Talk:Revolutions of 1917–23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Liberal designation

I've removed the designation of "liberal revolution" from before "February revolution" because: 1. the term "liberal revolution" is rather ill-defined 2. the revolution was actually acted out by a coalition of liberals and socialists --HistoryNature 09:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the term is reasonably well defined, and I plan to write an article on it at some point. The designation comes from its liberal aims, not from the political backgrounds of those who acted it out. However, I'll not re-link it until we have an article explaining this to link to. Warofdreams talk 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It should also be noted that it was a failure for the most part

Liberal? Try Pinko. German Revolution was a failure, same in Hungary and Finland. China, Ireland, Mexico and Mongolia shouldn't be listed. The polish soviet war should be mentioned as well after the bolsheviks victory in russia YankeeRoman(70.187.232.85 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Would you care to explain your reasons for this view? Warofdreams talk 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. China wasn't really a commie revolution. Either was Ireland. Mexico same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.194.50 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor was the February Revolution. The article is about the general revolutionary wave, and should include all the revolutions seen as part of it, regardless of the nature of the individual revolutions. Warofdreams talk 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Imperialist" should be taken out

It should be taken out of the red army victory over the whites. The red beat the whites. Not the 'imperialist' forces. The intervention there was modest in the extreme. It was more economic intervention than anything else.

Yankeeroman(24.75.194.50 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC))