Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] High points<br/>
Date: Jan 21, 2005 @ 17:55<br/>
Author: Flynn, Kevin (&quot;Flynn, Kevin&quot; &lt;flynnk@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="16490.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="16495.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic16490.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="16492.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="16494.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-645109946">I would suggest that yes, it was also the view then. German possessions in<br/>
Africa were never considered to be part of the nation of German, but simply<br/>
possessions or colonies, AFAIK.<br/>
<br/>
-----Original Message-----<br/>
From: Wolfgang Schaub [mailto:<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:Wolfgang.Schaub@...">Wolfgang.Schaub@...</a>] <br/>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 1:07 AM<br/>
To: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] High points<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
You all seem to hit the point: High points are flexible, depending upon our<br/>
political definitions. And more: As much as I concur TODAY that the highest<br/>
point in Germany was not in Africa, has this been the understanding in the<br/>
19th century as well?<br/>
<br/>
Wolfgang<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 <br/>
Yahoo! Groups Links</div>