From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Actually it was given to Finland by the League of Nations.
That is correct. This was in June 1921, after Finland, having put the Aland Islands under military occupation, had declared that she wouldn't comply with any decision by the League of Nations, other than one which forced Aland and the Alanders under Finnish sovereignty, and that Finland, if she wouldn't have her way, would rather go to war to get it. (You could even say that it was England who by her influential position in the League of Nations gave Aland to Finland. If the wish of the Aland people would materialize - what possible consequences would such a precedent carry with regards to the British Empire, and not only to the Irish question.) > There was no referendum but prominent Alanders were of the opinion that Aland should > be given to Sweden and of course Sweden had nothing against it. It's true that there was no formal referendum, as we know it today. The reason for this was that Finland, subjecting Aland political leaders and spokesmen to political harrassments and illegal imprisonment, wouldn't allow the Alanders to conduct one, under threat of imprisoning those who asked for an internationally supervised referendum. However, the Alanders did cast votes. In June of 1919 96% of those casting their vote, by signing their names to a petition, voted for Aland to return to it's motherland Sweden. Present day Finnish history legend on the Aaland Island Question bears similarities to the Soviet-Russian history legend regarding those states which were forced under Soviet rule. The Soviet history writing basically said that only "fascist" elements opposed the free will of the people of those countries to join the Soviet Union. In Finland they say that only "some prominent Alanders" didn't want Aland to become Finnish, when in fact 96% voted for Sweden and against Finland. "Anything but Finland" declared the Alanders before the League of Nation. Even independence, although they knew it meant the greatest economic difficulties. >Now it is a demilitarised area with quite extensive autonomy. > Last time there was a poll about the matter the majority preferred to stay with > Finland - no doubt because it is financially beneficial. Whether it is or not, is a matter of debate. > The idea of an independent state with a population of a major village - 25000 - is, > well ... interesting. I completely agree with you. Most of nowaday so called micro states are very prosperous. Lasse > All the best! > Raimo > Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- > Lähettäjä: Anders Hultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Päivä: 31. tammikuuta 2004 19:17 > Aihe: Re: Using multiple cameras and formats (wasRe: * ist DigitalQuestion) > > > >Stan Halpin: > > > >>Right. But If I say Aland, who but you and Anders would know what/where > >>that is? If I just say Sweden, I am insulting Aland. > > > >I'd think that would be more insulting to Finland than to Åland, > >actually, since Åland formally is part of Finland and not Sweden, > >even though historically Åland has had closer ties to Sweden. > > > >Sometime in the early 1900's, a referendum was held on the island, > >where the inhabitants voted to belong to Sweden, but Finland claimed > >it anyway. > > > >Lasse, what is the current status on that? What do you ålänningar > >think nowadays? > > > >anders > >------------------------- > >http://anders.hultman.nu/
