Am 03.01.2012 01:48, schrieb Wolfgang Schwanke:
In 1987, the West German and West Berlin media (and authorities)
waged a big campaign against the GDR to force them to close the last
hole in the wall, and to act as a auxiliary police force of the West
Berlin cops.

People who landed at the Schönefeld airport and who had a transit
visa for the GDR could enter West Berlin via the Friedrichstraße
checkpoint. The West Berlin police did not want to establish their own
immigration control. They wanted the GDR border police to do it for
them. The Wessies detested the free travel across the Berlin wall...

The Western allies considered the boundary between East Berlin and West
Berlin a sector boundary not different from the boundaries between US
and British sector.

so they were dealing with fictions and not with facts. But facts are
stubborn things.

But it was not the Allied occupation forces which demanded that the
GDR close the Wall completly, but the West German and West Berlin
authorities.

Therefore West Berlin authorities did not install
any passport controls at border crossings between East and West Berlin.

But then they should not complain that people travel from GDR to
Westberlin. If they would have wanted to change that, they would have to
install immigration checks on _their_ side of the border. If they had
wanted, they might perhaps even been allowed to install those within the
Bhf Friedrichstraße check point.

Instead they asked the GDR government to close the Berlin Wall
completly, and not let anybody cross the border unchecked.

It is all a disgusting hypocrisy.


Cheers,
L.W.

"Lüko Willms" wrote in message

Am 03.01.2012 10:43, schrieb Neil Williams:
Have you ever looked up "nationalised" in a dictionary?

Tell me more about your ideas how trading shares at the stock
exchange changes the nature of a company, switching it from "real
commercial" to the opposite.

Who appoints the directors and senior managers in DB, and sets the
objectives, etc? Presuming it's the government, it's the government
that controls the company.

Am 03.01.2012 10:53, schrieb Neil Williams:
Are we talking about the ICE-1 or the ICE-3?

ICE1 - the wheel design that caused Eschede.

That was still mainly designed in the Bundesbahn offices.

The ICE-1 ub their beginnings made a rattling noise in the cabins,
and DB tried to do away this noise. And then they had a lack of
maintenence and a passenger who did not pull the emergency brake when
part of the wheel tyre (of steel) shot up in front of his seat, and then
there was this nasty bridge which collapsed over the train...

A number of bad circumstances came together to produce a horrible
accident.


Cheers,
L.W.

Am 03.01.2012 14:33, schrieb Recliner:
isn't it ridiculous to claim that the nature of a company stops
being a "real commercial company" when the composition of her
shareholders changes?

Not at all. If a company is dominated by one single shareholder, and
that shareholder has other interests, then you have a potential conflict
of interest. It's why monopolies are restricted in the EU and other

What do you to about the monopolies of the little bakery or
agriculturer which has only one single owner? A horrible sight, or what?


Cheers,
L.W.

"Lüko Willms" wrote in message

Am 03.01.2012 14:33, schrieb Recliner:
isn't it ridiculous to claim that the nature of a company stops
being a "real commercial company" when the composition of her
shareholders changes?

Not at all. If a company is dominated by one single shareholder, and
that shareholder has other interests, then you have a potential
conflict of interest. It's why monopolies are restricted in the EU
and other

What do you to about the monopolies of the little bakery or
agriculturer which has only one single owner? A horrible sight, or
what?

It's not a monopoly if there's other bakers or farmers. Ownership
doesn't make it a monopoly: lack of competition does. For example, if a
small, private bakery produces poor quality or over-priced products, it
would soon lose business to others in the area and may go bust -- unless
it's a state monopoly, with no competition allowed. Equally, if it
treated its staff badly, they'd soon leave and go to work elsewhere.
That's why competitive businesses tend to deliver a better service to
customers and treat staff better than state monopolies.

In article ,
lid (Lüko Willms) wrote:

Am 03.01.2012 10:53, schrieb Neil Williams:
Are we talking about the ICE-1 or the ICE-3?

ICE1 - the wheel design that caused Eschede.

That was still mainly designed in the Bundesbahn offices.

The ICE-1 ub their beginnings made a rattling noise in the cabins,
and DB tried to do away this noise. And then they had a lack of
maintenence and a passenger who did not pull the emergency brake when
part of the wheel tyre (of steel) shot up in front of his seat, and
then there was this nasty bridge which collapsed over the train...

A number of bad circumstances came together to produce a horrible
accident.

The worst rail accidents all seem to have been aggravated by a limited
disaster leading to a greater one, e.g. the wheel breaking up just before a
bridge which then collapsed at Eschede, the train coming the other way at
Great Heck, the other trains at Harrow.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Jan 3, 1:33*pm, Lüko Willms wrote:

* *Instead they asked the GDR government to close the Berlin Wall
completly, and not let anybody cross the border unchecked.

So in your world, the DDR only shot escapers because the west told
them to? And you then talk about other people being free and easy
with the facts?

ian

I think the long distance platform at Friedrichstraße was also
already open to West Berlin, but I am not sure of that.


The long distance platforms at Friedrichstrasse were available only to West
Berlin residents or anyone exiting East Berlin (with permits) through the
passport control. They also had to be travelling to the West (eg you could
not get on the Ost West express to Warsaw or beyond at Friedrichstrasse.
East Berliners had to board it at Ostbahnhof (then Hauptbahnof) and West
Berliners at Zoo or Wansee) because trains between Friedrichstrasse and
Ostbahnhof could only be used by passengers transiting the DDR.

The couple of daily trains that started at Zoo and went to Scandinavia via
the train ferries were not advertised to stop at Friedrichstrasse (for the
above reason), though they did for DDR customs checks.

Through tickets to Berlin were always issued to Berlin Stadtbahn and were
available to any destination along the Stadtbhan plus those stations
(Lichtenberg Karlhorst etc ) that were used by terminating trains within the
DDR and any station within or on the bits of the Ringbahn that were
operating.

Tickets via Berlin including the use of the S bahn between stations
(throughout both East and West Berlin but if you got off a train at
Friedrichstasse that terminated there you had to get pff there and get a
DDR transit visa at the customs post and then use the S Bahn to Ostbahnhof
(or wherever to continue your journey). On the through trains to the East
transit transit visas to Poland and beyone were issued on the trains (as an
alternative to the transit visa which they issued for transit from the West
to West Berlin)

On 03/01/2012 13:15, Lüko Willms wrote:
Am 03.01.2012 10:49, schrieb Graeme Wall:
I thought Lüko was just defining his personal approach to discussions.

which is: sticking to the facts.

I was.


But people like you do not want to be bothered by facts. So you start
deviating from the topic, lying and slandering and insulting.


More childish insults.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:18:35 +0100, Lüko
wrote:
Tell me more about your ideas how trading shares at the stock
exchange changes the nature of a company, switching it from "real
commercial" to the opposite.

That wasn't the point.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK