Or maybe during WW2? Sweden and Finland unites in some way after the Winter War to protect themselves from the Soviet Union and Germany. They stays neutral until the D-Day and launch an attack in german-occupied Norway and Denmark and liberates them from Germany. How about that?
A unified Scandinavia
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
Or maybe during WW2? Sweden and Finland unites in some way after the Winter War to protect themselves from the Soviet Union and Germany. They stays neutral until the D-Day and launch an attack in german-occupied Norway and Denmark and liberates them from Germany. How about that?
Communisto
Condottiere
They may be a little wonky but I wouldnt call the ideology behind the lega nord "crackpot"ery. The cultural divides in Italy are much, much, much deeper than you seem to understand.
When I was about 12, we went to visit our family in Foggia. I was sitting with my nonno watching a black and white documentary on television about Mussolini. The conversation went something like this;
"Nonno, what are they saying?"
"I cant understand their words."
"But you speak Italian"
"I speak dialecte"
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Yeah, I had an interesting conversation with my grandfather's cousin (too lazy to figure out the familial relationship to me) in Emiglia-Romania. Essentially, he said something that I couldn't understand at all. It would be repeated to me in Italian by his son. I'd translate it to my brother who basically only spoke English and I would respond in Italian (which he understood anyway even though he really didn't speak it).
As for cultural divides in Italy, I still disagree. They exist, but there are cultural divides in every country. I don't think they are anywhere close to what someone like Mario Borghezio believes.
As for cultural divides in Italy, I still disagree. They exist, but there are cultural divides in every country. I don't think they are anywhere close to what someone like Mario Borghezio believes.
Tycho Brahe
Emperor
Well IF Scandinavia was united, it would lead to a very different situation in the early 20th century. Would they have stayed neutral in ww1? Whould the russian agression in Finland lead to an alliance with Germany in the 30es?
Also, a different autcome in the preussian-danish war 1864 could have changed Germanys history profoundly. The preussian victory lead to the unitefication of Germany under preussian domminance.
Also, a different autcome in the preussian-danish war 1864 could have changed Germanys history profoundly. The preussian victory lead to the unitefication of Germany under preussian domminance.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
If Scandinavia were united, I could see an active alliance with Germany. After all, Finland was on their side and Sweden was more or less supportive (out of necessity if anything). Denmark and Norway were different, but they might be out-voted. At the same time, maybe not. Maybe the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would work differently and Scandinavia would become a target for both (Germany would conquer Norway and Denmark, USSR would take on Finland). Sweden would become a puppet state like Vichy France. In the end, a similar result to the real world. I wonder how it would affect Finland, though. A unified Scandinavian army would be spread pretty thin and perhaps the Finish troops would be diverted west.
I think the war would actually change much. If Germany attacks Scandinavia before they attacks France, then UK and France could send more troops than in reality. Scandinavia would hold out longer and tie down more germans. Hitler gets mad for the slow process and sends more troops and tanks. Then could France and UK invade Germany.
If Germany invades France first, Scandinavia could attack Germany to take the pressure of France a little.
You all seem to forget the fact that Finland was part of Russia until 1917. Given its love-hate relationship with Sweden there's a very good chance that it would have no part in any sort of Scandinavian Union, even if other events play out exactly as in OTL (which is, of course, unlikely).
I think the best chance of a Scandinavian Union coming about in the 1800s is actually the opposite of what was said way back in the second post in this thread months ago. Rather than Denmark turning against Napoleon and being granted Sweden by the Four at Vienna - which is impossible anyway, since Denmark was never so much a willing ally of Napoleon's, as Sweden was before it switched sides, but more a nation that was backed into a corner and needed to align itself with the regional badboy, much as Finland was forced into an alignment with Germany during WWII - the more likely scenario is that Denmark would persist with its French alliance for even longer.
This might result in Czar Alexander coercing the Congress into giving not just Norway, but Denmark also, to Bernadotte. It's very unlikely that the other powers would stand for this, but they may relent to Alexander's wishes in this simply to get him to change his mind on issues they found more important, such as getting rid of Murat or over the Poland-Saxony debate. Since Alexander had a bizarre and unwarranted man-crush on Bernadotte, it's possible he'd reward him with Denmark, though again it's unlikely.
I think that this is the most likely means of unification in the 19th century though, which should indicate how likely I find such a union. I don't think that the environment was very conducive of such a union even if Sweden had supported Denmark in the war over Schleswig-Holstein. For one thing, the Norwegians positively despised the Swedes and would want out of the union no matter what. I can see the Norwegians once more embracing Danish rule - they'd been part of Denmark for four centuries, after all - but I don't see them accepting union with Sweden after fifty years of Swedish imposition.
I think the best chance of a Scandinavian Union coming about in the 1800s is actually the opposite of what was said way back in the second post in this thread months ago. Rather than Denmark turning against Napoleon and being granted Sweden by the Four at Vienna - which is impossible anyway, since Denmark was never so much a willing ally of Napoleon's, as Sweden was before it switched sides, but more a nation that was backed into a corner and needed to align itself with the regional badboy, much as Finland was forced into an alignment with Germany during WWII - the more likely scenario is that Denmark would persist with its French alliance for even longer.
This might result in Czar Alexander coercing the Congress into giving not just Norway, but Denmark also, to Bernadotte. It's very unlikely that the other powers would stand for this, but they may relent to Alexander's wishes in this simply to get him to change his mind on issues they found more important, such as getting rid of Murat or over the Poland-Saxony debate. Since Alexander had a bizarre and unwarranted man-crush on Bernadotte, it's possible he'd reward him with Denmark, though again it's unlikely.
I think that this is the most likely means of unification in the 19th century though, which should indicate how likely I find such a union. I don't think that the environment was very conducive of such a union even if Sweden had supported Denmark in the war over Schleswig-Holstein. For one thing, the Norwegians positively despised the Swedes and would want out of the union no matter what. I can see the Norwegians once more embracing Danish rule - they'd been part of Denmark for four centuries, after all - but I don't see them accepting union with Sweden after fifty years of Swedish imposition.
Verbose
Deity
Basically agree with Baal. Interesting Bernadotte scenario, with a twist.
As said, for the place to unify, it would have to happen before the 19th c. That centry was too full of national "re-births" (or rather plain births) to spell good news for a unified Scandinavia. Either the deed is done well before and in a comprehensive enough manner to stick regardless, but even then it's highly unlikely Scandinavia won't fracture as various internal national causes pulls it apart.
Not sure the Norwegians really despised Swedes special. That they found the arrangement they ended up in odious is for sure though. I'll leave it to the representatives of our western brother-people to sort this out.
That said, if Norway opting to stay in union with Sweden was bloody unlikely, right behind it in unlikeliness was Norway again accepting a union with Denmark. Afaik the declaration at Eidsvoll, and constitution, in 1814 took Norway out of Denmarks orbit before Sweden imposed itself.
It's about as likely as the Finns opting to return to the folds of "the Mother Country" Sweden if given a chance in the 19th c. Not bloody likely, despite being a hallowed Swedish pipe-dream up to about the Crimean War or so.
As said, for the place to unify, it would have to happen before the 19th c. That centry was too full of national "re-births" (or rather plain births) to spell good news for a unified Scandinavia. Either the deed is done well before and in a comprehensive enough manner to stick regardless, but even then it's highly unlikely Scandinavia won't fracture as various internal national causes pulls it apart.
Not sure the Norwegians really despised Swedes special. That they found the arrangement they ended up in odious is for sure though. I'll leave it to the representatives of our western brother-people to sort this out.
That said, if Norway opting to stay in union with Sweden was bloody unlikely, right behind it in unlikeliness was Norway again accepting a union with Denmark. Afaik the declaration at Eidsvoll, and constitution, in 1814 took Norway out of Denmarks orbit before Sweden imposed itself.
It's about as likely as the Finns opting to return to the folds of "the Mother Country" Sweden if given a chance in the 19th c. Not bloody likely, despite being a hallowed Swedish pipe-dream up to about the Crimean War or so.
The declaration at Eidsvoll was meant to pre-empt Sweden's takeover, since the Norwegian upper classes were well-aware of Bernadotte's treaty with Alexander guaranteeing him control over Norway. I don't think the Norwegians were nearly as dissatisfied with Danish rule as Swedish rule, though once they had independence they were loathe to surrender it. Then again, I'm not Norwegian, so I'm only going on English-language texts here.Basically agree with Baal. Interesting Bernadotte scenario, with a twist.
As said, for the place to unify, it would have to happen before the 19th c. That centry was too full of national "re-births" (or rather plain births) to spell good news for a unified Scandinavia. Either the deed is done well before and in a comprehensive enough manner to stick regardless, but even then it's highly unlikely Scandinavia won't fracture as various internal national causes pulls it apart.
Not sure the Norwegians really despised Swedes special. That they found the arrangement they ended up in odious is for sure though. I'll leave it to the representatives of our western brother-people to sort this out.
That said, if Norway opting to stay in union with Sweden was bloody unlikely, right behind it in unlikeliness was Norway again accepting a union with Denmark. Afaik the declaration at Eidsvoll, and constitution, in 1814 took Norway out of Denmarks orbit before Sweden imposed itself.
It's about as likely as the Finns opting to return to the folds of "the Mother Country" Sweden if given a chance in the 19th c. Not bloody likely, despite being a hallowed Swedish pipe-dream up to about the Crimean War or so.
My country have many issues, but language ain't one.
Nearly all italians understand and can talk "ufficial" italian... ( even in the past they did at least understand it )
As today, all dialect are dying fast due to the new generations not caring for them. ( i'm in north Italy lombardia and i just NEVER heard dialect from people under 55... )
Lega nord don't have any ideology or cultural basis... hopefully they will get rightfully biased and erased after the likely Italy economic default...
Leifmk
Deity
You are not wrong. The 1814 business was at least in part an attempt to avoid Swedish rule and allow Norway in the longer term to stay in a union with Denmark, albeit in a different and stronger position than it had been previously. See, the guy they chose as king of the newly-independent Norway was also heir to the Danish throne. On the other hand, there were also enough forward-looking people there to cook up what was, at the time, one of the more enlightened constitutions in the world, and the end result was that we at least got to keep home rule under that shiny new constitution.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
It's already been said, but Scandinavian is really one language with 4 different standardizations. The differences would be regarded as frivolous in other language communities that tolerate more diversity. By contrast "German" in the same period was actually divided into different languages, but everyone was taught to believe they were really all dialects of a greater language (Dutch only escaping because it didn't become part of Germany!) Language classification is ideological and political, rarely linguistic.
Similar threads
