@@vilzupuupaa4680 you are not Scandinavian, there is no reason to have Finland in the kingdom, i support close friendship with you guys but we are 2 completely different ethnic groups, it would be foolish to unite into 1 nation, Long live Kingdom of Scandinavia and the Greater Finland!
@@medi9945 I get where you are coming from. Sure, we differ a lot and that may cause some major schenanigans and trouble with for example the language of government, healthcare, education system and so on and so forth. But, in my persoanl opinion, the bigger the union is the better one. United, we could be a major power both economy- and militarywise. The oil of Norway, the upcoming mines in Greenland, the forests of Finland in and Sweden, the tech companies of Finland and Sweden, I mean, we would have a lot of power. Our speeches would matter a lot more in the world. That stuff matters. I'm not saying that you are wrong, not at all. What I am saying is that the pros heavily oitweigh the cons.
@@vilzupuupaa4680 Im still not keen on the idea, the main reason for the creation of a united kingdom is for the Scandinavian ethnic group to unite into one nation. You can have your own "finnic kingdom" of somesorts with estonia and karelia but not with us. The main reason People from our nations want this is because "well it looks cool on the map" but they dont understand the flaws of it, as i said before, long live scandinavia and long live the finnic empire
I think it is fair to say that all the nordic countries would have larger populations due to better economies, and no ww2 involvement. Finland would still have Vinby. Svenska, Danska och Norska would also be more mutually intelligble
And he also forgot about... - Bouvet Island (Antarctic research place) in the Antarctic Sea just between Antarctica and Africa. - That Scandinavia (Norden) would take over Norway's claims to Peter I Island and Queen Maud Land in Antarctica. - Mentioning Svalbard or Jan Mayen in the Arctic. - If Åland would be autonomous or not. - The question of Hans Island belonging to either Canada or Scandinavian Greenland.
@@greyzone3801 Given that Åland's autonomy status was one of the conditions for it being part of Finland instead of Sweden, I feel like in timeline of unified Fenno-Scandia, it wouldn't enjoy such privileges.
Hey man, I've been subscribed for a few months now and I really like your content. The amount of detail you put into your videos is nothing short of amazing. If you take suggestions, I'd love to see an alternate history based on what if Germanyny unified in 1848 and what if Hungary united with Poland-Lithuania sometime in the 15th century. I'm also really looking forward to "What if the Russian Revolution Never Happened?" part 2. Hope to see your channel griw in the near future. Keep up the good work!
I think that Stockholm would still have the highest population, but if you look at "greater" Stockholm vs Copenhagen then Copenhagen would probably have more. I definitely think gothenburg would had a real major increase in population. Malmo would probably lose population to Copenhagen and gothenburg. But once the bridge is built it most likely would increase in population fast because of its proximity to Copenhagen. Would be interesting to see how industrialised this united Scandinavian kingdom(usk?) Tech & and industries from parts of former sweden Farming from Skåne&jutland m.m. oil and fishery from Norway. Forestry and mining from the nothern parts of Sweden and Finland. USK would have so many natural resources for its relative small population that most likely it would demand some sort of immigration eventually during the 80s probably. Would be so interesting to see how much synergy the usk would be able to accomplish. How about military? I think usk would keep roughly the size of all nations combined now if in nato, but if not in Nato probably bigger as it has a lot of land to cover. Probably quite an expansive fleet and im guessing a big airfleet as Sweden went with during the cold War. Tank battalions would probably mostly be stationed in Finland and karelia, maybe a few in sweden, Northern and maybe south of Stockholm. Probably one in jutland/Skåne area. For Norway i don't know if they would be needed. Norway would probably host a large North Sea fleet. Usk would not use aircraft carriers but built airbase on the different islands to connect to Iceland. Im guessing that in this timeline Europe still forms European union and is still peaceful. No real threats from mainland europe/uk/usa. Russia would most likely be seen as a potential aggressor.
@@Merecir Would it tho? If it joined nato it would be protected by the US and like most other nato nations not develop nuclear weapons. Only France and the UK are nuclear powers today, because they still considered themselves world powers after WW2. Even if Scandinavia didn't join nato it is likely to be included under the US's nuclear protection as Sweden was and as Sweden did cancel its nuclear program.
@@linusholmstrom876 In OTL Sweden was 4 votes in the Riksdag from assembling the nuke and becoming a nuclear power. In a timeline where the nation had recently been in a bloody war with Russia the sentiment would be completely different. Considering that the Swedish Socialdemocrats created IB to keep check on communist subversionists in OTL, the paranoia would be much greater in this timeline. Pacifists would probably not get much traction politically.
@@Merecir you make great points, and have convinced me that it would likely be a nuclear power if it was neutral although still not a certainty in my eyes. And still very unlikely if it joined nato.
@@Merecir i really don’t think so. The U.K. only got them because of their help in the Manhattan project and France got them because they didn’t wanna be left behind in global politics and they developed them themselves and tested them in the Sahara desert and later their Polynesian islands. The facts are that Scandinavia doesn’t have anywhere to even test nukes, other than Greenland, but that would definitely cause Greenland to want independence. Even hosting American nukes in Thule was controversial in our own timeline
This (and the first part) was such a good video. As a swede i have actually always wanted this to happen in the real world. Would love to see you talk more about it
Very good video, however, because of the german influence in Schleswig i think there should be a transition dialect in Southern Jutland, the rest is very good as always
The languages are quite different. IRL there is not much difference, it's effectively a two-language region, where most danes know german, and most germans know danish.
Please do more alternate history videos like these two videos, about other countries, like Germany(German confederation, or a union between Austrian and German empires), Iran(in which it would keep its Sasanian borders), etc.
Worth the waiting man, heres a suggestion for u: what if the hre remained united, i have seen whatifalthist did it and nobody elese so maybe u could take a try on it
Bloody interesting. I've been discussing a potential (future) union with the Nordic countries for awhile with some friends, and from what we can see it would only make the lands stronger, more economic etc. Even though we are somewhat "unified" as of today with our military personnel working together, almost on a daily basis and offer help to one another in hard times. I'm definitively not against a Scandinavian Union, although it would be hard to implement today. Great videos!
I feel like it's somewhat neglected how Gothenburg would have a much greater population growth. I'd dare say that it'd be at a similar level of population size to Kopenhagen and Stockholm, and would likely eventually overtake both of them.
That's debatable. Obviously, being the capital and seat of parlament would increase Gothenburg's importance and by necessity its population. But there are plenty of real life examples of capitals around the world not necessarily being the largest or most populous city of its respective nation. Is the Gothenburg area more/similarly attractive/inhabitable as Copenhagen and Stockholm? I dont personally know, but I'd argue that factors more heavily into a city's population growth. Even if Gothenburg can compete on those parameters, would 150 years be enough time to grow to the size of Copenhagen and Stockholm - even if we assume those two would have a slightly lower growth rate to compensate for Gothenburg's increased growth?
I'd have preferred if it was called something like "The Nordic kingdom", "Kingdom of Nordia" or "Kingdom of the Nordic lands" Instead of UK of Scandinavia and Finland. Those would've been both inclusive and shorter.
@@eagleowl833 Although this predates the UN, the union of Sweden and Norway was called the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, and existed along side the other UK. Edit: Oh and since "Scandinavia" in this scenario is a continuation of that union, I simply kept the name and reworked it to fit the now larger Kingdom. I agree that it isn't an ideal name for the nation. Then again we live in an imperfect world so would it not be realistic for there to be a weird quirk like that. 2 countries with very similar names.
I think the United Scandinavian Kingdoms of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland. Would be a good formal name and Scandinavia or U.S.K would be good informal names.
@@Ali-bu6lo i’m saying that a it would be a good long/offical name like United States of America or The United Kingdom of Great Britain. A good short/unofficial name would be Scandinavia or U.S.K exaple: USA/america or UK/great britain
@Neatling, you mentioned in this scenario that Scandinavia was a memeber of the EU, but in the scenario based on the Kalmar Union it was not a member of the EU. Is there a reason or is it just random here? I like the different scenarios for Scandinavian unification with the history and the demographics in the present day caused by them!
So in this timeline Germany invades Scandinavia (because of the Iceland comment). I would imagine hitler wouldn’t have done that in this timeline. He invaded so Swedish imports wouldn’t be halted by the allies. In this timeline there’s a very easy access point. That and Hitler wouldn’t invade a Germanic country with such a big population. He’d believe them to be very powerful, perhaps moreso than Russia.
@@talbot9255 well we declared war on him. But an excellent point to bring up. Although I’m not sure how many Germanic empires he thought Germany could fight.
@@purpledevilr7463 good point but he did declare war on the US when he didn’t have to. PS. I know the US has alot of black and non-germanic white people but it was founded by the english and the largest ethnic group was german.
@@talbot9255 to quote someone (whatifalthist) “A more reasonable racist would’ve recognised the US has a large Germanic population.” He didn’t recognise that and assumed that all the races had mixed too much, despite non-Germanic immigrants only being there for a single generation at the time.
@@purpledevilr7463 i hadn’t thought of that. But Scandinavia was still pretty small and had a tiny empire. Plus Hitler did invade Denmark and Norway at the same time so why not Sweden too (i’m assuming he would promise Finland independence and Iceland is to small to matter (i say this as a icelander))
it would probably have been a good thing for the region, a united nordics or nordic federation or something. probably would have worked better as a smaller group then the whole of eu.
I made a United Scandinavia flag in a similar way. It uses the Finish flag for its background, and combines the Nortic Crosses (the Finish Nortic cross on the outside, the Danish Nortic cross in the center and the Swedish Nortic cross in between.
If we were to unite, i'm not sure it would make alot of sense to involve Finland, would definitely be taken as a threat by Russia, but i would love the scandinavian countries to unite, and develop a unified language.
I often hear people ask why we should ever unite in to one countery, i only have one awnser, a greater kingdom of the north means that we have the liberty to decide our path in the international world, in sted of being split up in three different counterys whom on theire own has no power or liberty, an are always on the mercy of other great powers.
There have been more attempts to join the countries. In 1960 there was the EFTA attempt that was foiled by Denmark jumping over to EG/EU in 1973. Switzerland, Lichtenstein as well as Austria being a part made it sort of.. well strange. its worth saying that the effect of EFTA is the reason why we still to this day (well until 2015 at least) can go across Nordic countries with out passports. EU really F.U. this. There was also a slightly less impressive attempt in the 90-tys. The idéa was that the Nordic countries would join as a nation under EU in steed of under EFTA... it basically failed due to Norway not joining.. and well.. it wouldn´t work anyway. We have a few reminders of that today. Firstly the Öresundsbron was a supposed start to the unification. Well the bridge still stands... Now will border controls (... F***.. we have gone backwards). Anyway, there is a other reminder. Bluetooth. Bluetooth started in 1989 with a cooperation between primarily Ericsson and Nokia, but also a few other lesser known companies, some of them in Norway and Denmark. When Intel joined in 1997, the name Bluetooth was proposed as it have joined the Nordic countries just like king Bluetooth ~1000 years earlier. The Bluetooth system actually spawned out of the NMT, Nordic mobile telecommunication system. NMT is effectively the predecessor to GSM. There only ever was 3 gen 1 mobile phone system widely deployed, ironically the first gen 1 was a NMT system deployed in the middle east. Worth saying that there was a gen 0 and gen 0.5 also. Because NMT was built over most of Europe, pretty much the countries using NMT joined to create GSM, While its not a official predecessor, it is effectively one. GSM never really become a global system, and neither did UTMS.... it really took until LTE
You should make a video on the strategic importance of Soviet Union without access to Murmansk and the rest of the Kola peninsula during the Second World War if this country had existed.
You could cover the Crown of Aragon in a Countries that no longer exist video. Languages: Mainly catalan, followed by italian and aragonese. Keep it up
Because in this scenario Scandinavia united in the later half of the 1800's. At this point Skåneland was a part of Sweden and Åland a part of Russia (later independent Finland which joins Scandinavia). But it wouldn't matter much in this scenario since it's all the same country. The people in Åland would speak a dialect of Scandinavian derived from Swedish. And the people Skåneland would be somewhere in between Swedes and Danes in their pronunciation, because at this point Sweden had already done a lot of cultural assimilation in the region. Denmark joining the Kingdom would bring Skåne, Halland and Blekinge even closer to Denmark than in our world though. And many more Danes would also live in the region, making it even more of a Danish-Swedish transition region than it is today. As I briefly mention in the video, people in western Skåne would probably sound a lot more like Danes from in and around Copenhagen. The rest of the region would be a transition region as mentioned.
I really enjoy this series of currently two parts, but I have one question. What about Operation Zitronella (Unternehmen Sizilien) in 1943, which was an 8-hour raid on Spitzbergen, Svalbard? Does this still take place in this alternate history?
It does not. Because in this scenario Scandinavia surrenders before needing to be fully occupied. In the real world Norway fought the Germans to the bitter end. But here Scandinavia just fights in order to symbolically oppose Germany, and then surrenders and joins the axis (keeping its government). Meaning Svalbard is just under Scandinavian (and thus axis) rule. No need for the Germans to raid when they can just send troops there peacefully.
They should have. they had no reasons not to, apart from outside influences, and of the rulers losing power, and the divide rule story. Today they would be more competitive with England or Germany economically.
It may offend your Danish / Scandinavian nationalism, but the majority of Schleswig-Holstein residents didn't want to be Danes in 1848 and 1864. In 1920 there were several referendums and the north of Schleswig went back to Denmark. In the cities of Aabenraa, Sønderborg and Tønder there were majorities for Germany, but overall around 75% of the votes in this voting zone were for Denmark. Today's border seems to correspond to the will of the peoples. It is good that the hateful nationalism of the past has been overcome and that the respective German and Danish minorities in Schleswig can live their cultural, linguistic and national peculiarities
What if the Mauryan Empire never fell, or, at the very least, their successor dynasties like in china, kept the indian sub-continent united until modern day?
here in argentina we were so close to unite with chile into one country in the 50s called "the united states of hispanoamerica" it was going well and we even had a flag of the new country until the U.S sended coups to our countries to make sure this never happens because their government hates competence also our country had a more advanced nuclear technology than the U.S and europe and our government was trying to create a source of unlimited and clean energy that could replace oil forever.
While there were norwegian speaking villages in the kola peninsula, there were far more russians, finns and sami in the region. For example in the 1897 russian census there were less than 10 000 inhabitants, of which russians were the biggest(63%), sami the second biggest(19%), finns(+karelians) were the third biggest(15%) and norwegians formed only around 2% of the population.( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolsky_Uyezd#Demographics )(Though the norwegian population did peak around 1917 at about 1 000 people, but they would still be a small minority) So in the scenario, that kola would be annexed to finland, it would most likely be inhabited by more finns, rather than more norwegians.
Jesesalo thats definantly the case for most of the peninsula. However the rybashy?peninsula, Kildin and most of the coast between were majority norweigian. That was also a case when the border between russia and norway were drawn back in the 1800s. I just find it a bit strange that the scandinavian countries wouldnt claim the area to increase influence in the arctic. The danes, and later the norweigians was really afraid of finish influence in the north, and i think they would have tried to claim the areas were the finish wasnt a clear majority.
@@knutlol Yeah that's a good point. My understanding is that until Murmansk was founded in 1916, most of the population lived in the southern coast of the peninsula. So the norwegians most likely did form a majority in the northern coast. I think there were some Norwegian nationalists who advocated for taking Kola, but i don't think they ever got too much support. Finnish nationalists viewed Kola as a part of East Karelia(which was mostly populated by Karelians, who were seen as Finns), so therefore it sort of came with the deal. The peninsula was mostly a desert until 1900s, so neither the Norwegians nor the Finns spend too much time and energy in trying to claim it from the russians. Then of course came the commies and ruined everything as per usual.
Danmarks population is a round 5,8 million pepole, and norway has a population a round 5,328 million people. and Finland has a population a round 5,518 million pepole
This is alternate history, not an actual showcase of the Nordics. Here Denmark and Finland have more territory, increasing their populations. Immigrants are also not as concentrated in Sweden because it's all one country, making the populations of all except Sweden larger. I explained everything in the video.
@@svampen7782 That’s like the amount of reserve in Finnish army already. Should be about million, if conscription is applied elsewhere too. I’m assuming you are talking about this fictive united Scandinavia scenario.
@@svampen7782 Well we would have considerable amount of power, making us strong regional power. This is real possibility in the future too, with the Nordic combat uniform projects and such, which are clearly a sign of tightening military cooperation.
But what actually is Scandinavia ? Geographically it is the peninsula of Norway and Sweden. If you could consider Finland as a geographical / natural similar country it could be included, but Denmark, Faröer and Iceland are not. Or is it the cultural similarities like the spoken Germanic languages, then Finland could better join a union with Estonia. So the projection in this video is more a political union, or more arbitrary being “nationalistic Nordic”. It is not per se beneficial for the countries because for a union based on trade or common standards it’s better to join a bigger, more populous union like the EU.
This is an alternate history scenario. It's not a proposal or anything of the sort. It's a fictional world where Denmark joined Sweden-Norway in the 1800's. As for what Scandinavia is, in the real world the definition people generally use is "Sweden, Denmark and Norway". No one at least from the Nordics uses the term in a geographic sense. Or you would at least specify that it's the Scandinavian peninsula you're talking about. Because to Scandinavians it simply means the 3 countries of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
Include the British terretory into this, Scandinavia has mutch in common with Brittain more so then Finland pre ww2. Vikings you know.. this union could have been a big power house maybe the ability to have stopped the nazis with the support of Soviet. Interesting videos.
I am so sorry to say that Greenland 🇬🇱 is part of Dinmark and not united Kingdom....! Also on your map you show like "Finland's territory" a big part that actually belongs to Russia. Such a mistake
I think you are confusing terms and going by public perception when you talk about Sweden vs the rest of the Nordics' immigration rate. Sweden does not have the most immigrants, though it does accept the most asylum seekers. The country with the highest net immigration rate is Norway. I don't blame you for mixing up these two terms, as the media constantly ignore the difference between the two. There's of course also the perception that "Sweden is taking too many migrants", tho while it may be that Sweden is taking far too many refugees (compared to other counties in the EU. There should have been a common refugee distribution policy in the EU), this is ironic, because Sweden is actually taking too few immigrants. Now don't get me wrong, Sweden doesn't have a low immigration rate, but as it has a huge problem with labour market shortages, specifically within healthcare, and seeing as it also needs to increase the size of it's tax-base, it's rather ironic that people present Sweden like it's overflowing with migrants.
From what I can gather: 25.9% of Sweden's population has a foreign background. 16.8% of Norway's population has a foreign background. 13.9% of Denmark's population has a foreign background. I'm not just counting immigrants, I'm counting foreign born citizens in general. The point I was making in the video was that everyone arriving to the Nordics would be more evenly distributed, and not as concentrated in Sweden. Doesn't matter if they're asylum seekers, immigrants, or whatever. This is relevant when it comes to population sizes which I show in the video. I wasn't making a political statement or anything of the sort. I'm not saying Sweden is overflowing with migrants. I'm not even particularly right wing in my views. I was just trying to show accurate population sizes. Which would drastically change if arriving migrants and asylum seekers were distributed more evenly, seeing as Sweden has so many more people with a foreign background irl. If the same exact amount of immigrants asylum seekers and everything arrive to the Nordics as a whole, but they're more evenly distributed, Sweden would have a significantly lower population.
@@Neatling Don't get the wrong idea, I didn't think you were making a political statement, I was just talking about general public perception. Also good to see you gathered some data, I suppose you are right about the point you were making, I just assumed you were talking about modern immigration rates, not the percentage of immigrants or people with immigrant backgrounds. I suppose Sweden must've had a higher migration rate in the past then, interesting.
Interesting perspective. However, I don't think it is realistic to get the population of all of these countries agreed on a monarchy, either in the 18th century or now. As a Norwegian, I certainly would not vote to have a Swedish/ Danish/ or even Norwegian monarch. Look to Ireland, where the President is often someone with a cultural background. Thus, one could have presidents restricted to, say, a single four year period, representing different regions over time, as well as different ethnic and occupational backgrounds. This would be an enrichment for your proposed country. I still have not seen any advantage to having a monarchy. They are expensive, privileged, would not represent the diversity in the population (for example, the Saami people) and contribute little in relation to their enormous cost.
@@kareemabdul1 All Germans are Germanic, but not all Germanic people are German. I hate that Deutschland is called Germany in English it's just confusing for everyone.
Tbh, I kinda want this to happen irl. We are all already very similar in culture, food, area, location etc. It would not be that farfetched.
sure, without Finland!
@@medi9945 why would we not be a part of it?
@@vilzupuupaa4680 you are not Scandinavian, there is no reason to have Finland in the kingdom, i support close friendship with you guys but we are 2 completely different ethnic groups, it would be foolish to unite into 1 nation, Long live Kingdom of Scandinavia and the Greater Finland!
@@medi9945 I get where you are coming from. Sure, we differ a lot and that may cause some major schenanigans and trouble with for example the language of government, healthcare, education system and so on and so forth. But, in my persoanl opinion, the bigger the union is the better one. United, we could be a major power both economy- and militarywise. The oil of Norway, the upcoming mines in Greenland, the forests of Finland in and Sweden, the tech companies of Finland and Sweden, I mean, we would have a lot of power. Our speeches would matter a lot more in the world. That stuff matters. I'm not saying that you are wrong, not at all. What I am saying is that the pros heavily oitweigh the cons.
@@vilzupuupaa4680 Im still not keen on the idea, the main reason for the creation of a united kingdom is for the Scandinavian ethnic group to unite into one nation. You can have your own "finnic kingdom" of somesorts with estonia and karelia but not with us. The main reason People from our nations want this is because "well it looks cool on the map" but they dont understand the flaws of it, as i said before, long live scandinavia and long live the finnic empire
I think it is fair to say that all the nordic countries would have larger populations due to better economies, and no ww2 involvement. Finland would still have Vinby. Svenska, Danska och Norska would also be more mutually intelligble
Sad thing is Vyborg is still is Russian hands.
@@KazualBopthKatze Yes that is very sad indeed. F Russia.
De er allerede stort sett gjensidig forståelige
@@MeMyselfIAndMeAgain säg det igen på engelska
@@iamasalad9080 på svensk:
De är redan till stor del ömsesidigt förståeliga.
I prinsippet kan vi (ofte) forstå hverandre
You forgot that Scandinavian West Indies would also have included the Swedish island of Saint Barthélemy
And he also forgot about...
- Bouvet Island (Antarctic research place) in the Antarctic Sea just between Antarctica and Africa.
- That Scandinavia (Norden) would take over Norway's claims to Peter I Island and Queen Maud Land in Antarctica.
- Mentioning Svalbard or Jan Mayen in the Arctic.
- If Åland would be autonomous or not.
- The question of Hans Island belonging to either Canada or Scandinavian Greenland.
@@greyzone3801 Given that Åland's autonomy status was one of the conditions for it being part of Finland instead of Sweden, I feel like in timeline of unified Fenno-Scandia, it wouldn't enjoy such privileges.
@@GeneralCalculus Åland would have held a referendum and voted to join Sweden, thus it would be a normal Län & Landskap within the Swedish kingdom.
De dansk Vestindiske øer ikke de skandinaviske
@@trolden61 Han glömde fortfarande bort att Sverige hade en ö i Karibien som hade blivit en dell av Skandinavien
Hey man, I've been subscribed for a few months now and I really like your content. The amount of detail you put into your videos is nothing short of amazing. If you take suggestions, I'd love to see an alternate history based on what if Germanyny unified in 1848 and what if Hungary united with Poland-Lithuania sometime in the 15th century. I'm also really looking forward to "What if the Russian Revolution Never Happened?" part 2. Hope to see your channel griw in the near future. Keep up the good work!
I think that Stockholm would still have the highest population, but if you look at "greater" Stockholm vs Copenhagen then Copenhagen would probably have more.
I definitely think gothenburg would had a real major increase in population.
Malmo would probably lose population to Copenhagen and gothenburg. But once the bridge is built it most likely would increase in population fast because of its proximity to Copenhagen.
Would be interesting to see how industrialised this united Scandinavian kingdom(usk?) Tech & and industries from parts of former sweden Farming from Skåne&jutland m.m. oil and fishery from Norway. Forestry and mining from the nothern parts of Sweden and Finland. USK would have so many natural resources for its relative small population that most likely it would demand some sort of immigration eventually during the 80s probably.
Would be so interesting to see how much synergy the usk would be able to accomplish.
How about military? I think usk would keep roughly the size of all nations combined now if in nato, but if not in Nato probably bigger as it has a lot of land to cover. Probably quite an expansive fleet and im guessing a big airfleet as Sweden went with during the cold War.
Tank battalions would probably mostly be stationed in Finland and karelia, maybe a few in sweden, Northern and maybe south of Stockholm. Probably one in jutland/Skåne area. For Norway i don't know if they would be needed. Norway would probably host a large North Sea fleet.
Usk would not use aircraft carriers but built airbase on the different islands to connect to Iceland.
Im guessing that in this timeline Europe still forms European union and is still peaceful. No real threats from mainland europe/uk/usa. Russia would most likely be seen as a potential aggressor.
One thing to note: It would absolutely be a nuclear power.
@@Merecir Would it tho?
If it joined nato it would be protected by the US and like most other nato nations not develop nuclear weapons. Only France and the UK are nuclear powers today, because they still considered themselves world powers after WW2.
Even if Scandinavia didn't join nato it is likely to be included under the US's nuclear protection as Sweden was and as Sweden did cancel its nuclear program.
@@linusholmstrom876 In OTL Sweden was 4 votes in the Riksdag from assembling the nuke and becoming a nuclear power.
In a timeline where the nation had recently been in a bloody war with Russia the sentiment would be completely different. Considering that the Swedish Socialdemocrats created IB to keep check on communist subversionists in OTL, the paranoia would be much greater in this timeline. Pacifists would probably not get much traction politically.
@@Merecir you make great points, and have convinced me that it would likely be a nuclear power if it was neutral although still not a certainty in my eyes.
And still very unlikely if it joined nato.
@@Merecir i really don’t think so. The U.K. only got them because of their help in the Manhattan project and France got them because they didn’t wanna be left behind in global politics and they developed them themselves and tested them in the Sahara desert and later their Polynesian islands. The facts are that Scandinavia doesn’t have anywhere to even test nukes, other than Greenland, but that would definitely cause Greenland to want independence. Even hosting American nukes in Thule was controversial in our own timeline
I’ve been looking forward to this
This (and the first part) was such a good video. As a swede i have actually always wanted this to happen in the real world. Would love to see you talk more about it
This is cool but imagine if England and Scotland united! They would probably conquer Ireland and be a colonial super power
@@sumreensultana1860
That was the joke
@@camatzuma You forgot to mention the almighty Wales
@@MatthiasDrinksH20
You mean west England?
@@camatzuma lol, fair point
@@camatzuma I knew it was a joke I just decided to put that
I almost forgot the 1st onr glad it's finaly out.
I am very impressed that you even mention Scania/Skåneland.
He is danish so
Finally part 2
Also discord server when???
Better world
As an Icelander I could see this happen.
Though more of a independent nations in a single economic and military union.
Perhaps some sort of federation that gives all the different kingdoms within great autonomy could work (almost like how the US works in that sense)
Neat video my friend. Good to see another alternate historian on here.
Neatling posted... and I didn't know... HOW?!
but it was worth the wait!
Very good video, however, because of the german influence in Schleswig i think there should be a transition dialect in Southern Jutland, the rest is very good as always
True, there kinda is anyway in our timeline
The languages are quite different. IRL there is not much difference, it's effectively a two-language region, where most danes know german, and most germans know danish.
These videos are amazing! For an englishspeaking person, your pronunciation of swedish city names are quite good
Not sure, but I think he mentioned before that he's Nordic. I just can't remember from which video.
@@rupertgarcia hes danish
I wonder how Scandinavia treats Russia?
Looks like the Finns expanded eastward, so it must be a bitter subject
With a drawn rapier pointing straight east.
@@lavrans1266 there would never need to be communists in Scandinavia
@@lavrans1266 and so? communism wont stabilise it, youre naive if you think that
Hello from Sweden ❤️🇸🇪
Please do more alternate history videos like these two videos, about other countries, like Germany(German confederation, or a union between Austrian and German empires), Iran(in which it would keep its Sasanian borders), etc.
Worth the waiting man, heres a suggestion for u: what if the hre remained united, i have seen whatifalthist did it and nobody elese so maybe u could take a try on it
Bloody interesting. I've been discussing a potential (future) union with the Nordic countries for awhile with some friends, and from what we can see it would only make the lands stronger, more economic etc. Even though we are somewhat "unified" as of today with our military personnel working together, almost on a daily basis and offer help to one another in hard times. I'm definitively not against a Scandinavian Union, although it would be hard to implement today. Great videos!
I feel like it's somewhat neglected how Gothenburg would have a much greater population growth. I'd dare say that it'd be at a similar level of population size to Kopenhagen and Stockholm, and would likely eventually overtake both of them.
That's debatable. Obviously, being the capital and seat of parlament would increase Gothenburg's importance and by necessity its population. But there are plenty of real life examples of capitals around the world not necessarily being the largest or most populous city of its respective nation. Is the Gothenburg area more/similarly attractive/inhabitable as Copenhagen and Stockholm? I dont personally know, but I'd argue that factors more heavily into a city's population growth. Even if Gothenburg can compete on those parameters, would 150 years be enough time to grow to the size of Copenhagen and Stockholm - even if we assume those two would have a slightly lower growth rate to compensate for Gothenburg's increased growth?
I'd have preferred if it was called something like "The Nordic kingdom", "Kingdom of Nordia" or "Kingdom of the Nordic lands" Instead of UK of Scandinavia and Finland. Those would've been both inclusive and shorter.
Imagine UN meetings if the UK and the UK's were put next to each other
@@eagleowl833 Although this predates the UN, the union of Sweden and Norway was called the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, and existed along side the other UK.
Edit: Oh and since "Scandinavia" in this scenario is a continuation of that union, I simply kept the name and reworked it to fit the now larger Kingdom. I agree that it isn't an ideal name for the nation. Then again we live in an imperfect world so would it not be realistic for there to be a weird quirk like that. 2 countries with very similar names.
I think the United Scandinavian Kingdoms of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland. Would be a good formal name and Scandinavia or U.S.K would be good informal names.
@@talbot9255 It's very long, this country is trying to unify itself, then why not name itself after its shared Nordic culture and heritage?
@@Ali-bu6lo i’m saying that a it would be a good long/offical name like United States of America or The United Kingdom of Great Britain. A good short/unofficial name would be Scandinavia or U.S.K exaple: USA/america or UK/great britain
Could you do a video on what if sweden won the northern war and the battle of poltava?
@Neatling, you mentioned in this scenario that Scandinavia was a memeber of the EU, but in the scenario based on the Kalmar Union it was not a member of the EU. Is there a reason or is it just random here?
I like the different scenarios for Scandinavian unification with the history and the demographics in the present day caused by them!
I'm pretty sure in this scenario scandinavian would be taught in Finnish schools much like how swedish is mandatory in Finland today
The innate swedish hatred of suomi would be moderated by the union I think.
So in this timeline Germany invades Scandinavia (because of the Iceland comment).
I would imagine hitler wouldn’t have done that in this timeline. He invaded so Swedish imports wouldn’t be halted by the allies. In this timeline there’s a very easy access point.
That and Hitler wouldn’t invade a Germanic country with such a big population. He’d believe them to be very powerful, perhaps moreso than Russia.
He tried to invade UK a germanic country with a empire and a larger population than Scandinavia.
So why not Scandinavia?
@@talbot9255 well we declared war on him. But an excellent point to bring up. Although I’m not sure how many Germanic empires he thought Germany could fight.
@@purpledevilr7463 good point but he did declare war on the US when he didn’t have to.
PS. I know the US has alot of black and non-germanic white people but it was founded by the english and the largest ethnic group was german.
@@talbot9255 to quote someone (whatifalthist) “A more reasonable racist would’ve recognised the US has a large Germanic population.”
He didn’t recognise that and assumed that all the races had mixed too much, despite non-Germanic immigrants only being there for a single generation at the time.
@@purpledevilr7463 i hadn’t thought of that. But Scandinavia was still pretty small and had a tiny empire. Plus Hitler did invade Denmark and Norway at the same time so why not Sweden too (i’m assuming he would promise Finland independence and Iceland is to small to matter (i say this as a icelander))
Low key my wet dream
Jokes aside a very high quality vid you got here. As a Swede, I approve
Why is iceland’s population so low irl it’s 369 thousand here it’s 341 thousand
it would probably have been a good thing for the region, a united nordics or nordic federation or something. probably would have worked better as a smaller group then the whole of eu.
I made a United Scandinavia flag in a similar way. It uses the Finish flag for its background, and combines the Nortic Crosses (the Finish Nortic cross on the outside, the Danish Nortic cross in the center and the Swedish Nortic cross in between.
Intressant alternativ historia om ett demokratiskt, enat och starkt (ekonomiskt och militärt) Skandinavisk union.
Hålogaland mener du Nordlandet ?
Hålogaland er en ældre betegnelse for Nordlandet. Brugte det bare for at give lidt flavor, så alt ikke er som i den virkelige verden
@@Neatling okay kult da lærte jeg det takker
Nice vid plz more
If we were to unite, i'm not sure it would make alot of sense to involve Finland, would definitely be taken as a threat by Russia, but i would love the scandinavian countries to unite, and develop a unified language.
I often hear people ask why we should ever unite in to one countery, i only have one awnser, a greater kingdom of the north means that we have the liberty to decide our path in the international world, in sted of being split up in three different counterys whom on theire own has no power or liberty, an are always on the mercy of other great powers.
Fantastic video!
Bliv gerne ved med at lave de her videoer!
@NEATLING.
I suggest a remake of
what if the.
polish Lithuanian commonwealth never fell.
a 3 part series.
In a COLLAB with Mr. z.
Another great video from neatling
PS: vi lever i den forkerte tidslinje
I would argue Sápmi should be considered a constituent country. May not be a nation-state, but neither are the Faroe Islands or Greenland
Contraversial thought: smaller unions of similar states might have worked better than the EU. Perhaps.
There have been more attempts to join the countries. In 1960 there was the EFTA attempt that was foiled by Denmark jumping over to EG/EU in 1973. Switzerland, Lichtenstein as well as Austria being a part made it sort of.. well strange. its worth saying that the effect of EFTA is the reason why we still to this day (well until 2015 at least) can go across Nordic countries with out passports. EU really F.U. this.
There was also a slightly less impressive attempt in the 90-tys. The idéa was that the Nordic countries would join as a nation under EU in steed of under EFTA... it basically failed due to Norway not joining.. and well.. it wouldn´t work anyway. We have a few reminders of that today. Firstly the Öresundsbron was a supposed start to the unification. Well the bridge still stands... Now will border controls (... F***.. we have gone backwards).
Anyway, there is a other reminder. Bluetooth. Bluetooth started in 1989 with a cooperation between primarily Ericsson and Nokia, but also a few other lesser known companies, some of them in Norway and Denmark. When Intel joined in 1997, the name Bluetooth was proposed as it have joined the Nordic countries just like king Bluetooth ~1000 years earlier.
The Bluetooth system actually spawned out of the NMT, Nordic mobile telecommunication system. NMT is effectively the predecessor to GSM. There only ever was 3 gen 1 mobile phone system widely deployed, ironically the first gen 1 was a NMT system deployed in the middle east. Worth saying that there was a gen 0 and gen 0.5 also. Because NMT was built over most of Europe, pretty much the countries using NMT joined to create GSM, While its not a official predecessor, it is effectively one. GSM never really become a global system, and neither did UTMS.... it really took until LTE
man kan drømme..
Verkligen den skandinaviska maktdrömmen
You should make a video on the strategic importance of Soviet Union without access to Murmansk and the rest of the Kola peninsula during the Second World War if this country had existed.
Sweden and Norway suddenly look very interesting it just now occurred to me.
You could cover the Crown of Aragon in a Countries that no longer exist video. Languages: Mainly catalan, followed by italian and aragonese. Keep it up
Suggestion: What if the Crusader States never collapsed?
why is Skåneland part of Sweden, not Danemark? and why is Åland part of Finland, not Sweden?
Because in this scenario Scandinavia united in the later half of the 1800's. At this point Skåneland was a part of Sweden and Åland a part of Russia (later independent Finland which joins Scandinavia). But it wouldn't matter much in this scenario since it's all the same country. The people in Åland would speak a dialect of Scandinavian derived from Swedish. And the people Skåneland would be somewhere in between Swedes and Danes in their pronunciation, because at this point Sweden had already done a lot of cultural assimilation in the region.
Denmark joining the Kingdom would bring Skåne, Halland and Blekinge even closer to Denmark than in our world though. And many more Danes would also live in the region, making it even more of a Danish-Swedish transition region than it is today. As I briefly mention in the video, people in western Skåne would probably sound a lot more like Danes from in and around Copenhagen. The rest of the region would be a transition region as mentioned.
One question that popped into my head at 3:19
Which city would keep track of traffic violations in Germany?
Video Idea: What if East Rome fell but West Rome didn't in the 5th Century
Or if honorius ruled the east and arcadius ruled the west
I really enjoy this series of currently two parts, but I have one question. What about Operation Zitronella (Unternehmen Sizilien) in 1943, which was an 8-hour raid on Spitzbergen, Svalbard? Does this still take place in this alternate history?
It does not. Because in this scenario Scandinavia surrenders before needing to be fully occupied. In the real world Norway fought the Germans to the bitter end. But here Scandinavia just fights in order to symbolically oppose Germany, and then surrenders and joins the axis (keeping its government). Meaning Svalbard is just under Scandinavian (and thus axis) rule. No need for the Germans to raid when they can just send troops there peacefully.
@@Neatling That makes sense now, thank you for the clarification
you forgot one area, Svalbard
You should definitly include flanders in your next video
Can you do a video about What if Gran Colombia never fell?
du er helt klart sjællænder :D
Hahah, now I know why you made the flag with red instead of blue , kul , verkligen :)
The way you slaughtered those Finnish words hurts my soul
What if the west roman empire survived, but the east, byzantine fell? Like reverse of what happened
When can we make this a reality?
Never.
@@Onnarashi why not?
Blessed timeline
Just wondering why you gave all of the main land nations more population but took away population from Iceland?
i wonder if the winter war would still happen soviet union may not attack since it is more risky
They should have. they had no reasons not to, apart from outside influences, and of the rulers losing power, and the divide rule story. Today they would be more competitive with England or Germany economically.
It may offend your Danish / Scandinavian nationalism, but the majority of Schleswig-Holstein residents didn't want to be Danes in 1848 and 1864. In 1920 there were several referendums and the north of Schleswig went back to Denmark. In the cities of Aabenraa, Sønderborg and Tønder there were majorities for Germany, but overall around 75% of the votes in this voting zone were for Denmark. Today's border seems to correspond to the will of the peoples. It is good that the hateful nationalism of the past has been overcome and that the respective German and Danish minorities in Schleswig can live their cultural, linguistic and national peculiarities
What if the Mauryan Empire never fell, or, at the very least, their successor dynasties like in china, kept the indian sub-continent united until modern day?
Yes pls
Location of Helsinki and Tampere seems wrong.
here in argentina we were so close to unite with chile into one country in the 50s called "the united states of hispanoamerica" it was going well and we even had a flag of the new country until the U.S sended coups to our countries to make sure this never happens because their government hates competence also our country had a more advanced nuclear technology than the U.S and europe and our government was trying to create a source of unlimited and clean energy that could replace oil forever.
How you create this maps?
Photoshop. I made the base map myself
that flag tho 🔥🔥
There is only 5,8 mil in Denmark
Seeing what Sweden has become these days and how different the rest of scandinavia is. I honestly would like this scenario to be reality.
Sounds like theses countries missed-out on a golden opportunity.
Would Scandinavian take þ and ð From icelandic
Mainland Dont have those sounds
Why would all the kola coast speak sami and finnish when you had norweigian speaking towns there until stalin whiped them out?
While there were norwegian speaking villages in the kola peninsula, there were far more russians, finns and sami in the region. For example in the 1897 russian census there were less than 10 000 inhabitants, of which russians were the biggest(63%), sami the second biggest(19%), finns(+karelians) were the third biggest(15%) and norwegians formed only around 2% of the population.( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolsky_Uyezd#Demographics )(Though the norwegian population did peak around 1917 at about 1 000 people, but they would still be a small minority)
So in the scenario, that kola would be annexed to finland, it would most likely be inhabited by more finns, rather than more norwegians.
Jesesalo thats definantly the case for most of the peninsula. However the rybashy?peninsula, Kildin and most of the coast between were majority norweigian. That was also a case when the border between russia and norway were drawn back in the 1800s. I just find it a bit strange that the scandinavian countries wouldnt claim the area to increase influence in the arctic. The danes, and later the norweigians was really afraid of finish influence in the north, and i think they would have tried to claim the areas were the finish wasnt a clear majority.
@@knutlol Yeah that's a good point. My understanding is that until Murmansk was founded in 1916, most of the population lived in the southern coast of the peninsula. So the norwegians most likely did form a majority in the northern coast. I think there were some Norwegian nationalists who advocated for taking Kola, but i don't think they ever got too much support. Finnish nationalists viewed Kola as a part of East Karelia(which was mostly populated by Karelians, who were seen as Finns), so therefore it sort of came with the deal. The peninsula was mostly a desert until 1900s, so neither the Norwegians nor the Finns spend too much time and energy in trying to claim it from the russians. Then of course came the commies and ruined everything as per usual.
6:10 actually the norrland mountains are both more and higher than what the hålogaland mountains would be
I think he meant that Hålogaland is almost completely covered in mountains, while only a part of Norrland is.
No Frisian Speakers on the Northern Frisian Islands :(
There would be. But they would be a minority group by the modern day most likely (much like in the real world)
Danmarks population is a round 5,8 million pepole, and norway has a population a round 5,328 million people. and Finland has a population a round 5,518 million pepole
This is alternate history, not an actual showcase of the Nordics.
Here Denmark and Finland have more territory, increasing their populations. Immigrants are also not as concentrated in Sweden because it's all one country, making the populations of all except Sweden larger. I explained everything in the video.
@@Neatling ok, good video anyways
@@tobias6511 thanks!
You put the borders that finland would probably have with russia if we won the continuagion war
Jeg er vild med hvor dansk du snakker :-)
Shetland would have been part of the Norwegian "sector" in this scenario... It should never have been leased out to UK in the first place ;)
What’s the military size of Scandinavia?
probably around 300k more or less with about the some or more in reserve. That is if the military isnt expanded.
@@svampen7782 That’s like the amount of reserve in Finnish army already. Should be about million, if conscription is applied elsewhere too. I’m assuming you are talking about this fictive united Scandinavia scenario.
@@molotovribbentrop2839 Yes im talking about this video.
@@svampen7782 Well we would have considerable amount of power, making us strong regional power. This is real possibility in the future too, with the Nordic combat uniform projects and such, which are clearly a sign of tightening military cooperation.
Is this youtuber danish?
But what actually is Scandinavia ? Geographically it is the peninsula of Norway and Sweden. If you could consider Finland as a geographical / natural similar country it could be included, but Denmark, Faröer and Iceland are not. Or is it the cultural similarities like the spoken Germanic languages, then Finland could better join a union with Estonia. So the projection in this video is more a political union, or more arbitrary being “nationalistic Nordic”. It is not per se beneficial for the countries because for a union based on trade or common standards it’s better to join a bigger, more populous union like the EU.
This is an alternate history scenario. It's not a proposal or anything of the sort. It's a fictional world where Denmark joined Sweden-Norway in the 1800's.
As for what Scandinavia is, in the real world the definition people generally use is "Sweden, Denmark and Norway". No one at least from the Nordics uses the term in a geographic sense. Or you would at least specify that it's the Scandinavian peninsula you're talking about. Because to Scandinavians it simply means the 3 countries of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
Smukt at østdansk har større område
Include the British terretory into this, Scandinavia has mutch in common with Brittain more so then Finland pre ww2.
Vikings you know.. this union could have been a big power house maybe the ability to have stopped the nazis with the support of Soviet.
Interesting videos.
Unfortunately we don't want Swedens problems. No thanks.
Greenland and the Faroe Island are a part of Denmark, not the United Kingdom
You know hes danish rigth
@@defatsvagerumdyr l don't know what you mean't?
He didn’t say that though? He said the United Kingdoms of Scandinavia
@@Rullvard1337 oh ok my bad thanks for letting me know
AHH
no dislikes? nice :D
I am so sorry to say that Greenland 🇬🇱 is part of Dinmark and not united Kingdom....! Also on your map you show like "Finland's territory" a big part that actually belongs to Russia. Such a mistake
Hi there
sweden population is 10 million not 9
jag förstår varför du heter högberg
I think you are confusing terms and going by public perception when you talk about Sweden vs the rest of the Nordics' immigration rate. Sweden does not have the most immigrants, though it does accept the most asylum seekers. The country with the highest net immigration rate is Norway. I don't blame you for mixing up these two terms, as the media constantly ignore the difference between the two. There's of course also the perception that "Sweden is taking too many migrants", tho while it may be that Sweden is taking far too many refugees (compared to other counties in the EU. There should have been a common refugee distribution policy in the EU), this is ironic, because Sweden is actually taking too few immigrants. Now don't get me wrong, Sweden doesn't have a low immigration rate, but as it has a huge problem with labour market shortages, specifically within healthcare, and seeing as it also needs to increase the size of it's tax-base, it's rather ironic that people present Sweden like it's overflowing with migrants.
From what I can gather:
25.9% of Sweden's population has a foreign background.
16.8% of Norway's population has a foreign background.
13.9% of Denmark's population has a foreign background.
I'm not just counting immigrants, I'm counting foreign born citizens in general. The point I was making in the video was that everyone arriving to the Nordics would be more evenly distributed, and not as concentrated in Sweden. Doesn't matter if they're asylum seekers, immigrants, or whatever. This is relevant when it comes to population sizes which I show in the video.
I wasn't making a political statement or anything of the sort. I'm not saying Sweden is overflowing with migrants. I'm not even particularly right wing in my views. I was just trying to show accurate population sizes. Which would drastically change if arriving migrants and asylum seekers were distributed more evenly, seeing as Sweden has so many more people with a foreign background irl.
If the same exact amount of immigrants asylum seekers and everything arrive to the Nordics as a whole, but they're more evenly distributed, Sweden would have a significantly lower population.
@@Neatling Don't get the wrong idea, I didn't think you were making a political statement, I was just talking about general public perception. Also good to see you gathered some data, I suppose you are right about the point you were making, I just assumed you were talking about modern immigration rates, not the percentage of immigrants or people with immigrant backgrounds. I suppose Sweden must've had a higher migration rate in the past then, interesting.
Sweden has 10.3 million
This is alternate history
Interesting perspective. However, I don't think it is realistic to get the population of all of these countries agreed on a monarchy, either in the 18th century or now. As a Norwegian, I certainly would not vote to have a Swedish/ Danish/ or even Norwegian monarch. Look to Ireland, where the President is often someone with a cultural background. Thus, one could have presidents restricted to, say, a single four year period, representing different regions over time, as well as different ethnic and occupational backgrounds. This would be an enrichment for your proposed country. I still have not seen any advantage to having a monarchy. They are expensive, privileged, would not represent the diversity in the population (for example, the Saami people) and contribute little in relation to their enormous cost.
They attract a lot of tourism, just look at the British Royal Family
Didn’t they unite in the first video because sweden’s king became the danish king
Norsk Svenska unionen var bara 100 år sedan
@@TheSwedishHistorian Vel, det var fra 1814 til 1905. så fra ca. 207 til 115 år siden.
It would be better for scandinavia to be a part of germany
umm no
OH GOD NO!! JUST NO
@@CatkingO4 All germanics should be under one king
@@kareemabdul1 All Germans are Germanic, but not all Germanic people are German. I hate that Deutschland is called Germany in English it's just confusing for everyone.
Maybe way earlier in history this could be possible but scandinavia has become different enough from Germany to be considered the same.