Great! I don't mind kicking my theory out of the window. So now the
only two remaining possibilities (unless someone comes up with a new
one) are: 1. A GDR counter enclave _was_ created, or 2. The bridge
became WB, but the railway underneath remained GDR. In the latter
case, it is just like the Panaman bridge, but without the "tube"
being mentioned in the treaty (either WB tube consisting of the
bridge, or GDR tube consisting of the tracks - or even "the sky"
belonging to WB, and "the earth" belonging to the GDR, and
the "boundary" being somewhere under the bridge. Maybe the lower
surface of the bridge deck... We'll probably never know...).
The first possibility is also an option; it just makes the tracks
below the bridge subject to the same status as the tracks within
Steinstuecken (or WB for that matter) proper. I.e. DR property within
WB.
Thanks again for clearing this up.
You seem to be in possession of this particular treaty. Any other
interesting things in there we might like to know?
Peter S.
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "lnadybal" <lnadybal@h...> wrote:
> Re: the bridge and land under it at Steinstuecken, the Allied
> Kommandatura issued its concurrence with the agreement between the
> Berlin Senate and the GDR/DDR on 3 June 1972. The treaty text is
> attached to the concurrence document. It states that territory
> which comes to be part of West Berlin at Steinstueken is: "ein
> gebietsstreifen entlang der Eisenbahnstrecke Seddin - Berlin
(west)...
> sowie die von diesem Gebietstreifen vor Steinstuecken nach Westen
> abzweigende Strasse bis zur westlichen Strassengrenze der Teltower
> Strasse in der Breite der Fahrbahn von ca. 3 meter EINSCHLIESSLICH
DER
> BRUECKE als Zugaenge nach Steinstuecken.... ca 2.3 hectares"
>
> (Summary Translation: what is added to West Berlin is a strip of
land
> along the Berlin - Seddin railway and the street branching to the
west
> of this strip to the western border of Teltower Str. in a width of
> approximately 3 meters, including the bridge as access routes to
> Steinstuecken.)
>
> In short, the bridge and road are mentioned as transferring, but
> nothing about the underlying railbed. There is no shortening of
the
> east German territory on which the track lies south of the bridge
> mentioned in the treaty. Attached to the treaty is the map I
posted,
> but it doesn't answer the question about the territory occupied by
> the railbed.
>
> It's often been said that borders are the only thing that can go
for
> two thousand miles or more and never move - maybe they don't move
up
> and down, either. What if they had found oil under the bridge?
>
> Regards
>
> LN
>
> This is a classic case of leaving out of the treaty the detail as
to
> which entity the ground under the bridge belongs.
>
> -