A unified Scandinavia

[RedRalph]

1. How might Scandinavia have unified in the 1800s? I know the pan-Scandic movement wasn't very strong but is there any way they could have realiseed their goals, maybe in 1848? What sort of country might have emerged? Could it have become a serious power?

 

[Dodge_272]

Bernadotte doesn't betray Napoleon, Denmark fights against Napoleon, Napoleon wins and Sweden annexes Denmark?

 

[Leifmk]

The best bet would probably be some kind of personal union that involved all three kingdoms. With enough luck to get two or three long-reigning monarchs in a row that were both strong and popular enough, the union might even stick in the longer term (as opposed to falling apart like the Kalmar union did).

 

[Verbose]

Bernadotte doesn't betray Napoleon, Denmark fights against Napoleon, Napoleon wins and Sweden annexes Denmark?

Nonono! The Danes fough alongside Napoleon. The British attacking sort of preemptively them did that.
(The British navy having a go at Copenhagen with artillery fire and incendiary rockets after the Danish navy had been destroyed helped cheese the Danes off further.)

 

[Dodge_272]

Nonono! The Danes fough alongside Napoleon. The British attacking sort of preemptively them did that.
(The British navy having a go at Copenhagen with artillery fire and incendiary rockets after the Danish navy had been destroyed helped cheese the Danes off further.)

I know that, we are talking possible alternate outcomes.

 

[Verbose]

1. How might Scandinavia have unified in the 1800s? I know the pan-Scandic movement wasn't very strong but is there any way they could have realiseed their goals, maybe in 1848? What sort of country might have emerged? Could it have become a serious power?

A prerequisite for Scandinavianism amounting to anything in the 19th c. would have been for the Swedes to man up and go to war against Prussia and Austria on behalf of Denmark's claims in the Schleswig-Holstein Question in 1864.

Swedish king Charles XV seems to have been rather keen on it (or at least swept up by enthusiasm, possibly on the sauce) visiting his royal Danish cousin in Copenhagen prior to the war. At least he personally pledged to lead a Swedish army of 100 000 men in support of the Danes if it would come to that. Otoh back in Stockholm he was quickly disabused of any such notions by his national politicians. So the Danes fought the Prussians and Austrians on their lonesome, and lost.

Otoh it's highly dubious if even 100 000 Swedish troops could have affected the outcome of that war. It would have been pretty damn mismatched even with the Swedes bleeding and dieing alongside the Danes. Which might otoh have done, well,at least something for continued Scandinavist feelings.

Not that it would likely have mollified the Norwegians one bit. Hard economic and political facts would in all likelyhood still mean the Norwegians would want out of that 19th c. personal union with Sweden sooner or later.

 

[Verbose]

The best bet would probably be some kind of personal union that involved all three kingdoms. With enough luck to get two or three long-reigning monarchs in a row that were both strong and popular enough, the union might even stick in the longer term (as opposed to falling apart like the Kalmar union did).

Yes, I think that IF the Nordic countries would have turned into a United Kingdom something along the lines of that one over in the British isles, it would have had to happen well before the 19th c.

Either it would require the Danish monarchy dominant in the Middle Ages to successfully impose itself, Sweden remaning a weaker party for the rest of their common history.

Or it would require the Swedish Great Power bid in the 17th c. to be quite a bit more spectacularly more successful, probably including Charles X actually managing to liquidate the Danish monarchy entirely, as he intended to, in the late 1650's.

 

[Masada]

Kalmar Union? That didn't go all that well

And Danish-Swedish antagonism was surprisingly bitter in centuries past. Anyways, Skåne to Denmark, death to Sweden!

 

[Verbose]

Kalmar Union? That didn't go all that well

And Danish-Swedish antagonism was surprisingly bitter in centuries past. Anyways, Skåne to Denmark, death to Sweden!

Well, they shouldn't have torched the place wholesale in 1678 out of disappointment that the attempted reconquest had failed. It meant that when the Danes tried it again in 1718, the locals who had greeted them as liberators in 1675 now fought against them.
(Oh, and the Danish king promising his troops a free hand in looting the city of Malmö wasn't too clever either, as the good burghers of the city then decided to fight him off alongside the Swedish garrison. They could see the boats assemble off the city, to ferry their plundered possessions back to Denmark.)

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

There were several royals in the 1800s not only entertaining the idea but also working actively to become sole ruler of all Scandinavia. Their ideas were more likely sprung out of personal ambitions than any nationalistic fervor as opposed to that found amongst students and other people in the pan-Scandinavian movement.

I believe it would have been close to impossible to achieve a unification in the 1800s. A unified Scandinavia, although too weak to stand alone against any great power of Europe at the time, would still have been considered a threat if in an alliance with an opposing side in a conflict.

It could have happened before, as pointed out, and it can IMO happen in the future if the following prerequisites are met:

Unification as Scandinavia. The terms Danish, Swedish etc are to firmly set at the moment. People accustomed to being "Danes" or "Swedes" would probably have a hard time digesting being called the other.

Politician(s) or lobbyists that are willing to work tirelessly with showing the idea as being realistic. (Surveys show that a majority of the people, in all walks of life no matter what gender or profession etc, consider it a good idea - except for members of parliament )

I believe Scandinavia would need the backing of one or two of the bigger European players or by the USA, because I'm sure some others would act against such a thing ever happening.

 

[Masada]

I believe it would have been close to impossible to achieve a unification in the 1800s. A unified Scandinavia, although too weak to stand alone against any great power of Europe at the time, would still have been considered a threat if in an alliance with an opposing side in a conflict.

Balance of power bad.

Unification as Scandinavia. The terms Danish, Swedish etc are to firmly set at the moment. People accustomed to being "Danes" or "Swedes" would probably have a hard time digesting being called the other.

Not really mang. Unification nowadays is unlikely precisely because the Danes, Swedes and Norwegians get along so well. Same thing for Australia and New Zealand. We could unify but there's no real reason to do so. Our markets an intertwinned, we have freedom of population movement and there aren't any pressing international or domestic pressures to warrant that response.

I believe Scandinavia would need the backing of one or two of the bigger European players or by the USA, because I'm sure some others would act against such a thing ever happening.

It's Scandinavia mang. Who's going to try and block that outside of Russia? And who cares what Russia thinks anyway.

 

[Yui108]

Dude , just check the events folder

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Not really mang. Unification nowadays is unlikely precisely because the Danes, Swedes and Norwegians get along so well. Same thing for Australia and New Zealand. We could unify but there's no real reason to do so. Our markets an intertwinned, we have freedom of population movement and there aren't any pressing international or domestic pressures to warrant that response.

If everybody felt it being a pressing matter there would be no need for hard work by politicians or lobbyists as I described above, but there are a lot of reasons for unification, political and economical, not to mention plain sentiment. What has the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy won by unifying?

It's Scandinavia mang. Who's going to try and block that outside of Russia? And who cares what Russia thinks anyway.

Practically all our neighbours have done so previously. Agreed, geopolitical circumstances are better now than they've been in a long time, but it is only about 20 years since Scandinavia was right in between two blocks of power and who's to say how things are going to be 20 years from now?


EDIT: The events involving the promise of military aid in the Danish-German war 1864 by the Swedish king, as Verbose described above, did while perhaps not effect the outcome of the war, create a sour aftermath in that the Danish governments since then have been less inclined to believe talks of cooperation as sincere. I don't have the source where I am right now but I recall reading that the Danish prime minister made remarks to the 1864 war when Scandinavia discussed an alliance after WWII.

Anyway, the Swedish-Russian war of 1808-1809 where the country lost a third of its area and one quarter of its population, and the Danish-German war of 1864 where Denmark lost 40% of its area and almost as much of its population are examples of what happens when our neighbours play us out against each other.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I could have seen a different political world where the UK tried to create a unified Scandinavia as a counterbalance to Germany. However, I don't think there was any nationalist sentiment of a pan-Scandinavia as compared to something like Italy. I think part of the problem is there were various attempts at unification (through a personal monarchy) that were deeply resented. Norwegians wouldn't want to be under the Swedish Crown, Swedes under the Danish crown, etc. So it isn't really comparable to other nationalist movements across Europe at the time.

 

[Masada]

How is Scandanvia a counterbalance to Germany?

If everybody felt it being a pressing matter there would be no need for hard work by politicians or lobbyists as I described above, but there are a lot of reasons for unification, political and economical, not to mention plain sentiment.

Saying there is popular support for an idea is wholly different from saying that the population is actually willing to get involved to achieve an end.

What has the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy won by unifying?

You also have to ask what they've lost as a result.

Practically all our neighbours have done so previously. Agreed, geopolitical circumstances are better now than they've been in a long time, but it is only about 20 years since Scandinavia was right in between two blocks of power and who's to say how things are going to be 20 years from now?

I doubt Russia or the United States would seriously have disagreed with a Scandanavian nation-state forming. They might have quibbled about the details, the question of neutrality for instance. But there wasn't a presing geopolitical rationale to stop it.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

I could have seen a different political world where the UK tried to create a unified Scandinavia as a counterbalance to Germany. However, I don't think there was any nationalist sentiment of a pan-Scandinavia as compared to something like Italy. I think part of the problem is there were various attempts at unification (through a personal monarchy) that were deeply resented. Norwegians wouldn't want to be under the Swedish Crown, Swedes under the Danish crown, etc. So it isn't really comparable to other nationalist movements across Europe at the time.

Well, perhaps not a counterbalance, but to be used as a brick in the game. Especially in respect to naval power. Problem for Scandinavia is that when France, Germany, Britain, Russia etc wants to use us as a brick in the game it involves take a beating for them, and standing in the middle of a conflict is exactly what a unification should aim to avoid.

Saying there is popular support for an idea is wholly different from saying that the population is actually willing to get involved to achieve an end.

I'm glad you agree on that point, and that is why there is a need for politicians or lobbyists who are willing to work indefatigably to show it's realistic, as I said earlier.

You also have to ask what they've lost as a result.

Sure. For one thing we would lose four out of every five embassies.

I doubt Russia or the United States would seriously have disagreed with a Scandanavian nation-state forming. They might have quibbled about the details, the question of neutrality for instance. But there wasn't a presing geopolitical rationale to stop it.

I have no idea what period of time you are referring to here, but rest assured that the Öresund strait and the Norwegian atlantic ports were no "details" during the cold war (either).

 

[Dachs]

However, I don't think there was any nationalist sentiment of a pan-Scandinavia as compared to something like Italy.

There wasn't very much in Italy either.

 

[Dreadnought]

There wasn't very much in Italy either.

I`m curious: can you elaborate on this? Did the people of Italy not fancy unification? It sounds really interesting

 

[Dachs]

The 'people of Italy' didn't really have a lot to do with unification one way or another. French armies underwrote the unification of the north, Piedmontese armies enforced it, and a few thousand men with unusually colored clothes added the south. What the Italian people wanted - insofar as there even was an Italian people (and there might still not be one today) - didn't enter into the equation.

 

[LightSpectra]

Nationalism rarely pops up in a form where peoples of several languages, and don't learn each others' en masse, but still want to unite for some other reason. Scandinavia in particular has four languages.

But as Dachs said, what the general populace wants very rarely has a good much to do with the policy of expansionists, so take that as you will.