A United Scandinavia question

Also, is there any way to include Estonia in any Federation? They were ruled by both Denmark and Sweden for centuries and are in the same language family as Finnish. The Estonian people are more akin to Scandinavians rather than Russians or Eastern Europeans with quite a large portion of the population there thinking of themselves as Scandinavian rather than Eastern European.

Don't think any Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) would agree even an iota that Estonia is Nordic (+Finland, and Iceland), much less Scandinavian.

Depending on the POD placement of cause you could argue that United Scandinavia could sit on the Estonian islands either by butterflying Treaty of Nystad or more likely (though still a far shot) following a war between Scandinavia and Russia for lost lands across the Baltics
 
Of course the Finns would likely not be happy with the Scandinavian union and would likely be the Bohemia/Catalonia of Scandinavia. Of course Finland have a Scandinavian speaking minority which was even bigger at this point, so the entire situation may become quite ugly. My guess is that with a politics which favour Scandinavian speakers from 1850, we will likely see a third of the population speak Scandinavian by 1900, but it will likely not grow from that point, and there will increase push for autonomy or independence, including terror.
The OP states that Scandinavia unites (but not in which precise form) around 1850-1870 or something, so Finland is probably as OTL until 1918.

Nordic, not Scandinavian. Scandinavian is (AFAIK) explicitly a North Germanic Qualification, Nordic, includes Finland and (according to the Estonians, at least) Estonia.

That said, while historically, the Estonians were ruled by Denmark and Sweden, I don't seem much reason, after the development of the Estonian national consciousness, for the Estonians to remain content in this case, any more than the Finns would.
OTL Estonia and Latvia suggested creating a union of the Nordic and Baltic countries in the early 1920's, but Sweden turned it down. :(

And Finland asked for a union with Sweden in 1940, but the Swedes hesitated until it was too late. :(

By the way, the name "Scandinavia" is not exact and can (if one wants to) be used for any geographical entity, so we can very well have a united "Scandinavia" that includes Benelux and Lithuania. That is, if the 1920s or 1930s sees a need to include all the small North European countries in a bigger state that would be capable to defend itself against Russia or Germany.

The OTL Scandinavian union failed, since it did not have a real superstructure and the Swedes did not care for Norwegian opinions. Suppose that this is changed after the Danish 1848 war, and the ruling cliques of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and perhaps even of Iceland (then part of Denmark), decide to set aside their differences and create a federal system, where power is defined for the union, the states, the provinces, and the municipalities, in order to create a lasting union between Sweden and Norway, and have Denmark enter this union.

Language issues could be left outside, since there was no consensus for how a Scandinavian standard language norm would look, so everyone will keep to their own tongue.

Such a Scandinavia could then be reasonably fit for including its small 1920s neighbors Finland, Estonia and Latvia. Lithuania was not as close OTL, but that might have been due to its conflict with Poland, others not willing to be dragged into something.

Getting the Dutch, the Belgians and the Luxemburgers to join is more farfetched, but it would make Scandinavia on par, populationwise, with other great powers, and perhaps hold the union out of WW2, which would be very advantageous for these otherwise occupied lands.
 
Don't think any Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) would agree even an iota that Estonia is Nordic (+Finland, and Iceland), much less Scandinavian.
That depends on them even having heard of Estonia. :p

Estonia and Latvia was part of the Northern Lutheran area, and they did acquire a Swedish identity that outlasted the Swedish occupation with several decades.

Being Swedish of Estonian ancestry, I might hold a biased view ... :eek:
 
By the way, the name "Scandinavia" is not exact and can (if one wants to) be used for any geographical entity[...]

Not correct ... if you ask around in Scandinavia its rather clear

Scandinavia = Norway, Denmark, Sweden
Scandinavian peninsula, also known as Fennoscandia = Norway, Sweden, Finland, Kola Peninsula and Karelia.
Nordics = Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland

Estonia want to be counted among the Nordics, but none within, other than prehaps the Finnish agree to that thought ... Scottish National Party, suggests that an Independent Scotland could join up and have gotten positive, if somewhat lukewarm, reception

...

On another note ... United Scandinavia might just be big/strong enough to pull off an Armed neutrality ... if WW2 rolls around similar to OTL, they just might keep peace with Germany (who might consider that gains from attacking them is to small, seeing as ideological they should be friendlies), focusing on a larger winter war, and small-scale evacuation of German undesirables
 
Last edited:
It was not even certain that Finland was to be counted among the Nordic countries in the beginning of its independent period, and there was a struggle for it.

Scandinavian peninsula, also known as Fennoscandia = Norway, Sweden, Finland, Kola Peninsula and Karelia.
Usually only Norway and Sweden are part of the Scandinavian peninsula (which of course is very arbitrary), while Fennoscandia is as you say.

What I meant with the name, was that it, like any other name, could be used for a larger area than previously, if there is a need for it. Compare with Rome or Britain.

Estonia want to be counted among the Nordics, but none within, other than prehaps the Finnish agree to that thought ... Scottish National Party, suggests that an Independent Scotland could join up and have gotten positive, if somewhat lukewarm, reception
Our OTL politicians are not really interested in anything larger than themselves, so their opinion is usually negative. The case here is that we have a postulated working Scandinavian union from the mid-19th century, and that this union might be interested in peaceful negociated expansion, unlike OTL, where all these countries cut themselves off, shut themselves in and started nagging at each other about very small things. The OTL Nordic cooperation has really only accomplished free movement without passports.
 
Such a Scandinavia could then be reasonably fit for including its small 1920s neighbors Finland, Estonia and Latvia. Lithuania was not as close OTL, but that might have been due to its conflict with Poland, others not willing to be dragged into something.

Getting the Dutch, the Belgians and the Luxemburgers to join is more farfetched, but it would make Scandinavia on par, populationwise, with other great powers, and perhaps hold the union out of WW2, which would be very advantageous for these otherwise occupied lands.

There was some cooperation within the League of Nations among these countries during the inter-war years... we all have dreams don't we! :D
 
To me it seems that Scandinavia alone will not make much of a dent. Their control of the Sound and the western Baltic will make them formidable, but the lack of population will severely hurt them. However as they've come this far it is quite likely that they will press with political, diplomatic and perhaps even military force to gain the "historic borders" which will probably encompass the Grand Duchy of Finland, Schleswig-Holstein and if they are successful in those they might even press for Karelia and Kola for "natural borders" and then for former baltic holdings such as Estonia.

However as Europe has already started to calm down and borders have settled this sort of thing will not fly for long. Even if the Russians/Germans allow the Scandinavians to gain Finland and Schleswig, that's where the ball will most likely stop. The Great Powers will not allow for the nation to become any more powerful than necessary. The British might like the idea of using the unified state as a way to keep Baltic trade coming and a way to have some voice on the continent, but even they will not stand for it to become a global naval power to rival the royal navy.

If the British are onboard "a bit" the surrounding powers are not on even for that. Russians or Germans will have no desire to have a strong and unified north watching their every movement and taking advantage of weakness. Since the Scandinavians/Nordics will not be able to challenge more than one power at a time (even then victory is... questionably chanced) they will either be balkanized again or become a powerless nation that must remain neutral... as per OTL.
 
Considering the timeframe - post 1850 - war is out of the question. These countries are small, and they know it. Besides, not even the great powers achieved much with their wars, but lost much, and a Scandinavian participation might probably be similar to the Finnish situation in the continuation war 1941-44, which is not really preferable.

Instead, as I suggested above, a more diplomatic approach with consensus and without aggression, might lead somewhere. If Schleswig-Holstein is offered an equal share in my union of 1850, where every member has full internal self rule, the 1864 war might be avoided.

Additional member states could join as they appear, which probably would be similar to OTL, since the Scandinavian Union does not alter very much in world politics. The main difference from OTL is the inclusion of Denmark, and an ASB-style dominance of sensible politicians (otherwise the union would never form).
 
Considering the timeframe - post 1850 - war is out of the question. These countries are small, and they know it. Besides, not even the great powers achieved much with their wars, but lost much, and a Scandinavian participation might probably be similar to the Finnish situation in the continuation war 1941-44, which is not really preferable.

There is a case to be made for an alt-Crimean War where the Scandinavians would join the British and the French with the express goal of pushing back the Russian borders. While annexing all of Finland or even Karelia and Kola as Olligarchy wrote above might be a bit too much, I'd say the Scandinavians would stand to gain at least the destruction of the Russian fleet as a fighting force and the Åland islands as a forward base. In a best case scenario for Scandinavia, if Russia is soundly beaten and the British and the French support the Scandinavian goals, we could see the Finnish Grand Duchy detached from Russia as an ostensibly neutral, "independent" border state, in reality a Scandinavian(/British) protectorate.

After this, if in the latter part of the century Russia becomes revanchist, tries to diplomatically bully the Finns or if there even is a mini-Winter War scenario where Russia tries to regain Finland but underestimates the opposition (a national army modernised with the help of Scandinavian and British "advisors" and tech), this Finland might in the end seek a full membership in the Scandinavian union for protection against Russia. Helsinki (or possibly Turku) would want to retain a fair degree of political autonomy, but the fear of being retaken by the Russians might be a strong incentive for unification indeed, especially if the Scandinavians drive a hard bargain and pretend that they can't or won't support a completely independent Finland against the eastern neighbour.
 
Don't think any Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) would agree even an iota that Estonia is Nordic (+Finland, and Iceland), much less Scandinavian.

Not correct ... if you ask around in Scandinavia its rather clear

Scandinavia = Norway, Denmark, Sweden
Scandinavian peninsula, also known as Fennoscandia = Norway, Sweden, Finland, Kola Peninsula and Karelia.
Nordics = Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland

Estonia want to be counted among the Nordics, but none within, other than prehaps the Finnish agree to that thought ... Scottish National Party, suggests that an Independent Scotland could join up and have gotten positive, if somewhat lukewarm, reception

It looks as if it's time to dust of these again:
http://satwcomic.com/how-the-north-works
http://satwcomic.com/party-crasher
http://satwcomic.com/new-nordic

Usually only Norway and Sweden are part of the Scandinavian peninsula (which of course is very arbitrary), while Fennoscandia is as you say.
Uhm... There's nothing arbitrary about the Scandinavian peninsula. It's a peninsula. On which there are two countries.
 
Don't think any Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) would agree even an iota that Estonia is Nordic (+Finland, and Iceland), much less Scandinavian.

Which Scandinavians have you been talking to?
In my country I've only heard positive things about Estonians and how we share so much history/culture/beautiful ladies.
For me the Baltic states are nordic.
 
do my whole family and all my IRL fiends count or do they not since they apparently disagree with you

Of course yours and their opinions count, I'm sorry if I sounded offensive towards you and your loved ones. :)

Getting back on topic, a united Nordic Union of some sorts during that time could only be viable if Great Britain considers it friendly and has the same Big-Brother relationship with it that it had with Norway during that time.

With Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Estonia the Baltic would almost completely become a Nordic Union lake, and that could concern the surrounding powers alot(Russia, Germany, Britain).

But it's very hard to unite Scandinavia during this time, because Norway was finally a nation again(although in a forced Union with Sweden), Denmark and Sweden were age-old enemies and Finland, Estonia and the Baltics were in the Russian Empire.

If I recall correctly Scandinavianism died with Sweden and Norway going back on their word to help Denmark against Prussia/Austria. There's your POD: Scandinavians fight desperately, get beaten severely and afterwards stick together to survive in the new age of imperial powers.
 
Uhm... There's nothing arbitrary about the Scandinavian peninsula. It's a peninsula. On which there are two countries.

If we go nitpicking, one could well claim that there is a small part of Finland on the peninsula, the "Finnish arm" part of the Enontekiö municipality, or then one should accept that a part of Norwegian Finnmark isn't on the peninsula.:p
 
If we go nitpicking, one could well claim that there is a small part of Finland on the peninsula, the "Finnish arm" part of the Enontekiö municipality, or then one should accept that a part of Norwegian Finnmark isn't on the peninsula.:p

One possible way to make Finland more "Scandinavian" would be a POD where the Finnish western border goes along the Kalix river instead of the Tornio River. :p I have actually thought that I could write some sort of TL on that topic some day.
 
One possible way to make Finland more "Scandinavian" would be a POD where the Finnish western border goes along the Kalix river instead of the Tornio River. :p I have actually thought that I could write some sort of TL on that topic some day.

I have also toyed with the same idea, so count me in.:D
 
Of course yours and their opinions count, I'm sorry if I sounded offensive towards you and your loved ones. :)

Getting back on topic, a united Nordic Union of some sorts during that time could only be viable if Great Britain considers it friendly and has the same Big-Brother relationship with it that it had with Norway during that time.

With Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Estonia the Baltic would almost completely become a Nordic Union lake, and that could concern the surrounding powers alot(Russia, Germany, Britain).

But it's very hard to unite Scandinavia during this time, because Norway was finally a nation again(although in a forced Union with Sweden), Denmark and Sweden were age-old enemies and Finland, Estonia and the Baltics were in the Russian Empire.

If I recall correctly Scandinavianism died with Sweden and Norway going back on their word to help Denmark against Prussia/Austria. There's your POD: Scandinavians fight desperately, get beaten severely and afterwards stick together to survive in the new age of imperial powers.

That would be one interesting POD... would love to read more about it. :)
 
But it's very hard to unite Scandinavia during this time, because Norway was finally a nation again(although in a forced Union with Sweden), Denmark and Sweden were age-old enemies and Finland, Estonia and the Baltics were in the Russian Empire.

Given that Norway tried it's best to appoint the Danish Crown Prince as king (with the implicit notion that he would still be heir to the danish throne) following Vienna to stop them joining Sweden, I'm not totally sold on them being to hot on independence, due to the fact that before oil was found were probably the weakest both economically and military of the 'three brothers'
 

Devvy

Donor
Could another POD be Frederick VI of Denmark being elected King of Sweden (as well as Denmark-Norway) as some of the powers-that-were in Sweden wanted?

This would bring Denmark-Norway and Sweden into personal union. Maybe in 1850s-1860s a union of the Parliaments to create a top level federal Parliament, with state Governments for Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Later in the 1900s, the Grand Duchy of Finland separates, and petitions to join the "Kingdom of Scandinavia" for security reasons. I can't see any such united Kingdom of Scandinavia as a close unitary government, with the diverse and separate identities & cultures.

(Edited for reasons of stupidity when typing. Note to self to not write replies needing decent knowledge after 30 hours of being awake.)
 
Last edited:
Top