The two countries were West Germany and East Germany beforehand, so how could either be "annexed" into the other? The Germans describe it as unification.
Technically, the GDR ("East Germany") dissolved in five countries, who then joined the FRG ("West Germany"). It's really a little bit wierd to read it as an annexation.
Yeah, that seems like a bit of a stretch to me too. Bonn is not the capital of a Greater West Germany today. The two became one. I suppose one could argue that the political system of the west was maintained after unification, but that still seems to be stretching the definition.
The confusion about this topic likely stems from the fact that the two countries are colloquially known as "West" and "East" Germany internationally. Technically though, they were the Federal Republic and the Democratic Republic. Modern-day Germany retains the name Federal Republic, its Basic Law, and its political system. In the minds of Germans, it was a unification because the people were unified. But to quote Wikipedia: "The post-1990 united Germany is not a successor state, but an enlarged continuation of the former West Germany."
If we're going by the dictionary definition of "annex" (and if we're using the word, I don't see why we wouldn't), it means "to add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation" (appropriation: the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission). I therefore don't see how "annex" fits here, since: (1) W. Germany did not *acquire* E. Germany "for its own use", as W. Germany ceased upon unification to exist, and the new country officially became just "Germany"; (2) The "without the the owner's permission" obviously does not apply, as the E. German parliament agreed wholeheartedly and participated fully. (3) It was completed via treaty. (I know some actual annexations had treaties were forced to be signed, but this one was obviously not done under duress).
It was annexation in the sense that they didn't form a new country together. The Federal Republic of Germany, previously commonly known as West Germany, continued to exist in enlarged form with the same name, laws, constitution, EU membership etc, which were gradually applied also in the eastern part.
Nope, it is always hostile. 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.
It has been very well explained how the Reunification of Germany was technically an annexation, and that was very much intentional. There were suggestion, in 1989-1990 to form a new State that would be the product of a true unification, and that would retain what each of the states did better than the other. The GDR ("East Germany") for instance had much more developped child care, and in general the system was less biased against women. There were suggestions for a new flag, a new national anthem, a new Constitution... The CDU, who was in power in the FRG, refused all of it. In time, I think it was a mistake, as it has fuelled a lot of resentment in the East.
Gadafi (sp?) was executed in Libya during the Arab Spring rebellions since Saddam Hussein was executed in Iraq.
Though I guess it wasn't technically an execution because he was never put up for trial. He was hunted down and killed by a mob. Not sure if that is considered an execution or not.
My first instinct, on seeing the instructions, was this quiz should be the yellow box format....having done it I can see why it is not. Tough. Nice one, well done.
If we're going by what the people there want, then they're 99.9% British. If we're going by who got there first, then they're French, which would be a great compromise that everybody could complain about together.
Last country to be annexed is Western Sahara. They were annexed before they even got a chance to vote for their freedom. It is still illegally annexed by Morocco, and Morocco is profiting from resources that belong to the Sahrawis.
Can you accept Germany for East Germany? I know they are not the same thing but I suppose a lot of people (like me) tried Germany for the last annexed one and thought it wasn't DDR
Needs an update for the Winter Olympics question. Barbados also might count for the "get rid of their monarchy" question (though it's not really *their* monarchy)
Yes, I think Barbados should be there too! The monarch, despite being British, was the Queen of Barbados as well, simultaneously holding the title of the Queen of the UK and 14 other nations.
Commonwealth realms are all independent nations and their monarchies are really *theirs*. No one calls Elizabeth II the Queen of the United Kingdom in Australia or New Zealand. She just happens to hold all these titles despite those countries being independent.
In short, the monarch is the same person, but hold legally distinct and separate titles in 15 different countries.
Reason 1) is wrong as FDR still exists and West Germany was never an official name. Still would not call it annexation for reasons 2) and 3).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation
Though I guess it wasn't technically an execution because he was never put up for trial. He was hunted down and killed by a mob. Not sure if that is considered an execution or not.
https://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/1699940/most-recent-country-to-2
Commonwealth realms are all independent nations and their monarchies are really *theirs*. No one calls Elizabeth II the Queen of the United Kingdom in Australia or New Zealand. She just happens to hold all these titles despite those countries being independent.
In short, the monarch is the same person, but hold legally distinct and separate titles in 15 different countries.
As has Barbados with regards to abolishing the monarchy.
(remember, remember, it's not a country!)