PC for a united Scandinavia

[DrakonFin]

Nobody cares about what Finland wants because if they want to come with they have to prove to the bigoted Swedes that they are not a bunch of primitive poor uneducated Russian peasants that like to drink kosinkorva and fight whit knifes. (I don’t want to make any Finns angry but these were the common stereotypes of Finnish people in Sweden long into the 70is in Sweden).

If it has been a Finnish problem to be envious of Swedish wealth and comparative position in the world, that attitude towards the Finns would be the Swedish problem. It would be very hard to pull Finland into a Nordic cooperation if Sweden continues to belittle Finland and Finnish wants/needs. In terms of foreign politics and in terms of, say, economy and culture.

The whole Åland debacle is a case in point: to gain a flyspeck of a province, the Swedish government was ready to piss off a large part of the population of its new independent neighbour. Trying to gain the islands was hardly prudent policy, in diplomatic terms. But if the Swedish polical elite thinks the Finns are nothing but a bunch of illiterate peasants and maybe even that Finnish independence from Russia is only a temporary situation, how could we make them take Finland and working with the Finns (in good faith) seriously?

Is there anybody that have any Idea how the other Nordic countries SDPs could help Oskari Tokoi navigate away Finland from the abyss of Civil war?

The problem, basically, was that there was a military/police vacuum in Finland. The Russian state had abolished the Finnish military and when Russia itself descended into chaos, it could not keep order in Finland. Rebelling Russian sailors were running around Helsinki killing their officers and nobody felt safe on the streets. The formation of the bourgeois Civil Guards and the Socialist Order Guards (later Red Guards) was a direct consequence.

So, while it is hard to avoid the civil war altogether, there are ways to make it almost a non-event. For example, I have seen it suggested that if we could find a way of making the SDP a part of the first Svinhufvud senate, the so-called independence senate, in the event of a Red rebellion the party would have split up into pro- and anti-government factions. When IOTL the extremists basically hijacked the whole party organization, in this ATL case the SDP moderates like Tanner could have marginalized the left fringe and worked together with the bourgeois parties to put down the revolt.

"Tanner" would have been known as a similar derogatory term as "Noske" was among the far left in Finland, but the war itself could have been just a couple of battles in the bigger towns and might have ended in a couple of weeks. Avoiding the OTL escalation and radicalization on both sides would have worked immensely in Finland's favour.

 

[stjernkjempe]

If it has been a Finnish problem to be envious of Swedish wealth and comparative position in the world, that attitude towards the Finns would be the Swedish problem. It would be very hard to pull Finland into a Nordic cooperation if Sweden continues to belittle Finland and Finnish wants/needs. In terms of foreign politics and in terms of, say, economy and culture.

The whole Åland debacle is a case in point: to gain a flyspeck of a province, the Swedish government was ready to piss off a large part of the population of its new independent neighbour. Trying to gain the islands was hardly prudent policy, in diplomatic terms. But if the Swedish polical elite thinks the Finns are nothing but a bunch of illiterate peasants and maybe even that Finnish independence from Russia is only a temporary situation, how could we make them take Finland and working with the Finns (in good faith) seriously?




The problem, basically, was that there was a military/police vacuum in Finland. The Russian state had abolished the Finnish military and when Russia itself descended into chaos, it could not keep order in Finland. Rebelling Russian sailors were running around Helsinki killing their officers and nobody felt safe on the streets. The formation of the bourgeois Civil Guards and the Socialist Order Guards (later Red Guards) was a direct consequence.

So, while it is hard to avoid the civil war altogether, there are ways to make it almost a non-event. For example, I have seen it suggested that if we could find a way of making the SDP a part of the first Svinhufvud senate, the so-called independence senate, in the event of a Red rebellion the party would have split up into pro- and anti-government factions. When IOTL the extremists basically hijacked the whole party organization, in this ATL case the SDP moderates like Tanner could have marginalized the left fringe and worked together with the bourgeois parties to put down the revolt.

"Tanner" would have been known as a similar derogatory term as "Noske" was among the far left in Finland, but the war itself could have been just a couple of battles in the bigger towns and might have ended in a couple of weeks. Avoiding the OTL escalation and radicalization on both sides would have worked immensely in Finland's favour.

Yeah the colonial attitude towards Finns in Swedish history is troublesome when it comes to our relationship. If that would have been less of a problem I think Sweden and Finland would have had much deeper connections faster and earlier after its independence. Not trying to dictate demands about Aland would help immensely too. But Aland issue has to be solved and Sweden wants it badly. If Finland could live whit a referendum there and accept the outcome it would help, if Sweden could make Finland think it’s where their idea to hold the referendum it would be better.

The lack of law and policing issue gives me an idea of butterflies. If Sweden feels the political situation on the home front is more secure (no food riots, less mass demonstrations etc) from getting a bit more food shipments from UK (UK trying to coax Sweden into defending Denmark against Germany from the original POD) then Sweden might feel it have spare police (and military) resources to lend the Finish parliament to keep order in its biggest cities. Come civil unrest and a calmer Sweden and more troops and policemen are sent to Finland.

This earlier contact whit Finland and the Finish would make wonders in setting the bigoted picture of Finns straight. After all prejudices about finish people diminished greatly in Sweden during WW2 when we received a lot of refugees and sent volunteers to the finish winter war. An earlier broad contact and medial awareness of our brothers in East would make the policy towards Finland different in the interwar years. Then not having a situation where Swedish timber workers feels they have to compete whit Finnish timber workers against the lumber industries interests in the interwar years should make for less prejudices against Finnish people over all. It’s not going to go away entirely that fast but we don’t have to put gasoline on the fire, like how the whole playing out Swedish lumber workers against Finnish lumber workers in the late 20is.

 

[DrakonFin]

Not trying to dictate demands about Aland would help immensely too. But Aland issue has to be solved and Sweden wants it badly. If Finland could live whit a referendum there and accept the outcome it would help, if Sweden could make Finland think it’s where their idea to hold the referendum it would be better.

You know if Sweden managed to force referendum in Åland, it is quite possible that Finland would demand the same in the Finnish/Finnic meänkieli speaking areas in Sweden just across the Tornio/Torne River. And in return Sweden might again look at other Swedish-speaking areas in Finland. Looking at it from a certain angle this might be logical, but such escalation in nationalist and irredentist policies would not help either country. The result could only be rising anti-Swedish sentiments in Finland and an anti-Finnish feeling in Sweden.

We are after all talking about a period where Finnish nationalists were hopped up on on the glorious struggle for independence and were dreaming about a Greater Finland and entertaining pan-Finnic aspirations. Sweden might be courting trouble if it fans those flames by its own expansionism and pushes Finns into irredentist radicalization.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Yeah the colonial attitude towards Finns in Swedish history is troublesome when it comes to our relationship. If that would have been less of a problem I think Sweden and Finland would have had much deeper connections faster and earlier after its independence. Not trying to dictate demands about Aland would help immensely too. But Aland issue has to be solved and Sweden wants it badly. If Finland could live whit a referendum there and accept the outcome it would help, if Sweden could make Finland think it’s where their idea to hold the referendum it would be better.

Well the Åland question can be easily summarized like this from the perspective of Finland, Sweden and of course the Ålanders.

Finland: Åland was a part of Finland since the Middle Ages because it had been a part of the Åbo Church district. The Åland archipelago also almost was really a continuation of the Turku archipelago. And the fact that the Åland Islanders spoke Swedish was not unique in Finland, there were and are several Swedish speakers in Finland. But MOST IMPORTANTLY: givng up territory would give the wrong signal to the Russians.

The Ålanders: The slogan was: "Finland free and Åland Swedish". The Ålanders had been a part of the movement for an independent Finland, but now they felt threatened by the Finnish language and by revolutionary socialism (Finnish Civil War, Russian revolution). A return to the safe arms of Mother Svea suddenly became desirable. That's why the Ålanders wanted a reunification with Sweden.

Sweden: Of course the whole "Ålanders are Swedish" thing became important. But likewise Sweden wanted good relations with the new Finland. They had welcomed a independent Finland because then they wouldn't border Russia anymore, and especially the new Bolshevik Russia was scary. But what if Finland didn't survive? What if the Russians reconquered it? What if there suddenly was a Red Naval Base on the Åland Islands? A direct threat to Stockholm. Perhaps it was best to claim the islands just in case...

 

[DrakonFin]

But MOST IMPORTANTLY: givng up territory would give the wrong signal to the Russians.

This is a good point. It is something one must keep in mind especially in 1917-20, or for any ATL period where this newly independent Finland has not yet negotiated its borders with an in-control Russian government. Finland can't appear so weak as to just give up whole provinces as soon as somebody comes asking.

 

[stjernkjempe]

You know if Sweden managed to force referendum in Åland, it is quite possible that Finland would demand the same in the Finnish/Finnic meänkieli speaking areas in Sweden just across the Tornio/Torne River. And in return Sweden might again look at other Swedish-speaking areas in Finland. Looking at it from a certain angle this might be logical, but such escalation in nationalist and irredentist policies would not help either country. The result could only be rising anti-Swedish sentiments in Finland and an anti-Finnish feeling in Sweden.

We are after all talking about a period where Finnish nationalists were hopped up on on the glorious struggle for independence and were dreaming about a Greater Finland and entertaining pan-Finnic aspirations. Sweden might be courting trouble if it fans those flames by its own expansionism and pushes Finns into irredentist radicalization.

I agree but it’s mighty hard to keep Swedish hands off Aland and it was a pretty big thing in Sweden at this time (1917-1920). There is not only Nationalisms in this it’s also a lot of egos and lingering bad feelings from when Norway slipped away.

Are we trying too hard to get the Finnish into a Nordic union to fast? Isn’t this really the problem? As you point out there might lead to escalation’s of territory demands and that could end up ugly for Finland if it’s find itself divided up between Soviet Union and Sweden in a worse civil war scenario (where Sweden persuade Germany to keep out if its interests in Finland using its trade as barging chip. I think most Swedish speaking areas would go to Sweden and the rest would be a Finish SSR in Soviet Union). Nationalism is such an ugly thing and Sweden had it in surplus and has always had a bit too much of it come to Finland. The only two likely Scenarios for Sweden to go to war (and not be forced into war) is either to defend Finland or to gain territory from Finland and that is not a healthy relationship whit a country.

But a Swedish Soviet border in today’s Finland would make Sweden looking harder for friends and partners during the interwar period. Joining up whit Denmark and Norway might seem like a good idea in such a case and Norway and Denmark might get a bit more equal footing against Sweden this way.

Basically I see Sweden as a sometimes bullying bigger brother of the Nordic countries. It harass or plays all high and mighty to the others but would rush to defend them against enemies if they are not to scary (like Germany, Germany is really scary). It can play nice whit them as long as it gets its entire ego soothed etc. Hundred years on and it has not entirely forgotten its empire. It’s only a short time ago the comfort blanket Norway were taken away from them (you know the country that had to replace the loss of Finland so Sweden had not to face entirely that it were a small country whit no army, gained on expanse of Denmark because we could kick them when they were down).

 

[Olligarchy]

Snip

You make the Swedes sound like such a horrible people I wonder if the Finns wouldn't be better off with the Nazis to begin with. The only problem with the Swedes bullying everyone into a Federation is that whilst it's larger than the other countries, it's not large enough to fully dominate them. As you yourself said, they have no military and assuming they don't try to kick the Finns during civil war wouldn't like the results of attacking during WWII when Finland is pretty much a German staging point, especially given that the Germans are probably willing to take any excuse to just take over the Swedes too.

Whilst during the interwar period monarchism starts to weaken quite a lot, maybe the Swedes would be willing to try and play the old marriage game? Having princesses and princes married to each kingdom, and maybe just being nice to the Finns who would've sold their soul to have Swedish troops on their eastern borders would go much further than trying to browbeat two countries that just became independent (Finland and Norway) and your age old Rival (Denmark). If the Swedes are cool with that, I figure they could form the federation soon after the War ends, or maybe even during it as some sort of "emergency council" that would unite the nordics more for defense purposes?

 

[DrakonFin]

As you point out there might lead to escalation’s of territory demands and that could end up ugly for Finland if it’s find itself divided up between Soviet Union and Sweden in a worse civil war scenario (where Sweden persuade Germany to keep out if its interests in Finland using its trade as barging chip. I think most Swedish speaking areas would go to Sweden and the rest would be a Finish SSR in Soviet Union). Nationalism is such an ugly thing and Sweden had it in surplus and has always had a bit too much of it come to Finland. The only two likely Scenarios for Sweden to go to war (and not be forced into war) is either to defend Finland or to gain territory from Finland and that is not a healthy relationship whit a country.

But a Swedish Soviet border in today’s Finland would make Sweden looking harder for friends and partners during the interwar period. Joining up whit Denmark and Norway might seem like a good idea in such a case and Norway and Denmark might get a bit more equal footing against Sweden this way.

It think this might be an unlikely scenario without an early POD, considering how little the Bolsheviks could spare troops to Finland during the OTL civil war. Let us remember, too, that if the Swedish intervention comes while WWI is still being actively fought, Sweden has the full possibility to be preceived to be an actual German ally and to end up fighting the Anglo-French too. Not a highly desirable option for Stockholm, I'd say.

More likely is that such a nationalist territorial demand-fest ends in Åland going to Sweden and both Finland and Sweden trying top set up separatist movements in the Tornio/Torne River valley and the western coast areas, respectively. Ones that don't actually lead to more territory changes, but make internal politics more confused and partisan in both countries. And Finland seems weakened to the Soviets at an alt-Tartu, leading to a smaller Finland possibly with no Petsamo or borders closer to the 1940 Moscow Peace ones. More support for the Viena, Aunus etc. expeditions and a more militant nationalist right. Perhaps move into authoritarian right-wing government instead of democracy come the 20s and 30s. Possibly actual persecution of Swedish-speakers.

We might consider something of a curve ball here, too: things progress as per OTL until late 1918 when the Swedish manage to push through a referendum in Åland, which in turn radicalizes the national opinion in Finland, allowing for intervention in Russia. Mannerheim gets his go-ahead for his attack into Petrograd, which might alternately ruin the Finnish Army (such as it is) destabilizing the young republic and possibly leading to a Mannerheim-led semi-authoritarian state or lead to the collapse of Bolshevik rule in the west, causing serious butterflies for the Russian Civil War. Maybe, with a quite specific set of circumstances, we might have both.

 

[Devvy]

Wow - nice discussion! Interesting reading.

Whilst during the interwar period monarchism starts to weaken quite a lot, maybe the Swedes would be willing to try and play the old marriage game? Having princesses and princes married to each kingdom, and maybe just being nice to the Finns who would've sold their soul to have Swedish troops on their eastern borders would go much further than trying to browbeat two countries that just became independent (Finland and Norway) and your age old Rival (Denmark). If the Swedes are cool with that, I figure they could form the federation soon after the War ends, or maybe even during it as some sort of "emergency council" that would unite the nordics more for defense purposes?

That's one thing I have been pondering....who would be head of state. General historical reasons mean that a Monarchy would be nice, but then who gets the throne? If the capital is Gothenburg, then Danish royalty might be nice - choosing a Danish prince then (and there by keeping "Scandinavia" and Denmark royalty separate). I think having the Danish monarch on the Nordic throne might be a little too much, even is Wetterberg suggested it a few years back.

Having an elected President seems......so boring

 

[EvilSpaceAlien]

That's one thing I have been pondering....who would be head of state. General historical reasons mean that a Monarchy would be nice, but then who gets the throne? If the capital is Gothenburg, then Danish royalty might be nice - choosing a Danish prince then (and there by keeping "Scandinavia" and Denmark royalty separate). I think having the Danish monarch on the Nordic throne might be a little too much, even is Wetterberg suggested it a few years back.

Having an elected President seems......so boring

Or you could just have the Prime Minister/Chancellor/whatever the head of government would called, serve as the head of state as well. Seems like an easier way of doing things. And the other Nordic countries (especially Sweden) aren't going to accept a Danish monarch, just like a Swedish monarch wouldn't be acceptable to the Danes, etc.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Wow - nice discussion! Interesting reading.



That's one thing I have been pondering....who would be head of state. General historical reasons mean that a Monarchy would be nice, but then who gets the throne? If the capital is Gothenburg, then Danish royalty might be nice - choosing a Danish prince then (and there by keeping "Scandinavia" and Denmark royalty separate). I think having the Danish monarch on the Nordic throne might be a little too much, even is Wetterberg suggested it a few years back.

Having an elected President seems......so boring

Why have a single Head of State? Let the kings of Sweden, Denmark and Norway have their thrones and let the Finns and Icelanders have their elected presidents, on federal level the Prime Minister/ Chancellor/ whatever is what count, and the Head of State of the Federation is just a symbolic council of the 5 Heads of State.

 

[Devvy]

Why have a single Head of State? Let the kings of Sweden, Denmark and Norway have their thrones and let the Finns and Icelanders have their elected presidents, on federal level the Prime Minister/ Chancellor/ whatever is what count, and the Head of State of the Federation is just a symbolic council of the 5 Heads of State.

Swiss style, which them taking it in turns to actually act as Head of State?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

How's this for a crazy idea.

Turn Åland into the federal capital, as an independent capital zone (like Brazilia, or Washington DC, or Canberra, or Mexico City). Then you don't have to worry about whether it's Swedish or Finnish, and everybody can be happy....

Edit: at least it's closer than Greenland

 

[ChrisBen]

You know, it seems like the other posters are taking the Norwegians somewhat for granted in this scenario. It need to be something beyond fantastic to get them to go along with this and a German border patrol entering Danish territory simply isn't going to make it. In 1917 Norway has had its own king for all of 12 years, after living 91 years under the Swedes and approximately 400 years under the Danes.

So, entering WWI could be a possibility; it wasn't Norwegian neutrality that helped the merchant navy against German submarines. Entering WWI in order to help the Danes could even be a remote possibility if Norway got a decent allocation of ASW from the Brits and the Allies were winning. But from there to some sort of new union with the Swedes and the rest? Why on earth? The parliament getting together and stating that we were really wrong ten years ago when the referendum on separation carried by 368 208 against 184 votes? Would at least make for some interesting elections...

Then again, from the POD it does not seem as we are going to get much out of this project anyway: The Danes get Schleswig, the Swedes get a closer cooperation with the Finns, who are spared a civil war. We could presumably gain a very pissed Russia if we are seen to be actively and officially helping the Finns and that would be "fun" as the Arctic borders were not defined precisely before the 1930'es. So, I guess the Norwegian reaction would be "thanks, but no thanks."

 

[yourworstnightmare]

You know, it seems like the other posters are taking the Norwegians somewhat for granted in this scenario. It need to be something beyond fantastic to get them to go along with this and a German border patrol entering Danish territory simply isn't going to make it. In 1917 Norway has had its own king for all of 12 years, after living 91 years under the Swedes and approximately 400 years under the Danes.

So, entering WWI could be a possibility; it wasn't Norwegian neutrality that helped the merchant navy against German submarines. Entering WWI in order to help the Danes could even be a remote possibility if Norway got a decent allocation of ASW from the Brits and the Allies were winning. But from there to some sort of new union with the Swedes and the rest? Why on earth? The parliament getting together and stating that we were really wrong ten years ago when the referendum on separation carried by 368 208 against 184 votes? Would at least make for some interesting elections...

Then again, from the POD it does not seem as we are going to get much out of this project anyway: The Danes get Schleswig, the Swedes get a closer cooperation with the Finns, who are spared a civil war. We could presumably gain a very pissed Russia if we are seen to be actively and officially helping the Finns and that would be "fun" as the Arctic borders were not defined precisely before the 1930'es. So, I guess the Norwegian reaction would be "thanks, but no thanks."

Actually the thanks but no thanks would be appropriate for all 5 Nordic Countries this period:
The Norwegians cherish their new won independence
So do the Finns
For Sweden it would put the cherished neutrality in jeopardy, which could endanger the whole "folkhem" project.
For Denmark, union with the Swedes, that they lead? But we're the greatest, not them.
For Iceland, well they very much looked forward to become independent and wasn't very likely to sign off their chance for that.

This Union can't be in place when WW2 start, there could be a deeper cooperation and an integrated economic zone, but the union itself would still have to wait decades before any of the 5 nations would even consider giving up even an inch of sovereignty.