Re: The treaty says that it was ceded to the "Westsektoren Berlins"
It seems it should have read "ceded to the American Sector of
Berlin", to which it was adjacent. I don't see how it could have been
made part of all three. That would be like saying, prior to the 1955
return of sovereignty to Germany, that Büsingen am Hochrhein belonged
to the four occupied sectors of Germany at one time (leaving Berlin as
a separate set of sectors out of the discussion for the purpose).
Büsingen was part of the French sector, and was occupied by France
when the war ended - the Americans would not have gone there from
their sector north of the French sector to mix in the affairs of the
French in Busingen, any more than the French would have travelled from
the north of Berlin, through the US Sector, to get to Steinstuecken to
mix themselves into affairs there. Clearly the intent of the treaty
was to cause any Russian occupation rights in Steinstuecken to cease -
because the Russians had certain residual rights in the Western
sectors even after they pulled out of the Kommandatura or the
Kontrolrat (were they the same thing?). Thus, Steinstuecken became a
little area among the west sectors that had a slightly different
occupation regime in existence, than the rest of the western areas
had.
Re: Facts: In 1945 Germany was carved into 4 occupation zones, and
Berlin as a "5th zone" to be occupied jointly.
I have a German post-war map showing a two-part Polish sector. I
think your phrase should be 5 zones in Germany. There were four
ALLIED zones of occupation in Germany (three initially, with the
French coming later), with Berlin divided into four zones. You can't
say really, that Berlin is in the mix as a "5th Zone", even with ""
around it. The zones in Berlin were never occupied "jointly" and
unlike the Bizone (Vereinigte Wirtschaftsgebiet) in the West, there
was no "unification of zones" in Berlin. There was sumpthin' for the
French, sumpthin' for the Brits, a big part for the Russiands and
sumpthin' for the Amis. Each party kept to themselves, for the most
part (that is, other than at Spandau, the checkpoints, the
Kommandatura and similar entities. Of course there were the Russians
who came into the west sectors to manage the Russian War Memorial near
the Brandenburg gate).
Re: 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.
But, was it not a part of "Germany the nation" that was defeated that
remained under occupation? The other two "states" were only two of
three major parts of what remained of the nation of Germany as it was
configured before the war.
Re: The West German constitution mentions "Greater Berlin" (i.e. all
of Berlin including the East part) as territory of the FRG.."
Yes, and greater Berlin was the area of Germany that is was laying
claim to, over which it could not exercize sovereignty because of the
Allies. The West German state, having been given it's sovereignty
back, could lay claim to Berlin as part of the FRG, just like some
countries lay claim to parts of Antarctica over which they are not
able to administer their sovereign rights. That the Allies
"suspended" the passage meant only that they were saying to the Bonn
government - lay claim to whatever you want as a sovereign - we're in
charge here right now". The very existence of an occupation status
means there is a titular sovereign operating in limbo. West Germany
laid claim to being the titular sovereign over areas of the former
German national area - even the DDR was "German territory over which
Bonn could not exercize it's sovereign rights, but territory to which
it had the rights of sovereign, nevertheless. Thus, in the eyes of
Bonn, the DDR was never "ausland". Neither did it consider any part
of Berlin as "ausland". And it wasn't - it was just under someone
else's sovereign jurisdiction - and the moment that someone else gave
it up, who would fill the void? The Allies would have made certain
that it wasn't the East German regime.
Re: No such suspension happened towards the GDR constitution (guess
it was pretty much ignored).
You mean you don't think the Russians told the East Germans their
constitution didn't apply in E. Berlin or did you mean that the Allies
didn't suspend the DDR constitution for the area of East Berlin (or
West Berlin or both?). The Russians wanted to assert that the west
had the DDR to deal with as a sovereign, and the DDR constitution, did
it ever assert sovereign rights of the East German Republic over the
West sectors (or Gross Berlin)? I don't believe it did except
possibly over it's (Russian) part of Berlin, but I'm not certain. I
don't think the DDR ever asserted that the western Allies were
occupying the territory of the DDR, did it? W. Berlin was a "special
entity" to the DDR government - the maps they published showed the
west sectors often as a vast empty space, not a piece of their country
with the roads, buildings, etc., overprinted with the words "DDR
territory under occupation".
Re: ...also East Berlin is not part of the GDR, much less her
capital.
But, if the Russians could do in their sector what they wanted
(Russia was sovereign over it's zone) it could have allowed the East
Germans to establish a "regierungsitz". In effect, such a situation
would have made the DDR a country whose capital was not in it. This
is akin to Washington D.C. not being in the united states (written
small). The united states are 50 in number and the "District" of
Columbia is not in them. Go figure! I leave the "united states"
every day when I go to work.
How could what the sovereign did in the case of Berlin be "illegal"?
The Russians became the sovereign over E. Berlin by right of conquest
- their sovereignty was absolute (notwithstanding that it was supposed
to have been shared with the Allies in more ways than it was at the
end). They just "let" the E. Germans put up a government on their
territory and they let that government call E. Berlin the "Hauptstadt
der DDR"... de jure, they did not give away their sovereignty at all -
just let an agent exercize it for them.... which is exactly what the
Allies did by letting the West Berlin government operate "as though it
were sovereign".
I know what you mean by asking if was Berlin an enclave - yep, it was
- one that was surrounded by the East German state. Was it an exclave
(of West Germany)? I would say "no".
Sorry if for some this got too long and split too many hairs - I hope
at least two of us have found it exceptionally interesting material
for mental recreation.
Regards
LN
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "anorak222" <wolfi.junkmail@s...> wrote:
"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"
>
> > 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