Swedish Finland and Danish Norway

[JohnBull]

I don't know the details of Scandinavian/Nordic history, but I'd like to explore all scenarios where after Napoleonic Wars, Denmark-Norway remains united while Finland remains Swedish.

How long those arrangements could be kept? Till today? How different from OTL the whole region would like today? Did Denmark-Norway and Sweden be more assertive on international arena (world wars, imperialism), for being bigger? Many butterflies outside the region?

 

[Lalli]

I think that you would need POD before or in early stage of Napoleonic Wars that Denmark can keep Norway and Sweden can keep Finland. So let say that Napoleonic Wars are avoided or at least very different it is possible that Denmark and Sweden can keep their holdings to this day.

 

[JohnBull]

I think that you would need POD before or in early stage of Napoleonic Wars that Denmark can keep Norway and Sweden can keep Finland. So let say that Napoleonic Wars are avoided or at least very different it is possible that Denmark and Sweden can keep their holdings to this day.

Again, not knowing the details of local history, but I guess Norway would push less to split from Denmark compared to Sweden on OTL. They were linked for much longer, and their would be more similar in size, making the union more viable. Iceland would probably keep linked to them. Maybe this stronger Denmark-Norway wouldn't relinquish their colonial holdings in Caribbean, Gold Coast and India and might even look for taking part on Partition of Africa.

About Sweden, given Swedish language were strong there even under Russian rule (and up today), I guess Swedish would be stronger than Finnish inside Finland, like English vis-a-vis Irish Gaelic in OTL Ireland maybe, making the union more stable.

 

[DrakonFin]

About Sweden, given Swedish language were strong there even under Russian rule (and up today), I guess Swedish would be stronger than Finnish inside Finland, like English vis-a-vis Irish Gaelic in OTL Ireland maybe, making the union more stable.

The position of Finnish language and culture in the Swedish realm would be stronger than that of Irish language and culture in the United Kingdom, as Finns would make up a bigger proportion of the total population (20-30%) than the Irish ever did. Stockholm would also need to compromise at least somewhat with the Finns, as the more the Swedish attempt to dominate the Finns by force, the more likely it will become that they lose the eastern part of the realm to Russia.

 

[JohnBull]

The position of Finnish language and culture in the Swedish realm would be stronger than that of Irish language and culture in the United Kingdom, as Finns would make up a bigger proportion of the total population (20-30%) than the Irish ever did. Stockholm would also need to compromise at least somewhat with the Finns, as the more the Swedish attempt to dominate the Finns by force, the more likely it will become that they lose the eastern part of the realm to Russia.

What if the Swedish pursued no policy of assimilation, but just leaving Swedish taking over naturally as a prestigious language, like French in Brussels or English growing from Dublin? Tensions would probably be avoided.

 

[DrakonFin]

What if the Swedish pursued no policy of assimilation, but just leaving Swedish taking over naturally as a prestigious language, like French in Brussels or English growing from Dublin? Tensions would probably be avoided.

I think you are overestimating the chances of "Swedish taking over naturally". Most of the eastern provinces outside the southwestern coastal areas were always predominately monolingually Finnish, with less than 5% native Swedish speakers. And then as the 19th century progresses, you will start seeing a Finnish (nationalist) language movement start appearing and growing. It is practically unavoidable. After the middle part of the century, you will start to see calls for comprehensive education in the Finnish language, too. There will certainly be more Swedish speakers (ie. Swedish as first language) in the Finnish areas ITTL than IOTL, but without a heavy-handed long term policy of assimilation (which would cause problems of its own) it would be hard to see their share go over, say, 35%, let alone anything approaching a simple majority, by the 20th century.

 

[Borya]

Do not forget Finland was part of Russian Empire.

 

[JohnBull]

I think you are overestimating the chances of "Swedish taking over naturally". Most of the eastern provinces outside the southwestern coastal areas were always predominately monolingually Finnish, with less than 5% native Swedish speakers. And then as the 19th century progresses, you will start seeing a Finnish (nationalist) language movement start appearing and growing. It is practically unavoidable. After the middle part of the century, you will start to see calls for comprehensive education in the Finnish language, too. There will certainly be more Swedish speakers (ie. Swedish as first language) in the Finnish areas ITTL than IOTL, but without a heavy-handed long term policy of assimilation (which would cause problems of its own) it would be hard to see their share go over, say, 35%, let alone anything approaching a simple majority, by the 20th century.

I've checked on Wikipedia, and apparently Swedish language in Finland had declined from 15% in 1815 to 13% in 1900, and this belonging to Russia and with comprehensive efforts to revive Finnish, a policy not against Swedish, but to avoid a possible Russification of Finland.

In an ATL Finland is not split from Sweden, I guess Swedish tended to expand compared to OTL. Probably not becoming a majority in the country (35% as you say), but maybe on urban areas.

 

[Jürgen]

Norway and Denmark is a relative stable union and it’s more stable than the Swedish-Norwegian Union. In a Danish-Norwegian Union Denmark would invest in Norway, as Norway was better geared toward industrialization with their access to raw materials and hydropower. At the same time Denmark would serve as a bread basket for the Norwegian industrial areas (likely mostly the Oslo Fjord region). This would also the center of the Danish realms Kattegat, which would also serve to keep eastern Holstein more focused toward Denmark than Hamburg, making a Holsteinian revolt less likely. Denmark would also be a small but active colonial power, which would likely join in carving Africa up.

 

[riggerrob]

OTL Over the centuries, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian kings have taken turns conquering each other.
Meanwhile, Sweden and Russia took turns conquering Finland.
Even when Finland was part of the Russian Empire, Swedish-speaking nobles were still the dominant large land-owners along the Southern and Western Coastlines (Gulf of Bothnia).
Immediately after the collapse of the Tzar, Finland declared independence and fought a bloody civil war to decide whether the new country would become communist, capitalist or a monarchy. Finnish communists were primarily small farmers from the northern provinces. With the Russian Red Army too busy fighting other civil wars (e.g. Ukraine) they provided insufficient military support to ensure a communist victory. Thousands of Finnish communists were slaughtered in the immediate aftermath of the Finnish Civil War.
Finnish democratic/capitalist forces were led by Swedish-speaking officers like General Mannerheim who learned his profession in the Tzarist Army, but then became a staunch defender of Finnish democracy. When Finland offered Mannerheim a crown after the war, he politely declined, then stubbornly led Finnish soldiers in bloodying Russian noses when those silly communists tried to re-invade 1940.

All of modern Scandinavia might have united under a single Scandinavian crown, but Finns would always remain a linguistic minority after the War of Independence, in the upper right corner. Fortunately, modern Scandinavians are tolerant folks who would make little fuss about a linguistic minority, perhaps even joining some of their folk festivals as long as the food was tasty.
Remember all the thousands of Swedish "volunteers: who volunteered to defend Finland during the Winter War (1940). The Swedish "volunteers arrived with the latest Swedish Army weapons. Those Swedish volunteers were primarily trying to slow the spread of communism into Northwester Europe. Slowing the spread of communism is the same reason that thousands of Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, etc. volunteered to join the Waffen SS. Most of these volunteers died on the Russian Front.

 

[Jürgen]

A interesting aspect about the two countries. Sweden with Finland would still be like OTL Sweden, it would just be bigger in population and territories and have a large Finnish minority. But it would still be a major industrial actor And it would likely have a pretty similar foreign policy. In fact it will be what it already is just more so.

Denmark-Norway with or without Schleswig-Holstein would be a very different beast, it would be a medium sized industrial power, it would be a active colonial player and especially if it still had Schleswig-Holstein it would be important enough, that when we see large wars other countries will try to get it aboard.

 

[Swedish luck]

well, I can say that would be quite hard for Finland even tho it might want to leave this union because of being Swedish for like in this case 900 years and that there were and are many Finns in Sweden today and still a small minority of Swedes in Finland. And when industrialization rolls around more Finns will probably leave for Sweden to get jobs we could probably see an earlier recognition of finish as a language and giving them the right to maintain their own language as long as they also learn Swedish.

Another thing is that I think it would be quite hard for Sweden to be neutral if we still had Finland because we would be a dagger pointing towards st Petersburg so I think Sweden would most likely allay with Russias strongest enemy to maintain it´s territory.

 

[Jürgen]

well, I can say that would be quite hard for Finland even tho it might want to leave this union because of being Swedish for like in this case 900 years and that there were and are many Finns in Sweden today and still a small minority of Swedes in Finland. And when industrialization rolls around more Finns will probably leave for Sweden to get jobs we could probably see an earlier recognition of finish as a language and giving them the right to maintain their own language as long as they also learn Swedish.

Another thing is that I think it would be quite hard for Sweden to be neutral if we still had Finland because we would be a dagger pointing towards st Petersburg so I think Sweden would most likely allay with Russias strongest enemy to maintain it´s territory.

Old Finland would still be Russian.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

The position of Finnish language and culture in the Swedish realm would be stronger than that of Irish language and culture in the United Kingdom, as Finns would make up a bigger proportion of the total population (20-30%) than the Irish ever did.

Circa 1700, the population of the British Isles was about 8.2M, of which 2M were in Ireland - about 24%. The census of 1841 found 26.7M in the whole UK, of which 8.2M were in Ireland (31%).

Stockholm would also need to compromise at least somewhat with the Finns, as the more the Swedish attempt to dominate the Finns by force, the more likely it will become that they lose the eastern part of the realm to Russia.

Furthermore - there is no religious issue. There is (AFAIK) no history of conquest, of land seizure, of absentee landlordism. Finnish nobles sat in the Swedish Estates al along. All very different from Ireland.

If all Finnish speakers had been converted to Orthodox Christianity, and not just the Karelians, there might have been a permanent division between the Swedes and Finns, which might have created a similar hostility.

 

[UnaiB]

@Karelian

 

[DrakonFin]

Circa 1700, the population of the British Isles was about 8.2M, of which 2M were in Ireland - about 24%. The census of 1841 found 26.7M in the whole UK, of which 8.2M were in Ireland (31%).

My post was about the chances of the local native language to survive, not just the numbers of people in Ireland or the eastern part of Sweden in itself (as they would be in part made of English and Swedish speakers, respectively, as well as of those who speak Irish and Finnish). In 1700, native Finnish speakers (Finnish as first language) made up 82,5% of the people in the eastern provinces, and c. 86% in 1842. Comparatively, how big was the proportion of native Irish Gaelic speakers in Ireland in those years?

Furthermore - there is no religious issue. There is (AFAIK) no history of conquest, of land seizure, of absentee landlordism. Finnish nobles sat in the Swedish Estates al along. All very different from Ireland.

If all Finnish speakers had been converted to Orthodox Christianity, and not just the Karelians, there might have been a permanent division between the Swedes and Finns, which might have created a similar hostility.

I think you are partly making my argument for me. Historically, in comparison to the English in Ireland, the Swedish had been less willing to use force in Finland to assimilate the Finns, and they also had fewer leverages (and fewer overt reasons/excuses for repression) in Finland, due to the similarity in faith and less political issues separating the ethno-linguistic groups all around. Finns generally had the same rights as Swedes did under the crown, and many of the nobles, bureaucrats, members of the clergy, etc, in Finland did come from originally Finnish speaking families - the one major difference between the rights of Finns and Swedes was that the Finnish language did not enjoy an official position in the same way as Swedish did, and was not seen as a "civilized language" of governance, culture and science. We know that the Finnish language-national movement got already started with the Fennophiles of the late 18th century and then with the Fennomans in the early 19th century. When we get towards the end of the 19th century, there definitely would be a growing movement demanding linguistic and cultural rights to the Finns, even if it might not demand separate political rights (in other words, separate Finnish representation) yet. The fact that it will be here happening in the context of Swedish rule instead of Russian rule makes the movement different, but it would not pre-empt it. You don't need the level of conflict and assimilation Ireland experienced to see Finnish nationalism to be born ITTL.

All the time while this is happening, Russia would be growing in power in comparison to Sweden, and Stockholm will need to take this into account in its policies in Finland. In Britain, while there was a long-term rivalry with the French, and the French supported Irish nationalism, France was never as strong in comparison to Britain as Russia will be by the 20th century in comparison to a Sweden that still holds (most of) Finland. The Swedish leadership and elite will then need to compromise more than the English did in Ireland, lest the Russians manage to convince the Finns that they can offer a better deal than Stockholm can.

 

[General Tirpitz]

One big difference between Irish and Finnish is that the latter was actually used as a liturgical language in Finnish churches. Churches were also responsible for education and probably over the half of Finnish population could already read by the beginning of the 19th century. This in contrast to Ireland, where if I have understood correctly, Irish language education was generally discouraged during the same period.

 

[von Adler]

My post was about the chances of the local native language to survive, not just the numbers of people in Ireland or the eastern part of Sweden in itself (as they would be in part made of English and Swedish speakers, respectively, as well as of those who speak Irish and Finnish). In 1700, native Finnish speakers (Finnish as first language) made up 82,5% of the people in the eastern provinces, and c. 86% in 1842. Comparatively, how big was the proportion of native Irish Gaelic speakers in Ireland in those years?




I think you are partly making my argument for me. Historically, in comparison to the English in Ireland, the Swedish had been less willing to use force in Finland to assimilate the Finns, and they also had fewer leverages (and fewer overt reasons/excuses for repression) in Finland, due to the similarity in faith and less political issues separating the ethno-linguistic groups all around. Finns generally had the same rights as Swedes did under the crown, and many of the nobles, bureaucrats, members of the clergy, etc, in Finland did come from originally Finnish speaking families - the one major difference between the rights of Finns and Swedes was that the Finnish language did not enjoy an official position in the same way as Swedish did, and was not seen as a "civilized language" of governance, culture and science. We know that the Finnish language-national movement got already started with the Fennophiles of the late 18th century and then with the Fennomans in the early 19th century. When we get towards the end of the 19th century, there definitely would be a growing movement demanding linguistic and cultural rights to the Finns, even if it might not demand separate political rights (in other words, separate Finnish representation) yet. The fact that it will be here happening in the context of Swedish rule instead of Russian rule makes the movement different, but it would not pre-empt it. You don't need the level of conflict and assimilation Ireland experienced to see Finnish nationalism to be born ITTL.

All the time while this is happening, Russia would be growing in power in comparison to Sweden, and Stockholm will need to take this into account in its policies in Finland. In Britain, while there was a long-term rivalry with the French, and the French supported Irish nationalism, France was never as strong in comparison to Britain as Russia will be by the 20th century in comparison to a Sweden that still holds (most of) Finland. The Swedish leadership and elite will then need to compromise more than the English did in Ireland, lest the Russians manage to convince the Finns that they can offer a better deal than Stockholm can.

I concur on this and your assessment on the number of native Swedish speakers in Finland, although I think 20-25% rather than 35% by 2000 - but with maybe another 20-30% being bilingual enough to speak ok Swedish.

In general, before the advent of "Punsch-nationalism" in the 1880s, the Swedish government cared rather little about language. When public schooling was introduced in 1842, it was taught in Meänkieli (then just called Finnish) in Tornedalen (and in south and north Sami in the various nomad schools) - compulsory education in Swedish was not introduced until 1888, and I, like you, severely doubt that would fly in the face of a Finnish language renaissance and the establishment of the Finnish language as a full written language that came about in the Finnish nationalist revival from the 1840s and onwards.

Swedish will probably be the language of the upper class and social climbers, and in some cases for labourers/farm hands looking to grab work in the growing industry in Sweden. I think it is probable that Finnish will have a much more important status in the combined Swedish-Finnish state than it does in Sweden today. It will be a bi-lingual state and Finnish will have a status as an official language for far, far longer, building on the tradition of the permanent translation office of the Riksdag from 1735 (giving Finnish-speakers the right to adress and petition the government in Finnish should they so desire). Historically Finnish-speaking parts of the country (incuding Tornedalen, Norrbotten and Lappland) will be bilingual with street signs etc in both languages and authorities will be required to provide all services in both languages, from Scania to Nyslott.

Considering all things, I think we might see an odd reversal of the OTL language situation in Finland today, with some people lamenting the two official languages and especially having to learn Swedish at school, with most Finnish-speaking Finns being ok with learning Swedish, since it grants some real, tangiable career prospects (as an offical or just working in the Swedish-speaking part of the country), while Finnish might be taught to and resented by Swedish pupils (in both of what is today Finland and Sweden) complaining that they will never use it.

 

[Karelian]

King Gustav IV Adolf wants to shine in the battlefield and lands in Stralsund in April to lead the Swedish defenders, only to be decapitated by a stray cannonball in the Battle of Belling in April 1807.

The hastily gathered new regency council of the boy king Gustav V opts to revert back to neutrality. Russia sees no need to revise the Kymijoki border, and Sweden retains Finland. Fearful of Russia, Sweden does not invade Norway.

The way I see it, Finnish nationalism lacks both serious promotors and political allure in such a scenario. In OTL in the Grand Duchy it was a promising career path for endeavouring intellectuals.

Here? Perhaps an inspiration to a few poets, but turning it into a OTL type political force seems much harder. I'd rather expect the Finländare exceptionalism and regional identity to turn into a political force with a smaller emphasis of the Finnish language.

 

[Jürgen]

Considering all things, I think we might see an odd reversal of the OTL language situation in Finland today, with some people lamenting the two official languages and especially having to learn Swedish at school, with most Finnish-speaking Finns being ok with learning Swedish, since it grants some real, tangiable career prospects (as an offical or just working in the Swedish-speaking part of the country), while Finnish might be taught to and resented by Swedish pupils (in both of what is today Finland and Sweden) complaining that they will never use it.

Unlikely, the situation in Finland is unique, at most I could see Swedes in Finland being forced to learn Finnish, but I couldn't see it happen in Sweden proper.