Talk:Invasion of Åland

2018 comments

I hope we are not going into an edit war here.Please see my explanation for using the word "Russian" for another editor's "Soviet" which I think is innappropriate here."Soviet" seems to be used often to mean "Russian" or to describe things relating to the USSR. The latter usage started I guess because Russia and USSR were nt the same thing and there was no word to describe a citizen of that country. The former usage seems to me to smack of laziness as does the use of the word Russia to mean USSR, except of course that Russia was the dominant republic in the Union and the dominant part of the Russian Empire before that. "Kazakstani" or "Lithuanian" for example only referred to those specific republics. Moreover even if we accept the use of "Soviet" as an adjective to describe the USSR,this article relates to an event which took place before the creation of the USSR in 1922. The following quotation from the wikipedia article called "Soviet" may assist. I accept everything it says:

  "The soviets formed as a grassroots effort to practice direct democracy. Russian Marxists made them a medium for organizing against       the state, and in 1917, between the February and October Revolutions, the Petrograd Soviet became a powerful force. The Bolsheviks used the slogan "All power to the soviets!" (Vsya vlast sovyetam!; Вся власть советам! [ˈfsʲə ˈvlɐstʲ sɐˈvʲetɐm]) to oppose the Provisional Government led by Kerensky.

  "Based on the Bolshevik view of the state, the word soviet extended its meaning to any overarching body that obtained the authority of a group of soviets. In this sense, individual soviets became part of a federal structure - Communist government bodies at local level and republic level[note 1] were called "soviets", and at the top of the hierarchy, the Congress of Soviets became the nominal core of the Union government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), officially formed in December 1922. Successive Soviet Constitutions recognised the leading role of the Communist Party in politics,[citation needed] - the 1936 Constitution deemed it the "leading nucleus of all organisations of workers, whether public or state".[5] The soviets were structured[by whom?] as the instruments through which the Party governed the country. Thus the organs of the Communist Party (the highest being the Central Committee) made decisions on state policy, while the soviets acted as a system for public approval of implementing the Party's programme.

  "Later,[when?] in the USSR, local-government bodies were named "soviet" (sovet: "council") with an adjective indicating the administrative level, customarily abbreviated: gorsovet (gorodskoy sovet: city council), raysovet/raisovet (rayonny sovet: raion council), selsovet (sel'sky sovet: rural council), possovet (poselkovy sovet: settlement council). In practice deputies in a soviet often worked in standing committees and carried out functions with the help of unpaid volunteers (the aktiv - Russian: актив).[6]
  "Modern Russia
  "Although English speakers perceive the term as connoting the defunct Soviet Union, the same word is used in Russian for the Upper House (Council or Senate) of the modern Russian Parliament. Its untranslated name is Сове́т Федера́ции (Soviet Federatsii).
  "Outside Russia
  "The term soon came to be used outside the former Russian Empire following 1917. The Limerick Soviet was formed in Ireland in 1919.[7] A soviet republic was established in Bavaria on 7 April 1919.[1] In 1920, the Workers' Dreadnought published “A Constitution for British Soviets” in preparation for the launch of the Communist Party (British Section of the Third International).[8] Here the focus was on “household” soviets “[i]n order that mothers and those who are organisers of the family life of the community may be adequately represented.

I have of course included the last paragraph of that quotation to confuse things even further.

Spinney Hill (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Invasion

Can we call it as a decolonization? CyberTroopers (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

2019 comments

Improvement

The following sentence is to my mind incomprehensible. Can anybody improve it? I don't think I have the resources to do it. It may be an awkward translation from Swedish.

"The Swedish press also insisted action because of the humanitarian causes"

I think "insist" is probably the wrong word. "Pressed for", "argued for" or "urged" might be better. "Also" is probably redundant but it might serve a purpose.Are some particular humanitarian causes being referred to? Is "causes" the right word? Might "reasons" or some other word be better? Spinney Hill (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Is it ok now? --Joe K. (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)