AHC: Nordic Federation

You mean Nordic Federation with 1946 by 2018? Quiet difficult if not impossible I think. At least Sweden and Finland as neutral nations would be in strange light when they would be in federation with NATO countries. And Finland should firstly get out Soviet influence. Perhaps something EU type thing is possible but I doubt that federation is possible. Perhaps in future but not between 1946 - 2018.
 
Have Norway and Denmark decide to embrace a Nordic Federation post ww2 instead of turning toward NATO. The Nordic countries would form this federation inorder to remain neutral, atleast nominally.
 
Have Norway and Denmark decide to embrace a Nordic Federation post ww2 instead of turning toward NATO. The Nordic countries would form this federation inorder to remain neutral, atleast nominally.

Could Norway and Denmark trust the notoriously neutral Sweden to help them against the USSR if push came to shove? Why would they choose Sweden over *NATO (especially as they remember their experience with the German occupation rather acutely)?

At the very least, the USSR would not allow Finland to join such a federation with the Nordic states after WWII. Moscow would see it as just an intermediate stage before said federation aligns itself with *NATO.
 
Could Norway and Denmark trust the notoriously neutral Sweden to help them against the USSR if push came to shove? Why would they choose Sweden over *NATO (especially as they remember their experience with the German occupation rather acutely)?

At the very least, the USSR would not allow Finland to join such a federation with the Nordic states after WWII. Moscow would see it as just an intermediate stage before said federation aligns itself with *NATO.
The Norwegian labor party was split among those who wished to join NATO and those who wished to remain neutral. The post-war prime minister(Einer Gerhardsen) was left leaning on matters of foreign policy, and may have wished to pursue a non-alligened policy during the coldwar. Haakon Lie is often credited to have convinced Einar that going west was best for Norway.
https://snl.no/Einar_Gerhardsen
https://snl.no/Haakon_Lie
 
Again, how do you convince Norway to go into a union with a country that they voted overwhelmingly to split from 40 years earlier? The scandinavians have very different internal and foreign politics. Integrating them into one state makes little to no sense from a cultural, historical, political or economic standpoint.
 
The Norwegian labor party was split among those who wished to join NATO and those who wished to remain neutral. The post-war prime minister(Einer Gerhardsen) was left leaning on matters of foreign policy, and may have wished to pursue a non-alligened policy during the coldwar. Haakon Lie is often credited to have convinced Einar that going west was best for Norway.
https://snl.no/Einar_Gerhardsen
https://snl.no/Haakon_Lie

To be fair, what we are talking about here is not Norway being neutral. It is Norway joining a foreign alliance, just a smaller and weaker one than NATO.
 
Sweden, Denmark and Norway actually had serious discussions about a military alliance and a synchronised foreign, monetary and trade policy (which would qualify as a federation in the broadest sense of the word) in the 1940s. Finland was not allowed to join the discussions due to the peace treaty with the Soviet Union.

The talks eventually floundered because Sweden wanted the alliance to be non-aligned or neutral, while Denmark and eventually Norway wanted it to join NATO or at least be aligned with NATO.

Norway would resent being controlled from Stockholm, but the discussed alliance was to be of equal parties, which they would have been OK with.

You can get the Nordic federation to work if;

1. Finland has a different peace treaty with the Soviets, or the Soviets actively encourages Finland to join a non-aligned Nordic alliance (using it to keep NATO out of the Nordic countries).
2. Norway and Denmark for some reason trusts that Sweden will actually help them and/or being non-aligned/neutral is a better idea.
3. Sweden decides that while neutrality worked out in ww2, it will not in the next war and wants to join NATO too.
 
To be fair, what we are talking about here is not Norway being neutral. It is Norway joining a foreign alliance, just a smaller and weaker one than NATO.
Neutral in that this alliance would not be NATO alligned or Soviet alligned. Unofficaly this alliance might be pro-Nato though, there may also be a push for NATO membership.

Allthough from a economic and cultural point of view, this Nordic federation would likely have stronger ties to the West than to the Soviet led block.
 
Again, how do you convince Norway to go into a union with a country that they voted overwhelmingly to split from 40 years earlier? The scandinavians have very different internal and foreign politics. Integrating them into one state makes little to no sense from a cultural, historical, political or economic standpoint.
Some people claim that Danish, Norwegian and Swedish really is one language.

The Nordic federation would be more economically diverse and therefore less dependent on few exports(oil, gass).

The Nordic federation would have more strategic depth than what was prior.

Maybe some of the proponents believed that a Nordic federation being non-alligened would allow them to form strong economic ties with the West and the Soviet sphere?
 

Devvy

Donor
A Nordic Economic Community was on the cards in the 1960s/70s, as a Nordic version of the EEC. An NEC if you will. A fully single market built on top of the already existing Nordic Passport Union which granted freedom of movement for people (and fast-tracked citizenship!). Such a union might easily have come about; the two main reasons it fell through were Norwegian worries over Swedish industry dominating the tiny Norwegian industry (in the days before North Sea oil & gas, which would have easily balanced things out), and the Finnish-Soviet peace treaty (which funnily enough didn't stop the Soviets creating the Warsaw Pact, but it's not surprising the Soviets didn't see the terms as really applying to them, only to Finland).

If it's clear from any "Nordic Economic Community Treaty" that Finland at least will remain fully neutral and it's a primarily economic agreement, then I think you could perhaps swing it (and bonus for the Soviets you might get a fully neutral Nordic region which would be interesting for them). Part of the Norwegians desire was a 5-10 year phase-in process, allowing Norwegian industry to gradually acclimatise to the wider market and competition. That would also bring the time for oil & gas forward, which would balance the equation. I think you'd have a full single market, perhaps a unified currency, a Nordic Parliament. Similar to the EU, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it would probably evolve in to a Nordic Federation, with closer links between the 4 military forces (none to worry about in Iceland...), co-ordination in much of foreign policy (reasonably easy considering the similar policy positions generally), etc etc.

Estonia would probably argue for joining, which if it was successful would probably be followed by Latvia and maybe Lithuania, but I think all three would be a bit much for the Nordics to swallow; they aren't really cultural brethren, have significant Russian minorities, and don't speak a Nordic language. However, I'd imagine the Nordic business groups lobbying for it as it would present new ground for business in.

Again, how do you convince Norway to go into a union with a country that they voted overwhelmingly to split from 40 years earlier? The scandinavians have very different internal and foreign politics. Integrating them into one state makes little to no sense from a cultural, historical, political or economic standpoint.

The Scandinavians/Nordics have different politics, but are cut from the same cloth generally. A similar general outlook on politics and society (the Nordic model / social democracy), significant neutral leanings even in Iceland and Norway which are NATO members, a desire to work together as evidenced in the 20th Century by negotiations over a Nordic Community and the latter Nordic Council in OTL, and even the Norwegian anthem refers to the Scandinavian three brothers. I think Norwegian concerns are more over being dominated by Sweden, rather than a desire to avoid any union. Similar to Ireland and the UK - Ireland has absolutely no wish to be ruled by the UK, but is happy to be in the same overarching union (the EEC/EU) with all it's benefits.
 
The major difference in politics is demographics as well as social background. The problem with the economics is that again norway will have (legit) fears that the system will have major bias for sweden and denmark in regards to exports. The discovery of oil will only inflame that, not balance it as it again puts norway in a very seperate position from sweden and denmark.

Then there is convincing the norwegian population. Something like this would require a referendum. Which if the 3 similar referendums (Union, EFTU and EU membership) are anything to go by will be voted down. There would especially be a lot of hard feelings towards sweden.
 
Top