Norway/Sweden Union - Centennial Anniversary

[Morgan]

In 1905 the union between Norway and Sweden was disolved, the centennial anniversery is this year. The union and it's abandomnent was certainly much more important to Norway then to Sweden. Sweden was very much the dominating partner and Norway longed for sovereign rule. A referrendum in Norway showed that a whopping 95% of the Norweigans wanted to abandon the union. It almost led to a war between the two countries but at the last minute the Swedish government relented and disolved the union. Sweden remained in a dominating position for the better part of the 20th century but in the past ten years Norway has caught up with Sweden and now much more an equal partner to Sweden than the "baby brother" we have always viewed them as. (Norway could, technically, buy all of Sweden with their oil wealth for example...)
Here's a couple of source with background info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden-Norway

http://www.2005.norway.info/background/sweden/sweden.htm

In Sweden the anniversary hasn't been noticed that much yet, it's been given more attention in Sweden. So, Swedes and Norweigans on this board, what are your views on this union and the abandoning of it?
Do you reckon we are better or worse off without it? Sweden and Norway in a union would make a very strong economical and political power in Northern Europe perhaps? Or are the countries to different to work together?

[haha]

Well the union between Norway and Sweden was largely a result of the general turmoil in Europe in the wake of the Napoleon wars, so it was benefitial at the time. I think also the relations were so good between the nations that 1835-1875 was known as the honeymoon perios of the union, because their wasn't a constant struggle for full Norwegian independance.

I think though that a reason for the split was that people were unsure what the union entitled and their was a misconception that Norway belonged to Sweden, which i don't think the Norwegians appreciated very much.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because i can't say I'm fully informed of the history behind the union.

[weasel_queen]

You're right, hahA, we didn't enjoy it too much :p
I don't think any Norwegians want to get back together with Sweden...

Though I still think that Sweden and Norway in a union would make a very strong economical and political power in Northern Europe as you said, Morgan!!

But I think we are better as two nations...

[Iceager]

Norway and Sweden are much better as equal partners. Norwegians, I noticed, are a tad more outwardly nationalistic, say, than Swedes. I doubt the Norwegians appreciated being considered the junior partner of Sweden. It's great that the dissolution of the union was peaceful. (Och förresten, jag är varken svensk eller norsk...)

[haha]

Yeah it was good that the dissolution was peaceful considering the conflicts of the 1890s that led to it. In Norway there was growing nationalism by the political liberal party Venstre (is that the name?). They demanded its own diplomatic service and a separate consular service, and Sweden (conservative orientated nationalism) wanted to reject Norwegian demands and demonstrate Swedish supremacy in the union.

But another thought is that i think a lot of Swedish politicians and military men realised that Swesen wouldn't have gained a lot from a war, even those who were really hostile towards Norway. They probably came to realise the best solution to the dispute was to end it.

[Morgan]

Another interesting aspect of it is the failed "polling" they did before the referendum. The Swedish government did a poll in Norway to see if it was safe to hold a referendum about the union. 95% of the people they asked said they'd vote against disolving the union. But in the referendum 95% voted for disolving it...The Swedish government had polled only the Norweigan nobility...not the ordinary men who also had the right to vote in the referendum (why bother about their opinions? ;) )

[haha]

I guess it has a lot to do with influencing people's minds. If citizen's think that the majority don't want the union to be dissolved they might not bother to vote for the dissolving. Obviously it didn't work because of the strong feelings of the common people. For example, in Australian history when they were issuing the referendum to allow indigenous aborigines to vote the government only sent out 'Yes' leaflets. There were no 'No' leaflets because they believed the referendum should be passed.

It passed by a huge majority.

[Norbertha]

I don't think any Norwegians want to get back together with Sweden...

No, I don't think anyone is even considering that as an option. :) But, let's play with the thought. As Weasel Queen and Morgan said:
Though I still think that Sweden and Norway in a union would make a very strong economical and political power in Northern Europe as you said, Morgan!!
Let's pretend that not only Sweden and Norway, but also Denmark joined in a union. Our languages are similar; if we tried, we could all subscribe under a single writing standard. Our cultures are also similar, so no problem there. I think it could work out fine. The population of this union would be 5.4 mill (Denmark) + 8.9 mill (Sweden)+ 4.5 mill (Norway) = 18.8 million people. Still not a lot, but at least we'd be kind of medium sized rather than minuscule. ;)
Norwegians, I noticed, are a tad more outwardly nationalistic, say, than Swedes.
:rotfl: Put on your horned battle helmets, lads! Bite your shields and grind your axes! :p

the political liberal party Venstre (is that the name?).
That's the name indeed.

EDIT: Ps, happy birthday, Haha! :birthday: Birthday on Valentine's day, eh? :clap:

[Morgan]

Norweigans, Danes and Finns are more nationalistic then Swedes. We don't even celebrate our June 6th properly, not even close to the way the Norweigans go mad on May 17th (Karl Johann anyone? :D). I think it's got to do with World War II. Whilst you lot (Danes, Norweigans and Finns) got attacked and had to defend your countries from Nazis and Communists, Sweden cowered under it's "neutrality" and didn't partake in the way. Wise, perhaphs, as we were left unharmed by the war, but not very brave and certainly not very loyal to leave our (litterally) brothers and sisters to the east and west without help when they needed it the most. Civilian Swedes did much though, fought the nazis and communists along sides the other scandinavians. But our government chose to stand by and silently watch while Naziz occupied Denmark and Norway, and the communists took over Finland (not a part of our history that makes me proud to be Swedish...)

I think that's why Norweigans are much more nationalistic then Swedes, you've actually had to fight for your independence whilst Swedes never had.

[Alastor D]

and the communists took over Finland
Not exactly so. Finland has never been under communistic rule. However they payed a hard price for gaining and keeping independence, both in lives and territories.

Otherwise I agree, in both Norway and Finland independence is for historical reasons really worth celebrating. But I don't know about any fight on Swedish grounds since Georg Karl von Döbeln lied down his arms somewhere near Umeå in 1809.

[Morgan]

Not exactly so. Finland has never been under communistic rule. However they payed a hard price for gaining and keeping independence, both in lives and territories.

Otherwise I agree, in both Norway and Finland independence is for historical reasons really worth celebrating. But I don't know about any fight on Swedish grounds since Georg Karl von Döbeln lied down his arms somewhere near Umeå in 1809.

Sorry, I was being unclear there, I meant, of course, the Finnish Winter War where they fought the Red Army that attemted to invade Finland.

[haha]

EDIT: Ps, happy birthday, Haha! Birthday on Valentine's day, eh?
Thank you :D Yeah my birthday's on valentine's day, only interesting thing about me :p

[Alastor D]

Sorry, I was being unclear there, I meant, of course, the Finnish Winter War where they fought the Red Army that attemted to invade Finland.
And so it did again 1941 - 1944. But Stalin didn't give up even then. The conditions in the cease fire agreement were so hard that he thought Finland would fail to comply, thus giving him an excuse to invade anyway. He didn't get that excuse.

I was a bit unclear about what happened in 1809. A local cease fire agreement had been made bertween Sandels and Kamenski more than a month before von Döbeln held that famous speech to the remaining troups in Umeå, after recieving confirmation that a peace treaty had been signed in Fredrikshamn/Hamina.

[Morgan]

And so it did again 1941 - 1944. But Stalin didn't give up even then. The conditions in the cease fire agreement were so hard that he thought Finland would fail to comply, thus giving him an excuse to invade anyway. He didn't get that excuse.

Yep, the Continuation War, I think Finland was very lucky to escape occupation like the Baltic States.

But it's going slightly off topic, my point was that the Norweigans are much more nationalistic because of their fight against the nazi occupation during WW2. And it's very clear the the seperation of Norway and Sweden means much more to the Norweigans than to the Swedes. In Sweden there is very little talk of the seperation while in Norway they are celebrating it all year.

I think Denmark and Sweden in a union would be hard, in many issues our political issues are to far apart. Norway, Finland and Sweden might be able to form a union. There is already a strong economic union between the countries but with the growth of the EU (with Sweden and Finland, but without Norway) and the EMU, a joined Swe/Nor/Fin union would be to weak to stand up to the EU I think. We would simply not wield enough economic power for us to make any real impact on European politics I reckon.

[Norbertha]

Norway, Finland and Sweden might be able to form a union.
That could work, apart from one obstacle: The linguistic barrier. The Finns will insist on speaking English.

[Morgan]

Or maybe they could make the Swedes and Norweigans to learn Finnish the way Finns are taugth Swedish at school.

[Alastor D]

Or maybe they could make the Swedes and Norweigans to learn Finnish the way Finns are taugth Swedish at school.
I'm afraid they wouldn't be very happy with that. :)

It's a beautiful idea, but unions within unions is perhaps not a good solution. There are some efforts to improve the co-operation in Nordiska Rådet and to include the Baltic countries. But the current situation with Finland and Sweden having different views on their EU policies and Norway and Iceland not even being members doesn't look very promising.

[Morgan]

I'm afraid they wouldn't be very happy with that. :)

It's a beautiful idea, but unions within unions is perhaps not a good solution. There are some efforts to improve the co-operation in Nordiska Rådet and to include the Baltic countries. But the current situation with Finland and Sweden having different views on their EU policies and Norway and Iceland not even being members doesn't look very promising.

No, it'd be pretty impossible. The best is probably to have just smaller co-operations, like within Nordiska Ministerrådet and so on. On many points the Scandinavian countries do have the same views so it's good if they can have the same stand point and support each other in big international organisations.

[haha]

No, it'd be pretty impossible. The best is probably to have just smaller co-operations, like within Nordiska Ministerrådet and so on. On many points the Scandinavian countries do have the same views so it's good if they can have the same stand point and support each other in big international organisations.
Good point. And at the same time, they can feel independant while having military and international support from the other countries.

[Iceager]

Or maybe they could make the Swedes and Norweigans to learn Finnish the way Finns are taugth Swedish at school.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: That will show them what all the Finns have to go through!

[Alastor D]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: That will show them what all the Finns have to go through!
Not all of them have Severus Snape as Swedish teacher. :evil:

[Morgan]

Yeah well, at least we can trace our language to a known branch of the language family :p

I wonder why the Scandinavian countries never worked together more tightly? Could it have something to do with Sweden's position as a stronger nation towards the Norweigans and the Finns and the rather unruly past of the Swedish/Danish relationship?

[Norbertha]

Yeah, to me it seems like we're drifting more and more apart. Being a linguist, I'm aware that we're drifting apart lingustically: Many Danes don't understand spoken Swedish anymore, and vice versa. But I'm also under the impression that we're drifting apart politically. Denmark and Sweden are in the EU, while Norway is not. We seem to look more to Britain and the USA than to Denmark and Sweden. This is just a completely unscientific impression on my behalf, and it might well be wrong, but it seems to me that Norway is very keen to copy Britain, whatever they do - including their mistakes. (Right now some politicians here are campaigning to privatise the railroad, which was a complete disaster in Britain.)

[Morgan]

Yeah, to me it seems like we're drifting more and more apart. Being a linguist, I'm aware that we're drifting apart lingustically: Many Danes don't understand spoken Swedish anymore, and vice versa. But I'm also under the impression that we're drifting apart politically. Denmark and Sweden are in the EU, while Norway is not. We seem to look more to Britain and the USA than to Denmark and Sweden. This is just a completely unscientific impression on my behalf, and it might well be wrong, but it seems to me that Norway is very keen to copy Britain, whatever they do - including their mistakes. (Right now some politicians here are campaigning to privatise the railroad, which was a complete disaster in Britain.)

Those are really interesting thoughts, I had no idea that was the way it's like in Norway. I think it's especially true when it comes to Danes and Swedes drifting apart, Stockholm is a long way from Copenhagen and if we can't even understand what they are saying then it makes things hard. And Swedes are having a hard time understanding the growing right wing politics of Denmark, their incredibly strict citizenship laws and the rise of right wing extreme parties in a political position.

Norway, I think we are still closer to Norway, or at least feel closer to Norway, than to Denmark or Finland. Despite you not being in the EU. Norweigans are still Swedes closest brothers, along side the Finns (for some reason we feel close to you lot too, despite not being able to understand a bloody word you say :p ).

And in many ways, Norway, Sweden, Finland still have the same political outlook on things. Alcohol prices and taxes...both Sweden and Norway are watching Finland and Denmark very closely after they lowered their alcholtaxes, as the discussion is being held in Sweden, and Norway too I guess? Norway's put a ban on public smoking and Sweden's following (bet's on when Denmark will? Talk about Scandinavia's Smoker's Corner ;) )

International alliances are interesting too. Norway's a member of Nato wich Sweden and Finland's not. I think that's where our politics go very different directions. Sweden is still trying to remain neutral in peace, alliance free in war but wish to cooperate more with the European nations. Norway...I'm not sure, what do you think?

[haha]

Not all of them have Severus Snape as Swedish teacher.
...Or Umbridge :evil: but then again maybe they do because that would explain the drifting linguistic barriers between the two countries as the 'Umbrigdes' wouldn't let the Danes speak Swedish in class :lol:

An interesting point is that even though Norway isn't part of the EU itself, the Norwegian government has decided to join a European action force, to be deployed in crisis situations on short notice. The “Nordic” force, which includes both Swedish and Finnish troops, will also be operative outside Europe. The framework of the force allows Norway to participate, and will receive rights regarding planning and execution of the EU operations in which they take part.

[Alastor D]

Those are really interesting thoughts, I had no idea that was the way it's like in Norway. I think it's especially true when it comes to Danes and Swedes drifting apart, Stockholm is a long way from Copenhagen and if we can't even understand what they are saying then it makes things hard.
The Danes have a quite different idea about how to pronounce it. Written Danish is still easy to understand. Many people find Skånish hard to understand too.
along side the Finns (for some reason we feel close to you lot too, despite not being able to understand a bloody word you say :p ).
I think it's the historical background. As I'm sure you know, Finland was a part of Sweden between 12something and 1809. And, yes, Finnish as not being even Indo European is a cumbersome lingo to learn.

[haha]

Finland was a part of Sweden between 12something and 1809
I read that finladn was a part of Sweden from the 11th Century :huh: ... here it is:
From the 11th century, Finland was a part of Sweden until 1809. In 1809 Finland became a grand duchy of the Russian empire. Finland was declared independent on December 6th 1917.
Is this wrong?

[Alastor D]

I read that finladn was a part of Sweden from the 11th Century :huh: ... here it is:

Is this wrong?
Yes, it's wrong. At least as far as is known. The existing legends about 11th or 12th century are unproven. What is known is that Birger Jarl (jarl is a title, its the same word as earl) went on a 'crusade' to Finland in the first half of the 13th century. The city of Turku/Åbo which according to those legends was founded earlier, celebrated it's 775th anniversary this new year.Which makes about 1230. It's of course possible that Swedish kings might have expressed claims on it before that, but did not 'rule' over it to any considerable degree.

The rest, Finland being a grand duchy under the Russian tsar between 1809 and Dec. 6th 1917 is correct. :)

[haha]

It's of course possible that Swedish kings might have expressed claims on it before that, but did not 'rule' over it to any considerable degree.
So it depends on the interpretation you take on history then. Thanks :)

[Alastor D]

So it depends on the interpretation you take on history then. Thanks :)
Perhaps more about pruning out legends from what's accepted as historical fact. :D

Whatever influense Sweden might have had before Birger Jarl, it cant have been more than in a very small south-west coast area.

[haha]

but i guess some people may still considered even that small influence as significant :huh:

[Alastor D]

Certainly. There are still people who desperately want to believe that the coastal areas were settled by Swedish speakers already during the Viking era. But the proof hasn't been found. That's, however, not the same question as when the country came under Swedish rule. In those days large parts of Sweden proper weren't ruled by the Svea king either.

But I wonder how far off topic we are allowed to go. :)

[haha]

Probably not that far off :lol: