Attempt to (yet another) United Scandinavia (NO WANK)

Okay so this is (yet another) attempt for a united Scandinavia/Nordic countries. I know there have been quite a few threads about it before but in my opinion most of them have either been wanks, unrealistic or unresolved. This is my attempt for an atleast semi-realistic Scandninavian union, born in the age of nationalism. The point of diversion is around 1864 but does not include Denmark winning the second S-H war.

November 1863: King Christian IX signs the November constitution, making the duchy of Schleswig a part of the Kingdom of Denmark both sharing succesion laws and parliament. This is seen as a violation of 1852 London Protocol.

December 1863: Danish soldiers move to the banks of the Eider to counter the German-support soldiers in Holstein. Sweden declares support of Denmark but doesn’t ship over troops to danish soil.

January 1864: Prussia and Austria sends ultimatum to Denmark. Sweden mobilizes it’s army and move into Denmark.

February 1864: Prussian soldiers enter Holstein. The danish army is pushed back from Kongehøj to Dannevirke where they are joined up by the swedish army. With the additional forces and pressure from swedish command the army tries to hold the Dannevirke.

March 1864: As the snow disappears the prussians begin a serious assault on the dannevirke. In a matter of hours the modern prussian artillery destroy the so-thought mighty defenses of Dannevirke, and then it’s stormed. The battle is a chrushing victory for the prussians who capture about one third of the danish army. The remaining army begins a retreat to Dybbøl.

April 1864: The danish-swedish forces entrench themself at Dybbøl. The will to fight is still high in Denmark but in Sweden government starts to lose faith in the war, seeing how technologically outmatched their soldiers are.

May 1864: Increased naval activity in the baltic sea disturbs Russian trade. The russians begin pressuring Sweden to pull out of the war. A conference is held in London and with the additional pressure from Sweden and indirectly Russia, Denmark reluctantly agrees to a partition of Schleswig-Holstein. A treaty is signed ending the war.

Now that was the easy part, i.e giving Denmark a what might seem to be a slightly better peace deal in Schleswig-Holstein. What could this mean in the aftermath? The moral was still high in Copenhagen and both the higher classes and people feel that the government gave up to early. This anger starts being directed towards the King Christian IX, who wasn’t very popular but most of all: German. General unrest and resent towards him starts rising, and it soon riots starts to break out in the country. The situation isn’t easened by the fact that a large part of what was the danish army is still in “captivity” in Germany and Austria. The riots start escalading and the people starts to demand the abdication of the King under the word of “Ud med tysken” (out with the german). Though Prussia highly dislikes this they have already been entangled in the Austro-Prussian war to prevent it. Sweden can’t do much either since their army is exhausted from the war. Britain doesn’t see it fitting to enter with forces in Denmark since they went to great lengths to be neutral in the war. Therefore the danish king has no choice but to accept the demands of the people and abdicate. The question now remains: Who is to be King of Denmark? The danes aren’t looking to create a republic since they at this point is one of Europe’s most democratic countries anyway and that wouldn’t be tolerated by the rest of Europe anyway. The people of Denmark chooses the King of Sweden to for a candidate. And even though the great powers of Europe don’t like the thought of one country controlling the entry to the baltic, they even less wish for an extended European conflict, either due to Danish revolutionary thought or having to invade Sweden to back down it’s claim. King Charles the 5th is crowned King of Denmark, there is now after 350 years, a united scandinavian kingdom.

What will happen later? Well since pan-scandinavian nationalism is bound to skyrocket in popularity after this it’s unlikely that Norway is as concerned about breaking free from the “New Calmar Union”. Industrialisation will come at about the same time as it did in OTL and the Kingdom will probably become more and more democratic (since the danes probably demands that atleast parts of the Danish constitution be incorporated in the Swedish-Norwegian). The new united kingdom is most likely neutral through WW1 like in OTL (they really don’t have a reason to join either side). In the aftermath of the war, if assuming it goes like in OTL, is however interesting: What will happen to Finland? In my opinon it’s not likely that they will want to join the union, seeing as Finnish nationalism was quite anti-swedish. The Åland crisis might play out differently, seeing as how the united Scandinavian government is bound to be more nationalistic than the one Sweden had in OTL. If it is pressured Åland might be allowed to self-determine who to belong to, and would most likely choose the Scandinavian union. Scandinavia might also be given back a little of Schleswig, though it is less likely.

What happens in WW2? This is where it gets REALLY interesting, seeing as all Scandinavian countries had quite different fates in OTL. I’d say the following scenarios are all within reason:

1) If Åland islands either isn’t allowed to self determine, or chooses to remain finnish, Scandinavia might make a deal with the Soviet Union and participate in a invasion (which might well lead to a partition, such as the one of Poland). The finns will unlikely be able to hold off both Scandinavia and the soviets, especially with the lack of swedish supplies. After the war, Scandinavia probably won’t be able to remain neutral.

2) If Åland islands becomes part of Scandinavia, a sort of friendship like that which happened between Finland and Sweden IOTL might happen. Scandinavia might declare war to support Finland against the soviets, which might make them join the axis in the same way Finland did (i.e sort of but not really). This probably won’t change a lot. Scandinavia will probably pull out of the war after operation Barbarossa, much like Finland did. If they don’t I doubt Scandinavia would be enough to stop the allies. Bombing and a possible invasion of either the allies or the soviets is possible. It probably leads to and end of the union after the war with Iceland being a indpendent republic, and Denmark, Norway and Sweden either being allied occupied or part of the soviet union (atleast for a while).

3) If Åland becomes part of Scandinavia but Sweden doesn’t help Finland, Hitler might feel the need to invade Scandinavia. This will probably only drain Nazi Germany even more (rebel activity in an occupied Sweden will likely be the same as it was in Norway, railroads will be blown ect to stop shipping of Iron), and the war will end like it did IOTL. Scandinavia might survive as a united kingdom in this timeline.

And after the war? Scandinavia is likely to join both EU and Nato (assuming those happens) and be quite like what it is today.

Am I reasonable in my assumptions? Did I manage not to make this into a wank? Are you all just tired of United Scandinavias? Please tell me, I’m eager to hear.

Valdemar
 
The easy part - he, he. Thanks for brushing off our efforts.
Now please tell us why the Swedish king and his government decides to join Denmark? :confused:
 
As a now relatively strong new player, Scandinavia indeed has one major incentive to participate in WW1*: Finland.

*If it's even going to happen, considering 50 years of butterflies.
 
Arctic: Quite the opposite, Denmark joins Sweden.

Edward: Well Sweden had kind of given up on Finland and started to stop viewing them as scandinavians. The scandinavian people wouldn't support a war in which they would work together with the country that sliced up Denmark, to incoprorate a few swedes and a lot of non-scandinavian finns.
 
The scandinavian people wouldn't support a war in which they would work together with the country that sliced up Denmark, to incoprorate a few swedes and a lot of non-scandinavian finns
Why shouldn't they? It's merely political pragmatism, there is no place for an ego. And there are many reasons why they would want to incorporate Finland, the secured coastline and strengthened influence in the Baltic Sea being the major one.
 
A scandinavian war for Finland could happen, but it wouldn't be part of WW1. Scandinavia wouldn't be a part of the central powers before the war and I find it unlikely that they would join as a offensive partner against the United Kingdom, which had quite good relations with Sweden and Denmark IOTL and therefore should have with Scandinavia. Finally Germany isn't as inclined to find more allies to fight on the eastern front for them since they alreadt outmatched Russia there and had another weapon to deal with them, i.e Lenin.

Also Finland at this time is very underdeveloped and poor, doesn't really provide much power in the baltic sea, the important ports were in Ingria and the baltic countries.
 
A scandinavian war for Finland could happen, but it wouldn't be part of WW1. Scandinavia wouldn't be a part of the central powers before the war and I find it unlikely that they would join as a offensive partner against the United Kingdom, which had quite good relations with Sweden and Denmark IOTL and therefore should have with Scandinavia. Finally Germany isn't as inclined to find more allies to fight on the eastern front for them since they alreadt outmatched Russia there and had another weapon to deal with them, i.e Lenin.
Scandinavia wouldn't even need to join Germany's side in the war, they could simply start their operations following the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, when Russia already couldn't properly defend herself.

Also Finland at this time is very underdeveloped and poor, doesn't really provide much power in the baltic sea, the important ports were in Ingria and the baltic countries.
Economically, it would take a few years to develop; but the economy isn't the deciding factor here. By pressing far enough east, Scandinavia could create a natural border with Russia that is short enough to properly defend it in a potential future conflict.
 
Arctic: Ah I see, joining the war you mean. I thoght you meant joining up as countries. Well historically Denmark and Sweden were "sort-of" allies and Sweden had kind of expressed support for Denmarks course. I admit that I haven't listed any real reason though, perhaps making an official alliance?

As for Norway I think that it wouldn't be as inclined towards getting independence since they would be a part of a union of all scandinavian cultures and therefore Scandinavism would probably grow stronger than Norwegian nationalism. It's not entirely gone but it's not strong enough to actually make Norway independent.
 
Arctic: Ah I see, joining the war you mean. I thoght you meant joining up as countries. Well historically Denmark and Sweden were "sort-of" allies and Sweden had kind of expressed support for Denmarks course. I admit that I haven't listed any real reason though, perhaps making an official alliance?

Ehm no. They wasn't allies in any sense though the peoples of both countries tried to make themselves belive so.
The way you've written the OP the major POD is that Charles 15 and his government decide to enter alliance - why would they do so? Lets have some reasoning on this issue.

On another matter you apparently had somebody else command the Danish army then de Meza - who?
Only some blockhead would stay put at Dannevirke to fulfill the stupid expectations of D.G. Monrad to lose a third of the army in the weather at the time.


As for Norway I think that it wouldn't be as inclined towards getting independence since they would be a part of a union of all scandinavian cultures and therefore Scandinavism would probably grow stronger than Norwegian nationalism. It's not entirely gone but it's not strong enough to actually make Norway independent.

Norway wanted to get out of the Union with Denmark before ending up in Union with Sweden 1814 so I don't see the Norwegians being any more inclined to stay put ITTL.
 
Arctic: Ah I see, joining the war you mean. I thoght you meant joining up as countries. Well historically Denmark and Sweden were "sort-of" allies and Sweden had kind of expressed support for Denmarks course. I admit that I haven't listed any real reason though, perhaps making an official alliance?

By "sort-of allies" do you mean the sort that holds the record for most wars fought with each other through history?
 
Oddly, while just playing CK2 as Ostandlet, I used my character, named Valdemar, to create the kingdom of Norway on exactly January 1, 900. Although 1000 years early, I shall now use him to create the Empire of Scandinavia! *evil laughter*

What a coincidence. Will be interesting, as all United Scandinavia (US) timelines use the Kalmar. Also, how is it more than a personal union, how is it a political one?
 
Arctic: Well there could be plenty of reasons for a union, a combination of pan-scandinavism (which of course would have to be stronger in this TL) and growing fear of losing influence in this new age of emerging superpowers.

Also as for Norway I have already stated why I think they would be less inclined to break the union, you may believe they would but to each their own.

As for the whole WW1 thing, seeing as the Scandinavian countries had literally nothing to do with it I don't see how it butterflies away it except for "But the sperm that would turn into Gavriel Princip would have to re-race against millions other".

Umbral: Yes Sweden and Denmark had a rough past, but their friendship had been constantly growing during the middle of the 19th century.
 
Arctic: Well there could be plenty of reasons for a union, a combination of pan-scandinavism (which of course would have to be stronger in this TL) and growing fear of losing influence in this new age of emerging superpowers.

Oh - there could be plenty. But really instead of a rough scetch like the OP you should work out the TL to make it a convincing scenario. Like writing what made the Swedes decide to support the Danes actively in their German war!
 
Arctic: Well there could be plenty of reasons for a union, a combination of pan-scandinavism (which of course would have to be stronger in this TL) and growing fear of losing influence in this new age of emerging superpowers.

Why would Sweden need Denmark for that? At least Norway had some strategic value being next to Sweden, having some ore and providing harbours other than to the baltic sea. Denmark has no resources, a poor agricultural economy, delusions of granduer and a border with Germany. Snatching Norway and leaving Denmark as a buffer towards mainland Europe would make some kind of sense, including Denmark as an equal partner in a union makes none.

The whole idea of pan-scandinavianism was mostly a figment of some young intellectuals' imagination. Denmark wanted to become a large empire again, expecting that a Scandinavian union would let itself be governed from copenhagen for no reason, the Swedes also wanted great power status but wanted a government in Stockholm. A "new Kalmar union" would give some seriously bad vibes towards Sweden, as the Kalmar union was bascially Danish imperialism towards Swden punctuatued with the bloodbath in Sotckholm. No way the Swedes would support anything like that.
 
Top