Alternate History Idea- The Stockholm Union

What if in an alternate timeline, after the Napoleonic Wars, Russia gave Finland back to Sweden, but it still enters in a union with Norway, to create something of a United Scandinavia Peninsula, called the Stockholm Union, similar to that of the Kalmar Union. The Union excludes the Danes.

The main countries in this Stockholm Union are:
  • Kingdom of Sweden (Main leader)
  • Kingdom of Norway
  • Kingdom of Finland
 
Last edited:
What if in an alternate timeline, after the Napoleonic Wars, Russia gave Finland back to Sweden, but it still enters in a union with Norway, to create something of a United Scandinavia Peninsula, called the Stockholm Union, similar to that of the Kalmar Union. The Union excludes the Danes.

IIRC the Swedes were given Norway specifically because they had lost Finland. Even if this did occur, then we need to ask why Russia would do this as it would also have butterflies; do they gain more land elsewhere? Ignoring that, we would see a larger Swedish-Russian rivalry ITTL, Sweden would remain a prominent regional power and might actually implement a parliament to sooth the troubles with Norway. We also likely see Sweden participate in the Scramble for Africa if it does occur, likely taking areas akin to German interests, mainly Guinea, and East Africa.

We also might see a Sweden that is much less neutral in European affairs. They might take part in one of the Schleswig Holstein wars for example.
 
My favourite united Scandinavia scenario involves Oscar I of Sweden becoming king of Denmark in 1848, taking advantage of the succession crisis in Copenhagen - as a result of a different Schleswig-Holstein conflict - while giving Scania back to Denmark to make the union more palatable to the Danish. Norway is made a member state of the union, and given back the eastern provinces it had lost to Sweden in the Middle Ages, to prevent it from breaking away.

When Finland becomes independent, there is an exchange of land between Scandinavia and the new country - Åland and the Swedish-speaking bits of western and southern Finland to Sweden, Meänmaa to Finland; this exchange would be part of a defensive treaty between Finland and Scandinavia against Russia, not unlike the one between France and Sardinia-Piedmont against Austria, with Finland looking to gain Karelia with the help of the Scandinavians.
 
My favourite united Scandinavia scenario involves Oscar I of Sweden becoming king of Denmark in 1848, taking advantage of the succession crisis in Copenhagen - as a result of a different Schleswig-Holstein conflict - while giving Scania back to Denmark to make the union more palatable to the Danish. Norway is made a member state of the union, and given back the eastern provinces it had lost to Sweden in the Middle Ages, to prevent it from breaking away...

And the actual Swedish government is going to be willing to hand over these territories why exactly? This isen't the age of Swedish Absolutism: Oscar can't just sign over huge swaths of valuble territory to other countries merely because he happens to wear the crowns of both.
 
And the actual Swedish government is going to be willing to hand over these territories why exactly? This isen't the age of Swedish Absolutism: Oscar can't just sign over huge swaths of valuble territory to other countries merely because he happens to wear the crowns of both.

If the capital is kept in Sweden, the government could (key word, could) agree to the trade, since Sweden would become the dominant country of an even greater union. But it'd merely be a move that could be attempted only if the Danish were reticent, in a scenario with Sweden as a clearly dominant "Prussia" of sorts this wouldn't happen at all.
 
If the capital is kept in Sweden, the government could (key word, could) agree to the trade, since Sweden would become the dominant country of an even greater union. But it'd merely be a move that could be attempted only if the Danish were reticent, in a scenario with Sweden as a clearly dominant "Prussia" of sorts this wouldn't happen at all.

If, as the OP says, this is a Kalmar-style Union than we aren't talking a German Empire style Greater Sweden or USA style Federation. Rather, you have a common monarch/executive and unified forgein policy, full stop. Sweden being "dominant" has little practical benefit, and I'd argue Denmark actually stands a solid chance if they get Scania and retain more of S-H of getting that dominant position, and at the very least will be co-equal in terms of directing the common military and forgein policy (especially if the Union has colonial efforts, being their starting colonial territories are under the Danish crown)
 
Part 2
I realized I should clarify more about this scenario
  1. The Russians give back Finland, but keeps Karelia
  2. Finland is elevated to a Kingdom
  3. It's sort of like the Old Kalmar Union, only it's dominated by the Swedish Crown
  4. The king of Sweden is also the King of Norway, and King of Finland
  5. Denmark is excluded from this Union, and remains out of the Stockholm Union
upload_2018-11-6_15-59-51.png


Possibly Flag
upload_2018-11-6_16-2-39.png
 
Last edited:
In case your wondering why Denmark is excluded from the Stockholm Union, it’s because since the Swedes didn’t like Danish domination under the Kalmar Union, I wouldn’t think the Danes would like being under Swedish Domination under the Stockholm Union.

If the Danes do want to join the Union it would have to be around and 1840s and before 1864
 
In case your wondering why Denmark is excluded from the Stockholm Union, it’s because since the Swedes didn’t like Danish domination under the Kalmar Union, I wouldn’t think the Danes would like being under Swedish Domination under the Stockholm Union.

If the Danes do want to join the Union it would have to be around and 1840s and before 1864

If you have such a powerful Pan-Scandinavian force (Given the Swedish crown was actually somewhat supportive of it, but very limited due to the annoyance promiting such a policy would have on Finland), then the Danes might get pulled into at least an alliance and customs union in the face of increasing Germanic pressure on the Slesvig-Holstien issue and public sentiment. What I'm really confused about is this: is this just a personal union, a federation, or a unitary state?
 
IIRC the Swedes were given Norway specifically because they had lost Finland. Even if this did occur, then we need to ask why Russia would do this as it would also have butterflies; do they gain more land elsewhere?

Russian-Finnish acquisition of Finland (1809) predated Swedish-Norwegian union and the reason for it was not a wish to get piece of a territory but rather a wish to stop once and forever the Swedish military threat to St-Petersburg which was regularly happening when Russia was distracted by some other war. Taking into an account that Finland was routinely used as a base for the Swedish armies its conquest and making Finland an autonomous Grand Duchy was a logical way to solve this problem.

Ignoring that, we would see a larger Swedish-Russian rivalry ITTL, Sweden would remain a prominent regional power and might actually implement a parliament to sooth the troubles with Norway.

With the exception of the consideration mentioned above, there was no real "rivalry" between Sweden and Russia in the early XIX: the resources had been too different and Russia did not have any special interests in the region. AFAIK, both Sweden and Norway did have parliaments at the time in question so the meaning of "implement a parliament" is not quite clear.


We also likely see Sweden participate in the Scramble for Africa if it does occur, likely taking areas akin to German interests, mainly Guinea, and East Africa.

How possession of Finland would convert Sweden into an aggressive colonial power is anybody's guess (by whatever reason it did not have this magic effect upon the Russian empire :winkytongue:). In OTL Sweden was not even interested in holding Guadeloupe: its finances were in such a lousy shape that any cash was welcomed. German Empire (which was the Great Power, not a regional one) entered colonial race quite late and AFAIK almost exclusively due to the prestige considerations (Bismark argued that that the burden of obtaining and defending them would outweigh the potential benefits) which even extended Sweden would not have the reason for the colonies acquisitions are unclear and probably can be safely discounted as a pure fantasy.

We also might see a Sweden that is much less neutral in European affairs. They might take part in one of the Schleswig Holstein wars for example.

In OTL Swedish volunteers participated in both Schleswig Holstein wars.
 
If the capital is kept in Sweden, the government could (key word, could) agree to the trade, since Sweden would become the dominant country of an even greater union. But it'd merely be a move that could be attempted only if the Danish were reticent, in a scenario with Sweden as a clearly dominant "Prussia" of sorts this wouldn't happen at all.

Even less sense in giving away something and the fact that Oscar is also a king of something else hardly would be a convincing reason for the Swedish Riksdag. Not even sure that the whole idea of the union with Denmark would be excessively popular in Sweden of the mid-XIX.
 
My favourite united Scandinavia scenario involves Oscar I of Sweden becoming king of Denmark in 1848, taking advantage of the succession crisis in Copenhagen - as a result of a different Schleswig-Holstein conflict - while giving Scania back to Denmark to make the union more palatable to the Danish. Norway is made a member state of the union, and given back the eastern provinces it had lost to Sweden in the Middle Ages, to prevent it from breaking away.

When Finland becomes independent, there is an exchange of land between Scandinavia and the new country - Åland and the Swedish-speaking bits of western and southern Finland to Sweden, Meänmaa to Finland; this exchange would be part of a defensive treaty between Finland and Scandinavia against Russia, not unlike the one between France and Sardinia-Piedmont against Austria, with Finland looking to gain Karelia with the help of the Scandinavians.
Åland for Meänmaa exchange could potentially be justified on nationalistic grounds (also orealtough it would make defence of finnish coast more difficult. Åland and large areas in the south and west (most populous and prosperous regions of the country) for Meänmaa (practically empty bog) would be a national suicide, ore or not. Not all that feasible, IMO.
 
Åland for Meänmaa exchange could potentially be justified on nationalistic grounds (also orealtough it would make defence of finnish coast more difficult. Åland and large areas in the south and west (most populous and prosperous regions of the country) for Meänmaa (practically empty bog) would be a national suicide, ore or not. Not all that feasible, IMO.

Doesn't Meänmaa have some natural resources like coal in it? There was another thread on here in which the region was discussed...
 
Doesn't Meänmaa have some natural resources like coal in it? There was another thread on here in which the region was discussed...
There is valuable iron mines in the region, but I'm not sure even that would've made up for the lost territories. By taking away the areas which had major swedish speaking populations in the early to mid 1800's you're taking away something like a quarter of the total population (plenty of finnish speakers mixed in), most of the top cities (unless you leave enclaves) and majority of both intelligentsia and capital and also big part of the best farmland. Population is very lopsided in favour of south in Finland. This is a modern map, so it's not one on one aplicable, but gives a good idea. Each colour is 25% of the population. https://goo.gl/images/YgW9mA
 
Last edited:
There is valuable iron mines in the region, but I'm not sure even that would've made up for the lost territories. By taking away the areas which had major swedish speaking populations in the early to mid 1800's you're taking away something like a quarter of the total population (plenty of finnish speakers mixed in), most of the top cities (unless you leave enclaves) and majority of both intelligentsia and capital and also big part of the best farmland. Population is very lopsided in favour of south in Finland. This is a modern map, so it's not one on one aplicable, but gives a good idea. Each colour is 25% of the population. https://goo.gl/images/YgW9mA

The Finns giving up the southern areas mentioned for Meänmaa would be in economic terms comparable to Sweden handing away Stockholm or Gothenburg with its environs for a part of Norwegian Finnmark. I agree with you: even if the areas up north have valuable resources to be mined, the Finns would not stomach that kind of a land swap.
 
Top