Every conversation with germans from the FRG goes like "The GDR had the following positive accomplishments and unified germany should have adopted them" "How can you say the GDR did something well when they also did [bad thing]".

It's completely impossible for them to not think of this problem in a black and white fashion or to imagine that the east could have produced anything good, regardless of which of the systems was better overall. Women's rights don't matter, queer rights don't matter, full employment and social security don't matter, all they can see is stasi and lack of bananas.

When faced with empirical facts and statistics (often even ones collected by west germany) wessis panic and start comparing a state that had a political persecution death toll of 140 and never persecuted anyone based on ethnicity or immutable characteristics to a state that genocided 6 million jews across europe (Bordering holocaust relativization tbh).

Meanwhile people that actually lived in the GDR mostly see both its positive and negative aspects. An annexation in which all of their positive accomplishments were discarded, their economy was dismantled and illegally sold off to western investors for joke prices (in most cases just done to kill off competition) and the legacy of their system was reduced to exclusively its worst aspects was framed as a "unification", and yet the west is surprised at the lack of enthusiasm for the liberal democratic system in the east.

@lizzy hmm yes let's weigh the pros and cons of the SED dictatorship. con: tens of thousands of political prisoners tortured. pro: high schoolers slightly better at math.

you rant about onesidedness of "wessis" only to then give the second most ridiculously one-sided "summary" ever.

"annexation"? don't be ridiculous. in what world is an overwhelming majority approving the unification treaty *in both countries* an annexation.

@luatic @lizzy "annexation" just means one government takes over the territory of another. It happens peacefully all the time.

As for the rest of your post... yeah you're basically doing exactly what OP complaining about.

@yakmacker @lizzy

"Annexation, in international law, is the forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory." (Wikipedia)

It is not correct to refer to the reunification as an annexation; it happened voluntarily, with vast support in the population of the GDR, and huge concessions from the FDR, e.g. extremely favorable exchange rates and billions in subsidies.

@luatic @lizzy in common English usage, rather than international law, the meaning is different.
Annex (Mirriam-Webster):
1: to incorporate (an additional geographic area) within the domain of a country, state, etc.
5 (archaic): to join (things or people) together

For instance it is not uncommon to say in America that a city "annexes" some unincorporated land when it expands.

@yakmacker @lizzy

you are certainly right that in general annexation has a broader meaning. however when applied to countries, annexation usually implies force / coercion, and i believe this is how a reader will understand it most of the time, especially someone with a german understanding of "annexion" ;)

but anyways this was clarified by lizzy so it doesn't really matter