Degrees of tolerance and intolerance are relative. They only tried to starve
the people of West Berlin. The reason they didn't succeed is because they were
not willing to suffer the consequences of shooting down US military aircraft in
the established air corridor. They eventually gave up and reverted to
grumpiness and bluster.
Sieges are relatively temporary by nature. If they succeed, the enclave is
gone. If they don't, they are ineffectively intolerant.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "mikekaufman79" <mikekaufman79@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:32 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Some thoughts on claves
> But it was tolerated to the extent that they did not resume active
> fighting. They might not have liked it, but they did tolerate it
> enough not to engage in significant live-fire military operations
> with the goal of eliminating it.
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> > > places under siege are exceptional
> > > in not being tolerated
> > > yet are basically archetypical of enclaves also
> > >
> > > nor do these necessarily result from the division of some larger
> > > entity
> > >
> > > but many enclaves are just the result of military standoffs
> >
> > You are correct, but I did not say that ALL enclaves result from
> the division of
> > larger entities, but that most modern ones do.
> >
> > I suppose that West Berlin was an enclave besieged. It was clearly
> not
> > tolerated by the surrounding power, but it persisted as a result of
> a military
> > stand-off. Its ability to persist depended entirely on its
> resupply via a
> > sovereign airspace corridor that the surrounding power dared not
> violate. Some
> > might argue that the existence of that corridor made it less than
> completely
> > enclaved in all three dimensions.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>