| Author | Message | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1925 Registered: 9-2009 |
Two boats were at stake. One has been lost, one has been saved. It was a miracle! Please explain | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1926 Registered: 9-2009 |
May I ask a moderator to insert the username in the title? After years of posting I still have the bad habit of forgetting this. Thanks Done! -- The Haen. | ||
| Kyeannpepper (Kyeannpepper)
New member Username: Kyeannpepper Post Number: 64 Registered: 1-2012 |
Ok, the two 'ones', do they each refer to one of the boats? Is the miracle that one was saved? One was lost? Both of this? Or am I OTWT? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1927 Registered: 9-2009 |
Ok, the two 'ones', do they each refer to one of the boats? Yes Is the miracle that one was saved? Yes One was lost? No Both of this? So, no Or am I OTWT? No | ||
| Kyeannpepper (Kyeannpepper)
New member Username: Kyeannpepper Post Number: 69 Registered: 1-2012 |
Two boats 'were at stake'. 'At stake' as in: They were involved in a bet? They were in danger due to outside forces (i.e. weather)? Other? Were they on water when saved/lost? Land? Relevant? Was there anyone on either of the two boats? Relevant? Any other boats involved? Relevant? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1928 Registered: 9-2009 |
Two boats 'were at stake'. 'At stake' as in: They were involved in a bet? No They were in danger due to outside forces Yesish (i.e. weather)? However not that kind of forces, OTWT Other? Were they on water when saved/lost? Land? Relevant? Not relevant Was there anyone on either of the two boats? Relevant? Unknown and irrelevant Any other boats involved? Relevant? No to both | ||
| Kyeannpepper (Kyeannpepper)
New member Username: Kyeannpepper Post Number: 71 Registered: 1-2012 |
Were the outside forces marine animals (i.e. a whale)? The boat that was 'lost': Destroyed totally? Just unusable? Relevant? | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 1415 Registered: 1-2011 |
Were the boats in a physical danger (if the answers differ, please answer for each boat separately)? Were the boats in danger of being lost in a non-physical sense? Were they a security to the loan? Were they borrowed by someone irreliable? Did their owner was forced to sell them? Is the ownership of either of the boats relevant? Do the both boats have the same owner? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1929 Registered: 9-2009 |
Were the outside forces marine animals (i.e. a whale)? No The boat that was 'lost': Destroyed totally? No Just unusable? Yope, might be misleading Relevant? Yes Were the boats in a physical danger (if the answers differ, please answer for each boat separately)? None of them were Were the boats in danger of being lost in a non-physical sense? YES Were they a security to the loan? But no Were they borrowed by someone irreliable? No Did their owner was forced to sell them? Not to sell them, but... Is the ownership of either of the boats relevant? YES! Do the both boats have the same owner? Initially, yes | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 1420 Registered: 1-2011 |
Does "one has been saved" in the puzzle sentence mean that the initial owner managed to keep the ownership of one of the boats? Did he exchange the lost boat for something else? Was the boat taken by the government? The military? Is exact type of boats relevant? Are they submarines? Is war relevant? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 693 Registered: 7-2011 |
Is "at stake" to be taken literally, i.e. they were tied to a stake or post? Wild guess: Shakespeare relevant? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1930 Registered: 9-2009 |
Does "one has been saved" in the puzzle sentence mean that the initial owner managed to keep the ownership of one of the boats? Yes Did he exchange the lost boat for something else? no Was the boat taken by the government? Yes, beware FA The military? Is exact type of boats relevant? No Are they submarines? No Is war relevant? Yes, but again beware FA Is "at stake" to be taken literally, i.e. they were tied to a stake or post? No Wild guess: Shakespeare relevant? No | ||
| Kyeannpepper (Kyeannpepper)
New member Username: Kyeannpepper Post Number: 72 Registered: 1-2012 |
Is the title relevant? Is this set in the present? Past? Future? Relevant? Taxes relevant? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1932 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is the title relevant? No Is this set in the present? Past? This Future? Relevant? Yes Taxes relevant? No | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 2776 Registered: 2-2011 |
did he lose one boat gambling? did the military try to requisition both but won some sort of legal procedure to keep one of them? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1936 Registered: 9-2009 |
did he lose one boat gambling? No did the military try to requisition both but won some sort of legal procedure to keep one of them? YES. What exactly is this legal procedure (there were some technicalities of boat registration) is not relevant, only the circumstances that made some people believe it to be a miracle | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 965 Registered: 6-2003 |
Did the military know of the existence of the second boat? Did they want both? Was it some kind of settlement? where the owner gave away one boat in order to retain the other one? Relevant for what purpose the military (or the government) needed the boat? Did they need it urgently? Relevant for what purpose the owner needed the boats? Did he plan to sell them anyway? (but not to the government?) Was it some new type of boat? the only two boats of its kind that had been built? LPTF list of centuries permitted? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1938 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did the military know of the existence of the second boat? Yes Did they want both? For sure Was it some kind of settlement? No where the owner gave away one boat in order to retain the other one? No Relevant for what purpose the military (or the government) needed the boat? No. I think a FA is lurking here Did they need it urgently? Not especially Relevant for what purpose the owner needed the boats? No, but probably for their value Did he plan to sell them anyway? (but not to the government?) Irrelevant Was it some new type of boat? the only two boats of its kind that had been built? I don't know the exact details, but it was purported to be very modern and thus very valuable LPTF list of centuries permitted? Yes, end of WW2 | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 1421 Registered: 1-2011 |
Did the government want to keep the boats as an evidence? As a penalty to the owner? Did the owner fail to fulfill all duties concerned with buying/registering the boats? Taxes relevant? Is it relevant how did the owner acquire boats? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1941 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did the government want to keep the boats as an evidence? No, and there's still a FA As a penalty to the owner? Yes Did the owner fail to fulfill all duties concerned with buying/registering the boats? Yes, but proceed carefully Taxes relevant? No Is it relevant how did the owner acquire boats? No. He bought them | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1942 Registered: 9-2009 |
**** BLOOPER **** Did the owner fail to fulfill all duties concerned with buying/registering the boats? Yope, but proceed carefully | ||
| Blue (Blue)
New member Username: Blue Post Number: 37 Registered: 1-2012 |
physical location of boats relevant? they happened to be present in different territories? jurisdictional limits relevant? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1952 Registered: 9-2009 |
physical location of boats relevant? No they happened to be present in different territories? Noish, DOYD of 'territories' jurisdictional limits relevant? Yope to Yesish, definitely OTRT | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 2791 Registered: 2-2011 |
was one boat out at sea? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1955 Registered: 9-2009 |
was one boat out at sea? Both were, but irrelevant | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 973 Registered: 6-2003 |
Did the government require the owner to hand over the boat(s)? to destroy them? to sink them? Was the owner a governmental institution of some kind? Were the boats (one of them?) sailing on the open sea when the government claimed them? Were they rented out (one of them?) at this moment? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1956 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did the government require the owner to hand over the boat(s)? Yes, same FA, see below to destroy them? to sink them? No to both Was the owner a governmental institution of some kind? YES! Now FA probably cleared Were the boats (one of them?) sailing on the open sea when the government claimed them? Were they rented out (one of them?) at this moment? Unknown and irrelevant | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 1441 Registered: 1-2011 |
So, one governmental institution had two boats and another governmental institution wanted the boats from the first one? Did the first institution buy the boats illegally? Over given limits? Out of the necessary procedure? | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 989 Registered: 6-2003 |
Are both governmental institutions from the same country? if so: from the same level of government? (i.e. not state government vs. federal government) if not from the same country: from allied countries? from enemy countries? from neutral countries? Is the WWII relevant at all in this story? Were the ships military? intended for military use? one of them? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1960 Registered: 9-2009 |
So, one governmental institution had two boats and another governmental institution wanted the boats from the first one? Yes Did the first institution buy the boats illegally? Over given limits? Out of the necessary procedure? No to the rest Are both governmental institutions from the same country? No! if so: from the same level of government? (i.e. not state government vs. federal government) if not from the same country: from allied countries? Yope from enemy countries? Yope, complicated :-) from neutral countries? No Is the WWII relevant at all in this story? Yes Were the ships military? intended for military use? one of them? No to the rest | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 997 Registered: 6-2003 |
Did one of the involved countries change sides during the war? Did one of the countries come into existence during the war? after the war? ceased to exist? become occupied? Did this happen in Europe? Any of the following countries involved: Norway? Denmark? Finland? Estonia? Latvia? Lithuania? Poland? Romania? Bulgaria? Yugoslavia? Hungary? The Free City of Danzig? The Netherlands? Belgium? Italy? Germany? Soviet Union? UK? France? Were the ships sea-going vessels? submarines? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1962 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did one of the involved countries change sides during the war? Yes Did one of the countries come into existence during the war? after the war? ceased to exist? become occupied? Yope to this, for a short period Did this happen in Europe? Yes Any of the following countries involved: Norway? Denmark? Finland? Estonia? Latvia? Lithuania? Poland? Romania? This... Bulgaria? Yugoslavia? Hungary? The Free City of Danzig? The Netherlands? Belgium? Italy? Germany? Soviet Union? ...and this UK? France? Were the ships sea-going vessels? This one submarines? | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 1000 Registered: 6-2003 |
Did the Soviets try to requisition two Romanian ships? as reparation of some kind? but got only one? because it was not clear whether the other one was actually Romanian? it was not properly registered? the ownership was doubtful? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1965 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did the Soviets try to requisition two Romanian ships? Yes as reparation of some kind? Probably as payment for the war but got only one? Yes because it was not clear whether the other one was actually Romanian? it was not properly registered? the ownership was doubtful? Yope to the last three, there were some technical legalities that prevented one from being taken, most probably related to registration. However, this is everything about it that needs to be known Last little piece, why did I think it was a miracle? | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 2821 Registered: 2-2011 |
is the name of one of the boats (or both) relevant? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1968 Registered: 9-2009 |
is the name of one of the boats (or both) relevant? No | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 1447 Registered: 1-2011 |
If the "taking" country hadn't been Soviet Union, would you have called it a miracle anyway? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1974 Registered: 9-2009 |
If the "taking" country hadn't been Soviet Union, would you have called it a miracle anyway? Probably, but this is what happened HINT: Two persons were involved. Finding out a little bit about them is the last step before $poiling it | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 2867 Registered: 2-2011 |
did you personally call it a miracle because it involved someone you know? family members? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1975 Registered: 9-2009 |
did you personally call it a miracle because it involved someone you know? family members? No | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 1019 Registered: 6-2003 |
Were among the relevant two people: politicians? military leaders? the ship owner? the captain or other members of the ship crew(s)? famous persons? royalty? Miracle because in this case bureaucracy proved to be helpful? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1984 Registered: 9-2009 |
Were among the relevant two people: politicians? Yope military leaders? the ship owner? the captain or other members of the ship crew(s)? famous persons? One was, one was not royalty? None of the rest. Miracle because in this case bureaucracy proved to be helpful? Not bureaucracy, but... | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 2926 Registered: 2-2011 |
carelessness? stupidity? stubborness? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1986 Registered: 9-2009 |
carelessness? stupidity? No to these stubborness? Yes, in a specific field | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 1022 Registered: 6-2003 |
political agitation relevant? ideology? the takeover of power by the socialists in 1945? was one of the ships nationalized by the communists already before the Soviets could take it? was it given to a different owner? an owner the Soviets felt inappropriate to take the ship away from? Israel relevant? Is Ben Gurion one of the two relevant people? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1988 Registered: 9-2009 |
political agitation relevant? ideology? In the broadest sense, yes the takeover of power by the socialists in 1945? This was the general set-up was one of the ships nationalized by the communists already before the Soviets could take it? No was it given to a different owner? an owner the Soviets felt inappropriate to take the ship away from? Israel relevant? Is Ben Gurion one of the two relevant people? None of the rest. The two relevant persons were a -- largely unknown -- young Romanian lawyer and a -- largely famous worldwide -- Soviet official | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1990 Registered: 9-2009 |
HINT: The Soviet official was also a lawyer | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 5381 Registered: 9-2010 |
So was some kind of court case going on? (Excuse my complete and total ignorance on mostly all things Soviet and Romanian...) | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1992 Registered: 9-2009 |
So was some kind of court case going on? No, not a court case (Excuse my complete and total ignorance on mostly all things Soviet and Romanian...) Don't worry, even if you were an expert you might not have come across this largely forgotten case | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 1025 Registered: 6-2003 |
Honestly, I have no idea .. Did the company who owned the ship belong to the Romanian government? Did it get nationalized when the communists took power? Did the company own other ships? Would the company have to be closed if they did not retain at least one ship? Is the phrase "We are hiring" relevant? Did the ship not have a crew? Were they not able to find a crew? Another idea: did the Soviets first take the ship and later returned it? was there a fixed number of ships defined Romania had to deliver? was the ship simply "not in the list"? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1993 Registered: 9-2009 |
Honestly, I have no idea .. That is why I liked the situation to be put in a lateral puzzle Did the company who owned the ship belong to the Romanian government? Yes Did it get nationalized when the communists took power? Eventually yes, but the focus was in a small "fight" at a table Did the company own other ships? Would the company have to be closed if they did not retain at least one ship? No, OTWT; I think they were owned by the Royal House, but this is irr. Is the phrase "We are hiring" relevant? Only in the sense that if I'd had to choose an employee, I'd like to hire both of them. Otherwise no Did the ship not have a crew? Were they not able to find a crew? Irr. Another idea: did the Soviets first take the ship and later returned it? was there a fixed number of ships defined Romania had to deliver? was the ship simply "not in the list"? None of the above. Maybe I'm over complicating this puzzle and it's time for me to $poil. I'll let it run for a couple of days and then, it's over. However, a short RECAP Puzzle statement: Two boats were at stake. One has been lost, one has been saved. It was a miracle! Established that both boats had a great value. That they were "traded" after WWII between the Soviets and Romania (to whom they belonged), as a reparation for the war. Two persons were involved, one from the Soviets (a famous person) and one from the Romanian side (unknown at the time and unknown today, he was a young lawyer in his 20s freshly recruited in the State Department). Even though both ships could be taken by sheer force, a mock "trial" was involved, to give an image of "fair justice" Against all odds, the young lawyer "saved" one of the ships. (That is, kept it with the defeated Romanian government). How? | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 1028 Registered: 6-2003 |
So was this (formally) a legal dispute before a court? a civil case? with the Soviet Union as plaintiff? Did the Soviet Union seek compensation? for a specific case of damage? did they claim specifically these two ships? did they have more reasons to claim the ships (besides compensation)? Was the respondent the State of Romania? the Royal House? the ship owner company? someone else? Was the case brought before a Romanian? Soviet? international? bilateral? neutral? court? Was it the court's decision to give one ship to the Soviet Union? and to leave the other one with Romania? Was the decision made mostly on formal/technical reasons? Did the court consider it to be "fair" to split the disputed property? because it was impossible to decide who is right? because it was impossible to determine the exact amount of damage? Did both sides make a deal because the court was not able to come to a decision? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1994 Registered: 9-2009 |
So was this (formally) a legal dispute before a court? a civil case? with the Soviet Union as plaintiff? No, it was more like a direct confrontation in which one part knew that it will win, and the other part knew that it will loose.. Unless... Did the Soviet Union seek compensation? Yes for a specific case of damage? No, for the war in general, for Odessa and Stalingrad did they claim specifically these two ships? In this specific instance, yes did they have more reasons to claim the ships (besides compensation)? No Was the respondent the State of Romania? the Royal House? Both, to simplify the Romanian state represented by the dept of state at the moment the ship owner company? someone else? No Was the case brought before a Romanian? Soviet? international? This one. There were an American and a British at the table, if I remember correctly, but they took no part in the dispute bilateral? neutral? court? Was it the court's decision to give one ship to the Soviet Union? and to leave the other one with Romania? Basically yes, but it was not a court Was the decision made mostly on formal/technical reasons? Only for formal reasons Did the court consider it to be "fair" to split the disputed property? YES!!! a good question because it was impossible to decide who is right? No, it was decided on the spot because it was impossible to determine the exact amount of damage? No Did both sides make a deal because the court was not able to come to a decision? They came to a decision. One stays, one goes. But a "deal" in the broadest sense have been reached | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 1031 Registered: 6-2003 |
Did the formal reasons on which the decision was made apply to both ships equally? Did these formal reasons involve: ownership? registration? insurance? license for a particular usage? for a particular area of operation? ship certificate (including the flag state of the ship)? other ship documents? Did the Romanian side argue that the people of Romania also have suffered from the politics of their former government, and therefore, may claim compensation from the former Romanian state? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1995 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did the formal reasons on which the decision was made apply to both ships equally? Yes Did these formal reasons involve: ownership? registration? This one, however the particluar law is irr insurance? license for a particular usage? for a particular area of operation? ship certificate (including the flag state of the ship)? other ship documents? Did the Romanian side argue that the people of Romania also have suffered from the politics of their former government, and therefore, may claim compensation from the former Romanian state? No I think we have enough for the ******* SPOILER ******* In a small argument after WWII, two Romanian boats (valuable ) were at stake. Knowing that practically we had no chance, a young lawyer (24 years old at the time), junior fellow at the State Dept., was assigned to "attack" the problem. And he studied it for a month. At the discussion, nobody else than Andrey Vyshinsky was sitting opposite to him, while Soviet soldiers were filling the room and tanks were outside. Highly simplified, the following conversation took place: -- You sign it!!!! -- Mr. Vyshinski, I think that I have a case here. According to international law... -- International law, young man? Soviet law applies here!!! -- Ok, Mr. Vyshinski, according to Soviet law (citing some cases), both boats remain to Romania. -- What??? Who is the Russian IMBECILE who could claim such interpretation? And the young lawyer handed him a law book from which he extracted his argument, a law book that was written by the famous (and infamous) Andrey Vyshinsky... :-) He said nothing.. left the room... got back half an hour later and said: OK, young man, one remains with you, one with us. We're hiring - : ) And it was a miracle | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 1034 Registered: 6-2003 |
Brave man. And clever. Interesting story, thanks. | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 1461 Registered: 1-2011 |
Wow, wonderful story! Thanks. | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1998 Registered: 9-2009 |
I just talked with my wife in Paris (I have the book there), the young lawyer's name at the time was Alexandru Danielopol, he died in Paris (as a lawyer) less than one year after I've been born, in 1978. The two boats were called "Transylvania" and "Bessarabia" Glad you liked the puzzle. |
