Sweden keeps Finland in 1809; When does Finland get independence?

I think we will see a large influx of poor rural people, which will end up as industrial workers, I suspect their children will mostly adopt Swedish, but as the influx continue to modern say, new Finnish speakers will keep arriving and the last arrival will be more likely to keep their language. So I think a Finnish speaking population of 25-30% would be likely by modern day and likely slightly rising with the city being split in a Finnish speaking north and a Swedish speaking south and east.

I see we are looking at the development differently. I'd assume that if there is a large influx of rural people, it would be mostly from Finnish-speaking areas (that is, after all, mostly what Finland is made of, IOTL and ITTL), and that most of those people would keep their original language (significant social ascent not being likely for most, and Swedish was predominately needed for gaining an access to the state bureacracy, the clergy, the middle classes or intelligentsia, not merely to be industrial workers or foremen, etc). As the Finnish-speaking community was already an established part of the city, I'd expect that the Finnish-speaking community would never drop below 30% and would gradually grow since the mid-19th century, reaching 50-70% by 2017 - as opposed to the OTL, where Turku is 90% Finnish-speaking by 2017.

In other words, Turku has Swedish-speakers roughly in proportion to how much they make of the national population. It would be realistic that the city would reflect the general demographics of the Eastern provinces ITTL as well, with a certain local overrepresentation of Swedish-speakers due to state bureaucracy, etc. So - 30-50% Swedish-speakers by the modern day, at the most.

Turun_v%C3%A4est%C3%B6_kielen_mukaan.png
 
Last edited:
I see we are looking at the development differently. I'd assume that if there is a large influx of rural people, it would be mostly from Finnish-speaking areas (that is, after all, mostly what Finland is made of), and that most of those people would keep their original language (significant social ascent not being likely for most, and Swedish was predominately needed for gaining an access to the middle classes or intelligentsia, not merely to be industrial workers or foremen, etc). As the Finnish-speaking community was already an established part of the city, I'd expect that the Finnish-speaking community would never drop below 30% and would gradually grow since the mid-19th century, reaching 50-70% by 2017 - as opposed to the OTL, where Turku is 90% Finnish-speaking by 2017.

Turun_v%C3%A4est%C3%B6_kielen_mukaan.png

I lean toward using Flensburg as model where the Danish working class adopted German because of their connection to SPD, and I think Turku because of its closeness to Stockholm will be among the first places where any Swedish Labour Party will have success. Of course Finland and Sweden are different country from Denmark and Germany with much more red rural population and blue urban. But I think Turku growth will mainly be fueled by industrialization.
 
The Russians did not intend to take Finland 1808 - the region was poor, sparsely populated and had very little infrastructure. The Russian was goals were to take Sveaborg and keep it along with Helsinki/Helsingfors as an outer defence of Saint Petersburg and a good naval base. It was the fact that the Swedish defence collapsed like a house of cards when Sveaborg fell and the fact that the Finnish elite swore allegiance to the Czar that put taking all of Finland on the table.

OTL Finland got a very good deal out of the peace of 1809, with a high degree of autonomy and freedom to develop as a nation - I'd argue that while not fully independent, Finland as a country came into existence 1809 rather than 1917.

One must remember that any nationalist movement in Finland will be unaware of the OTL good treatment Russia gave Finland.

Sweden with Finland still part of it will be an entirely different beast compared to the Swedo-Norwegian Union.

As opposed to Norway, Finland will not have its own army, navy, justice system, parliament, laws, constitution and flag.

Also, Finland and Sweden will have much more common than Sweden and Norway did. Norway went liberal, looking to Britain for support and influence, building a large merchant navy and needing no other protection than a friendly Royal Navy (and perhaps a decentry friendly Sweden). Norway had no rivals or enemies and did not need Swedish support for anything. Finland will have a similar economy to Sweden (small scale industry driven by farm investment by self-owning peasants, lumber and paper industry and so on) and Finland and Sweden have a common enemy in Russia.

How things develop will of course be determined by several factors.

1. Is Sweden victorious against Russia 1809, and keeps Finland because of it? Does Gustav IV Adolf remain on the throne? Is he rewarded for his long anti-Napoleonic stance with Norway or something else at Vienna 1814?

2. How are post-war Russo-Swedish relations? Do Russia develop a claim for Finland, or do they focus against the Ottomans and the Great Game in central Asia as OTL?

3. Do Sweden keep some grand power ambitions instead of adopting the OTL neutral and allegiance free policy? Do Sweden keep Wismar or Vorpommern, and do Sweden get involved in the German unification because of it? Any wars on the continent might cause Finnish resentment as they are dying for follies and things not in their interest.

4. Likewise, any pan-Scandinavism will most likely be seen as follies and bleeding for stupid reasons by the Finns.

5. It is possible that the harsh Russian treatment of the Polish revolts and the intervention against the Hungarian revolt might cause the Finns to see the Russians as even less of a champion of Finnish independence or autonomy.

There's going to be a lot of resentment, and a lot of friction, but I think it is possible that the common enemy and decently similar economies can keep Sweden and Finland together - with a modern scenario being extensive autonomy, with its own parliament, language and flag, perhaps similar to the status of the Basque nation within Spain.

The big question is what comes first - a Russian war to take Finland, or a Russian collapse akin to the OTL 1917 one. If it is the latter, I can see Finland and Sweden sticking together.
 
A few thoughts about this Sweden if we look at OTL this Sweden have 15 million people by modern day. That number change almost from the first moment Finand stay part of Sweden. Stockholm will be bigger, I would increase the population of Stockholm by a million. Next the bigger population enable Sweden to have bigger domestic manufacturing. Also while Sweden didn't invest in Norway, Finland OTOH are the upland to Stockholm, so we will see greater investments in Finland. I don't know enough about the agricultural development of 19 th century Finland, but Sweden saw a massive development of the dairy agriculture for export.
But what we haven't discussed that this Sweden also have Swedish Pomerania, I see no reason for it to be lost, it's not worth enough for anyone to take unless they're already in conflict with Sweden. I think Pomerania will mainly produce cereal, vegetable and sugar for the Sweden, we will likely see the creation agricultural industries. I think Lolland-Falster would be a good model for how it would develop just on bigger scale.

All in all I suspect the existence of a bigger cities, increased industrial production etc. Will result in Sweden having a population of 17-18 millions of these 4 million will be Finnish speakers in Finland (Sweden itself will likely also have 1 million Finnish speakers, but these to large extent will be unlikely to use it much in their daily life, and it will be moribund west of Bothnia) and one million German speakers. Of course this will make Sweden the smaller brother to Denmark-Norway, but until Denmark-Norway find its black gold, Sweden will be the far richest of the two states.
 
What I also wonder--would there be Finnish terrorism potentially comparable to the IRA? Which might attract support from abroad from the Finnish community in the United States and Canada, and at least early on, would likely be a socialist/communist movement as the Finnish community in North America tended to be socialists/communists?

If Finland is still a part of Sweden into the late 20th century, I could see a variety of terrorist groups committing violence in the region (and possibly ethnic Swedes committing reprisals) although it probably wouldn't elevate to the level of the The Troubles. Turku might be a very violent place.
 
I doubt terrorism strongly. Separatist terrorism is quiet rare. Usually nationalist movements are pretty peaceful. You would need quiet rare situations that you could get nationalist terrorists. Probably Finnish separatism, if exist, is just political movement, not terrorist organisation.
 
I doubt terrorism strongly. Separatist terrorism is quiet rare. Usually nationalist movements are pretty peaceful. You would need quiet rare situations that you could get nationalist terrorists. Probably Finnish separatism, if exist, is just political movement, not terrorist organisation.

Although nationalist terrorism seems to be a sliding scale from minor groups which are glorified vandals like Cornish nationalist terrorism (by definition certain incidents of Cornish nationalism would count as terrorism) to extremely violent movements like the IRA during the Troubles, the ETA, etc. It seems probable there would be some manner of violent Finnish nationalist movement, it's just a matter of how violent and severe they might be, even if the majority of Finnish nationalists are peaceful and reject violence. There may or may not be a group like Sinn Fein which operates in the political sphere to support them.
 
Top