"It
couldn't have been taken seriously if the U.S. sector of Berlin was a part of
the U.S."? This is, I am sorry, just a semantic issue. There was much of
"Einverleiben" in the past. The German flag flew over the "protectorates", they
were called "Deutsch-Ostafrika", "Deutsch-Suedwestafrika" and so on. If they
were called "deutsch" it would be difficult not to perceive them as part of
Deutschland.
The
same goes with the time after WW II. Germany had ceased to exist. It was
absolutely unclear what would happen next. "It couldn't have been taken
seriously"? To anyone interested I may give examples of what politicians
had to say.The vacuum was indeed "einverleibt" as American, British, French and
Soviet zones. Hence, at least from the linguistic point of view they
were not parts of Germany anymore. Sarcastically: The Soviets saved
us, they diverted the attention soon - and we all entered into the Cold War
together. Which permitted us to form a Bundesrepublik Deutschland - and only
from here - September 1949 - we have Germany back on the
map.
But
since this has nothing to do anymore with Multi"points" we should give it up
here "making a point".
Wolfgang
That may have been
the original question, but it perhaps couldn't have
been asked or be taken
seriously - if we say occupied territory is
"in" or becomes an "integral
part of" the occupier simply by being
occupied, then the U.S. Sector of
Berlin was, for awhile, a part of
the US in Europe. If that had ever
been possibly the case, that
occupation was as good as "Einverleiben", we
wouldn't need the English
word "assimilated" or the process we call
"annexation".
LN
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Wolfgang
Schaub"
<Wolfgang.Schaub@c...> wrote:
> All agreed. Remember,
however, the issue was the question, rather,
when the
> Meruberg (and
the Karisimbi) became de facto and de jure part of
> Deutsch-Ostafrika,
or even better: part of a German occupied territory.
>
>
Wolfgang
> -----Ursprungliche
Nachricht-----
> Von: Flynn, Kevin
[mailto:flynnk@r...]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Januar 2005
18:55
> An:
'BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com'
> Betreff: RE:
[BoundaryPoint] High points
>
>
> I would
suggest that yes, it was also the view then. German
possessions
in
> Africa were never considered to be part of the nation
of German, but
> simply
> possessions or colonies,
AFAIK.
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Schaub
[mailto:Wolfgang.Schaub@c...]
> Sent: Friday, January 21,
2005 1:07 AM
> To:
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint]
High points
>
>
> You all seem to hit the
point: High points are flexible, depending
upon
>
our
> political definitions. And more: As much as I concur
TODAY that the
> highest
> point in Germany was not in
Africa, has this been the
understanding in the
> 19th
century as well?
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go
to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
>
BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
__________ NOD32 1.961 (20041230) Information __________
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde vom NOD32 Antivirus System
gepr|ft
> http://www.nod32.com
__________
NOD32 1.961 (20041230) Information __________
Diese E-Mail wurde vom
NOD32 Antivirus System geprüft
http://www.nod32.com