Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
For sure this city is and was never Scandinavian. It belonged to Danmark as part of the Herzogtum Schleswig.
That's incorrect. Wikipedia (non-German version) states: "Flensburg had been founded at the latest by 1200 at the innermost end of the Flensburg Fjord by Danish settlers." ... "After the Hanse fell in the 16th century, Flensburg was said to be one of the most important trading towns in the Scandinavian area." ... "Between 1460 and 1864, Flensburg was, after Copenhagen, the second biggest port in the Kingdom of Denmark, but passed to Prussia after the Second War of Schleswig in 1864. There is still, however, a considerable Danish community in the town today."
Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
I am not arguing but quoting from Wikipedia. I have no doubt that Danmark has a Scandinavian language, flag, population, alcohol prices, currency......
Well, you posted at #71:
Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
Scandinavia itself only consists of Sweden, Norway and (with certain geographical doubts) Danmark (it is not on the Scandinavian Peninsula)
and only mentioned Wikipedia at post #73 after I cited it at post #72 to explain a common use of the word "Scandinavia" among English speakers.
Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
For sure Sweden occupied large parts of Finland (so did Russia) but neither the Swedish nor the Russian occupation make Finland a Scandinavian or Slavic country.
I never said Finland is now or ever was a Scandinavian country in a geographical sense. I was disagreeing with your prior post:
Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
Neither Finland nor Greenland are under any suspect to be Scandinavian at all - neither languagewise, nor geographical nor historical.
That statement is plain wrong. Finland had and has strong historical and linguistic Scandinavian characteristics.
Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
Spanish is widely spoken in the US but nobody would consider Texas or California to be a part of Latin America, would you?
That's quite an effort to confuse the issue. You just substituted "Texas" for "Finland" and "Latin American" for "Scandinavian" while making a logical correction to disguise what you actually said in your earlier post. In fact if you just substitute your new example into the analoguos claim you made earlier you would have said:
Neither Texas nor California are under any suspect to be Latin American at all - neither languagewise, nor geographical nor historical. and such statement is just as incorrect as your previous one regarding Finland. Actually the new example cited shows just how absurd your prior claim was!
Furthermore the statement that "
nobody would consider Texas or California to be part of Latin America" is also wrong. There is an entire "Aztlan" movement which claims just that and is working for Mexican annexation of those states and several others.
The only reason I mentioned Denmark in the first place was to inform readers of this board that, despite Denmark and Germany both being EU members of long standing, there has been actual border control between them in the not too distant past and you may in fact be stopped when entering Denmark from Germany by automobile. If these controls have now been eliminated (in reality rather than theory) perhaps some FT member can verify that.