Swedo-Finnish Union in and after ww2. Effects on cold war?

[Sarthak]

Jarl Wasastierna, the Finnish minister in Stockholm officially suggested an union between Sweden and Finland based on Austria-Hungary's own confederational type on the 20th of September 1940. The Soviet minister in Stockholm, Alexandra Kollontaj initially expressed a careful support of the project, but received new instructions from Moscow and declared the Soviet opposition on the 4th of November. On the 6th of December Minister Paasikivi in Moscow was called to Molotov and informed that Moscow would see continued negotiations on a union with Sweden as a violation of the March peace, and thus a cause for war.

The Soviets threatened immediate war in case of a union. To Sweden, the union was a way of trying to prevent war (and if it still came, defend Stockholm from Karelia), not immediately enter one.

However in March 1941, Paasikivi was once again called to Molotov and now informed that Moscow now viewed a union in a positive light. But by then everyone but Stalin realized the Germans were invading come Summer, and there were already German troops in Finland, so it was already too late.

Let's say that this does not happen, and the Soviet Greenlight is found earlier by the Finns, and the Kingdom of Sweden-Finland becomes a reality. This is a net gain for the soviets when the germans attack, and for the sake of the question let's say the Soviets using the extra freed up troops and without the need to patrol the north, push the Germans back earlier. And the cold war begins in 1946. How would a Swedish-Finland Union affect the cold war?

 

[Sarthak]

@von Adler
@DrakonFin

 

[Bougnas]

Such a union would likely remain neutral but obviously somewhat pro-NATO considering that the union was intended to avoid another war. The major difference is that Finland would not have done the Continuation War and wouldn't have suffered even more damage. Combined with the Soviet approval for the union this implies somewhat better relations between the Finns and Soviets which would reduce the odds of war.

From the Soviet perspective, the union is relatively friendly but is still in the way if the Soviets want to attack Norway during WW3 to prevent NATO from using it as a staging ground for attacks against the Baltic Fleet and Murmansk. There might be serious talks between the Soviets and the West to keep Norway out of NATO (and in an alliance with the Swedo-Finnish union?) to avoid this strategic nightmare. If it happens, Scandinavia may become completely irrelevant in WW3 which would complicate the naval war for both sides since Norway can no longer act as a staging ground, but at the same time would save forces to concentrate on the Central European Front.
If Norway still gets in NATO well it's kinda the same strategic situation as OTL.

Another difference is that Finland wouldn't be under Soviet influence. This would prevent the Soviets from just imposing a right of passage to invade Norway freely (although by all accounts Finland was likely to defend itself anyway), and reduce NATO's concerns about Finland fighting with the Soviets or letting them invade Norway.

This would reflect into the union's forces as well. OTL Finland had greater access to Soviet equipment but lesser access NATO's because the latter feared that the Finns would give the Soviets information or equipment to examinate. Therefore it is guaranteed that ITTL the union will not use any Soviet equipment but use more indigenous or Western equipment, which might be better suited to their needs. The union would also combine the heavy industries of Sweden and Finland (the latter's being likely as developped or more developped than OTL), with a 50% greater population than Sweden's alone. The Finnish population and economy would likely be better obviously without the Continuation War and whatever constraints were placed on them postwar by the Soviets.

This could result in greater success for the combined indigenous armament industry of the union thanks to economies of scale (with greater numbers of weapons being purchased than in Sweden or Finland alone). Both sides naturally have much to gain with Finland having made excellent artillery pieces and wheeled APCs during the Cold War, something the Swedes weren't very successful at. Depending on the influence of the Finnish military apparatus, the Swedes could gain valuable experience from the Winter War, orienting its procurement choices. The Finnish part of the armed forces would be free of OTL's postwar restrictions regarding missiles, air equipment and so on. One problem is that Finland purchased very cheap equipment OTL, which might not be the case if it's indigenous or Western equipment ITTL.


If the union can suffer less from 1970's economic problems, it could avoid the procurement problems that plagued Sweden OTL during this period.

 

[DrakonFin]

@Sārthākā

I suggest you comb through @pdf27's TL, A Blunted Sickle, for the discussions about the Union there. It is the only timeline I know where a Swedo-Finnish Union comes into existence and is discussed at some length. Both yours truly and @von Adler discussed the matter there from different perspectives, so you might start with our posts in the original TL thread and its continuation.

Otherwise, in general, I am personally sceptical that the Union could have been realistic. The main reason was that it would be difficult to stop Stalin pursuing Finland in 1940-41. I also think that it might have been more realistic for a Swedo-Finnish defensive alliance of sorts to come about already before the war than in 1940-41 when Sweden would be more likely to refrain from risking being drawn into the war along with Finland. But then, like I tend to say, if there was such an alliance before mid-1939, it would have likely prevented even the Winter War.

As for the form of a 1940 Swedo-Finnish Union, the Finns would not like at all the idea that it would be just an extended Sweden with Finland as just a province under it. The Finns want political and military support, not a Swedish king to rule over them. Most likely the Finnish idea would be that the Union State would be a new structure above both Finland and Sweden as ostensibly equal, separate component states under it, "The Union of the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland", if you will.

 

[von Adler]

As @DrakonFin says, it will be a state union with two different heads of state, two different parliaments, two different set of laws and two different armies.

If the union somehow survives, it will probably be neutral in the cold war - that would be acceptable both to the Soviets and to NATO and both Finland and Sweden would have a direct experience of armed neutrality and sticking together in the face of great power machinations being a successful concept.

I could see there being some integration on armed forces - calibres, systems, weapons etc being procured jointly.

Economical co-operation would probably also be on the board. A free trade union, integrated currencies (1 Finnish Mark = 1 Swedish Krona and both being usable in either country), free movement of capital and labour (like the OTL Nordic Union). A big question will be the Finnish economy. On one hand, it should be better off for not going through the Continuation War and Lapland War and paying the war reparations and keeping the Petsamo nickel mines and selling that at premium prices during the war.

On the other hand, the war reparations forced Finland to industrialise to a high degree in order to meet them, and with the friendship treaty with the Soviets, Finland became the to-go place for the Soviets whenever they needed something of western quality - during the Cold War, Finnish exports to the Soviet Union made up a substantial part of the Finnish economy.

On the other hand, during the 50s and 60s, large number of Finns moved to Sweden to work in Swedish industry, this movement of people might escalate in a union and cause resentment in Finland ("they're stealing our best youth" etc).

Sweden did have very cordial relations with DDR and was the to-go place for DDR when they needed western quality stuff, just like Finland to the Soviets, partially because Sweden had let some German communists take refuge in Sweden during the war, and many of them became bigwigs in DDR after the war and had fond memories of their time in Sweden (they were denied political activity and complained about this, but after the war they realised how much worse pretty much every other German communist was treated in other countries and changed their tune). As a neutral block, perhaps both Sweden and Finland can be acceptable trade partners to the Warsaw Pact countries.

How the union develops and if it can be retained will depend a lot both on Swedish and Finnish goodwill and on the attitude of the Soviets.

There will be a lot of Finnish nationalists that will resent the union as a subjugation. Likewise, there will be a lot of Swedes that think fighting for Finland is not worth it. If the Soviets are hostile, they will try to break the union up which will cause tensions and problems. If the Soviets are friendly, then there's really no need for the union, is there, and the nationalists and isolationists will have a field day.

The union surviving will require some serious cultural introspectionism on both sides, a willingness to compromise and sacrifice that might or might not be there.

 

[pdf27]

I suggest you comb through @pdf27's TL, A Blunted Sickle, for the discussions about the Union there. It is the only timeline I know where a Swedo-Finnish Union comes into existence and is discussed at some length. Both yours truly and @von Adler discussed the matter there from different perspectives, so you might start with our posts in the original TL thread and its continuation.

Otherwise, in general, I am personally sceptical that the Union could have been realistic. The main reason was that it would be difficult to stop Stalin pursuing Finland in 1940-41. I also think that it might have been more realistic for a Swedo-Finnish defensive alliance of sorts to come about already before the war than in 1940-41 when Sweden would be more likely to refrain from risking being drawn into the war along with Finland. But then, like I tend to say, if there was such an alliance before mid-1939, it would have likely prevented even the Winter War.

It wasn't in the original plot for A Blunted Sickle, but sort of grew out of the discussion on the thread. Off the top of my head the key points which made me go down that route are:

• Fighting is still going on in Norway and France, with the Narvik railway still open. This neutralises Germany as a potential source of support for the Finns, and ensures that both Sweden and Finland have access to the world market for weapons and commodities. I figured having no alternative ally will make the Finns more willing to go for a union, while conversely the Swedes won't join if they're blockaded from being able to buy critical supplies (notably aircraft and some strategic materials).
• With Germany more involved in France, the Soviets are feeling both more powerful and more relaxed than OTL. This means that they aren't working with the expectation of having to fight the Germans in summer 1942, and this (combined with generally being more chilled out) will somewhat tone down their response to any proposed union. Finland may be unfinished business since the Tsars, but they aren't really worried about Sweden trying to invade Leningrad and even if it did happen they could throw the whole RKKA at it while feeling confident of eventual success. In any case they have other fish to fry.
• The British and French have held the Germans in France, while the smaller countries (Poland, Belgium, Denmark, etc.) got walked over. This creates a world where the public perception is that making yourself bigger offers a decent hope of safety, rather than one where your best hope is to keep your head down and hope you don't get noticed.

I'm not 100% sure it's totally realistic, but I don't think it's ASB and it makes for some interesting divergences. I haven't yet decided if it will survive in the postwar world - if it does it will be more of an overgrown alliance than a full union.

 

[Lalli]

Even if Sweden-Finland Union would become real, I doubt that it would be very long-living. Couple decades might be easy but it might be hard to preserve to this day. Them have much of common things and economic ties but nationalism might make things bit tricky if then there is not permanent fear of Soviet Union/Russia.