Germany was officially all one country at that point. When Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza are also officially one country too, it choice of capital will be equally irrelevant to anyone else.
Why? Do they consistently abide by UN resolutions passed by the rest of the “family?”
That will never happen.
Oh yes of course it is very comparable and not at all an obvious attempt at the false equivalance based on a very bad understanding of the history or the deliberate distortion of the history…
The West Germans of course the denied the full citizenship to the East Germans and undertook the piece by piece expropriations or pressurized buying of the lands under the military occuption of the East germany by the West germany…
Exactly. If Israel was unifying with the Palestinian territories, and the Palestinians were becoming Israeli citizens, then the situation would be comparable. But they’re not.
Form over substance. East Germany was effectively a Russian colony. And frankly the loss of those colonies cost Yeltsin his job and gave us Putin.
More lost Gorbachev his job and gave us Yeltain. Germany reunified in 1990. The Soviet Union disbanded in 1991.
By 1999, when the capital was moved back to Berlin, the planning had been in the works for about 8 yeaea, and there was no international outcry at all. It was pretty much just seen as an inevitably. I mean, I agree with you in the Jerusalem thing, but you’re stretching the analogy way too far here.
The state might have been run that way, but the point at issue was that there was no dispute as to who constituted its people or who was entitled to decide on reunification. Nor whether or not the Soviet Union was party to, and consented to, the reunification and more generally withdrawing from political domination of the former satellite states. The OP’s point is based on the premise of a false analogy.
Making bizzarro-world declarations that don’t match reality really doesn’t help your case. East Germany was not colonized by the Russians at any point, calling it a colony is just weird and ahistorical.
No, it was a Soviet client state, in the old imperial tradition. There was no settlement or metropolitan direct control. It fit no definition at all of “colony”
this is a very funny display of complete poverty of historical knowledge and pretension on ignorance to teach. Or maybe it was a time-traveller Yeltsin.
of course the pretension that there is a “double standard” requires the complete ignorance - indeed the active denial of the examples of another major case in the region of the annexation, the case of the western sahara where there is no general recognition of the act even when the annexing state is actually giving the full citizenship to the annexed indigenes, and not following the Bantustan policy like the Israeli are.
Wasn’t the capital of South Africa divided between Johannesburg and Pretoria at one point? Maybe the OP can do something with that.
The capital of South Africa is actually tripartite. Cape Town is the legislative capital, where Parliament sits. Pretoria is the executive/administrative capital, where the President and Cabinet sit, and Bloemfontein is the judicial capital, where the Supreme Court of Appeal sits.
Yeltsin was reelected twice after “the loss of the colonies”.
Again form over substance.
It’s not clear from this exchange that you understand what either of those terms mean.
I do. Whether you want to call it a colony, a satellite, a client state or any other label, they were not free to have their own foreign policy and not entirely free to have their own domestic policy either.
Agreed, but by 1999, when the capital was moved, East Germany didn’t exist anymore.
When I was in what used to be East Germany in Oct 1990, just a few days after Einheit (reunification), one of my work colleagues and I tried to get some East German currency, just as a souvenir. We asked at the hotel desk where we were staying if we could exchange some money for DDR currency. The clerk looked at us and calmly said: DDR ist nicht mehr. Neither of us spoke much German at all, but we understood what that meant! 
If this article is correct, the Russian embassy was also in Berlin in 1999.
"The temporary U.S. Embassy in Berlin, just across Under den Linden from the Russian Embassy, shows just how alluring such features can be. "
I don’t. Let me in on it.