Why didn’t Pan Scandinavianism kick off? A Union of Denmark, Sweden and Norway seems pretty natural. Maybe add Finland too, probably makes them win the winter war even harder Or even just having Norway and Sweden remain United rather than splitting up
>>18421392Because despite the many attempts to unify, these places and people are different and have different economic interests.
>>18421392Tried it with the Kalmar Union. Sweden reacted to something and left.Denmark-Norway then created a union together and stayed like that until 1814 when Denmark-Norway lost the Napoleonic Wars and Sweden wanted Denmark to enter out of their union with Norway so they could enter into a personal union with Norway instead, which then lasted until 1905 or somesuch. Too many small differences that didn't make the concept work, I guess.
>>18421392Hegemonic powers don't like countries uniting. They like creating small buffer states here and there, promoting the Balkanization of non-collaborating countries, etc.If Sweden, Norway and Denmark were on the way of uniting, you can expect there'd be some attempt to bribe some politicians for it not to happen or some prime minister might be "suicided".
>>18421392If they did theyd buck break us germans and call us Yugogermania or some shit.
>>18421392Norwegians were aligned with the Albion, because their major business was sailing the high seas.Swedes were aligned with the Hun, because you best use a Hun to fight the Mongols and their elite still felt that they had a shot at getting their empire back.Denmark was not okay with the Huns and had a history of being fucked over by the Albion.Now try and cook a unified political strategy for them.
>>18421392>Win the winter war even harder >Win
>>18421392>Why didn’t Pan Scandinavianism kick off?Because with all of these "Pan-whatever" unions, one group is lording it over the others.
>>18421578> Norwegians were aligned with the Albion, because their major business was sailing the high seasThe ones that blockaded and starved them for being a neutral country in 1809?
>>18421760The ones who were going to invade them during WW2, were it not for the Germans getting there first, yes.It's the Albion, they always are perfidious.
>>18421392The guy on the left looks fucked, his legs are fully facing towards the viewer, his body is completely facing away from the viewer, and his head is halfway
>>18421741The Soviets were trying to annex Finland and got fucked so hard by a country a small fraction of its size and population they had to settle for some border territory adjustments Also if you think the Soviets won why do you think Stalin purged the military so much after the failures of the war?
>>18421392Denmark and Sweden would never be able to agree on who should run the union, by the time nationalism became a thing there was centuries of warfare and bad blood between them and a minor but still relevant point is that other naval powers (particularly Britain and the Netherlands) did not want to see a united Scandinavia because that meant there would be a relatively strong kingdom controlling trade flow through to and from the Baltic.
>>18421392When New Zealand and Australia can't get along enough to unify, you can understand why considerably older countries who actually speak different languages (similar doesn't mean the same after all, Swedes can't understand spoken Danish) don't unify either
>>18421760It's Europa, Ami. Nobody keeps a grudge otherwise the EU wouldn't even exist kek.
>>18422638There's little if any incentive for Australia/NZ to unify other than Aussie think tank dweebs that just view everything as >population go up = we regional power now
>>18422638It’s not that they couldn’t get along but that they were far away enough that beinf ruled by a single government wouldn’t have been representative. The benefit of internal trade likewise was never an issue because they always had free trade with eachother
>>18421392You have it ass-backwards, they were originally united against their will. When the opportunity arose, they broke away.
>>18421885>>18421485At same, Norwegian fascist government has claim Greenland
>>18422603Why did Finland give up territory if they won?
>>18421485the entire history of this post was an unfortunate result of the black death plague decimating scandinavia.Norway was on the brink of unifying with Scotland during that time, and had all the means and resources to jumpstart the exploration that the English and Dutch did instead. we could have a timeline where scots-norwegians ruled the waves and the english were stuck doung trench warfare in France, instead of the Scots-English world order.
>>18422603>they had to settle for some border territory adjustmentsLmao, Finland lost their second-largest city and even more territory than the Soviets had demanded before the war.
>>18421392>dude why don't europeans just become one countryAre you American.
>>18422603>>18423088Definitely American.
>>18423031>Norway was on the brink of unifying with Scotland during that time,I don't know where the fuck you got this idea from, but given that Norway couldn't even stand being unified with Sweden or Denmark, a Scottish union likely isn't making it past the century mark either Also these two underpopulated countries are more likely to end up like Portugal than actually "ruling the waves", i.e first but rapidly overtaken by larger powers with more resources
>>18421485>Tried it with the Kalmar Union.I really hate when people bring up the Kalmar Union in these debates, as if its some kind of argument. The Kalmar Union occured during a time when the concept of state didnt even exist and this was especially true in Scandinavia, one of the most chaotic places in all of Europe, and that was the reason the union collapsed; the Swedish crown was too decentralized from the very beginning, and the nobility wanted more power to themselves. This isnt compreable to modern nationstates if we were to discuss a unification of Denmark, Norway and Sweden./Swede
>>18423664A Scotland-Norway union would lead to a more independent scots language. It also would have lead to more scandinavian influences in the scots language. Scots already has more similarities to scandinavian and continental germanic languages compared to normal english.I wonder what would have happened to the scotish-gaelic languages in that scenario and I wonder what Ireland's fate would be in that scenario.
>>18421392I don't think a united Scandinavia is far-fetched, but the pan-Scandinavian movement on its own was not and was never going to be enough. We were divided into two states for the entire early modern era, two states that were each others nemesis, fought wars against each other every other decade, developed their own national identities, and created their own literary standards.The realization in the 19th century that we're actually brothers and should be friends could never have created a mass movement capable of achieving a unification, as what happened in Germany and Italy, as we were already too far apart. It wasn't even enough to keep the Swedish-Norwegian union together, which was a very loose union to begin with.
>>18423664They could stand being unified with Denmark, Denmark-Noway was one centralized state for 300 years with basically not a single rebellion of note. It was only Sweden they couldn't stand, immediately starting a war of independence after they were ceded, naming the Danish crown prince as their king and using picrelated as their flag.If Denmark had kept Norway it is fairly likely that it would still be part of Denmark.
>>18424323>The realization in the 19th century that we're actually brothers and should be friends could never have created a mass movement capable of achieving a unification, as what happened in Germany and ItalyIndeed it could have never, because both of those were ultimately united by conquest and an international consensus that allowed the border to be redrawn.
>>18424360Sure, but the conquest was spurred on by a mass movement without which it would not have been possible.
>>18421392Has pan-anything ever worked? If it was that easy to unify these peoples, they wouldn't be separate, distinct peoples to begin with.
>>18424368>If it was that easy to unify these peoples, they wouldn't be separate, distinct peoples to begin with./threadThat's kinda the big elephant in the room, they're separate to begin with for a reason. Same deal with trying to unify Czechs and Slovaks or Croats and Serbs
>>18424363Nah, in the case of Italy, the Piedemontese invaded the Bourbons and the Vatican State with Napoleon III's blessing as part of his overall plan to fuck with Austria.The unification of Germany ultimately happened through the candidate backed by the Czar and the ongoing popular unification movement was mercilessly crushed. The Czar, in return, understood that the new Germany would politically back him on his nation's xth march on Constantinople.Neither of these nations emerged due to popular demand but as part of international political deals and military conquest.
>>18422656There is. New Zealand suffers from a massive neverending brain drain to Australia and it basically cannot be stopped without crashing the entire economy as the two countries are too heavily integrated already. Not that unification would stop it, but having a brain drain from one region to another within the same country is infinitely better as atleast then you still get a share of the taxes those people pay.
>>18424386You're dead wrong. All Hohenzollern heirs learned to speak Polish fluently, the language of the largest Prussian minority, while the Piedmontese court had always been very bilingual in Italian and French, and the status of the latter went above and beyond from what you could see in other European courts that merely used French as a language of high culture and diplomacy. They identified with all their subjects and would not mind making their realms more multicultural than they already were.Then nationalism came and they suddenly saw a chance at greatly expanding their kingdoms by identifying with the ethnic majority and positioning themselves as a national unifier. Until then nobody had cared that Schleswig-Holstein had been ruled by non-Germans, nor that Lombardy-Venetia had been ruled by non-Italians, but now it galvanized the masses who pressed for action. These wars just would not have been possible or even conceived of without that broad popular support. Likewise Prussia and Piedmont were able to just seemlessly annex and integrate all the other statelets as if all of it had always been theirs whereas in the past such annexations had often led to popular upheavel, even when the ruler was of the same ethnicity and religion as his new subjects, as was for example seen in Bavaria in the early 18th century when Austria tried to annex it.Separating the two unifications from nationalism is impossible if you think about it, but that should have already been obvious.
>>18424433>Separating the two unifications from nationalism is impossibleSure, but Polish nationalism also did exist, yet where was Poland?It's a mystery.
>>18424481Because they did not have a Piedmont or a Prussia or really anything other than the tiny city state of Krakow which was quickly annexed after Polish nationalists took it over.I'm saying that a nationalist mass movement was neccessary, not that it alone was enough.
>>18424492I'm saying that the nationalist mass movement was helpful in shaping a nation-state-shaped outcome, but it wasn't essential. The armed forces and the acquiescence of Great Powers were.
>>18424503It was certainly essential, otherwise they would just have continued to be the multicultural composite monarchies of old. There wouldn't have been a nation state without it.And strategically speaking nationalism still played a massive role. If this was the 18th century the German states would not have been willing to give up their independence as easily they did, hell, they would have even fought alongside the French to preserve it, and Piedmont would not have been able to bloodlessly gobble up the other Italian states.I do think it played a role for great power acquiescence aswell, Napoleon III certainly felt a genuine sympathy for Italian nationalism when he intervened and British sympathy for German nationalism helped keep the UK neutral. I guess it wasn't essential for this particular factor though, but that doesn't change the bigger picture.
>>18423031This isn’t anywhere close to reality. The Scots kicked Norway out of the western Isles by 1266, leaving them with just Orkney. Any pretensions of Norwegian dominance in Scotland was over even before this point. Even if Margaret of Norway didn’t die on the boat ride over in 1291, she would have been married off to someone who would do the the actual ruling, and it wouldn’t have been a Norwegian. It wouldn’t have created a union either because her uncle Haakon V succeeded her father. By the Black Death in the mid 1300s, Scotland was independent under the Bruces and then the Stewarts.Even if this hypothetical union happened anyway, it wouldn’t stand any chance against England militarily. It might survive, as Scotland did, because Scotland was too hard to conquer and hold, but Scotland constantly jobbed against England on the battlefield and Edinburg kept getting burned down. I don’t think Norway’s resources would help either since it’d be split between Britain and Scandinavia. Just like in real life, Norway would be so busy that its nominal vassals in Scotland would be on their own, like how the kings of the Isles were de facto independent until Scotland absorbed them.
>>18421760Even more of a reason to be aligned with them: if you don’t do what they say, they can starve you out with a handful of boats.
>>18424368>>18424384One pan-movement worked: Pan-Italy. It’s never called that, but Italy was made up of very different groups, even more so than Czechs-Slovaks, Serb-Croats, and Scandinavians. So much so that it probably shouldn’t have happened but it did and it still hasn’t fallen apart. When Italy united only 3% of the population spoke standard Italian and historical loyalties were all over the place. But, Italy is still together and the dialects are dying out. Italy is unironically a case of such a success.
