closer to "accession" than to "annexation". zeit.de/1990/14/der-dm-nationalismus

@jcsahnwaldt That's even worse. Of course FDJ is another perspective. I do not say that one perspective is better than the other. And if you look at Anschluss or the popular slogan "Art 23 – Kein Anschluss unter dieser Nummer" during protests in 1990 you'll have to realise that the original Habermas is even more drastic (admittedly polemic) than you'd like for that line of reasoning. Now, this A is getting too long for reasons solely thin-skinned Germans bring along anyway, but how many more sources or srcs fitting your identity would suffice?