Bismarck Unites Scandinavia

[Scorpio1982]

Greetings fellow history buffs. I am aware there have been threads about the possibility of a unified Scandinavia, but there is a scenario I have theorized that I have never seen discussed and I’m curious to see any potential feedback. In the alternate timeline I envision, Otto Von Bismarck seeks to further his goals of isolating France and building a system of alliances for Germany-by promoting pan-Scandinavism.

The basis for this proposed alternative is in the actual events of OTL. Bismarck did have a minor role in the unification of Italy because he saw a unified Italy as a useful ally against Austria or France-granted, Italy was already well on the way to being completely unified, which no doubt weighed on his strategic thinking. Bismarck also famously sought a soft victory over Austria because he regarded friendship with Austria as vital to prevent Germany from being surrounded by enemies. Based on these real events, let us propose an alternate timeline where Bismarck is also keen to prevent a vengeful Denmark from ever allying with France or Russia should hostilities break out. The best way to go about this, he decides, is to see Denmark absorbed into a unified Scandinavia that would be on good terms with Germany. Further, he comes to view a unified Scandinavia as a useful ally in the case of hostility with Russia, just as he did Italy in regards to Austria. And so he puts his political and diplomatic magic to work to try to bring about a unified Scandinavia. It is a highly unlikely scenario to be sure, but Bismarck achieved such miracles in OTL. In this scenario, what options might be available and what potential outcomes and ramifications could it have?

 

[Otto Kretschmer]

This would be hard as Swedish Norwegian union dissolved in 1905.

Someone might look into factors that led to its dissolution and see if they can be reversed.

Denmark after the 2nd Schleswig war wont be happy in any scenario if Germany does not give Schleswig back

 

[Osman Aga]

@Jan Olbracht

 

[Hawabin]

@von Adler

 

[Alstein]

I think a united Scandanavia would be blocked by other great powers, unless it pledged a hard neutrality. Russians would oppose for sure, if that makes the Brits oppose, then it's dead.

 

[Albidoom]

Another problem that arises:
If Bismarck promotes a Scandinavian union then the Pan-Germanic movement will start to wonder why Austria (and Bohemia-Moravia) was left out of Germany (i.e. shouldn't he unite all Germans first?).

 

[Swedish luck]

This would be hard as Swedish Norwegian union dissolved in 1905.

It was mainly because Sweden refused to build more consulates where Norwegian sailors could get help at least that is what we learn in Sweden which probably means it is very bias towards us.

 

[Umbral]

It was mainly because Sweden refused to build more consulates where Norwegian sailors could get help at least that is what we learn in Sweden which probably means it is very bias towards us.

That was mainly an excuse as far as I know. Norway had wanted independence for a very long time, and the union was doomed barring some really harsh or major POD.

 

[Atterdag]

It's going to be difficult, because what really killed Scandinavism as a poltical movement was the refusal of Sweden to help Denmark, and it's subsequent defeat, in 1864. Perhaps Bismarck could goad Sweden into more actively helping Denmark, but that still runs into the trouble that if Prussia wins, the message that "Scandinavia is stronger when it stands united" will still be seriously dented.

 

[von Adler]

It would require some major changes. Scandinavianism was a fringe movement among some of the Swedish and Danish elites - the Norwegians wanted independence.

Some of the core problems with a Scandinavian Union is that Sweden and Denmark had been arch-enemies for a long time and even if they were not any more, their interests and how they felt threatened were different.

Sweden feared Russia and had some revanchist ideas to regain Finland, or at least Åland.

Denmark feared Prussia/Germany and wanted to retain Schleswig and Holstein and later regain at least the Danish-speaking parts.

Norway had no enemies, no-one to fear and did not want to regain any territory. They have nothing to win from any kind of union or alliance.

You need a common enemy and common interests for a Scandinavian Union to be anyway close to likely. A more expansionist Russia that for some reason wants to claim northern Sweden and Narvik to gain a ice-free port on the North Sea might be it.

During this era, Prussia (and later Germany) and Russia were close, with Russia being prepared to intervene against Austria should it attempt to intervene in the Franco-Prussian War. You need Prussia/Germany to have an earlier fallout with Russia over something in order for Prussia/Germany to consider supporting a Scandinavian Union as a good potential ally against Russia.

So, something akin to this then:

1. Nicholas I lives a couple of years longer and keeps fighting in the Crimean War.
2. Oscar I's imagined European Grand Alliance (Britain, France, Ottomans, Sardinia, Austria, Prussia and Sweden) all go to war against Russia due to this. You probably need some kind of fallout between Prussia and Russia earlier for this top happen. Sweden gains Åland and a new deusion of being able to take on Grand Powers again.
3. Russia, licking its wounds starts focusing on revenge against Sweden and openly talks about taking northern Sweden and Narvik to gain a port on the North Sea. Sweden and Norway starts fearing Russia even more.
4. Britain, not wanting a Russian port on the North Sea, encourages the Norwegians to remain in the Union (OTL they were somwhat supportive, at least diplomatically to Norwegian independence).
5. Bismarck attacks Denmark, Sweden supports Denmark due to delusions of being able to fight Grand Powers. Prussia and Austria wins, but not as decisively. Schleswig and the most northern parts of Holstein remain Danish, due to the war dragging out and the Swedish and Danish navies soundly defeating the Austrian navy and blockading the Prussian coast, causing economic hardship in Prussia. Russia's navy makes a few threatening moves towards Bornholm, mostly to show off their rebuilt navy. Denmark panicks.
6. The combined threat of Russia and Prussia/Germany makes Sweden, Norway and Denmark stick together more. The OTL currency and customs union from 1872 comes earlier and is more extensive. A formal alliance is signed.
7. Bismarck, realising he needs Russia distracted when he deals with France works to improve relations with Sweden and Denmark like he did with Austria after 1866 OTL.
8. Russia makes more sounds about controlling Bornholm to have a forward base in the Baltic Sea and about controlling Narvik, worrying Denmark, Prussia, Britain, Norway and Sweden alike.
9. With German and British encouragement, the Scandinavian Union forms in the late 1870s.

However, the scenario is unlikely, as there's no real reason for Russia or Prussia/Germany to act this way. It is much more beneficial for them to maintain corteous relations with each other in this era.

 

[Oddball]

It would require some major changes. Scandinavianism was a fringe movement among some of the Swedish and Danish elites - the Norwegians wanted independence.

...

You are mostly correct in your posting, but one obstacle regarding Norway is left out (as it usually is): the fact that Norway in no matter what so ever could or would risk getting in a negative relation to Great Britain and would go to great extent not doing so. This was the basic fact about Norwegian foreign policy from independence until the emergence of Pax Americana in 1945, when we shifted from GB to US. If you want to change this, you really have to bring in a POD earlier than Bismarck...

Regarding #4, I fail to see how GB would act like this. A continued union would not hinder a Russian thrust towards Narvik, rather make it more likely. And GB was not "somewhat supportive, at least diplomatically" but instrumental to Norwegian independence.

IMHO a united Scandinavia is rather difficult because of fundamental differences in Norwegian and Swedish economic interests combined with British support for Norway. Those are the maters you have to change to achieve a United States of Scandinavia.

 

[von Adler]

You are mostly correct in your posting, but one obstacle regarding Norway is left out (as it usually is): the fact that Norway in no matter what so ever could or would risk getting in a negative relation to Great Britain and would go to great extent not doing so. This was the basic fact about Norwegian foreign policy from independence until the emergence of Pax Americana in 1945, when we shifted from GB to US. If you want to change this, you really have to bring in a POD earlier than Bismarck...

Regarding #4, I fail to see how GB would act like this. A continued union would not hinder a Russian thrust towards Narvik, rather make it more likely. And GB was not "somewhat supportive, at least diplomatically" but instrumental to Norwegian independence.

IMHO a united Scandinavia is rather difficult because of fundamental differences in Norwegian and Swedish economic interests combined with British support for Norway. Those are the maters you have to change to achieve a United States of Scandinavia.

I know. Norway only needed friendly relationship with Sweden to not get invaded and friendly relations with Britain to maintain their economy (fishing and merchant shipping). That is why I added Britain being supportive of the Union - without that, Norway will never voluntarily join. For the British, Norway inside a Union would be stronger in resisting Russian diplomatic demands to base ships etc even wtihout any kind of conquest.

Russia was doing such things with Manchuria and China in the east in this era.

 

[Otto Kretschmer]

An earlier POD with a surviving Kalmar Union would be a best case scenario

 

[LordKalvan]

Let's not forget that in 1815 Denmark lost Norway to Sweden at the Congress of Vienna as a punishment for her alliance with Napoleon (and the Swedes were Johnnies-come-late to the Coalition). Then there was 1848, where Denmark chose a constitutional, liberal path, while Sweden repressed any agitation with quite a hard hand. Finally there was the Swedish refusal to support in any way Denmark during the wars for Schleswig-Holstein.
With all this baggage, a Scandinavian Union would be quite hard to achieve (and certainly Russia would be very much against it, as it has already been said).

 

[Hvalrossen]

It was mainly because Sweden refused to build more consulates where Norwegian sailors could get help at least that is what we learn in Sweden which probably means it is very bias towards us.

It's part of the story, but nationalist sentiment were did not depend on it.

 

[Hvalrossen]

You need a common enemy and common interests for a Scandinavian Union to be anyway close to likely. A more expansionist Russia that for some reason wants to claim northern Sweden and Narvik to gain a ice-free port on the North Sea might be it.

Unrealistic, why would Russia desire Narvik? It is not any closer to core Russia than Murmansk, infact it is further away. Russia did not even build a railway to Murmansk before WW1. Instead it was happy/content with being dependent on Baltic and Black Sea ports.

 

[Oddball]

Let's not forget that in 1815 Denmark lost Norway to Sweden at the Congress of Vienna as a punishment for her alliance with Napoleon (and the Swedes were Johnnies-come-late to the Coalition).

The transfer of Norway from the Danish King to the Swedish King was considered an compensation for the Swedish loss of Finland. It was not considered an punishment of Denmark. I know this might sound as nitpicking, but it is somehow important.

It might also be of importance that to the Norwegians it mostly implied changing lines of communication from Copenhagen to Stockholm. It mattere to the financial elite, but rather less to the general population. It is useful to recognise Norwegian nationalism at this point i history to be rather embryonic.

 

[LordKalvan]

The transfer of Norway from the Danish King to the Swedish King was considered an compensation for the Swedish loss of Finland. It was not considered an punishment of Denmark. I know this might sound as nitpicking, but it is somehow important

In other words, Russia wants Finland, and gets it; Sweden is compensated by the acquisition of Norway. Up to here, it's fine, leaving aside the fact that neither Finns nor Norwegians were asked for an opinion in the matter. Denmark lost Norway, but it didn't happen as a punishment. Was it a prize for good behavior?
Denmark, like Saxony, Bavaria and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, ended up on the bad boys' bench at Vienna because they had been allied with Napoleon: Denmark lost Norway, Saxony lost 40% of her land to Prussia (and they were lucky, because the original demands of Prussia were for all of Saxony), the G. D. of Warsaw was handed over to the tender mercies of the czar, and Bavaria weathered the storm with just a slap on the wrist, because the king of Bavaria had been the first to see that Napoleon was going down and jumped ship.

 

[Oddball]

With all this baggage, a Scandinavian Union would be quite hard to achieve (and certainly Russia would be very much against it, as it has already been said).

Actually, with a POD a few years earlier the generall situation could perhaps have been suitable for a union.

If the Danish Prince Christian August had lived to become Swedish king, it is not hard to envision a "more successful" SWE-NOR union, and when Frederik VII dies without an heir in 1863 Christian August's heir could possibly be a candidate for the third crown.

There is also the possibility for danish Prince Christian Frederik, later King Fredrik VI to gain all three crowns. But IOTL the Swedes could not stand for an Danish crown Prince also as Swedish crown Prince in 1809.

Whether Sweden would have been compensated with Norway without Bernadotte is obviously also an question.

Personally I have always been a major fan of Christian August and the potential he had. IMHO he might have had the brains to pull of what Bernadotte did, but in addition also lay down the foundation for a later danish addition...

 

[Oddball]

Was it a prize for good behavior?

No, but they got compensated with being alowed to keep the Atlantic provinces and Slesvig-Holstein. In addition they also acquired Lauenburg.

But as I said, nitpicking. In diplomatic terms, and they were important back then, it was not considered punishment.