Basically, right - we never came to a conclusion. I actually tilt
towards your interpretation, but gave the opposite to get you to
think about the other possibilities, knowing you hadn't seen the old
discussion. I tilt towards the view that there is a "tunnel of
sovereignty" under that bridge, even though I know in my heart that
Germans, as thorough and exacting they are, have left a loophole in
this treaty through which you could drive a train, and would have
gotten less than what they intended had a problem arisen and they
gotten into a dispute. For instance, the East Germans could have
stationed troops between the two halves of Steinstuecken.
The West Germans knew how picky the East Germans were to deal with
whenever they got into negotiations with them about access routes,
checkpoint processing, the customs regime, Allied rights, trash
dumping in the east, etc. To let this treaty go through as loosly
written as it was is something that just won't square with the
intrerpretation that sovereignty on the surface was meant.
I'll reply to the other elements of your message in a separate
posting.
Regards
Len
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "anorak222" <wolfi.junkmail@s...> wrote:
> Hi Len,
>
> > To find the old messages, and get a list of them, all of which
were
> in
> > December 2001, and started with Nr. 5111, search the Boundary
Point
> > archives under "steinstuecken". Use ue, not ΓΌ or u - only ue
will
> > bring up the list.
>
> Yes I found some of that now. You already discussed everything I
said
> yesterday. Damn :) But it seems there was no conclusion between the
> two interpretations, right?
>