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 ü 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?
> Crucial to the interpretation is not the phrase "einschließlich der
> Brücke" (including the bridge) by itself, because the bridge is
only
> the supplemental phrase to clarify what territory is included in
the
> "gebietsaustausch" (territory exchange). The crucial phrase, that
the
> words about the bridge are only supplemental, is the phrase that
says
> what territory is transferred: and that is "nach Westen
abzweigende
> Straße... in der Breite der Fahrbahn von ca. 3 m...". The phrase
> "including the bridge" is almost a throwaway, because the 3 meter
wide
> strip of territory that is transferred is comprised of the very
thing
> that goes over the bridge. Naturally, the bridge is included if
the
> street being transferred goes over a bridge - so why say "including
> the bridge"? No German treaty maker in his or her right mind would
> have transfered a street and left the maintenance of the thing that
> supports it to the East German regime.
Let's agree that the treaty isn't clear on who owns the rail
underneath the bridge. The wording leaves several interpretations
open, one of which being that the bridge was ceded to the west, and
the rail wasn't. OK?
The treaty includes a set of maps, which probably make that point
clear, but which unfortunately nobody in this discussion has seen,
and which seem hard to come by. One day when I have a lot of time
I'll try to research it.
But: What we do have is several maps which draw the border underneath
the bridge. One of those was steinstuecken_1975.jpg which I posted
earlier. That's actually where I'm coming from: I'd seen these maps
and asked myself "Why do they draw it like this, it must mean
something.". Only later did I read the treaty, and then it seemed to
make sense, when read the way that only the bridge was ceded.
Upon further research, I found that all maps which draw the border in
this way are ultimately based on the same map. And that is an
official Senate map. steinstuecken_75.jpg is a commercial map issued
by ADAC (German drivers association), but is clearly based on that
same Senate map, with slight alterations added by ADAC. I have
numerous other maps issued by the Senate proper who use the same map
base, and who also draw the border underneath the bridge - which
would really be a strange way of drawing it if the border alignment
was "normal". So it seems more likely that it was drawn like that
intentionally to convey a meaning. And the source is the city
government after all. This fact and the "suggestive" wording of the
treaty weighed together make a strong argument IMHO. Maybe they
weren't in their right mind, I don't know, to me the brige-west/rail-
east interpretations is therefore is the most likely one.
> We have to look at the question "how deep under the road
> does the W Berlin sovereignty go, under the terms of the treaty?"
> Obviously the answer is that sovereingty goes at least as deep as
the
> bridge is thick from top to bottom. And when you think about it,
> the bridge is pretty thick when you consider it's foundation
supports
> - the bottoms of which are buried in the ground. In fact, they
extend
> into the ground further down than the level (elevation) of the
> foundations of the rails (i.e. the embankment rocks and ties)
beneath
> the rails that pass under the bridge.
It looks you thought about it longer than the treaty makers, since
they didn't address those details. But that doesn't prove they didn't
mean it that way. I think they wanted practical solutions and not
complicate matters by thinking those details through.
Incidentally:
> But, does the depth of the bridge foundation mark the lowest level
of
> W German sovereignty even over the areas of the road before and
after
This brings up another old discussion I found meanwhile ("West Berlin
not an enclave"):
The treaty says that it was ceded to the "Westsektoren Berlins" (the
Western Sectors of Berlin).
The question what state the different parts of Berlin were part of
and why was disputed between East and West.
Facts: In 1945 Germany was carved into 4 occupation zones, and Berlin
as a "5th zone" to be occupied jointly. But in 1948 the Soviet Union
unilaterally left the common city government (Kontrollrat) during the
Berlin blockade. Meanwhile the two German states were founded in 1949
out of the 3 Western and the Eastern zones respectively. The West
German constitution mentions "Greater Berlin" (i.e. all of Berlin
including the East part) as territory of the FRG, as the GDR
constitution mentions "Berlin" (without clarifying which part) as her
capital. The Western Allies "suspended" the passage for the FGR, i.e.
they effectively said it was invalid. Instead they maintained their
role as occupants of the whole city. No such suspension happened
towards the GDR constitution (guess it was pretty much ignored).
Interpretations held until 1990:
- West (Western Allies, West Berlin city govt. and FRG govt.): Berlin
is not part of either German state, but still an occupied territory
under Allied control. Not only is West Berlin not in the FRG, also
East Berlin is not part of the GDR, much less her capital.
Establishing the GDR government there is effectively an illegal
annexation. The unilateral breakup of the common government by the
Soviet Union is legally void. They are invited to join the common
city government at any time.
- East (Soviet Union and GDR): The West obstructed the common
government of the city by their post war policies, the Soviet Union
had no choice but to leave. Hence they could do with their sector of
Berlin whatever they wished, and they decided to hand it over to the
GDR to whom it since belongs. Meanwhile West Berlin remains governed
by the Western Allies and is not part of the FRG.
Whatever the disagreements, they all agreed on the one point that
West Berlin was not West German territory. Note that for this reason,
the West German government wasn't involved in these treaties.
Regards
wolfgang