delphiandomine
23 Aug 2017
History / For what the Germans owe Poland one trillion U.S. dollars? [299]
It's all quite difficult to follow. Essentially, until 1990, there were two different views as to what the Federal Republic of Germany was legally. While the Allies believed that the Basic Law gained its legitimacy from the Allied occupation, the alternative view pushed by the FRG was that in order to be the only legitimate German state (thus making the German Democratic Republic an illegitimate state), it had to have derived its sovereignty from the German Reich.
As I understand it, when the GDR ceased to exist, the Federal Republic had no reason to need continuity with the German Reich because there were no other German states, so they quickly abandoned that stance and accepted the legal theory that the Basic Law gained legitimacy from the Allied occupation. The best I can work out is that if they had abandoned their claim to being the successor to the German Reich before unification, then the Soviets would have immediately recognised East German sovereignty, which would have formalised the division of Germany.
This was the source of some discontent, as it was vague enough to mean that Austria in particular could be incorporated into the Federal Republic. However, I think the idea was that Article 23 could only be used if the other state initiated it, meaning that in practice, it would only be useful for West and East Berlin, the GDR and the Saarland. Probably the reason for "de jure" rather than "de facto" was also to stop any tricks involving parastates.
You're right that it has no bearing on German foreign policy, but that policy is rather out of the goodwill of Germany rather than out of any legal requirements. I dare say such subtleties are lost on PiS voters however.
Have to admit I don't understand much of this.
It's all quite difficult to follow. Essentially, until 1990, there were two different views as to what the Federal Republic of Germany was legally. While the Allies believed that the Basic Law gained its legitimacy from the Allied occupation, the alternative view pushed by the FRG was that in order to be the only legitimate German state (thus making the German Democratic Republic an illegitimate state), it had to have derived its sovereignty from the German Reich.
As I understand it, when the GDR ceased to exist, the Federal Republic had no reason to need continuity with the German Reich because there were no other German states, so they quickly abandoned that stance and accepted the legal theory that the Basic Law gained legitimacy from the Allied occupation. The best I can work out is that if they had abandoned their claim to being the successor to the German Reich before unification, then the Soviets would have immediately recognised East German sovereignty, which would have formalised the division of Germany.
Where does this list of other de jure states that are eligible for accession come from?
This was the source of some discontent, as it was vague enough to mean that Austria in particular could be incorporated into the Federal Republic. However, I think the idea was that Article 23 could only be used if the other state initiated it, meaning that in practice, it would only be useful for West and East Berlin, the GDR and the Saarland. Probably the reason for "de jure" rather than "de facto" was also to stop any tricks involving parastates.
This is all really a juridical debate, that has no bearing
You're right that it has no bearing on German foreign policy, but that policy is rather out of the goodwill of Germany rather than out of any legal requirements. I dare say such subtleties are lost on PiS voters however.