Central powers victorious Sweden, do they gain Finland?

Let's say that in this timeline, Russia preemptively attacks the Swedish Navy, sparking Sweden to declare war on Russia. For the sake of discussion, let's also say that the central powers win in this scenario [as if they lose, there isn't too much to talk about].

As part of the peace with Russia Sweden is granted Ösel, but what I'm having trouble with is the future of Finland. Specifically, which is more realistic; they directly annex the Grand Duchy of Finland, they gain Finland as a Client State, or a Independent Finland in personal Union with Sweden?

My knowledge on Sweden and Finland at the time isn't great, so I was hoping for some feedback on which option [or others I haven't thought of] is most realistic for Finland in a central powers victory.
 
Let's say that in this timeline, Russia preemptively attacks the Swedish Navy, sparking Sweden to declare war on Russia. For the sake of discussion, let's also say that the central powers win in this scenario [as if they lose, there isn't too much to talk about].

As part of the peace with Russia Sweden is granted Ösel, but what I'm having trouble with is the future of Finland. Specifically, which is more realistic; they directly annex the Grand Duchy of Finland, they gain Finland as a Client State, or a Independent Finland in personal Union with Sweden?

My knowledge on Sweden and Finland at the time isn't great, so I was hoping for some feedback on which option [or others I haven't thought of] is most realistic for Finland in a central powers victory.
The Swedes briefly controlled Finland after WWI but had no want to keep it (the Norway issue being fresh, the state of Finland economically, the differences culturally and linguistically, the potential ire of Russia once it recovered). I doubt they want the headache. Maybe a client state/satellite but they aren't annexing Finland.
 
Personal Union seems like the most plausable scenario; the Swedish-speaking elite in Finland were fond of the idea, and it would have allowed the Grand Duchy to slide alot of its institutions from the Czarist era over undisturbed which would appeal to the local powers-that be. Indeed, their practical autonomy is likely to expand in such a Union.
 
Personal Union seems like the most plausable scenario; the Swedish-speaking elite in Finland were fond of the idea, and it would have allowed the Grand Duchy to slide alot of its institutions from the Czarist era over undisturbed which would appeal to the local powers-that be. Indeed, their practical autonomy is likely to expand in such a Union.

My primary thought was a Personal Union mixed with minor border changes in Swedish favor such as Åland, maybe Enontekiö
 
Not any chances for even personal union. Finns wouldn't accept that (Swedish speakers were small minority) and after disastrous Sweden-Norway union Sweden not be willingful try that again with Finland. They even didn't want Finland back. Only area what Sweden would annex is Aland. Finland would become independent nation with Bernadotte king.
 
Why would a union with Norway be required for a union with Finland?
To show that the concept of personal union itself is viable. If Sweden attempts to form a personal union with Finland in a universe where Norway has separated from Sweden, opponents of a Swedish-Finnish union can just point to the failure of Sweden-Norway as an example of what Finland can expect from such an arrangement.

On the other hand, a Sweden-Norway which survives past 1905 is probably one where the disputes between the Swedish and Norwegian governments have been ironed out. I don’t know exactly what this would entail, but it would provide the basis for adding Finland into this union. Furthermore, it would be harder for opponents of a Swedish-Finnish union to make their case if there is already an example of a successful personal union in Sweden-Norway.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
My guess is Sweden would annex Åland, a member of the Swedish Royal house would be put on the Finnish throne, and a military alliance with Finland, that'd include naval cooperation in the Gulf of Finalnd, would be signed, as well as a customs union.

Though I don't think Sweden joining the Central Powers would change enough to make the Central Powers win, my usual question is more: how would Sweden be punished by a victorious Entente?
 
The Swedes briefly controlled Finland after WWI but had no want to keep it (the Norway issue being fresh, the state of Finland economically, the differences culturally and linguistically, the potential ire of Russia once it recovered). I doubt they want the headache. Maybe a client state/satellite but they aren't annexing Finland.

The bolded claim is a pretty odd one, to be honest. I am open to the argument that the Germans practically controlled Finland between May and November 1918, with German troops in the Finnish capital and German warships in the Helsinki harbor, but in no way could the same argument to be made about Sweden in the post-WWI period. After the Germans withdrew from Finland, the country was left to its own devices.

Generally I am of the same opinion as @Lalli and @yourworstnightmare above. Sweden does not have the muscle to annex Finland, or make Finland into an out and out client/satellite. The late 1910s is the high point of Finnish nationalism to date: trying to replace the Russian yoke with a Swedish leash (if a looser one) would be opposed by the majority of the Finns, rather militantly so. Any attempt to treat Finland in a high-handed, imperial fashion would only mean that the Finns would use what political power they have to appeal to the final authority in TTL's continental Europe: Berlin. And as the German interests don't always align with those of Stockholm, Berlin would also conceivably overrule Swedish actions in Finland at times. After all, ITTL it would not be as much that Finland is in the Swedish sphere, but that both Sweden and Finland are in the German sphere, Germany being the continental hegemon and Sweden a middling power at best.

So, an independent Finland possibly under a Swedish king, a king from another Scandinavian country, or a Finnish president, one with which Sweden has a number of deals and agreements that benefit Swedish trade and industry, and ones that safeguard Swedish (and Finland-Swedish) political and cultural rights in Finland. Sweden will exert influence in Finland, but only to an extent, to avoid a backlash grounded in Finnish nationalism and the fact that the power parity is not one between a great power and a small satellite but between a middling nation and a nation half its size. Sweden will have much more to gain from a Finland that is a friendly buffer between itself and Russia than from a Finland that is politically (if not practically) up in arms against Sweden. It is a good rule of thumb in this relationship that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar.
 
Last edited:
Though I don't think Sweden joining the Central Powers would change enough to make the Central Powers win, my usual question is more: how would Sweden be punished by a victorious Entente?

Not necessarility immediately but in some point it has effect. If Russians violate Swedish neutrality it might disattract USA joining to the war and it would be some kind of hit to morality of Entente. Italy might too opt stay out of the war. And Russians have deploy some troops to Finland so Germans and Austrians will have bit easier. And if Italy is out, Austrians have much easier when there is one front fewer to deal or even two fronts fewer if Romania decides stay neutral or join to CPs.

And in case that Entente would still win the war I don't think that Sweden would be punished very heavily. It was provocated to war so UK and France care to be very harsh. Hardly even Russians too if they are in negotiation table. Sweden might pay some reparations but hardly anything else when anyone hadn't any terrotorial claim. But details depends how Entente would win the war.
 
My primary thought was a Personal Union mixed with minor border changes in Swedish favor such as Åland, maybe Enontekiö

Aland and Enontekio are pretty solid changes, though as I think this through a lot depends on just how long/hard fought the victory is, just how much ground the Swedes are holding at war's end, and the state of affairs in Finland/who's holding power and how strongly. Other folk's thoughts on the matter reminded me there are certainly strong nationalist currents in Finland (though not exactly universal among the established elite, and I question how politically salient it would be to the average peasant), but the harder the sacrifices are in Sweden and the harsher Russian repression is on the population during the war (Similar to border minorities elsewhere) the more likely I think you'd see a closer bond between the two nations due to the purging of the more nationalistic Finns and a greater need fir economic recovery/support on the later side and rising demands on the former.
 
It just would be too hard make personal union between Sweden and Finland. Swedes had already failed with Norway and Norweigians are lingusitically almost same as Swedes. But Finnish language is not even in same language family and there was indeed so high nationalism that Swedes couldn't crush that. And in such war Russian empire would still collapse like in OTL and Finland declares independence so Swedes is not needful occupy whole Finland and they even can't do that. It would be last while before Swedes could even land to Finland, probably one year at least.

Best what Sweden could do is take Åland and get Finnish nationalist take Bernadotte king. Both would be still very satisfied altough some Finnish nationalists might not agree with lossing of Åland but even them has swallow that price against aid from Swedes.
 
The bolded claim is a pretty odd one, to be honest. I am open to the argument that the Germans practically controlled Finland between May and November 1918, with German troops in the Finnish capital and German warships in the Helsinki harbor, but in no way could the same argument to be made about Sweden in the post-WWI period. After the Germans withdrew from Finland, the country was left to its own devices.

Generally I am of the same opinion as @Lalli and @yourworstnightmare above. Sweden does not have the muscle to annex Finland, or make Finland into an out and out client/satellite. The late 1910s is the high point of Finnish nationalism to date: trying to replace the Russian yoke with a Swedish leash (if a looser one) would be opposed by the majority of the Finns, rather militantly so. Any attempt to treat Finland in a high-handed, imperial fashion would only mean that the Finns would use what political power they have to appeal to the final authority in TTL's continental Europe: Berlin. And as the German interests don't always align with those of Stockholm, Berlin would also conceivably overrule Swedish actions in Finland at times. After all, ITTL it would not be as much that Finland is in the Swedish sphere, but that both Sweden and Finland are in the German sphere, Germany being the continental hegemon and Sweden a middling power at best.

So, an independent Finland possibly under a Swedish king, a king from another Scandinavian country, or a Finnish president, one with which Sweden has a number of deals and agreements that benefit Swedish trade and industry, and ones that safeguard Swedish (and Finland-Swedish) political and cultural rights in Finland. Sweden will exert influence in Finland, but only to an extent, to avoid a backlash grounded in Finnish nationalism and the fact that the power parity is not one between a great power and a small satellite but between a middling nation and a nation half its size. Sweden will have much more to gain from a Finland that is a friendly buffer between itself and Russia than from a Finland that is politically (if not practically) up in arms against Sweden. It is a good rule of thumb in this relationship that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I swear I read somewhere that there was a brief spell where Sweden was offered the Finnish throne by the monarchists but declined. My mistake.
 
Working through the Germany does not invade Belgium scenario, I find the Russian attack on Sweden one of those "cannot be believed unless true departures", but if it occurs then we have Sweden a co-belligerent as I do not think they go full member of the CP. Here they commit more to "liberating" Finland as the Germans proceed to victory in the East. For the OP I think having Swedish rather than German troops do more, if not most, of the fighting to liberate Finland puts Finland in the Swedish orbit, something I think Germany would allow, by design or accident.

At most I could see some Swedish lesser aristocrat tapped to become figure-head King, but I think it is a flourish, the real links will be trade and to a lesser extent mutual defense. But that can grow in time. This Sweden will be less fully neutral now, more a "non-aligned" state, joining Finland into a separate sphere, trading heavily with Germany, navigating whatever Russian state emerges. Potentially you get a "neutral" Scandinavian union rising out of trade and to offset German strength, rope in the Danes, build links into German dominated Baltic states, especially Estonia, and you can remain unaligned but clearly valuable to Germany as a northern neutral shield and de facto partner in the bulwark against Russian revanche. Germany wants allies, or at minimum non-enemies, Sweden fits that, as does its sphere.

Now I think Norway stays aloof and more aligned towards Britain despite its likely strong trade with Germany, a weird neutral in the non-aligned sphere. Under my scenario I have the Belgians and Dutch form a more formal neutral alliance to reaffirm their status, squeezed between the Anglo-French and Germans, and thus pockmark Europe with these neutral spheres that hope to stay out of the German orbit despite its growing dominance economically or get shoved into war by the unrepentant French. As Russia returns to strength, either as the USSR or a right-led Republic, it should push more states to try to go neutral to stay out of the way, but Sweden will lead its group in deterring the Russians, by default helping Germany maintain the Baltic as a virtual safe lake. That should make Finland too dangerous to go to war with so the Finns should opt in.
 
I swear I read somewhere that there was a brief spell where Sweden was offered the Finnish throne by the monarchists but declined. My mistake.

I think there were some preliminary considerations for a Swedish royal for the Finnish throne in 1918, but they were then overshadowed by the view that a German royal would bring more benefits for Finland in terms of the support of a major power.

To be fair, in 2009 (how the time flies...) I did write a brief scenario about how a Swedish king of Finland came to be in an ATL. I'll reprise it here.


How the Kingdom of Finland Got Its King: A Timeline


March-April 1916: Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, the Grand Duke of Finland is deposed

April 3rd: By orders of the Provisional government, the Russian leaders of the Finnish Senate are arrested and sent to Petrograd

April 10th: The Provisional Government reaffirms Finnish autonomy

April 15th: The broad-based Tokoi senate appointed in Finland

April-May: The Parliament considers the question of highest power in Finland.

ITTL, the Swedish, together with the SFP and other conservatives have been conducting a PR campaign for Sweden and Finnish independence since 1915. By this time, most non-socialist parties have tilted a lot towards going for independence with Swedish support, when as the Social Democrats are divided and many of them maintain the opinion that the question should be put to the Provisional Government in Petrograd first before doing anything rash.

May 20th: The conservatives present "Lex Tulenheimo", the Power Act. It is accepted by 115 votes to 79, with the SDP group splitting half in the vote. The Parliament declares itself as the highest power in Finland; the SDP wants to have the Act affirmed in Petrograd.

May 31st: Without waiting the answer from Petrograd, conservative senators led by Tulenheimo present the Independence Act, which is accepted by an even smaller margin, 101 to 91. Social Democrats vote against it, and the Social Democratic senators walk out of the senate.

The SDP still considers the Provisional Government legitimate and see the move as unconstitutional, when as the conservative side has been radicalised by the Swedish (and by this time, German) goading and promises. The SDP would not be against eventual independence as such, mind you, but ITTL the events are moving too fast for them, and not being privy do to secret deals possibly made with the Central Powers, they do not grasp the full implications of the situation.

June 2nd: The conservative Setälä senate formed. As the first order of business, it declares Finland independent.

June: Russian units in Finland grow increasingly demoralized are in a process of breaking apart. Some are forming revolutionary councils, others are using their own initiative and withdrawing quietly towards Petrograd. Both the right and the left are forming militia units, at this point really as an effort to maintain order during the elections due in early July. Even so, both get into scuffles with each other and the Russians, even if it is nothing major yet.

The electoral campaign for the elections is started. The conservatives and the SFP use the proposed peace treaty as their electoral platform, advocating a strong Finland "from Hanko to Petsamo" in alliance with Sweden and Germany. The acceptance of a Swedish king is presented as a guarantee of security and a strong rule of law. Horror stories of the situation in Petrograd and the chaos in Russia are circulated as evidence that "the way of the SDP is the road to anarchy".

Where Swedish troops cross the border to Finland, they are treated as liberators. The conservatives ask the Swedish to make a landfall near Helsinki, but the Swedish command refuses because of the unclear status of the remaining Russian units at Krepost Sveaborg.

The conservative campaign features prominently several declarations ostensibly written by the official candidate for king, Prince Carl of Sweden. The declarations, beginning with "Long live Free and Independent Finland!" stress that the Prince will only accept the throne if the Finnish people so will, and that if he comes to Finland, he swears to protect the rights of the Finnish people, honor the legitimacy of the Parliament and "not to rule the Finns, but to rule with the Finns".

Both capital papers, the Hufvudstadsbladet and Helsingin Sanomat (and many provincial papers beside) are fully mobilized behind the royalist campaign. The SDP is painted as irresponsible, Russophile and revolutionary. Much is made about supposed coöperation between the socialist extremists and the Bolsheviks in Russia (of which at least some part is true).

Later historians will consider the conservative campaign wildly successful.


July 5th: The official results of the 1916 Parliamentary elections:

SDP 75 (-15)
Finnish Party 43 (+4)
Young Finns 32 (+3)
SFP 27 (+2)
Agrarians 24 (+6)

The results see a clear shift to the right. Comparatively, the biggest winner is the Agrarian League, which has benefited from the move wihin the moderate left to the centre. For the SDP, the result is catastrophic, their worst during the reformed Parliament. The turnout is exceptionally high (76,8%), and the increase appears to have benefited all the other parties but the SDP.

July 12th: A conservative-liberal senate is formed, led by Svinhufvud (Young Finns).

July: The tension between the Red and White militias nearly reaches crisis point. The left fringe of the SDP accuses the conservatives of election fraud, but can not prove the allegations. The Russian Fleet withdraws from Helsinki, and the different militias fall over themselves to hoard weapons left behind by the Russians.

Transport ships of the Swedish fleet arrive in Helsinki and bring along infantry units "to help the government to maintain the peace". The move is condemned by the left, while the conservatives have parties in celebration of the arrival of the Swedish army.

While the Parliament discusses land reform, demanded by both SDP and the Agrarians, the royalists led by Svinhufvud demand an election for a king, citing "an empty throne" as per the 1772 Instrument of Government.

The pieces are carefully set: behind the scenes, the Agrarians have been promised, "free hands" (within reason) in the land reform issue if they support the motion, whereas the liberals have been persuaded to join in support by promising them a strong say in drafting the new constitution. In the end, on August 5th, the Parliament decides to elect a king by 101-91, with an extremely narrow margin because in the event both the Young Finns and the AL show internal fractures.

On August 6th, Prince Carl of Sweden is unanimously elected the king of Finland by 101 votes, with the SDP and republican agrarians and liberals boycotting the vote. Because the 5/6 majority needed to make the decision into law is during the present term is not reached, the decision is left to rest over the next elections.

August 8th: The constitutional committee, led by Ståhlberg (Young Finn), begins to draft a proposal for a constitutional monarchy. (Which will favour the Parliament, IOTL Ståhlberg was a leading republican.)

August 15th: The SDP and the Unions declare general strike. Large socialist rallies in several towns. In Tampere, a Red guards unit opens accidentally fire on passing members of the bourgeois militia: 9 die in the exchange of fire. The senate urges restraint on all sides and mulls over a proposal to declare martial law.

August 22nd: In a daring move, Prince Carl arrives in Helsinki with additional Swedish military units, to the consternation of his advisors who consider the situation at the Finnish capital too dangerous. The Prince is determined to make a show of his support for the Finnish government and to get acquainted with his future domain. His arrival is kept as a secret.

Unfortunately, the same day has been chosen by the revolutionary wing of the SDP as the beginning of the takeover of the country. Led by Eino Rahja, a close associate of Lenin, the group plans to take Helsinki and by proclaiming a People's Republic there to turn the General Strike into a bona fide revolution.

At 6 p.m., the signal is given and the revolutionary Red Guards in Helsinki take the streets. At Market Square, the unit tasked to take control of the area runs into a Swedish contingent moving from the port towards Senate Square. A order to fire is made. The military entourage of Prince Carl returns fire: the Swedes manage to take cover while the Reds break off towards Kruununhaka. One of the Swedes is dead, two are injured: the Prince has caught a bullet in his arm, but is otherwise unscathed. The wound receives a field dressing, and the entourage reaches Government Palace without further interruptions.

In the capital as in other town in southern Finland the militias clash for days, with Swedish units aiding the White side - declared as government army. The conservative press sings the praises of the Prince, who is lauded as a martial hero. The Reds are accused of an attempt to "assassinate the future king of Finland" and condemned to the lowest levels of Hell. The Prince receives a huge boost of popularity, especially after he decides to act all modest and downplay his role in the fight against the revolutionaries.

In the end, the moderate SDP leadership denounces the insurrection and most socialist will have nothing to do with it. The revolution fizzles out by September 3rd, when the last Reds surrender at Hämeenlinna. About 300 people have lost their lives and a 600 or so injured: in comparison with OTL Civil War this insurrection is very limited. "Supreme Commander" Rahja himself is found dead, and most of the Red leaders arrested. Some of them are executed for treason, others go to prison.

In Helsinki, a victory parade is held: in effect, it becomes a celebration of the Prince. Carl himself decides to stay in Helsinki to await for the time his role is confirmed; he is also quite excited of the situation he finds himself in.

October 1st: The royalists choose to ride the wave of popularity. Svinhufvud, as Regent, uses his powers to dissolve the Parliament. He calls new elections to be held in February 1917. Svinhufvud cites the dissatisfaction of the working class and the doubts about the fairness of the previous elections as the main reasons behind the move, but generally most people see that the greatest reason for new elections is the need to clarify the situation with the governance of the country.

October-January: The electoral campaigns mirror those of the previous year, but now both sides aim for a more conciliatory tone. The conservatives call for a movement to unify the country under one strong leader: the role of the Prince in the recent events is reiterated time and time again. Prince Carl himself goes on tour of the regional centres, providing much good publicity for the royalist cause. The SDP campaign is muted: most importantly, the party majority tries to distance itself from the Red insurrection and professes its support for peaceful political development.

February 6th, 1917: The official results of the 1917 Parliamentary elections:

SDP 73 (-2)
Finnish Party 43 (0)
Young Finns 31 (-1)
SFP 27 (0)
Agrarians 26 (+3)

The Agrarians are again winners, but by and large the election confirms the previous year's result. Conservative-liberal senate is formed, led by Setälä (Finnish Party).

February 20th: The Parliament confirms Prince Carl as the King of Finland by 121 votes to 59. Some of the Social Democrats boycott the vote, but mostly because they dare not to vote against it due to the immense popularity of the Prince and the possible crisis that his rejection by the Parliament would cause.

March 15th, 1917: The coronation of Charles the First, King of Finland and Karelia, Grand Duke of Lapland, Lord of Kaleva and the North.
 
What would be the czar's motivation for attacking Sweden? The 'best' result for Sweden might actually be if this led to a world war or pan-European war earlier than the OTL WWI.

Let's say that the POD is that in this timeline, the ATL 'Dogger Bank incident' occurs earlier in the Skagerrak or just east thereof, with the Russian Baltic Fleet instead mistaking small fishing ships or other civilian vessels from Germany for Japanese torpedo boats. In the ensuing blind-firing, they hit one another as OTL in addition to sinking some German vessels.

Unlike OTL, when the Russians gave in to the British demands in a limited way and gave up some of the officers responsible and paid reparations, their admiralty might in this timeline opt to save face and insist that they did fight torpedo boats and claim that either Germany was harbouring Japanese torpedo boats or that it was German vessels they had fought.

During the ensuing standoff between the two empires, the captain of a Russian destroyer or torpedo boat mistakes the Norwegian naval jack of a vessel heading for Sweden's Berga naval base for the flag of the Kaiserliche Marine in the twilight. Believing that this is a German ship clearly out of German waters and part of a battlegroup preparing to attack St Petersburg while the bulk of the Baltic fleet is gone, he opens fire. Due to a combination of not expecting to be hit and sheer (bad) luck, the vessel starts sinking, but manages to radio for help. Nearby Swedish ships arrive in time to save at least some of the crew and some of them pursue the russian vessel to impound it and demand an answer. The belligerent captain instead decides to fight them, in the end being sunk after inflicting more damage.

With the first casualties being Norwegian, the war might breathe life into the personal union at least long enough that another personal union with Finland would at least be seriously considered.

Yes, this scenario requires the Russians to hold tightly onto an idiot ball, but in my defense their naval officers really did so OTL.
 
What would be the czar's motivation for attacking Sweden? The 'best' result for Sweden might actually be if this led to a world war or pan-European war earlier than the OTL WWI.

Let's say that the POD is that in this timeline, the ATL 'Dogger Bank incident' occurs earlier in the Skagerrak or just east thereof, with the Russian Baltic Fleet instead mistaking small fishing ships or other civilian vessels from Germany for Japanese torpedo boats. In the ensuing blind-firing, they hit one another as OTL in addition to sinking some German vessels.

Unlike OTL, when the Russians gave in to the British demands in a limited way and gave up some of the officers responsible and paid reparations, their admiralty might in this timeline opt to save face and insist that they did fight torpedo boats and claim that either Germany was harbouring Japanese torpedo boats or that it was German vessels they had fought.

During the ensuing standoff between the two empires, the captain of a Russian destroyer or torpedo boat mistakes the Norwegian naval jack of a vessel heading for Sweden's Berga naval base for the flag of the Kaiserliche Marine in the twilight. Believing that this is a German ship clearly out of German waters and part of a battlegroup preparing to attack St Petersburg while the bulk of the Baltic fleet is gone, he opens fire. Due to a combination of not expecting to be hit and sheer (bad) luck, the vessel starts sinking, but manages to radio for help. Nearby Swedish ships arrive in time to save at least some of the crew and some of them pursue the russian vessel to impound it and demand an answer. The belligerent captain instead decides to fight them, in the end being sunk after inflicting more damage.

With the first casualties being Norwegian, the war might breathe life into the personal union at least long enough that another personal union with Finland would at least be seriously considered.

Yes, this scenario requires the Russians to hold tightly onto an idiot ball, but in my defense their naval officers really did so OTL.

This could work, delaying the 1905 incident only a bit over a decade likely will result in a Personal union with Finland
 
This could work, delaying the 1905 incident only a bit over a decade likely will result in a Personal union with Finland

What there is difficult to understand? Finnish nationalists are not going accept any personal union with Sweden. For that you would need much earlier POD. Probably even POD before Crimean War. In 1905 it would be too late. And survival of Sweden-Norway union would need at least POD during Napoleonic Wars if not even something earlier. This would change our WW1 unrecognsible.
 
What there is difficult to understand? Finnish nationalists are not going accept any personal union with Sweden. For that you would need much earlier POD. Probably even POD before Crimean War. In 1905 it would be too late. And survival of Sweden-Norway union would need at least POD during Napoleonic Wars if not even something earlier. This would change our WW1 unrecognsible.

Are you serious; the idea that to make Sweden-Norway survive would require a POD almost a century prior to its dissolution is ridiculous. Also, more importantly, history shows that it doesn't really matter what the people want. Did Norway want to be under personal union? No, but Sweden held them down for a century and they were a lot better developed than Finland. Did Korea want to be annexed by Japan? No, but it happened anyway.

Victors in war don't often care about the people they plan to subjugate's opinions.
 
Top