When Scandinavia Almost United (And what if It did) | Alternate History
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 06. 2021
- This is a video covering how close Scandinavia actually was to uniting in the 1800's, and what if it did. The second Schleswig war started a series of events that put an end to the move towards a united Scandinavia. But informal agreement between the Kings of Denmark and Sweden-Norway could've avoided all this, had it been formalized.
- Zábava
Corrections/clarifications:
The nation is called: "The United Kingdoms of Scandinavia and Finland". The situation is much like with the UK in the real world. Internationally Scandinavia would often be used as a term for the entire nation. In Finland things would be a bit complicated. The Scandinavian speakers in Finland would call themselves Scandinavians, but most Finns would be adamant that they are Finns, not Scandinavians.
Finland has a lot of autonomy and is semi-independent. I don't know if I made that clear enough, but I will explain further in part 2. It has its own parliament and a lot of self-rule.
12:43 got some numbers mixed up, Soviet casualties were in the *hundreds of thousands* not millions.
Where are you from my friend? (and if you are from, Sweden, Norway or Denmark, are you a pan-scandinavian?)
just call it the Kalmar union
I do think soviet casualties would be higer in that universe because Finland had Scandinavia as help and the war would probably end later
Jeg kan ikke finde nogen kilder på en aftale om at Karl 15. Skulle have arvet Danmark. Kan du sende noget?
@@sbls1114 Du kan læse om emnet i "Union eller undergang - Kampen for et forenet Skandinavien" af Rasmus Glenthøj & Morten Nordhagen Ottosen. Var dog ikke der jeg læste om den uformelle aftale mellem Karl d. 15. og Frederik d. 7. Læste jeg i en af Rasmus Glenthøj's tidligere bøger, ligenu kan jeg ikke huske hvilken. Han har skrevet en del om Dansk og Skandinavisk historie. Det er måske lidt uprofessionelt jeg ikke lige kan huske det haha. Men den nyere bog "Union eller undergang" er dog en kilde jeg kan henvise til.
Du kan garanteret dykke dybere og finde gamle dokumenter der også omhandler emnet. Rasmus Glenthøj må jo have fået sine informationer et sted fra.
I have today decided that we are in the wrong timeline.
There is still time to unite Scandinavia!
@@JustANervousWreck plus Syd Slesvig ;)
@Safwaan They are talking Swedish
Is there a new york in your timeline that stayed like, new-amsterdam-y, with canals and actual old architecture? That would be sweettttt
@Safwaan 1. Any timeline where Trumpism exists is not fine.
2. A united Scandinavia would deter both the USSR and Germany from invading.
3. A united Scandinavia would be far stronger, and therefore would likely declare war on Germany. That would dramatically shorten the war.
4. Russia and China. 'Nuff said.
5. Covid-19.
I'm not crying - you're crying
I take issue with how easily Germany defeats Scandinavia in this timeline. One day? We (Norway) fought for TWO MONTHS in our timeline. Not to mention a united Scandinavia would be far stronger. Finland would have won their war against Russia if Norway and Sweden had fully mobilised, instead of sending a few thousand volunteers. They did get that close to repelling the Russians. A victory against Russia would have been a massive confidence boost for the Scandinavians.
This ⬆️
Denmark would have been lost but the Germans would have to cross a water way so
this and germany never invaded sweden because it was easier and safer jsut accepting swedes iron trade, i dont see why this would not be the case with a united Scandinavia either, if anything more so now then before, why fight the giant nation of Scandinavia that just beat the Russian, when you can just accept their neutrality and iron trade, i mean the germans would have way bigger fish to fry.
and a point i also dont think that he mentioned, the danish crown prince, did veryt much love denmark, so if he was part of the german confederation i would be suprised that he would not try and really the other germans nations in the confederation to oppose it, and if they did attack try to get his duchy to help Scandinavia (tho the german people in his rule ofc might be againt this)
And dont forget sweden have a history of war and have fight against many countrys at the same time for many years
The main reason for surrender is to avoid damaging of infrastructure denmark and south swedish norwegian lands was where the most important of economy and population was to avoid immense damage they would surrender much like the germans in ww1 who avoided the damage of rhineland by surrendering
As a Swedish speaking Finn from the west coast of Finland: This is a very interesting topic indeed. Mutta Suomi on niin ihana.
As a finnish speaking Finn from central Finland I 100% agree.
Suomi on paras
A Finnish speaking Finn whose ancestors came from Sweden, adopted Finnish language. Yes Finland is wonderful.Suomi on paras
@@AlreadyTakenTag www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/brvtir/greater_finland/?context=3
Go back to sweden
@@suissais4732 back to where - one said being Finn.
As ethnic coastal Estonian -- we miss our active åibo communities - they were/are us.
- perhaps something to wonder about.
Sweden did really screw that one up, how can they be so unsure about uniting Scandanavia
Probably because it came with a lot of baggage. Betting on Prussia and Austria ignoring an integration of Slesvig into Scandinavia would still be quite a gamble. I think they would, because they almost did in the real world. And the German Confederation as a whole wanted to just leave it be and only separate Holstein from the Danish crown, as Slesvig was majority Danish and not even a part of the German Confederation. Scandinavia being united (along with Holstein fully separating from Scandinavia) in my opinion would be enough to deter Prussia and Austria.
But at the time it would've seemed somewhat risky still.
Denmark didn't help Sweden against Russia so.
Now I'm not an expert on Scandinavian history. But I am aware that for a long time Southern Sweden was Danish. Is it safe to assume that the Swedes would not want this union because the Danes within Denmark and the Danes living in southern Sweden would outnumber the actual Swedes? Especially if they got a political coalition with Norway suddenly Swedish King could feel very threatened. Especially with a Danish King still around in a neighboring state.
@@MarkVrem Which really doesn't make sense since the union would only have 1 king.
@@zebimicio5204 There were unions in the past. Even before King Knut etc. They always follow the same pattern LOL. Swedes, Norge, Danes, they all see themselves as a different nation from the other. I suppose similar to Croats, Serbs, Slovenes etc. .. Not sure what set these differences in places, but I'm gonna guess geographical. Mountains between Norge and Swedes, Danes on the other side of the seaway. On the other hand there is always this drive to unite as well. LOL But its always a competition.
I severely doubt Germany would invade the united Scandinavian countries in WW2, It would be completely unnecessary in this timeline since Scandinavia would have a very firm control of their territorial waters and an invasion by the allies to stop trade with Germany would be completely unfeasible by the allies, there would be no threat to the iron ore trade in this timeline.
Germany invaded because they feared the allies would invade Norway to stop the trade, in this alternate timeline that is unfeasible so Germany has no reason to invade pre-emptively, the iron ore is secure and there is nothing the allies can do about it.
Also, a simple declaration that the mines would be destroyed if Germany tried to invade would also prevent any invasion attempt.
Why would the control of their territorial waters be anymore firm than it was irl?
@@Ludovicus1769
As a united millitary and naval force Scandinavia would have enough force to be a threath to a German or british invasion so they could afford enforcing their own territory without fearing retaliation.
Neither the Germans or british would have a sizeable enough force available to invade the entire peninsula.
The british would find themself only being able to land on the mountainous Norwegian coast and have no chance pushing to the swedish coast before German reinforcrmence showed up while the germans wouldn't have enough ships to Additionally attack Sweden in the time they attacked Norway in our timeline.
They would at best only be able to attack in the south which would give the allies time to properly set up in the north.
Neither side could feasibly attack so the union could afford enforcing their territorial waters.
Additionally as a full union controlling the entire peninsula it's reasonable to assume they would focus more on naval dominance in this alternate timeline so thry would have a fleet that could pose a serious threath to any naval invasion.
@@freedomfighter22222 You’re really overestimating the size of a United Scandinavia’s theoretical army, even with Finland.
@@Ludovicus1769 Germany barely succeeded in the attack on Norway historically and used every available ship they had, lost far too many of them to have an efficient fleet for the rest of the war.
Germany also had several hundred thousand soldiers stationed in Norway throughout the war.
It's not so much that Scandinavia couldn't be defeated by Germany or UK, it's that neither of them could afford that battle at the time if the area to be occupied was twice as large and the defender had more territory to fall back on to keep the fight going.
Germany's largest fear was that UK would invade Norway to prevent Iron export trough a quick attack on Norways ports, like Germany did itself.
That fear wouldn't exist if Sweden was a part of the equation since It would be impossible for the UK to take Scandinavia fast enough to prevent German reinforcemence.
The war on Norway would be completely pointless.
Actual size of army and Navy of Scandinavia would be irrelevant since it's not that that would be the largest problem.
Now that that's answered I would like to point out that you seem to have no idea what army Sweden had in 1939 and suggest you should try to google it before telling me I have no idea.
1 million men in the land army and a fleet of 6 cruisers, 14 destroyers and a whole fleet of smaller ships and submarines would be a bit too much for Germany too waste time on in 1939
Norway had 9000 men ready when war broke out and held out longer than France, the fuck you think Germany would be able to accomplish if the Norwegian mountains were defended by 100 times that number?
I have been waiting for alternate history about scandinavia for some time now. Thanks
can you make this a series like you did with poland lithuania or eastern rome?
Yes I want to see that too
That's the plan, I'll at the very least have a part 2 for all my scenarios.
@@Neatling Nice
@@Neatling epic
@@Neatling can we have a discord for sharing idea
Seriously, there is nothing better on CZcams than Neatlings content, I must've watched all of your videos multiple times by now!
Speaking as a Russian (Tatar) here.
Wanted to comment on the part about population-exchange and how significant it would be.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with population history of Karelia and Kola peninsula, but before like 1930-ies the whole population was less than 300 000, a bit more than half of them Russians.
What i'm pointing at is that i don't think their expulsion would have as big of an impact both internally, internationally and economy-wise. Before the heavy industrialization (mostly using GULAG prison system) in the 1930-ies started, that area was really just a blank slate and up for settling by however would control it (the Soviet Union in our timeline and however else otherwise).
Plus, ye know, in the early 1920-ies we had a BRUTAL civil war and famine which together cost the country something like 10 million people, so i REALLY don't think that a couple hundred thousand Russians appearing on the border would even be noticed.
And even today in those regions it's not like it's a bustling place. It's a shithole backwater that is rapidly depopulating and today has around a million people living there. Contrast that with neighbouring Finland with 5 million people yeah.
@@cloudcerwyn1234 It is mainly just a backwater due to Russian mismanagement, disregard for the ecological state of the region and the unwillingness of Russians to migrate to the region (and the Federal government to invest in) due to having better options within Russia already. Then there is the fact that communist agricultural policies heavily favour urban development over agricultural and rural development. Under Finnish rule the region would most likely be about as developed as northern Finland is - meaning it would not be a massive agricultural paradise, but it would have far more of it, due to the lack of arable land in the rest of Finland, as well as being a bit more populous. The region also has ample natural resources in the form of minerals and forests for industrial use, so there would be plenty of opportunity to create workplaces. And the fishing waters there are quite excellent, rivalling those of Norway with ease. Especially when properly managed, without Soviet style overfishing.
@@samilou I wholeheartedly agree. To prove what you're saying one just has to look over the border at Norway's Finnmark or Finland's north. Under any other administration than the Soviet the region wouldn't be as depressive
All nations of the North from Canada to Russia have the same similar problems. Areas with good ports facing the right markets tend to do good. Other cities are really just transport hubs from one coast to the other (Canada, Russia). Obviously, all these nations are less populated than better weather regions. In reality these are actually GOOD problems to have LOL. Security might always feel like an issue in these places obviously, but economically the cities these resources flow to tend to do well. St. Petersburg, Moscow, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Stockholm I suppose and so on and on.
This timeline just feels so right! Just look at how clean those borders are in Scandinavia and Finland in this timeline. Mapmaker’s dream here lol.
Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you friends. :)
Bismarck: "The realms should be united, by iron and blood!"
Scandinavia: *takes notes*
That was a really interesting video, however i'm curious: would scandanavia reclaim their pre-ww2 lands after the soviet union falls?
I don't think so, those areas would have been thoroughly Russified. Finland didn't get back anything in the real world either, I don't think this scenario would change that.
@@Neatling what would be interesting to explore would be after the fall of the soviet union any potential unification with Latvia Lithuania and Estonia as they are arguably Scandinavian as well.
@@jacobkobald1753 Estonia certainly thinks so even in our timeline (Nordic is probably more accurate than Scandinavian, but still...)
@@Korfax124 the thing here is that russia would HATE that. Both choke points out of st petersburg would be entirely controlled by scandinavia. So, it would have to happen in the 90s. Also, what is today sweden's national anthem would in this timeline probbebly be scandinavia's. As it's made from a poem that talks alot about the nordic region in general.
@@Korfax124 “Nordic and Baltic”, to be technical, as “Nordic” areas include roughly Scandinavia, Finland, and Iceland, which I suppose covering Gotland, Faeroese islands, and other loose bit, but definitely not Baltic nations
One of the few political movements I fully support, a united Scandinavia would be a great Scandinavia
Love these videos dude they’re great!
Hey mate, ive just found out bout your channel 2 days ago, and im already lovin it. Hope to see some real live predictions video
As a Swede, this is how history should have been!
But..
Sweden would have transported the ore to Malmö and let Germany pick up the iron or deliver it to Germany, there would not have been a Scandinavia vs Germany war
The infrastructure needed for that was not present unless it got magicked into existence in this timeline.
These videos are awesome! I cant belive how much effort you put in. The Animations are great and the videos are quite informational and interesting. Great job! P.S. Waiting for "What would happen if the Serbian Empire Never Fell" ; )
Brilliant video, but I have a small problem with how you portrayed a possible ww2. You said that Scandinavia would surrender in a day. And while that's what Denmark did, it's also fact that out of all allies to surrender to Germany, Norway held out the longest.
If IRL Norway held out longer than France, why would a united Scandinavia fall without a fight?
Thank you! Denmark actually surrendered in two hours, almost entirely avoiding conflict. A full day would leave enough time for lots of fighting all things considered. The Germans would in no time have taken over the most important urban centers and the capital in Gothenburg. Rural Norway, Sweden and Finland could obviously have held out for a while, but at the cost of countless lives.
What Scandinavia would do really depends on what Sweden would have done if they were invaded. Because we know Denmark would have surrendered quickly, and Norway would have fought till the bitter end. I think Sweden would have surrendered fairly quickly, considering how vulnerable the population centers are, and that Sweden in the real world was willing to cooperate with Germany in order to avoid an invasion. They even let German troops cross Sweden to reinforce in Norway.
So that's why I think they would've surrendered without (much) of a fight.
@@Neatling One thing to consider is that Sweden in real life prepared the mines for destruction in case of an invasion and that deterred a German attack.
Narvik was mainly needed in the winter when the Baltic Sea was frozen up during the other half of the year transports would be safe from allied attacks.
@@lkgh1966
Destruction of the mines would probably be a sufficient deterrent. Iron ore was very important to German industry. Germany had probably sent hordes of diplomats who had to work hard to guarantee ore purchases.
@@Neatling Sweden's military strategy to this day is to never give up, part of how you stay neutral is to make sure it isn't going to be worth it for the enemy to invade. The government literally can't surrender and it is expected that even if Stockholm would fall the fighting will continue and even if the military falls it is expected that guerilla fighting will take over.
And as a United Scandinavia there would just be a fuck ton more land for the Germans to take, and this is not the fields of the French countryside, this is just massive amounts of Forrest with at the time few good roads connecting it all. Giving plenty of time for the allies to arrive which could change the fight in all kinds of ways especially when you consider that a United Scandinavia would likely be more prepared for a potential invasion due to being a way larger geopolitical entity.
I fail to see how you can be so sure that a United Scandinavia would give up mostly without a real fight. The geography alone would make holding out for quite some time very possible. Like just reaching Finland at all would be near impossible for the Germans unless they would launch a big amphibious invasion which would be easier said than done with their Navy.
@@Neatling You should watch ”What did Sweden do during ww2”.
Released on the National day of Sweden. Epic
This is one of the best alt-history videos I've seen, and well researched! Nice work mate x Can't wait for part 2
Very good video!
One day you’re gonna have a million followers bruh. Keep it up 👍🏻
Norway fought for two months, and the fins bloodied the Soviets by themselves. Having them ''just surrender'' or even stay neutral seems rather unlikely. The German navy was crippled by Operation Weserübung and upping the ante would have been an absolute logistical nightmare for the German high command. Not even taking into consideration the outdated (and modest), but still potent Swedish navy. European powers always unite against potential unifiers of the continent and it is highly likely that Scandinavia would forge an alliance with Britain and France even before the war.
I know that this is alternate history, but i really doubt that finnish nationalists would've ever considered joining a united Scandinavia. This is because finnish nationalism rose up to oppose, above all else, the swedish dominance in finnish society and they thought of the swedish speakers as their main adversaries(Yes even more than russians, until 1899). And really the only people in Finland at the time, who would've wanted to unite with Sweden(or Scandinavia), would've been members of the small minority of swedish speakers in the country(c. 13% in 1900). Now allying with the scandinavians would be more considerable, but joining them? Extremely unlikely.
Good point. Although I want to clarify that their union under Scandinavia in this scenario is one where they are semi-independent (sort of like our worlds Greenland). As it would be a democracy, Finns would also be in charge and the Swedish language would become less relevant exactly like it did in the real world. Finnish nationalists would achieve pretty much everything they wanted at the cost of formally being a part of Scandinavia, as in the ways that matter to regular people, they are independent. I will go into more depth about it in part 2.
The union with Scandinavia would've been in order to protect their interests and unite with the Karelians, something they couldn't do on their own. And especially not if they went with closer relation with Germany like in the real world, that just lead to the British forces in Karelia outright engaging the incoming Finnish volunteer forces. So although it is fiction and certainly a stretch, there would have been an argument to be made for union with Scandinavia. Especially without knowing if they could even achieve independence long-term without Scandinavian help.
@@Neatling Well first of, thank you for responding back. You do bring up good points, both in the video and in this comment, and i agree to a fairly large degree that formally being part of a greater Scandinavia at that time could have been beneficial to Finland and finnish nationalists, but that is not how people at the time would have seen it. In the aftermath of the finnish civil war all finns were enraged at each others for either being traitors or being blood-thirsty capitalists, and our nationalists at the time wouldn't be happy at even a thougth of joining Sweden, or Scandinavia.
Also the process of us becoming a part of Scandinavia by electing Gustav V as our king, would not be an easy process. Most finnish politicians were fierce republicans at the time(and of course now), and the only way that Friedrich Karl of Hessen came to be briefly elected as the king, was democraticly speaking, very questionable as about half of our MPs were either dead or had fled to russia after the civil war and therefore only 64(out of 200) were enough to elect him. So the finnish public being ok with a king is highly questionable to say the least. And after the next elections when the social democrats would have returned, they might have simply allied with the other republicans and declared a republic(wich could cause even more turmoil in Finland, and now possibly even expanding to the Scandinavian countries, whose own social democrats weren't exactly the biggest monarchists either back then.)
It's also questionable if the Scandinavians would have been ok with fighting for Karelia to become a part of Finland, especialy if it meant a war with Great Britain(The sole superpower at the time).
But as i said, you do bring up good points, and i respect your views. The scenario you presented is definitely plausible. However i just don't see it as very likely. Eagerly waiting a part 2. Also subscribed.
@@one-nga4707 Based on history I understand that Sweden treated Finland very bad, but would there actually be so super strong opposition considering that Finland as a territory only been united as a "country" under Sweden the last 500-600 years? I mean 500-600 years does a lot and since there is no old country claims I would assume that it would be harder to rile up a united stance for independant country or so.
@@MrFasho123 thats bullshit
@@dl3472 very informative and nonsense comment. Bravo for you 😁👍🏻
A united Scandinavia would never be a superpower but a great major power. Especially in fields of education, since that is what gives us most value
It would certainly be a mini superpower, with an enormous airforce and nuclear bombs.
Just take OTL cold war Sweden, make it two and a half times bigger and put it on the border of Russia...
I hope this will be a series
Really great video, but could you link your sources somewhere?
Hey would you be interested in making a tutorial on how you make your videos? I'm just curious what you use for them.
I always thought this looked better on a map than what we have in real life
My forefathers missed such an incredible opportunity. I only wish I'll live to see a united Grand Northern Empire before I die.
It will never happen, no way Norwegians will unite with Swedes, just forget about it
The Icelandic nationalist/Independence movement peaked during the 19th century, Icelanders did not see themselves as part of some pan Scandinavian identity and still dont today and in this timeline it would be no diffirent. The 700 year Scandinavian rule of Iceland was terrible for Icelanders and by the 19th century Icelanders hated their Danish overlords and former Norwegian overlords with a burning passion. So expect the Icelandic Independence movement to continue in full swing, with Iceland propably doing exactly what they did in our timeline: wait for their overlord to get occupied by the Germans and declare independence. (To give people a perspective on just how popular the independence movement in Iceland was, in 1944 Iceland had an Independence referendum and 98% of the population voted in favour)
Same with Norway and the last union, 99% of Norway voted against the continuation of the Norwegian-Swedish Union.
But who knows, this timeline could make things better.
@@19thcenturyman95 yeah, nobody would care in 1944...
@@19thcenturyman95 yes, which they would also be insentivised to do in this timeline. Also not the British, they only invaded.
@@19thcenturyman95 The British, yes, they DID invade (very politely), but the Americans WERE invited. We actually preferred them over the British.
What do you use to make the map, its beautiful
Now I know what I’ll be doing with my time machine
10:52 The Kingdom of Fennoscandia could also be a name for it.
Hvem skal være konge??
Ghost of Charles XII watching this : *Cries
Would be nice if you ever make a part that you focus on how internal politics change. Norway, Sweden and Denmark had very strong growing workers movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century, which could affect quite much. Especially the details on the Finnish civil war since Sweden was close to have a civil war irl in 1917.
10:33 - Aaaaaaaah, look at how beautifu it is.
wow! What an incredible interesting and complicated history - You must has researched for months to be so accurate.
What sources did you use to obtain this information? I'd like to use them for something personal.
Please sources?
That would be kinda cool I guess. Mayde a bridge/tunnel kind of a megastructure would be built built through Åland connecting Finland more closely with sweden. I would also personally be fond of changing the Finnish capital from Helsinki back to Turku which imo would be very likely in this timeline.
I would be interested in reading more on the subject, what are your sources for this video?
so what you're saying that i could've almost been one of those lousy swedes but they were to "scared" and "unsure" to commit to it... typical swedes.
all for jokes guys
Fedt Clio profil billede
@@defatsvagerumdyr tak brormand
Du får ursäkta oss för våra mindre smarta beslut igenom historien ;)
@@unclear6055 lol
Ville faktisk være en meget lige union. Danmark ville have et højere befolkningstal med Sydslesvig, og Svenskere ville være langt fra at udgøre et flertal. I modsætning til mit tidligere scenarie ville ikke et af landene være fuldkommen dominant, der ville være en vis balance.
Men ja, stort set derfor. Jeg tror det handlede mest om hele Slesvig situationen ville være risky. Jeg tror ikke Preussen ville erklære krig i dette scenarie, men kunne Svenskerne ikke vide den gang, ville være et farligt gamble.
New Neatling vid let's gooooooooo
Watching a 17min video about scandinavia and Finland, not once is Iceland mentioned. (Sad Icelander noises)
Iceland will be covered in part 2! Not that much would've changed in Iceland in this scenario. It remains a part of Scandinavia and gains an autonomous status similar to Finland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Instead of Danish being a common subject in Icelandic schools, Scandinavian is. Scandinavian being a standardized mix of Danish Swedish and Norwegian.
In the real world there was a larger minority of Danish speakers in Iceland back when it was still a part of Denmark. So another consequence is there will be a larger minority of now Scandinavian speakers in Iceland. But still just a minority, Icelandic would remain the dominant language there.
@@Neatling You forget the British invasion in WWII and US occupation. Leading to a declaration of independence in 1944 ;-)
Happy Icelandic independence day!... Jun 17th :o)
Kinda sucks that Scandinavia never got back there territories from the Soviets
But still the ending was sweet
You mean Finland?
@@Onnarashi i think he meant a small strip of land north of “Stalingrad”. Lenin really dropped the ball with that one, basically forcing an inevitable winter war.
their
I see in the comments that people are wishing for a United scandinavia, and people if we so choose we can make it happen, we need to remeber that it is the will of the people who matter and a govurment is just something we accept. Speeking as A norwegian we should unite and become a kingdome or a republic.
Very entertaining video and cool ideas, but the whole deal with Finland doesn't seem very likely to me, mainly because the swedes used to be a wealthy minority in Finland and even nowadays there are still some prejudices against Swedes and Finnish Swedish people.
There's definitely prejudice against Swedish speaking Finns. Most voiced is the hatered of Swedish being the second national language. Many would like to see that status abolished. Second and honestly more serious one is the gap in monetary, educational and social capital.
That would have been amazing storyline
The idea makes me coom
I don't think Scandinavia would surrender in less than a day just because Denmark did, lol. Norway (The second Scandinavian country to be invaded by Nazi-Germany under ww2) held out for months without surrendering even though most port cities had been occupied by Germany (mostly because of the terrain being in their favour and willingness to fight being high). The terrain is also favourable for the Scandinavians in Sweden which had and still has huge forests which would block direct access to Stockholm for example.
The Germans would in no time have taken over the most important urban centers and the capital in Gothenburg. Their attack would mainly have been by sea, not through the thick forests of Sweden. Rural Norway, Sweden and Finland could obviously have held out for a while, but at the cost of countless lives.
What Scandinavia would do really depends on what Sweden would have done if they were invaded. Because we know Denmark would have surrendered quickly, and Norway would have fought till the bitter end. Finland cooperated with German IRL so I'm confident they would in this timeline as well. I think Sweden would have surrendered fairly quickly, considering how vulnerable the population centers are (being close to the coast), and that Sweden in the real world was willing to cooperate with Germany in order to avoid an invasion. They even let German troops cross Sweden to reinforce in Norway.
So that's why I think they would've surrendered without (much) of a fight. Of course this is not set in stone, there is an argument to be made that they wouldn't.
@@Neatling you do make good arguments, but sweden OTL gave the allies intel, i doubt the axis membership would be poular among the people, and i think Denmark certainly could have fallen, but Scandinavia and finland is vast, i believe the allies would have done something similar to OTL and assisted the scandinavians in holding, in turn, When winter sets in, it'd be a disaster for the germans, if a surrender happened, it'd happen right before the USSR gets invaded, if a surrender doesn't happen, the lend-lease act would also involve scandinavia, everything lines up for Scandinavia to hold, because Germany invades, they would lose iron, crushing the war machine early on
@@Neatling How in the world would they have taken over Gothenburg, the bloody capital, in "no time"?!
You do realize that the german navy was an absolute joke right? The real life attack on norway was super risky. And in this scenario, they would have to first invade and secire denmark, in order to pass ships through the straits, and then take the capital.
A scandinavian navy would be much stronger, and could easily hold out against a german baltic fleet.
What would the germans do? Paradrop into Gothenburg? Look up the invasion of greece. This dosen't work.
@@ThorsteinnMemeson It wasn't a joke, it was just way underpowered compared to the British. But it wouldn't just be the navy involved, their air force and artillery would play a big role just like in the real world. German artillery and air supremacy would decimate Scandinavia in this scenario, they would barely be able to respond. The initial invasion would take place within a day just like Operation Weserübung did in the real world.
A Scandinavian navy would not be stronger at all in my opinion, they would have nowhere near Germany's production capacities, population or wealth. But even if it was comparable to the German navy, with the straights between Germany, Denmark and Sweden being so narrow, Scandinavia would have no fleet if they tried to defend the crossings. It would be within the range of German artillery and their air force. Those straights are nowhere near as wide as the English channel, Denmark is less than 4km from Sweden. If you put your entire navy in such a narrow crossing it would be bombed to smithereens.
So Germany would take Scandinavia's population centers in no time because of their massive advantage in numbers and firepower. Just like they took Oslo in no time in the real world. Oslo was taken the same day Denmark surrendered. Only a few days later most Norwegians lived under German occupation.
This is just my opinion but it isn't based on nothing. Also let me emphasize that Scandinavia could've kept fighting. In my scenario they just choose to cooperate when faced with a full scale invasion.
@@Neatling Before dismissing the Scandinavian fleet, check out what Sweden had in OTL...
It was enough to make the Germany navy argue against a conflict with Sweden.
Why do I feel deja vu?
even though i love my country this is magnificent and i would like it to be a reality
i think there would be a larger divergence during the russian civil war, i dont think the soviets would peruse the same tactics and policy around finland in this timeline
I just realised that real Norway has almost no crime and a really kind law system! Imagine that today in an empire of Scandinavia!
As a Scandinavian, i would have loved it tbh if this is how history had turned out 😎
We are really the same people, with the same language and culture. There are only regional differences. We should have united.
As an Icelander, im glad it didn't.
Only because you're a swede, us Norwegians will just get bullied around again for maybe a few more hundred years.
An idea to another "what if"-video about earlier Scandinavian history: The war between king Magnus of Vestergötaland (West Gothia) and king Sverker of Östergötaland (East Gothia) in the late 1120'ies ended in 1130 with the victory of Sverker, who became king of both Gothias and shortly after also of Svealand. King Magnus escaped to Denmark, where his father Niels was king. After Magnus' arrivial to Denmark, a lot of things happened in Denmark, civil wars over several decades. If Magnus had won the war in Gothia, would he just have stayed there and become king of all Sweden? If so, would any of the things that actually happened in Denmark after his arrival, have happened anyway, just not initiated by Magnus' arrival? What would else have happened in Denmark?
An interesting question would be if Scandinavia would join the EU or not. As Demark Sweden and Finland are part of the EU irl but Norway isn’t. There would probably be strong opposition from the Norwegians over the management of resources but would that be enough to stop them from joining?
I think they would make more and more agreements with the EU until they became members. But it would take longer than in our timeline.
The idea that Scandinavia would surrender quickly is crazy. The could not stop them from taking mainland Denmark but going beyond that is almost impossible. Spezially with Britain and France helping, there is simply no way what so ever for Germany to do this. Their Navy simply was not capable of this. That they managed to take Norway was a borderline miricle, only possible because of almost willful ignornace by the Norwegian government. Something a unified government certainty could would not have let happen.
Can you please do more videos??
If you don't mind can you do a series on what if the qing empire never collapsed?
I really want to know the music name you use in this video.
Wardruna - Helvegen (The Way To Hel)
It would be really interesting to know how the internal development of social democracy would play out in this alternative history. Or if the United Scandinavia and Finland would have social democracy at all considering the nationalist grounds of its founding.
Great!
What music is playing the the background? Kinda sounds like Wardruna..
What's the background music called?
the finish map is missing some of the northers areas lost to the soviets during the winter war
I am danish, I wish we had united...
So this video was made just a few months before the book written by Rasmus Glenthøj and Morten Nordhagen Ottosen. This book discusses the history from the start of the scandinavism among students, intellectuals and artists in the 1830'ies up to the fail of the political and dynastic scandinavism after the second Schleswig war in 1864.
I have been looking over all kind off music like “Viking music” Scandinavian folk music” but I can’t find it.
If you see my comment Neatling, please tell me the music name you use in the first part off the video. Please
Wardruna - Helvegen (The Way To Hel)
Sweden also refused to team up with Norway on oil in 1970s and regretted it ever since.
What if the Vandal Kingdom never fell?
Can you do one if Belgium and the Netherlands didn't break off?
Would be epic if Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, southern sleswig and the Faroe Islands were one big country
The question is what happens to the colines? Do they become independent or do they end up in some sort of alliance? Or do they end up independent completely like in our timeline (aceapt greenalnd)
The NB8 is the union these days, and they are a battle group as well.
I think you are making a few very big mistakes in your assumptions regarding the alternat history, particular regarding the winter war and WW2.
I am also not sure that Finland would partake in the union untill at the earliest after the winter war.
But the big thing is that you assume Germany would invade, in this you seem to forget that we are now talking about a union, and not the three nations of the real timeline.
Denmark would not dismantel so much of its armed forces as it did historical, more likely, it would actually be buffed by Norwegian and Swedish units, and material.
Germany also would not just fight Denmark and then Norway (helped by British and French units) but would also have to fight Swedish units, particular the Swedish navy in real time, was seen as a big reason as to why Germany did not invade... In this alternate timeline, the Scandinavian Navy, Army and airforce would be considerable differently orgenized and equiped.
All of this means it is much more unlikely that Germany dares to enter an armed conflict, and if they did, while they might take parts of Denmark, Norway and likely most of the Danish islands would be held by Scandinavian forces...
This in turn makes for a significantly more problematic war for Germany, as a military action would push Scandinavia over to the allied side, rather than neutrality.
That being said, a Scandinavian union is what the rest of Europes big powers traditionally has done an aweful lot to prevent, as it in economic terms very fast could evolve into a major power.
Can you do one on carthage
Would the Scandinavian east indies also not include the island of Saint Barthélemy?
We tried in 1397 and had a on off relationship until 1521.
This is my kinda fan fiction
But I find it hard to believe that Scandinavia would be beaten by Germany in one day. They would be fairly militaristic and pretty much fully mobilized since the Russian war. Germany would not risk that. Even when Germany had beaten Scandinavia they would never get the ore from the north back home its to easy to disrupt. Also the fortress of Boden was a thing back then, I´ve heard somewhere (so don’t take my word for it) that the germans expected 1 milion in losses to take the fortress and it had to be taken to control the railway from the oremines to the harbor of Luleå in the east.
In my scenario they weren't beaten, the could've held out for a while. But they would almost immediately loose their main population centers. It would be a long bloody conflict.
In the real world Finland was a German ally, Sweden cooperated with Germany and let them move troops through Sweden in order to reinforce in Norway, and Denmark surrendered immediately to avoid pointless deaths in a war they could not win.
Only Norway chose to fight the Germans in the real world. Me going with Scandinavia surrendering quickly is based on what most of the Nordic countries did in the real world. Of course it's not set in stone, this is fiction.
The Germans got what they wanted, the iron ore and a free passage for troops through the country, and the Swedes managed to stay out of the shit of WW2.
They did the right thing under those conditions, they also helped Finland against the Russians with volontaire young soldiers and equipment and more.
Also see my other previous comments.
we can all dream...
Mate, that map, on the thumbnail, where's Estonia...
Another thing that COULDVE happend is harald hadrada winning stamford then its belived he wanted to recreate a more powerful north sea empire so after winning england hed go for securing denmark rest u could free stule but next on his list would prob be sweden
It will be most happiest
Yes
as a dane im legit sad that this didnt happen
As a swede with danish heritage I completely agree. We are the same people with slightly different languages and should be united in one nation.
Imagine a united Scandinavia staring defiantly against Germany and the USSR from across the Baltic Sea with support from the Allies
As a Norwegian i am almost saad that Scandinavia did not unite.... almost
It's a bit funny. From what I hear, whenever this subject is brought up. The Danes and the Swedes are always very positive to the idea. While the Norwegians are the ones who hesitate.
Personally, I blame the history books for that hesitation. But then again, the history books would also suggest that the Danes and the Swedes would be even more reluctant.
Reality is often dissapointing.. this is such an example
I think the German would carve through USSR more than our real world or even defeated them, as the stategic railroad that supply USSR by the Allies coming from Karelia, but even if the Axis defeated USSR the remaining red army would use guerrilla warfare and the last straw would be the D day, and as such maybe the USSR wouldn't get as much territory by the end of the war because their economy and population decimated by it and its kinda stretch but i think Poland would be the middle ground, split between the west and USSR. Also the USSR wouldn't declared war to the Japanese or very late, maybe we will see nationalist China win the civil war, and with that the korean peninsula would be united or spilt between the west and China
Now this is an alternative timeline I would really like. And it’s not very far fetched at all. Everyone would benefit from this, same would probably be true if we united now for the next hundred years.
I don’t however agree with the likelihood of some stuff here. With Finland in the union, they would have reached us the importance of defense from their time with Russia. The entire region including Denmark would have been much more prepared to battle the nazis. I don’t think Denmark would have given up in a day as in our timeline. Norwegians held up for months, Finn’s didn’t capulate against Soviet. I think we could manage surprisingly well. They knew no more iron for nazi after that, selling to England instead. Perhaps so good that the Cold War would have a third neutral superpower block. Such a timeline would be really interesting in our time.
“Casualties in the million*s*”
This is the only thing I find implausible in this video. I know the Soviets suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties irl, but multiple millions gets to a point where it’s ridiculous not to pursue a treaty for something that is essentially a minor side quest.
The millions figure is based on casualties from the continuation war between the USSR and Finland. The high estimates for that were 944k casualties for the Soviets, and around 84k for Finland (and to a lesser extent Germany, they did contribute some forces, but most of those who fought in Finland were Finns).
I read about both while researching and must just have gotten them mixed up somehow. With the 944k figure I just assumed a war involving Scandinavia as well would have a bit more casualties, enough to get them into the millions. Thanks for bringing my attention to it, I'll be adding a pinned "corrections" comment.
@@Neatling I think it should also be taken into account that a united Scandinavian government wouldn't necessarily have the exact same military doctrines as Finland in OTL's Winter War. Though I don't think suggesting something similar plays out with a higher death toll is that much of a stretch.
They lost 900k irl and with united scandinavia it seems the most plausible.
I kinda wish Scandinavia had united.
1:01
"Are you willing to get *your ass kicked by P R U S S I A for me?*
"No"
"Sorry, then we cant be friends!"
Why would Scandinavia export iron to Germany via the North Sea, tho? In this scenario, with Greater Finland part of a unified Scandinavia the Scandinavian navy rules supreme in the Baltic Sea. It's a shorter trip and both British and Russian naval units would have to bypass Scandinavian ports to blockade trade.
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of WW2, it's a bit too much of a copy-paste of the real world and ignores factors such as how little the Danes spent on their military (having basically no airforce and no tanks) and that it was always meant to only be a symbolic fight (although the soldiers weren't told that) so they weren't allowed to put up proper defensive positions. In a case of a united Scandinavia there would probably be far more troops stationed at both the Russian and German borders. Furthermore, the ability of Scandinavia as a Union to play along in the colonial game would be far greater due to it's combined resources and likely would have made the Union as a whole richer. More Swedes would probably also move around in the Union than America due to it being easier. All around, this likely would have created a nation that could very easily join the G7 today. Of course this is impossible now as all countries have grown far more different and opinions of each other are deteriorating to probably the worst point I've seen in like 10-20 years.
Well this scenario was well done I must say, but I'm afraid I saw some flaws.
1. During the time Finland got independent, Sweden and Finland acctually was a little hostile to eachother compared to during and after ww2. Sweden felt it was treated unjust in the Åland question, where the people there did not want to be part of Finland, and the newly formed state not only had territorial demands on Russia, but also on Sweden and Norway.
This would ease down with time and we would be friendlier to eachother.
The point though is that during the time of 1917/1918, Scandinavian nationalists would most likely be interested in the Swedish speaking areas. But there where still forces who would welcome a Finnish entry into Scandinavia, but it would probably stay at the borders of the grand duchy of Finland.
Then we come to ww2.
In our timeline, Sweden, Denmark and Norway de-mobilized, and where caught pants down in 1940, and Sweden avoided being attacked because of lacking strategic importance in the war against Britain, and the fact that we would bomb the ore mines, making the invasion useless.
But a united Scandinavia might have had a different approach to de-mobilizing. Germany could have stood against fortified Danish troops with good equipment, mines in Kattegat and the Baltic sea, and they could have faced heavy resistance in the forests and mountains.
The Germans would likely have granted Independence to for example Denmark, like they did to Slovakia or Croatia, granting them Skåne/Scania back.
We could likely have faced a two front war in Scandinavia, where the Soviet Union still attacked Finland, with the same outcome as in OTL.
Scandinavia could have ended up with a communist and a capitalist part after the war.
I was born in the wrong timeline.