AHC/WI : No Norway/Sweden break-up in 1905.

What would have been necessary to prevent the dissolution of the union of both kingdoms in 1905?
I gather that the maintain of free trade would probably help, but which factors could prevent, not the rise of a popular Norwegian nationalism, but its triumph in 1905?

What would be the consequences of a maintained union? Would be it viable enough or it would have been only delayed for some years or decades (even with a XIXth-century PoD)?
 
If you change the structure of the Union to make it a unitary state like the U.K rather than a personal Union, then it might hold.
 
Is it possible to do so in the XIXth century, tough? I mean, not technically so, but would have it be doable politically?
 
It's rather strange but the issue that brings it to the surface is a dispute over Norwegian consuls in foreign embassies. Its really rather hard to understand just what foreign policy differences would exist- or that Sweden and Norway would even have foreign policies let alone differences in most of the world.

The King may have been able to head it off with some compromise of appointing Norwegians to foreign posts.

But if the countries lack a ommon market and a common foreign policy what could hold them together
 
If you change the structure of the Union to make it a unitary state like the U.K rather than a personal Union, then it might hold.
What? That's a terrible idea! The Norwegians would never have accepted to be fully integrated into Sweden and it would probably have led to an even quicker end to the Union. If anything, centralisation attempts by the King and their obstruction to reforms in Norway seriously alienated the Norwegians from the union. Plus, by the end of the Union, the Swedish conservatives were growing more and more militantly against Norwegian proposals. Eventually, both sides turn to their own nationalisms and were not interested in solving the Union's issues or thr Union in general.

It seems like the failure of the common market and the issue of the consulates were very important in killing the Union. Plus, early on, the issue of the Governor of Norway also seemed pretty significant.

In my opinion, the Union would have been more stable had the Swedish realm done the transition to parliamentarism and constitutionalism earlier. A more liberal Sweden would have been more keen to preserve the Union and see it as one of Equals rather than the Conservatives' attempt at subjugating Norway. Plusn the Norwegian liberals would have been less anti-union later on.

I think the only way to have had a unitary state would be to include Denmark and create a Scandinavian realm. Still, I think the Kingdoms would have absolutely needed a significant amount of autonomy in order to survive and br stable. However, 19th century Scandinavianism is a whole different story than the Swedish-Nowegian Union.
 
If you change the structure of the Union to make it a unitary state like the U.K rather than a personal Union, then it might hold.
The personal union is said to be a product of Bernadotte feeling that Sweden was too unstable with four of its previous top men being murdered or deposed, so instead of merging Norway with Sweden, he let the Norwegians keep their new separate system so he could have a secure realm somewhere if things got bad.

Before that, there was a war with Swedish forces attacking Norway, and their political objective should have been to make Norway a part of Sweden, since Swedish Pomerania had been incorporated administratively into Sweden by Gustavus IV a few years earlier, and Norway was first in exchange for that, although the Norwegian objections changed the circumstances.

What? That's a terrible idea! The Norwegians would never have accepted to be fully integrated into Sweden and it would probably have led to an even quicker end to the Union. If anything, centralisation attempts by the King and their obstruction to reforms in Norway seriously alienated the Norwegians from the union.
With a fully Swedish Norway, and no separate Norwegian institutions from 1814 onwards, it would not have been so easy to leave Sweden as ending the Union in 1905, even if most of the Norwegians wanted to. (Someone should make a timeline for that scenario.) Of course there would be local provincial administration under Sweden too, and if the Norwegian members of the Swedish parliament walks out and posit themselves as the Norwegian parliament, then we would have something of a 1905-situation, except that the Norwegian state would have to split from Sweden in a lot of small-scale cases that were already separate in OTL, such as dividing the military forces. (If ATL Sweden actually accepts separatism, that is.)

In my opinion, the Union would have been more stable had the Swedish realm done the transition to parliamentarism and constitutionalism earlier. A more liberal Sweden would have been more keen to preserve the Union and see it as one of Equals rather than the Conservatives' attempt at subjugating Norway. Plusn the Norwegian liberals would have been less anti-union later on.
If the Swedish revolutionaries of 1809 had been more like their Norwegian counterparts of 1814, this might have been the case.

EDIT: Now I saw that this was post 1900, with all cards being dealt, and all players as OTL, so ... darn, whatever could save the union then? Someone posits 1940 events before the Norwegians of 1905, so they decide to stay.
 
Last edited:
Top