Why did a scandinavian state never happen like how Italy and Poland got unified?

[loup99]

Your data is off for Sweden, economical growth started heavily in the 1870s. That it was first in the 1930s is an inaccurate origin story of the SAP.

I'm not talking about economic growth starting in 1930s, I'm talking about satisfying material living conditions for working classes and employees. Claiming living standards were rising sufficiently while over a million emigrated is nonsense. There can be a lot of economic growth without this altering living standards the slightest if there is no redistribution. Nothing to do with the Social Democratic Party, the Liberals also promoted some reforms, as well as the Agrarians.

In terms of democracy absolutism was gone in 1809 and the final path towards increased inclusion set in 1866.

Neither absolutism nor Ståndriksdagen address what I said at all, and they do absolutely not compare to France with 1848. Equal voting rights only came after the end of the weighted taxation voting system, that is in 1909. Conservatives blocked all meaningful reforms prior to that. Finally in 1918 everyone got equal voting rights. Why do you compare with France if you refuse to consider relevant metrics?

 

[Sleepyhead]

I'm not talking about economic growth starting in 1930s, I'm talking about satisfying material living conditions for working classes and employees. Claiming living standards were rising sufficiently while over a million emigrated is nonsense. There can be a lot of economic growth without this altering living standards the slightest if there is no redistribution. Nothing to do with the Social Democratic Party, the Liberals also promoted some reforms, as well as the Agrarians.

Neither absolutism nor Ståndriksdagen address what I said at all, and they do absolutely not compare to France with 1848. Equal voting rights only came after the end of the weighted taxation voting system, that is in 1909. Conservatives blocked all meaningful reforms prior to that. Finally in 1918 everyone got equal voting rights. Why do you compare with France if you refuse to consider relevant metrics?

Sufficiently is your term here, not one I used. My point about the rising living standards should be seen in comparison to e.g. the Finns in Carelia. There'd be no awe across the border quite the contrary, nor compared to other subjects within the realm. And emigration can perfectly well happen as the domestic economy is growing.

We might be talking past each other here, I compared French policies on centralisation/unitary stateness and language with Sweden's, not anything particular on voting rights.

 

[Fulmen]

Sorry @Sleepyhead but there's no way on God's green earth that a nation that constitutes 40% of its master's land area and 40% of its population, has high literacy and is situated in 19th century Europe where ideas of nationalism flow fervently, is not getting independence from said master one way or the other, even if things escalated to heavy bloodshed, but knowing the Swedes by the 19th century, they likely wouldn't have. Independence movements with far less to go on have achieved their goals despite being heavily suppressed by the state, and the scenario you describe and seem dead set on, would be a first in world history.

 

[Mder1]

It was by iron and blood as Bismarck said it. Obviously because it's Germany it's complex but it was after the annexation of many lands, three wars and proven military might that some joined willingly at a point where Prussia could've conquered them if needed.

The historic outcome of 1848 was't certain. Had the revolutionaries taken a more decisive solution to the Prussian Monarchy, Bismarck wouldn't have been needed in the first place. The Prussian monarchy created a self fulfilling prophecy by stifling unification decades earlier but they aren't tbe masters of destiny. A guillotine in front of the Berlin Palace on the March 19. 1848 and history takes on another form.

 

[Sleepyhead]

Sorry @Sleepyhead but there's no way on God's green earth that a nation that constitutes 40% of its master's land area and 40% of its population, has high literacy and is situated in 19th century Europe where ideas of nationalism flow fervently, is not getting independence from said master one way or the other, even if things escalated to heavy bloodshed, but knowing the Swedes by the 19th century, they likely wouldn't have. Independence movements with far less to go on have achieved their goals despite being heavily suppressed by the state, and the scenario you describe and seem dead set on, would be a first in world history.

You can start by detracting the 15% of the population which was Swedish speaking around 1800 and most of the coastline. Cities like Helsinki, Vaasa and Turku were Swedish-speaking. Add the Swedish school system introduced 1842 which started spreading Swedish on a large scale to everyone. Remove all elites who historically created the Finnish nation and the institutional framework.

Your average farm boy Matti Meikäläinen would be as uninvolved during such a setting as he historically were. There is nothing preordained by any national movement, it was either elites within a state framework like each Nordic state on its own or domestic elites clashing with foreign elites on e.g. language or religion. Finland had no elite except the Swedish one, which wouldn't have any interest in creating a Finnish nation as part of Sweden, their privileges wouldn't be threatened. Arwidsson as pioneer was active in opposition to Russia, which wouldn't have been a factor. The royal university of Åbo wouldn't have moved to Helsinki. Lönnrot would be another Hyltén-Cavallius, Runeberg's Vårt Land would be a Swedish poem (the original never mentions Finland) and there wouldn't be a movement for Snellman to join - he too was acting in opposition to Russia btw. Yrjö Sakari Yrjö-Koskinen would stay as Georg Zacharias Forsman. Finnish wouldn't have been made second official language - it even took Sweden until a couple of years ago to put down Swedish as de jure official language.

I'm not saying there wouldn't have been anything, I think it's likely that some would be sympathetic to the language and document it etc. but anything which come about would be delayed many decades if not a century, wouldn't be within its own state and would be done initially in Swedish in an increasingly Swedish context. Would Finnish not reach important status in education or administration we're looking at having a situation like in Norrbotten in the eastern forests (and the Finns in Norrbotten had influences historically from a vibrant Finland) by the time of the radio.

 

[loup99]

Sufficiently is your term here, not one I used. My point about the rising living standards should be seen in comparison to e.g. the Finns in Carelia. There'd be no awe across the border quite the contrary, nor compared to other subjects within the realm. And emigration can perfectly well happen as the domestic economy is growing.

When I spoke of living conditions in the first place I meant living conditions reaching an acceptable level to have basic needs met. Your answer about economic growth before the 1930s wasn't relevant there, hence why I added sufficiently for additional emphasis. Of course that emigration can happen while the domestic economy is growing, it growing does not say anything about how that growth is distributed amongst the population. Here I believe we disagree however, there would be a Swedish-speaking elite within the Finnish parts of Sweden that would contrast with the living conditions of the ordinary Finnophone. That elite would theorise itself as racially superior, have more voting rights due to paying more taxes and dominate the administration. In my view the Finns in Karelia and Sami in Norrland are too scattered and few to be adequately compared in terms of national sentiment and identity with the whole Finnophone population within Sweden. The Sami are rather comparable with how colonial powers treated the local populations.

We might be talking past each other here, I compared French policies on centralisation/unitary stateness and language with Sweden's, not anything particular on voting rights.

I think French policies of centralisation and national unity can not be seen without taking into consideration universal masculine citizenship and the concept of popular sovereignty. That directly ties to voting rights and indirectly to racial policy, within France there was no ethnic conception of the nation, to the opposite of for example Germany. If the country is founded upon a pseudo "superior Swedish race" with strict hierarchy, the basis for the state is very different from France (not saying France did not have big problems as well with the colonies and women not having voting rights, but that isn't pertinent for the comparison).

 

[Sleepyhead]

Here I believe we disagree however, there would be a Swedish-speaking elite within the Finnish parts of Sweden that would contrast with the living conditions of the ordinary Finnophone. That elite would theorise itself as racially superior, have more voting rights due to paying more taxes and dominate the administration. In my view the Finns in Karelia and Sami in Norrland are too scattered and few to be adequately compared in terms of national sentiment and identity with the whole Finnophone population within Sweden. The Sami are rather comparable with how colonial powers treated the local populations.

Not all Swedish speakers in the eastern realm would be 'elite', only a small segment. The majority were labourers, fishermen and farmers who had the same living standards as Finnish speakers. The racial superiority hypothesis of yours doesn't hold here, they wouldn't be racially superior to Swedish speaking peasants. Subjects were treated equally no matter the mother tongue. The Sami on the other hand were nomadic and 'exotic', but Finnish speakers weren't.

I think French policies of centralisation and national unity can not be seen without taking into consideration universal masculine citizenship and the concept of popular sovereignty. That directly ties to voting rights and indirectly to racial policy, within France there was no ethnic conception of the nation, to the opposite of for example Germany. If the country is founded upon a pseudo "superior Swedish race" with strict hierarchy, the basis for the state is very different from France (not saying France did not have big problems as well with the colonies and women not having voting rights, but that isn't pertinent for the comparison).

Racial superiority as policy is a very big stretch and a hypothesis of your making. Sweden didn't do this to the descendants of forest Finns who settled large areas in the 17th century in Värmland, Dalarna etc. nor to those in the north. There is no reason as to why the east would've been different in this regard.

 

[Barsoom]

This whole Finnish nationalism debate is a bit of a sidetrack, actually. Scandinavian unification depend on Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Whether or not Finland goes with them is not a core issue, it's a bonus at best. The Finns were never influential enough within Sweden to block Swedish policy, so the worst they could do, is make the prospect of incorporating Sweden unattractive by making control of Finland more costly. In our timeline, if that happened at all, it was a very minor factor in the calculations of the governments of the 3 main states.

As we're talking mostly about the 19th century, the issue is the relation between nations and states. In earlier centuries nationalism played a much smaller role, so if the question were about the potential success of the Kalmar Union a very different logic would apply. But in the 19th century European elites thought that nations should coincide with states and if they didn't, they acted to make it so. Some of the time this meant supporting a separatist or irredentist movement. Most of the time it meant educating subject to become properly indoctrinated citizens. All European states at that time tried to reduce dialect usage and promote a standard language. They all introduced a national curriculum for elementary schools along with mandatory education up to age 12. Most of them introduced military conscription, putting conscripts in regionally mixed regiments. In this manner the nation made the state. There are some exceptions, and certainly efforts at nation-building weren't equally successful (or equally determined), but on the whole we're talking about the era of state-led nationalism.

From this perspective the unfortunate fact for Scandinavian union is that the area already had 3 states with relatively well-established borders and local traditions within them. Naturally these states worked to instill nation sentiment within their territories. Only Norway was not independent but it was governed as a separate dominion under its own laws. If Sweden had been a more forceful occupier, it could have tried to assimilate Norwegians, according them the status of speakers of really weird dialects with some strange practices due to their remote mountain valley customs (i.e. Norwegians = Swedish hillbillies). But Sweden didn't really try. probably because it wasn't strong enough to expend police and military power there while maintaining a strong defensive posture elsewhere. So they allowed a separate administration that at least didn't promote Norwegian nationalism but also didn't put much in its way.

 

[loup99]

Racial superiority as policy is a very big stretch and a hypothesis of your making. Sweden didn't do this to the descendants of forest Finns who settled large areas in the 17th century in Värmland, Dalarna etc. nor to those in the north. There is no reason as to why the east would've been different in this regard.

You are talking about isolated pockets of minorities, that is absolutely not comparable to the situation of Finland. The conditions for a national movement have never been found in external diasporas settled separately. Furthermore, it is not a hypothesis, it is a fact that there was discrimination in Sweden and racial hierarchies established. The Finnophones who settled were seen as inferior in the racial theories the state promoted.

Not all Swedish speakers in the eastern realm would be 'elite', only a small segment. The majority were labourers, fishermen and farmers who had the same living standards as Finnish speakers. The racial superiority hypothesis of yours doesn't hold here, they wouldn't be racially superior to Swedish speaking peasants. Subjects were treated equally no matter the mother tongue. The Sami on the other hand were nomadic and 'exotic', but Finnish speakers weren't.

The elite would only be composed of a Swedish-speaking minority, there weren't many Finnophones amongst that social group. The rest would remain ordinary subjects, but not face the additional discrimination of having universities, "scientists" and institutions theorising about their inferiority which Finnophones would be subjected to, as historically.

This whole Finnish nationalism debate is a bit of a sidetrack, actually

Yes, absolutely, only one user argued Finland was relevant at all. I think it changes absolutely nothing to Scandinavia. The debate is clearly about Finland and Sweden, not Finland and Scandinavia.

From this perspective the unfortunate fact for Scandinavian union is that the area already had 3 states with relatively well-established borders and local traditions within them. Naturally these states worked to instill nation sentiment within their territories. Only Norway was not independent but it was governed as a separate dominion under its own laws. If Sweden had been a more forceful occupier, it could have tried to assimilate Norwegians, according them the status of speakers of really weird dialects with some strange practices due to their remote mountain valley customs (i.e. Norwegians = Swedish hillbillies). But Sweden didn't really try. probably because it wasn't strong enough to expend police and military power there while maintaining a strong defensive posture elsewhere. So they allowed a separate administration that at least didn't promote Norwegian nationalism but also didn't put much in its way.

Even if Sweden would have tried it would have failed completely. Norway had proclaimed the end of the union with Denmark in 1814, had a Constitutional Assembly and adopted a Constitution. There is no way Sweden could have imposed Swedish or pretended Norway wasn't distinct from the rest of the kingdom. The personal union was accepted by the Norwegian Storting, they would have refused any loss of autonomy at all. Any attempt at being heavy-handed would have had the opposite effect, Norway would have become independent before 1905. Furthermore, the Swedish population didn't want to sustain a long military conflict with Norway.

 

[Sleepyhead]

You are talking about isolated pockets of minorities, that is absolutely not comparable to the situation of Finland. The conditions for a national movement have never been found in external diasporas settled separately. Furthermore, it is not a hypothesis, it is a fact that there was discrimination in Sweden and racial hierarchies established. The Finnophones who settled were seen as inferior in the racial theories the state promoted.

The elite would only be composed of a Swedish-speaking minority, there weren't many Finnophones amongst that social group. The rest would remain ordinary subjects, but not face the additional discrimination of having universities, "scientists" and institutions theorising about their inferiority which Finnophones would be subjected to, as historically.

You're claiming or alluding to the fact that Sweden would go Nazi on its Finnish speaking population, even though it historically never did that, not in areas where they were spread out next to Swedes, nor in larger areas where they constituted a majority. You brush these historical facts off with that Finland is so different, it isn't. It is definitely a homegrown hypothesis of yours. Otherwise you would be able to dig up actual state policies and actions towards the Finnish-speaking population. Skull measuring etc. did occur and was probably very unpleasant but nothing followed it, as covered, and standard Swedish as language was promoted but that was the same for everyone and in line with what e.g. France was doing.
The raciology pseudoscience episode in Sweden was in the end brief and quickly discredited. It is just as likely that with Finland as part of the realm, it would have been less influential as a movement - seeing as it wasn't that present there - rather than more influential as you claim. Norway was also doing comparatively less on the matter, so in a Scandinavian Union we could foresee less interest as well.

 

[ThaHoward]

This whole Finnish nationalism debate is a bit of a sidetrack, actually. Scandinavian unification depend on Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Whether or not Finland goes with them is not a core issue, it's a bonus at best. The Finns were never influential enough within Sweden to block Swedish policy, so the worst they could do, is make the prospect of incorporating Sweden unattractive by making control of Finland more costly. In our timeline, if that happened at all, it was a very minor factor in the calculations of the governments of the 3 main states.

As we're talking mostly about the 19th century, the issue is the relation between nations and states. In earlier centuries nationalism played a much smaller role, so if the question were about the potential success of the Kalmar Union a very different logic would apply. But in the 19th century European elites thought that nations should coincide with states and if they didn't, they acted to make it so. Some of the time this meant supporting a separatist or irredentist movement. Most of the time it meant educating subject to become properly indoctrinated citizens. All European states at that time tried to reduce dialect usage and promote a standard language. They all introduced a national curriculum for elementary schools along with mandatory education up to age 12. Most of them introduced military conscription, putting conscripts in regionally mixed regiments. In this manner the nation made the state. There are some exceptions, and certainly efforts at nation-building weren't equally successful (or equally determined), but on the whole we're talking about the era of state-led nationalism.

From this perspective the unfortunate fact for Scandinavian union is that the area already had 3 states with relatively well-established borders and local traditions within them. Naturally these states worked to instill nation sentiment within their territories. Only Norway was not independent but it was governed as a separate dominion under its own laws. If Sweden had been a more forceful occupier, it could have tried to assimilate Norwegians, according them the status of speakers of really weird dialects with some strange practices due to their remote mountain valley customs (i.e. Norwegians = Swedish hillbillies). But Sweden didn't really try. probably because it wasn't strong enough to expend police and military power there while maintaining a strong defensive posture elsewhere. So they allowed a separate administration that at least didn't promote Norwegian nationalism but also didn't put much in its way.

Mind you, this sidetrack started by a random argument of Estonia being part of the Nordic and when called out it is irrelevant, Finland were thrown in. And it is appereantly pedantic to say Scandinavia would be united with or without Finland, but could only be united if Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were part of it.