The wall was a defensive measure against a fascist West that was actively trying to undermine the GDR economically and politically as has been documented beyond all doubt.

They built it the wrong way around then.

I have in not a single sentence praised the transition to capitalism, nor will I.

I mean you just made a false equivalence to whitewash capitalism in the same comment. Also, anybody who uses the term authoritarian exposes themselves as having a deeply infantile understanding of politics.

All states are authoritarian by their very nature, they differ in being extensions of different classes class based on the type of social organization within the state. The extent to which any particular state exerts its authority depends on the given conditions and circumstances it finds itself in. The whole idea that a socialist system creates some latent desire for exerting authority at the helm is beyond absurd. What you have in practice are class dynamics and class struggle. Nazi Germany and modern Germany are both authoritarian bourgeoisie states. And the key difference between them is that nazi Germany was in economic crisis and needed to violently suppress the working class to protect property of the capital owning class. Those same circumstances are once again starting to crop up in modern Germany hence the stratospheric rise of AfD.

It's also not possible to refer any liberal capitalist state a democracy in any meaningful sense. Liberalism consists of two main parts. First is political liberalism which focuses on wholesome ideas such as individual freedoms and democracy. Second is economic liberalism which centers around free markets, private property, and wealth accumulation. These two aspects form a contradiction. Political liberalism purports to support everyone’s freedom, while economic liberalism enshrines private property rights as sacred in laws and constitutions, effectively removing them from political debate.

As a result, liberalism justifies the use of state violence to safeguard property rights, over supporting ordinary people, which contradicts the promises of fairness and equality. Private property is seen as a key part of individual freedom under liberalism, and this provides the foundational justification for the rich to keep their wealth while ignoring the needs of everyone else. Thus, the talk of freedom and democracy ends up being nothing more than a fig leaf to provide cover for justifying capitalist relations. So, a liberal state cannot be democratic by its very definition.

The GDR failed because global fascist forces won a victory over USSR.

No, they're looking at what life for regular people is like under a capitalist regime.

And I agree with that. Living in a capitalist hellscape is shit! Doesn't mean it was better back then though. It sure was different, better in some ways but worse in others.

And the West didn't shoot at people trying to flee and in the west your neighbors didn't rat you out to the authorities for listening to radio from the other side. And it wasn't the west that tore my family apart when the wall was build.

It's always the people who got theirs and have zero empathy for the needs of others who praise the transition to capitalism in post Soviet states.

I have in not a single sentence praised the transition to capitalism, nor will I. What I do praise is the end of an authoritarian regime that oppressed it's populace. And I have criticized the rose colored glasses of those who didn't live in it. And to be clear: the west didn't bring freedom and democracy to the GDR. The citizens demonstrating in Plauen and Leipzig and Berlin did that. (Which btw. is a good point against it being an illegitimate state, because reforms could have been possible if the old guard hadn't resisted civil rights as much.) The GDR failed just when it's citizens had enough of it and tried to reform it and civil rights activists gained more influence. Maybe it would have been a better place when it could have existed longer and reformed but the unwillingness of the old men leading the country to accept ANY change led to its implosion before it cozld fulfill its promises.