Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

CHLI: Swiss platoon entered Liechtenstein by a mistake

Expand Messages
  • Jan S. Krogh
    A Swiss Army platoon did not see any border and entered Liechtenstein http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Mistaken-Invasion.html?_r=3&oref=sl
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      A Swiss Army platoon did not see any border and entered Liechtenstein
       
       
      Am I wrong, but isn't the Swiss responsible for the Liechtenstein's defence?
       
      Jan
    • Roger McCutcheon
      O veh! Were prisoners taken? Roger.
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        O veh! Were prisoners taken? Roger.
      • Jan S. Krogh
        No POWs taken, but maybe the Swiss troopers next time must expect to get their knives confiscated! ;-) Jan
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          No POWs taken, but maybe the Swiss troopers next time must expect to
          get their knives confiscated! ;-)

          Jan

          --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger McCutcheon" <rogerdwmac@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > O veh! Were prisoners taken? Roger.
          >
        • Roger McCutcheon
          Just in case their Swiss Army knives are confiscated they should, as a precaution, be issued with spare corkscrew cum bottle-openers. I m sure the Swiss
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Just in case their Swiss Army knives are confiscated they should, as a
            precaution, be issued with spare corkscrew cum bottle-openers. I'm sure
            the Swiss Marines would not have committed such a faux pas! Roger &
            out.
          • L. A. Nadybal
            For first offense the penalty is talking away their walking shoes. The Swiss Army can t station soldiers in FL - only Swiss customs officials do duty there.
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              For first offense the penalty is talking away their walking shoes.
              The Swiss Army can't station soldiers in FL - only Swiss customs
              officials do duty there. Oddly, in WW II it was the same as now, and
              the Swiss built their first fortifications immediately adjacent to the
              southern FL border on the CH side, leaving FL exposed to the
              German-annexed Austria in WWII. Halfway through the narrow valley
              driving south out of FL towards the Swiss town of Maienfeld, there is
              a Swiss base the width of the valley that the road goes right through.
              The HQ building makes the place look like an old western fort in
              America. I speculate that these guys must have come from there, had
              hiked up the side of the valley. They couldn't possibly have missed
              the border at the northern end of the pass going northalong the road,
              because the row of old tank traps across the valley at the FL border
              is un-missable and the border sign is clearly visible on the only good
              road where there is a break in the trap row. They must have been
              quite a ways up in the hills above the town of Bendern, between it and
              Malbun valley. They probably came up over a ridge and saw either a FL
              ski area at Malbun or the square shaped settlement in the valley above
              Triesenberg - by that time, they would have been quite a ways into FL.

              Wouldn't being under Swiss military protection make FL a
              "protectorate"? Does it make a difference in the degree or level of
              sovereignty (unlimited, shared, etc.) i.e., is it still a protectorate
              when a treaty provides for protection but when the protecting country
              doesn't actually have anybody really "in there" doing any protecting?
              Len


              >
              > Am I wrong, but isn't the Swiss responsible for the Liechtenstein's
              defence?
              >
              > Jan
              >
            • Hugh Wallis
              ... protectorate ? Does it make a difference in the degree or level of sovereignty (unlimited, shared, etc.) i.e., is it still a protectorate when a treaty
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                >>Wouldn't being under Swiss military protection make FL a
                "protectorate" ? Does it make a difference in the degree or level of
                sovereignty (unlimited, shared, etc.) i.e., is it still a protectorate
                when a treaty provides for protection but when the protecting country
                doesn't actually have anybody really "in there" doing any protecting?

                <<
                 
                Isn't there some similar kind of situation in Costa Rica - not having any army don't they rely on the USA to "protect" them?


                From: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:borderpoint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of L. A. Nadybal
                Sent: March 4, 2007 10:45 PM
                To: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [borderpoint] Re: CHLI: Swiss platoon entered Liechtenstein by a mistake

                For first offense the penalty is talking away their walking shoes.
                The Swiss Army can't station soldiers in FL - only Swiss customs
                officials do duty there. Oddly, in WW II it was the same as now, and
                the Swiss built their first fortifications immediately adjacent to the
                southern FL border on the CH side, leaving FL exposed to the
                German-annexed Austria in WWII. Halfway through the narrow valley
                driving south out of FL towards the Swiss town of Maienfeld, there is
                a Swiss base the width of the valley that the road goes right through.
                The HQ building makes the place look like an old western fort in
                America. I speculate that these guys must have come from there, had
                hiked up the side of the valley. They couldn't possibly have missed
                the border at the northern end of the pass going northalong the road,
                because the row of old tank traps across the valley at the FL border
                is un-missable and the border sign is clearly visible on the only good
                road where there is a break in the trap row. They must have been
                quite a ways up in the hills above the town of Bendern, between it and
                Malbun valley. They probably came up over a ridge and saw either a FL
                ski area at Malbun or the square shaped settlement in the valley above
                Triesenberg - by that time, they would have been quite a ways into FL.

                Wouldn't being under Swiss military protection make FL a
                "protectorate" ? Does it make a difference in the degree or level of
                sovereignty (unlimited, shared, etc.) i.e., is it still a protectorate
                when a treaty provides for protection but when the protecting country
                doesn't actually have anybody really "in there" doing any protecting?
                Len

                >
                > Am I wrong, but isn't the Swiss
                responsible for the Liechtenstein' s
                defence?
                >
                >
                Jan
                >

              • Lowell G. McManus
                Maybe they should look into the possibility of adding GPS technology to Swiss Army knives. Lowell G. McManus Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Maybe they should look into the possibility of adding GPS technology to
                  Swiss Army knives.

                  Lowell G. McManus
                  Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                • Bill Burke
                  Nor would the Swiss navy ________________________________ From: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:borderpoint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger McCutcheon
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Nor would the Swiss navy


                    From: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:borderpoint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger McCutcheon
                    Sent: 04 March 2007 10:35
                    To: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [borderpoint] Re: CHLI: Swiss platoon entered Liechtenstein by a mistake

                    Just in case their Swiss Army knives are confiscated they should, as a
                    precaution, be issued with spare corkscrew cum bottle-openers. I'm sure
                    the Swiss Marines would not have committed such a faux pas! Roger &
                    out.

                  • Peter Smaardijk
                    The fortress is the St. Luzisteig. Back in 1985, Swiss forces at St. Luzisteig messed up as well by causing a huge forest fire on both sides of the border
                    Message 9 of 21 , Mar 5, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The fortress is the St. Luzisteig. Back in 1985, Swiss forces at St.
                      Luzisteig messed up as well by causing a huge forest fire on both
                      sides of the border because of their shooting exercises, combined
                      with Föhn conditions.

                      The news stories mention that the infringement took place near Fläsch
                      (Graubünden), so not really high in the mountains. In fact, very near
                      St. Luzisteig.

                      Peter

                      --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > For first offense the penalty is talking away their walking shoes.
                      > The Swiss Army can't station soldiers in FL - only Swiss customs
                      > officials do duty there. Oddly, in WW II it was the same as now,
                      and
                      > the Swiss built their first fortifications immediately adjacent to
                      the
                      > southern FL border on the CH side, leaving FL exposed to the
                      > German-annexed Austria in WWII. Halfway through the narrow valley
                      > driving south out of FL towards the Swiss town of Maienfeld, there
                      is
                      > a Swiss base the width of the valley that the road goes right
                      through.
                      > The HQ building makes the place look like an old western fort in
                      > America. I speculate that these guys must have come from there, had
                      > hiked up the side of the valley. They couldn't possibly have missed
                      > the border at the northern end of the pass going northalong the
                      road,
                      > because the row of old tank traps across the valley at the FL border
                      > is un-missable and the border sign is clearly visible on the only
                      good
                      > road where there is a break in the trap row. They must have been
                      > quite a ways up in the hills above the town of Bendern, between it
                      and
                      > Malbun valley. They probably came up over a ridge and saw either a
                      FL
                      > ski area at Malbun or the square shaped settlement in the valley
                      above
                      > Triesenberg - by that time, they would have been quite a ways into
                      FL.
                      >
                      > Wouldn't being under Swiss military protection make FL a
                      > "protectorate"? Does it make a difference in the degree or level of
                      > sovereignty (unlimited, shared, etc.) i.e., is it still a
                      protectorate
                      > when a treaty provides for protection but when the protecting
                      country
                      > doesn't actually have anybody really "in there" doing any
                      protecting?
                      > Len
                      >
                      >
                      > >
                      > > Am I wrong, but isn't the Swiss responsible for the
                      Liechtenstein's
                      > defence?
                      > >
                      > > Jan
                      > >
                      >
                    • Jan S. Krogh
                      Weeell, I am not pretty sure... Actually last year the Swiss (military) navy was on the way being shaped, but of course, this will take some time as the Swiss
                      Message 10 of 21 , Mar 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Weeell, I am not pretty sure...
                         
                        Actually last year the Swiss (military) navy was on the way being shaped, but of course, this will take some time as the Swiss military budget are tight...
                         
                        The brave Swiss navy commander is the soldier closest to the camera. Photographed during a parade at Swiss Logistic brigade No. 1.
                         
                        Jan
                         
                         
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:borderpoint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Bill Burke
                        Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 10:27 AM
                        To: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [borderpoint] Re: CHLI: Swiss platoon entered Liechtenstein by a mistake

                        Nor would the Swiss navy


                        From: borderpoint@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:borderpoint @yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Roger McCutcheon
                        Sent: 04 March 2007 10:35
                        To: borderpoint@ yahoogroups. com
                        Subject: Re: [borderpoint] Re: CHLI: Swiss platoon entered Liechtenstein by a mistake

                        Just in case their Swiss Army knives are confiscated they should, as a
                        precaution, be issued with spare corkscrew cum bottle-openers. I'm sure
                        the Swiss Marines would not have committed such a faux pas! Roger &
                        out.

                      • L. A. Nadybal
                        I don t believe there is a treaty between the two covering this. If the Costa Ricans simply rely on (=hope) us coming to their aid, I hope they aren t
                        Message 11 of 21 , Mar 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I don't believe there is a treaty between the two covering this. If
                          the Costa Ricans simply "rely on" (=hope) us coming to their aid, I
                          hope they aren't disappointed some day. Their having hope doesn't
                          diminish their sovereignty and make them into a protectorate.

                          Another question, what's the difference between a protectorate and a
                          vassal?
                          LN


                          >
                          > Isn't there some similar kind of situation in Costa Rica - not
                          having any
                          > army don't they rely on the USA to "protect" them?
                        • d3vb0y@aol.com
                          A protectorate is a place. A vassal is a person. ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more
                          Message 12 of 21 , Mar 6, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            A protectorate is a place. A vassal is a person.
                             
                             
                             




                            AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
                          • Roger McCutcheon
                            A vassal is a person reminded me of one of Winston Churchill s speeches: And now this whipped jackal Mussolini, who to save his own skin has made Italy a
                            Message 13 of 21 , Mar 6, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              "A vassal is a person" reminded me of one of Winston Churchill's speeches:
                              "And now this whipped jackal Mussolini, who to save his own skin has made
                              Italy a vassal state of Hitler's empire, comes bounding up by the side
                              of the German tiger with yelpings not only of appetite, that could be
                              understood, but even of triumph!" Roger & out,
                            • L. A. Nadybal
                              I ll try a different approach. What s the difference between a protectorate and a vassal state ? LN ... made
                              Message 14 of 21 , Mar 6, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I'll try a different approach.
                                What's the difference between a protectorate and a "vassal state"?
                                LN


                                --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger McCutcheon"
                                <rogerdwmac@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > "A vassal is a person" reminded me of one of Winston Churchill's
                                speeches:
                                > "And now this whipped jackal Mussolini, who to save his own skin has
                                made
                                > Italy a vassal state of Hitler's empire, comes bounding up by the side
                                > of the German tiger with yelpings not only of appetite, that could be
                                > understood, but even of triumph!" Roger & out,
                                >
                              • Lowell G. McManus
                                Vassal state was a historic concept that existed prior to our modern notions of state sovereignty. The ruler of a vassal state was a vassal to the ruler of
                                Message 15 of 21 , Mar 7, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  "Vassal state" was a historic concept that existed prior to our modern
                                  notions of state sovereignty. The ruler of a vassal state was a vassal to
                                  the ruler of the dominant state. The vassal ruler was allowed to maintain
                                  his separate rule in exchange for certain obligations to the dominant state,
                                  the most common of which was the supply of troops to further the military
                                  goals of the dominant state.

                                  A protectorate is a state in which the ruler has given a dominant state
                                  special privileges, often economic, in exchange for its military protection.
                                  The protector state wishes to protect its interests in the protectorate
                                  without the bother of absorbing or ruling it directly.

                                  So, the most obvious difference is that a vassal state provides military
                                  resources, while a protectorate receives them.

                                  Lowell G. McManus
                                  Leesville, Louisiana, USA



                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
                                  To: <borderpoint@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:38 PM
                                  Subject: [borderpoint] Re: Costa Rica and no Army - I guess I asked the
                                  wrong Vassal question...


                                  > I'll try a different approach.
                                  > What's the difference between a protectorate and a "vassal state"?
                                  > LN
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger McCutcheon"
                                  > <rogerdwmac@...> wrote:
                                  >>
                                  >> "A vassal is a person" reminded me of one of Winston Churchill's
                                  > speeches:
                                  >> "And now this whipped jackal Mussolini, who to save his own skin has
                                  > made
                                  >> Italy a vassal state of Hitler's empire, comes bounding up by the side
                                  >> of the German tiger with yelpings not only of appetite, that could be
                                  >> understood, but even of triumph!" Roger & out,
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • L. A. Nadybal
                                  Thanks Lowell. I don t think I would of come to that on my own. I think of Sikkim as a vassal state under your explanation, yet it was often called a
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Mar 7, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Thanks Lowell.
                                    I don't think I would of come to that on my own. I think of Sikkim as
                                    a vassal state under your explanation, yet it was often called a
                                    protectorate, even on old maps and in textbooks.. Both are states of
                                    diminished sovereignty. That, in turn, goes back to the philosophical
                                    question of "is sovereignty divisible?" We know from the Canal Zone
                                    it can be layered (exerciser of sovereignty, which, when "peeled away"
                                    reveals the underlying holder of titular sovereignty).
                                    Regards
                                    Len

                                    --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > "Vassal state" was a historic concept that existed prior to our modern
                                    > notions of state sovereignty. The ruler of a vassal state was a
                                    vassal to
                                    > the ruler of the dominant state. The vassal ruler was allowed to
                                    maintain
                                    > his separate rule in exchange for certain obligations to the
                                    dominant state,
                                    > the most common of which was the supply of troops to further the
                                    military
                                    > goals of the dominant state.
                                    >
                                    > A protectorate is a state in which the ruler has given a dominant state
                                    > special privileges, often economic, in exchange for its military
                                    protection.
                                    > The protector state wishes to protect its interests in the protectorate
                                    > without the bother of absorbing or ruling it directly.
                                    >
                                    > So, the most obvious difference is that a vassal state provides
                                    military
                                    > resources, while a protectorate receives them.
                                    >
                                    > Lowell G. McManus
                                    > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
                                    > To: <borderpoint@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:38 PM
                                    > Subject: [borderpoint] Re: Costa Rica and no Army - I guess I asked the
                                    > wrong Vassal question...
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > I'll try a different approach.
                                    > > What's the difference between a protectorate and a "vassal state"?
                                    > > LN
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger McCutcheon"
                                    > > <rogerdwmac@> wrote:
                                    > >>
                                    > >> "A vassal is a person" reminded me of one of Winston Churchill's
                                    > > speeches:
                                    > >> "And now this whipped jackal Mussolini, who to save his own skin has
                                    > > made
                                    > >> Italy a vassal state of Hitler's empire, comes bounding up by the
                                    side
                                    > >> of the German tiger with yelpings not only of appetite, that could be
                                    > >> understood, but even of triumph!" Roger & out,
                                    > >>
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • Lowell G. McManus
                                    I hadn t thought about it, but it might be possible for a state to be both a vassal and a protectorate simultaneously. Suppose that its dominant state demands
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Mar 7, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I hadn't thought about it, but it might be possible for a state to be both a
                                      vassal and a protectorate simultaneously. Suppose that its dominant state
                                      demands from it the supply of troops, but also assumes the obligation of its
                                      protection. I think that diminishes its sovereignty even further--almost to
                                      the point of being a political subdivision.

                                      Lowell G. McManus
                                      Leesville, Louisiana, USA



                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
                                      To: <borderpoint@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 6:07 PM
                                      Subject: [borderpoint] Re: Costa Rica and no Army - I guess I asked the
                                      wrong Vassal question...


                                      > Thanks Lowell.
                                      > I don't think I would of come to that on my own. I think of Sikkim as
                                      > a vassal state under your explanation, yet it was often called a
                                      > protectorate, even on old maps and in textbooks.. Both are states of
                                      > diminished sovereignty. That, in turn, goes back to the philosophical
                                      > question of "is sovereignty divisible?" We know from the Canal Zone
                                      > it can be layered (exerciser of sovereignty, which, when "peeled away"
                                      > reveals the underlying holder of titular sovereignty).
                                      > Regards
                                      > Len
                                      >
                                      > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...> wrote:
                                      >>
                                      >> "Vassal state" was a historic concept that existed prior to our modern
                                      >> notions of state sovereignty. The ruler of a vassal state was a
                                      > vassal to
                                      >> the ruler of the dominant state. The vassal ruler was allowed to
                                      > maintain
                                      >> his separate rule in exchange for certain obligations to the
                                      > dominant state,
                                      >> the most common of which was the supply of troops to further the
                                      > military
                                      >> goals of the dominant state.
                                      >>
                                      >> A protectorate is a state in which the ruler has given a dominant state
                                      >> special privileges, often economic, in exchange for its military
                                      > protection.
                                      >> The protector state wishes to protect its interests in the protectorate
                                      >> without the bother of absorbing or ruling it directly.
                                      >>
                                      >> So, the most obvious difference is that a vassal state provides
                                      > military
                                      >> resources, while a protectorate receives them.
                                      >>
                                      >> Lowell G. McManus
                                      >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >> ----- Original Message -----
                                      >> From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
                                      >> To: <borderpoint@yahoogroups.com>
                                      >> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:38 PM
                                      >> Subject: [borderpoint] Re: Costa Rica and no Army - I guess I asked the
                                      >> wrong Vassal question...
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >> > I'll try a different approach.
                                      >> > What's the difference between a protectorate and a "vassal state"?
                                      >> > LN
                                      >> >
                                      >> >
                                      >> > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger McCutcheon"
                                      >> > <rogerdwmac@> wrote:
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >> "A vassal is a person" reminded me of one of Winston Churchill's
                                      >> > speeches:
                                      >> >> "And now this whipped jackal Mussolini, who to save his own skin has
                                      >> > made
                                      >> >> Italy a vassal state of Hitler's empire, comes bounding up by the
                                      > side
                                      >> >> of the German tiger with yelpings not only of appetite, that could be
                                      >> >> understood, but even of triumph!" Roger & out,
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >
                                      >> >
                                      >> >
                                      >> >
                                      >> >
                                      >> >
                                      >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >> >
                                      >> >
                                      >> >
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Anton Zeilinger
                                      Hi, I would venture to offer the following distinction: A vassal state derives its sovereignty over a certain territory, most oftenly (but not necessarily)
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Mar 8, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi,

                                        I would venture to offer the following distinction:
                                        A "vassal state" derives its sovereignty over a certain territory,
                                        most oftenly (but not necessarily) in exchange for money/military
                                        help etc. from a higher authority, the original holder of sovereignty
                                        = the suzerain, who is free to renounce that relationship and regain
                                        full sovereignty over the territory (which it holds dormant anyway).

                                        A "protectorate" holds full sovereignty over its territory in its own
                                        right but has voluntarily (or involuntarily) and formally agreed to
                                        give up certain powers in favour of a more powerful or larger state,
                                        which in turn promises to protect it and/or represent it (militarily,
                                        diplomatically, etc.).

                                        The only "vassal state" I can think of today is maybe Andorra, which
                                        derives its sovereignty from the two co-princes (none of which,
                                        however, is sovereign of another state); "protectorates" in various
                                        degrees of intimacy exist quite abundantly, though rarely so called -
                                        examples: Palau vs. USA, Marshall Islands vs. USA, Monaco vs. France,
                                        San Marino vs. Italy, Nauru vs. Australia etc.

                                        Liechtenstein may be somewhat of a protectorate of Switzerland, but
                                        only to a very limited extent.

                                        Cheerio,
                                        Anton



                                        --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
                                        wrote:
                                        >
                                        > I'll try a different approach.
                                        > What's the difference between a protectorate and a "vassal state"?
                                        > LN
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger McCutcheon"
                                        > <rogerdwmac@> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > "A vassal is a person" reminded me of one of Winston Churchill's
                                        > speeches:
                                        > > "And now this whipped jackal Mussolini, who to save his own skin
                                        has
                                        > made
                                        > > Italy a vassal state of Hitler's empire, comes bounding up by the
                                        side
                                        > > of the German tiger with yelpings not only of appetite, that
                                        could be
                                        > > understood, but even of triumph!" Roger & out,
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      • L. A. Nadybal
                                        I didn t think a vassal got that way voluntarily to the point where he/she could regain full sovereignty and expel the overseer. I thought most vassal states
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Mar 8, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I didn't think a vassal got that way voluntarily to the point where
                                          he/she could regain full sovereignty and expel the overseer. I thought
                                          most vassal states got that way by takeover. A suzerain can renounce
                                          all he wants, but the real power can just ignore that.

                                          Isn't one co-prince of Andorra the president of France (a sovereign)?


                                          --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
                                          <anton_zeilinger@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Hi,
                                          >
                                          > I would venture to offer the following distinction:
                                          > A "vassal state" derives its sovereignty over a certain territory,
                                          > most oftenly (but not necessarily) in exchange for money/military
                                          > help etc. from a higher authority, the original holder of sovereignty
                                          > = the suzerain, who is free to renounce that relationship and regain
                                          > full sovereignty over the territory (which it holds dormant anyway).
                                          >
                                          > A "protectorate" holds full sovereignty over its territory in its own
                                          > right but has voluntarily (or involuntarily) and formally agreed to
                                          > give up certain powers in favour of a more powerful or larger state,
                                          > which in turn promises to protect it and/or represent it (militarily,
                                          > diplomatically, etc.).
                                          >
                                          > The only "vassal state" I can think of today is maybe Andorra, which
                                          > derives its sovereignty from the two co-princes (none of which,
                                          > however, is sovereign of another state); "protectorates" in various
                                          > degrees of intimacy exist quite abundantly, though rarely so called -
                                          > examples: Palau vs. USA, Marshall Islands vs. USA, Monaco vs. France,
                                          > San Marino vs. Italy, Nauru vs. Australia etc.
                                          >
                                          > Liechtenstein may be somewhat of a protectorate of Switzerland, but
                                          > only to a very limited extent.
                                          >
                                          > Cheerio,
                                          > Anton
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@>
                                          > wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > I'll try a different approach.
                                          > > What's the difference between a protectorate and a "vassal state"?
                                          > > LN
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger McCutcheon"
                                          > > <rogerdwmac@> wrote:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > "A vassal is a person" reminded me of one of Winston Churchill's
                                          > > speeches:
                                          > > > "And now this whipped jackal Mussolini, who to save his own skin
                                          > has
                                          > > made
                                          > > > Italy a vassal state of Hitler's empire, comes bounding up by the
                                          > side
                                          > > > of the German tiger with yelpings not only of appetite, that
                                          > could be
                                          > > > understood, but even of triumph!" Roger & out,
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                        • Lowell G. McManus
                                          The French Republic is a sovereign nation, but the President of France is not a sovereign in France. Lowell G. McManus Leesville, Louisiana, USA ... From: L.
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Mar 8, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            The French Republic is a sovereign nation, but the President of France is
                                            not a sovereign in France.

                                            Lowell G. McManus
                                            Leesville, Louisiana, USA


                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
                                            To: <borderpoint@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:24 PM
                                            Subject: [borderpoint] Re: Costa Rica and no Army - I guess I asked the
                                            wrong Vassal question...


                                            >I didn't think a vassal got that way voluntarily to the point where
                                            > he/she could regain full sovereignty and expel the overseer. I thought
                                            > most vassal states got that way by takeover. A suzerain can renounce
                                            > all he wants, but the real power can just ignore that.
                                            >
                                            > Isn't one co-prince of Andorra the president of France (a sovereign)?
                                          • Anton Zeilinger
                                            I probably was not clear enough: The vassal can never gain full sovereignty over the territory without consent of the one who granted the fiefdom, only the
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Mar 9, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I probably was not clear enough:
                                              The vassal can never gain full sovereignty over the territory without
                                              consent of the one who granted the fiefdom, only the latter holds
                                              full sovereignty.

                                              The sovereign of France are the people of France, not the president,
                                              who, whoever, is co-prince of Andorra.

                                              Cheerio,
                                              Anton

                                              --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
                                              wrote:
                                              >
                                              > I didn't think a vassal got that way voluntarily to the point where
                                              > he/she could regain full sovereignty and expel the overseer. I
                                              thought
                                              > most vassal states got that way by takeover. A suzerain can
                                              renounce
                                              > all he wants, but the real power can just ignore that.
                                              >
                                              > Isn't one co-prince of Andorra the president of France (a
                                              sovereign)?
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
                                              > <anton_zeilinger@> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > Hi,
                                              > >
                                              > > I would venture to offer the following distinction:
                                              > > A "vassal state" derives its sovereignty over a certain
                                              territory,
                                              > > most oftenly (but not necessarily) in exchange for money/military
                                              > > help etc. from a higher authority, the original holder of
                                              sovereignty
                                              > > = the suzerain, who is free to renounce that relationship and
                                              regain
                                              > > full sovereignty over the territory (which it holds dormant
                                              anyway).
                                              > >
                                              > > A "protectorate" holds full sovereignty over its territory in its
                                              own
                                              > > right but has voluntarily (or involuntarily) and formally agreed
                                              to
                                              > > give up certain powers in favour of a more powerful or larger
                                              state,
                                              > > which in turn promises to protect it and/or represent it
                                              (militarily,
                                              > > diplomatically, etc.).
                                              > >
                                              > > The only "vassal state" I can think of today is maybe Andorra,
                                              which
                                              > > derives its sovereignty from the two co-princes (none of which,
                                              > > however, is sovereign of another state); "protectorates" in
                                              various
                                              > > degrees of intimacy exist quite abundantly, though rarely so
                                              called -
                                              > > examples: Palau vs. USA, Marshall Islands vs. USA, Monaco vs.
                                              France,
                                              > > San Marino vs. Italy, Nauru vs. Australia etc.
                                              > >
                                              > > Liechtenstein may be somewhat of a protectorate of Switzerland,
                                              but
                                              > > only to a very limited extent.
                                              > >
                                              > > Cheerio,
                                              > > Anton
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@>
                                              > > wrote:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > I'll try a different approach.
                                              > > > What's the difference between a protectorate and a "vassal
                                              state"?
                                              > > > LN
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger McCutcheon"
                                              > > > <rogerdwmac@> wrote:
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > "A vassal is a person" reminded me of one of Winston
                                              Churchill's
                                              > > > speeches:
                                              > > > > "And now this whipped jackal Mussolini, who to save his own
                                              skin
                                              > > has
                                              > > > made
                                              > > > > Italy a vassal state of Hitler's empire, comes bounding up by
                                              the
                                              > > side
                                              > > > > of the German tiger with yelpings not only of appetite, that
                                              > > could be
                                              > > > > understood, but even of triumph!" Roger & out,
                                              > > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.