Sweden in WW1?

The big question is if the people would stand for it? Universal Suffrage did not come about until 1918. Before that, people with tax debts and women were not allowed, and there were still restrictions on voting to the upper chamber of the parliament, and I think it was still possible to hold up to 400 votes depending on income and wealth.

Not entirely correct. Women got the vote and the right to stand as candidates through the parliamentary reforms of 1906. In 1907, the elections returned 17 female parliamentarians. The same reforms made the parliament unicameral, and "the Senate" in 1918 is rightly described as "the cabinet" in the modern sense, it only retained the old name by custom. All eligible to vote had only one vote. There were a number of qualifications barring people the vote, frex. being in regular military service, failure to pay state taxes due destitution, election fraud and being under certain court sentences, but nevertheless it was as close to "universal" as AFAIK any system was at the end of WWI.

1916 is too late for Sweden to go to war. By then, the people will not allow a declaration of war.

In the case discussed above, the war had been declared in 1914.
 
Last edited:
Not entirely correct. Women got the vote and the right to stand as candidates through the parliamentary reforms of 1906. In 1907, the elections returned 17 female parliamentarians. The same reforms made the parliament unicameral, and "the Senate" in 1918 is rightly described as "the cabinet" in the modern sense, it only retained the old name by custom. All eligible to vote had only one vote. There were a number of qualifications barring people the vote, frex. being in regular military service, failure to pay state taxes due destitution, election fraud and being under certain court sentences, but nevertheless it was as close to "universal" as AFAIK any system was at the time.
I think he means in Sweden. IIRC, he's wrong, women got the vote in '19, and actually got to vote in '21.
 
I think he means in Sweden. IIRC, he's wrong, women got the vote in '19, and actually got to vote in '21.

Right... Sorry about that. Have to start paying more attention.:eek: To be fair though, the previous sentences ("The Royals were strongly pro-German, as was the Army, most of the industrial and academic elite. there was a small but vocal minority wanting Swedish involvement in the war on the side of the Central Powers.") apply as well to the Finnish situation in 1917/18 if read quickly like I did.

And hey, now you know what was the basis for the Finnish Parliament, who would decide if they wanted a king or not.
 
Last edited:
1. Yes, I meant Sweden. There were few royals pro-German in Finland in 1914. ;)

2. Suffrage was voted through in 1918. Usually that is counted as the year of universal suffrage, even if it is possible that the vote became law 1919-01-01 (it is the tradition of the Swedish legal system to enact votes as law on special dates, 1/1, 1/4, 1/6 and 1/10). The first time universal suffrage was used on the national level was in the 1921 elections indeed.

3. My reply on the 1916 date was to the theory of an armed insurgency in Finland that Sweden would go to war against Russia to help.
 
1. Yes, I meant Sweden. There were few royals pro-German in Finland in 1914. ;)

Quite so. Skipping through it fast I read it as "Royalist", adding to my misapprehension.

3. My reply on the 1916 date was to the theory of an armed insurgency in Finland that Sweden would go to war against Russia to help.

Right. And the declaration of war, in that TL, had happened in 1914 as pointed out by General Zod in the post above mine.
 
Right... Sorry about that. Have to start paying more attention.:eek: To be fair though, the previous sentences ("The Royals were strongly pro-German, as was the Army, most of the industrial and academic elite. there was a small but vocal minority wanting Swedish involvement in the war on the side of the Central Powers.") apply as well to the Finnish situation in 1917/18 if read quickly like I did.

And hey, now you know what was the basis for the Finnish Parliament, who would decide if they wanted a king or not.
Well, I've gotten half a decade with the assumption that they had a King, so...
The offer came with a bit extra added, namely Kola and Karelen*. Could that swing things more in a pro-Royal and pro-Swedish direction?
*And also swearing off all future claims to the Swedish throne, and promising to protect the rights of all Finnish-speaking.
 
Well, I've gotten half a decade with the assumption that they had a King, so...
The offer came with a bit extra added, namely Kola and Karelen*. Could that swing things more in a pro-Royal and pro-Swedish direction?
*And also swearing off all future claims to the Swedish throne, and promising to protect the rights of all Finnish-speaking.

IOTL, in October 1918 the Finnish Parliament OK'd electing a King by 64 votes for to 41 against. Because of the Civil War, most Social Democratic members did not attend, and they would have been against the motion: so in a full Parliament of 200, the royalist faction would have gathered a mere third of the votes.

In many ways, the adventure with Friedrich Karl was a by-product of the German intervention and the Civil War. In your TL, Sweden helps to liberate Finland pretty much paralleling the German role played in OTL. Didn't catch a reference to a Finnish Civil War: I assume there was not one? There will be a boost of popularity for Sweden, more than there was for Germany, for historical reasons, but I am a bit sceptical if it is enough to push through a Swedish monarch.

In the Parliament elected in 1916 the SDP and the Agrarians together had 122 members and those would be staunch republicans. The ATL numbers will be close to this - the conservatives and especially Svenska Folkpartiet fare better than OTL because of Swedish role in the war, but still it will be very possible republicans get a simple majority, enough to stop the plans for monarchy. The election, held in July, might well become a referendum on the peace and on monarchy: much will depend on how the parties play the issue in their campaigns.

If the Swedish government says that Finland gets Karelia and Kola only if they choose a Swedish king, it might prod some people to the desired direction. But there is also the possibility that the republicans think Sweden bluffs: why would it be in Swedish interest to leave those areas in Russian hands even if Finland goes republican? Would not a bigger buffer state in between, however ruled, be better in any case?

Would the Swedish government have the balls to go for a bluff of the century, and say that Finland will not get independence at all and is left in Russian hands if they do not accept a king as a part of the deal? That might do the trick, even though there is bound to be people sceptical of Sweden really following through with the threat. It would be hard to see what Sweden would gain by punishing Finland for making the wrong decision.

What is, BTW, the military situation? Is Finland occupied by Swedish troops, or is it still in Russian hands? Is there Finnish militia akin to the OTL White/Red guards? If there are troops loyal to the Finnish Parliament and the Russians are demoralized enough/already mostly withdrawn from the country, the republicans might think they are in a strong position to keep power even with the possibility of Sweden withdrawing and thus challenge the bluff.

Then, there is always the shortcut of a Red insurrection and banning the Social Democratic Party in toto. But with a revolution in Russia already in 1916 and a peace coming the same year, a OTL-type power vacuum does not develop in Finland nor is there enough time for the left to get radicalized enough for a serious attempt to take power. Then again, the monarchy issue could galvanize the left to such an extent that they would threat with a general strike and other nasty stuff if a king is rammed through parliament. In this case, would Sweden be ready to risk to destabilise Finland to get a king on the throne? I guess there would be some people in Petrograd pretty keen to follow those developments.

In any case, to put a rump Parliament to elect the king and another one confirm the choice seems like the most plausible option, but that is not very democratic, is it? The monarchy in this case would be very unpopular outside the conservative elite, and the consequenses are hard to see. Anyway, if the SDP is banned, it's supporters might always vote in other candidates with the same stand towards the issue of governance.

Enough of this right now, I'll continue later to rack my brain to find a scenario that would put create a Kingdom of Finland and keep most of the people happy and content. It does no look easy, though.
 
IOTL, in October 1918 the Finnish Parliament OK'd electing a King by 64 votes for to 41 against. Because of the Civil War, most Social Democratic members did not attend, and they would have been against the motion: so in a full Parliament of 200, the royalist faction would have gathered a mere third of the votes.

In many ways, the adventure with Friedrich Karl was a by-product of the German intervention and the Civil War. In your TL, Sweden helps to liberate Finland pretty much paralleling the German role played in OTL. Didn't catch a reference to a Finnish Civil War: I assume there was not one? There will be a boost of popularity for Sweden, more than there was for Germany, for historical reasons, but I am a bit sceptical if it is enough to push through a Swedish monarch.

In the Parliament elected in 1916 the SDP and the Agrarians together had 122 members and those would be staunch republicans. The ATL numbers will be close to this - the conservatives and especially Svenska Folkpartiet fare better than OTL because of Swedish role in the war, but still it will be very possible republicans get a simple majority, enough to stop the plans for monarchy. The election, held in July, might well become a referendum on the peace and on monarchy: much will depend on how the parties play the issue in their campaigns.

If the Swedish government says that Finland gets Karelia and Kola only if they choose a Swedish king, it might prod some people to the desired direction. But there is also the possibility that the republicans think Sweden bluffs: why would it be in Swedish interest to leave those areas in Russian hands even if Finland goes republican? Would not a bigger buffer state in between, however ruled, be better in any case?

Would the Swedish government have the balls to go for a bluff of the century, and say that Finland will not get independence at all and is left in Russian hands if they do not accept a king as a part of the deal? That might do the trick, even though there is bound to be people sceptical of Sweden really following through with the threat. It would be hard to see what Sweden would gain by punishing Finland for making the wrong decision.

What is, BTW, the military situation? Is Finland occupied by Swedish troops, or is it still in Russian hands? Is there Finnish militia akin to the OTL White/Red guards? If there are troops loyal to the Finnish Parliament and the Russians are demoralized enough/already mostly withdrawn from the country, the republicans might think they are in a strong position to keep power even with the possibility of Sweden withdrawing and thus challenge the bluff.

Then, there is always the shortcut of a Red insurrection and banning the Social Democratic Party in toto. But with a revolution in Russia already in 1916 and a peace coming the same year, a OTL-type power vacuum does not develop in Finland nor is there enough time for the left to get radicalized enough for a serious attempt to take power. Then again, the monarchy issue could galvanize the left to such an extent that they would threat with a general strike and other nasty stuff if a king is rammed through parliament. In this case, would Sweden be ready to risk to destabilise Finland to get a king on the throne? I guess there would be some people in Petrograd pretty keen to follow those developments.

In any case, to put a rump Parliament to elect the king and another one confirm the choice seems like the most plausible option, but that is not very democratic, is it? The monarchy in this case would be very unpopular outside the conservative elite, and the consequenses are hard to see. Anyway, if the SDP is banned, it's supporters might always vote in other candidates with the same stand towards the issue of governance.

Enough of this right now, I'll continue later to rack my brain to find a scenario that would put create a Kingdom of Finland and keep most of the people happy and content. It does no look easy, though.
I've assumed there wasn't a Civil War, or if there was one, it was more limited...
Hm, was there anything in the 1916 election that could be susceptible to butterflies, in particular things that could help the Conservatives and the Svenska Folkpartiet enough that the Agrarians and the Social Democrats do not gain a majority?
I'd say that
If there are troops loyal to the Finnish Parliament and the Russians are demoralized enough/already mostly withdrawn from the country, the republicans might think they are in a strong position to keep power even with the possibility of Sweden withdrawing and thus challenge the bluff.
would be quite right- a fair bit of the north-west of the country would be occupied by Sweden, mayhap.
Hm... could there be a way to have a more limited Red insurrection? One that is more limited to actual *Communists*?
I doubt Kola and Karelia would go beyond hints... actually, to be honest I primarily saw Kola and Karelia as compensation for Åland:eek:.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
So, let's cut the crap and instead discuss what the Entente demands on Sweden would be after the ineviatble war disaster. Brittish base on Gotland?? No Entente members really had any territorial claims, so I guess there would just be heavy burden of reparations to pay.
 
So, let's cut the crap and instead discuss what the Entente demands on Sweden would be after the ineviatble war disaster. Brittish base on Gotland?? No Entente members really had any territorial claims, so I guess there would just be heavy burden of reparations to pay.
Why exactly is a war disaster inevitable? Also, discussion of how, why, and when Sweden enters the war and their performance during the war is hardly crap.
 
Why exactly is a war disaster inevitable? Also, discussion of how, why, and when Sweden enters the war and their performance during the war is hardly crap.
Yes. For one thing, a Swedish entry is quite likely to indicate a better situation for the Alliance, even if Sweden itself can not be of much more assistance then keeping the Baltic Russian Fleet more cautious.
If Sweden enters due to that Russian Admiral, then the diplomatic situation of the Alliance would be that much better- after all, an Entente member did attack a neutral state rather unprovoked- and that could have interesting permutations over the course of the War.
If Sweden enters on its own accord, then I'd say the Alliance practically must do better before Sweden enters for them to consider it seriously enough.
Both things would raise doubts as to why one would assume that the Entente's victory would be assured- and that notwithstanding butterflies.
 
Well, I've gotten half a decade with the assumption that they had a King, so...
The offer came with a bit extra added, namely Kola and Karelen*. Could that swing things more in a pro-Royal and pro-Swedish direction?
*And also swearing off all future claims to the Swedish throne, and promising to protect the rights of all Finnish-speaking.

All right then. Here is a take of a possible timeline. It is admittedly a stretch, contains a fair bit of improbabilities and assumes that the royalists would succeed in everything they try. Also, I am not sure Prince Carl had the personality required for this...:rolleyes:

Anyway, comments are welcome.


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.

(The list of titles might be just a myth, but it is fun even so..)
 
Last edited:
All right then. Here is a take of a possible timeline. It is admittedly a stretch, contains a fair bit of improbabilities and assumes that the royalists would succeed in everything they try. Also, I am not sure Prince Carl had the personality required for this...:rolleyes:

Anyway, comments are welcome.
I like it! It certainly is more plausible then just hand-waving it, which, er, is pretty much what I did, after all:eek:.
 
Top