Why did Sweden-Norway Collapse?

[@CARL_093]

Negotiations between the two countries led to a settlement in September 1905, which legally dissolved the union. King Oscar II renounced his claim to the Norwegian throne, and Prince Charles of Denmark was elected as Norway's king under the name of Haakon VII

[@BurnTheKremlin]

H7! Alt for Norge!

[@perfectallycromulent]

That's so strange. "We have achieved independence from Sweden! We love Democracy! Now let's import a Dane to be our king."

[@BamberdittoPingpong]

​@@perfectallycromulent Norway democratically voted in favour of a monarchy. Norway didn't really have a nobility for long after the Black Death, not with any claim to the throne. What nobility we had merged with the Swedish monarchy through intermarriage and Haakon V not siring a male heir, which would merge with the Danish monarchy. The son of Haakon V's daughter-- who married into Swedish nobility-- Magnus VII Eriksson, was born into the Swedish house of Bjälbo. Norway didn't want a Swedish prince as king having just gone out of union with them, and so looked to Denmark, which had close ties to the British monarchy. We also have to take into account that in 1905 there were only two republics in Europe: France and Switzerland. Haakon VII was chosen as he was the second son of the Danish king, and the heir to the Danish throne already had a son, so there wasn't really any danger of Norway and Denmark ending up in a personal union again. Prince Carl would go on to become a Danish king for an independent Kingdom of Norway (though not a Danish king ruling from Denmark, big difference). The Norwegian and Danish monarchy today have the same royal house.

[@ZakhadWOW]

@@BamberdittoPingpong Bjälbo As in Bjälbo Baggins? /snerk

[@arturowagner4728]

When I visited Berlin many years ago, our tour bus passed by the embassies of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. They were all housed in the same building. They share many similarities and pooled their resources. Separatar, yet together. I thought that was a pretty neat concept.

[@Abraxium]

Frankly, this video is misinformed on the account of nationalism. Scandinavia did not suffer from the 1848 springtime of nations as other parts of Europe did. Beyond the Norwegian battle of the square in 1829 and the issue of Schleswig-Holstein in Denmark, Scandinavia largely avoided tensions along national lines. In contrast, Scandinavian students (those who were vital to the 1848 revolutions in mainland Europe) were swayed by the idea of pan-Scandinavism. This idea involved the cooperation or union of the three Scandinavian countries, even the Danish and Swedish king met on discussing this issue in July of 1863. What really killed this idea was 1. Sweden not aiding Denmark against Prussia. 2. Swedish and Norwegian interests laying in different areas.

[@TullaRask]

He said in the video Stortinget voted against Norwegian troups in the wars. Only natural when see what the centiment was. We probably didn't like supporting any of the colonialists.

[@DoDaDaDaDaCaDa]

Americans wanna tell us our history. 😂 But if u asked the average U.S citizen before Vikings show dropped what the capital of any Scandinavian country they would guess *Ikea*

[@IDK-xu6ko]

⁠@@DoDaDaDaDaCaDaIt is a history channel the origin of the information doesn’t mean that it is correct. This is horrible way of thinking

[@IDK-xu6ko]

@@DoDaDaDaDaCaDaThey are not trying to tell you your own history 💀

[@thalmoragent9344]

Makes sense. Norway and Sweden have different interests Granted, a Scandinavian nation would still be beneficial but, to each his own. Still, why didn't they help out Denmark? Worried it would tumble into larger warfare?

[@daniell1483]

From the US, I love Scandinavian history. On the one hand, it can seem so violent, but also incredibly peaceful too. I guess this comes from Scandinavia being its own sub-region of Europe, which gives it a sense of cultural unity even across national boundaries.

[@33d672]

Well it is, and we have our own culture yes like you said. Just like Iberia is its own part of Europe with similar culture (Spain/Portugal). But in no way was it ever peaceful, atleast before the 1800s. Only after the napoleonic wars and the creation of Scandinavia as a concept did it become peaceful. Sweden and Denmark has the most wars between 2 countries of all human history, between 1000-1800 ish, having a war about every 20 years. And Norway was part of Denmark most of the time and Finland was always part of Sweden so those countries are involved as well in those wars. Just imagine if every 20 years, America invaded Canada, definitely not peaceful. And Sweden was often fighting multiple fronts as well, fighting Russia, Germany, Poland, etc

[@bc10Comrade]

Some could say that they never reached the Finnish line, ill see myself out

[@linav7705]

😂

[@FXGreggan.]

It's always good to hear both perspectives on historical matters, cheers!

[@jouhanneus]

It is worth mentioning that the unpopularity and resistance to this forced union was so strong in a Norway, that it led to a short war between Norway and Sweden in 1814. Norway never stood much of a chance, but fiercely wanted independence and gave it an honorable try. The Convention of Moss in August 1814 saw a ceasefire agreed, and the Union was a fact. The longing for independence never went away, though. We celebrate 17th of May (Constitution Day) as our one true national holiday, but 7th of June, the dissolution of the union with Sweden, is an independence day celebration we should not overlook. It is important to our nation's history.

[@rphb5870]

its not like the norwegian really wanted independence, they loved Denmark, they just did not like the idea of being invaded by Sweden

[@saibot7218]

Yes Norway didn’t want to become part of Sweden. They wanted Denmark

[@jouhanneus]

@@rphb5870 Half true. Loved Denmark?? Outrageous. Yes, Denmark was preferred over Sweden, but the union with Denmark is referred to as "The 400-year Night" in Norway. The union was unpopular. Norway had next to no influence on its own affairs. Everything was decided in Copenhagen, and Denmark had an exploitatory attitude towards Norway.

[@swedishfish2357]

The Great Northern Empire shall rise again, min bror! JK, I love my Scandinavian homies

[@tomihodet354]

​​​@@rphb5870 This is wrong! Norwegian elites wanted and pushed for more autonomy from Coppenhagen before the Napolionic Wars. Then when Denmark lost most of the union's shared fleet its hold over Norway was essentially severed and the move towards independence began. No one at Eidsvoll in 1814 advocated for rejoining Denmark, it was eithzer full independence or a limited union with Sweden.

[@hildemoe9355]

This is by far the best video on this topic I have seen on youtube. I belive all the usual faults have been avoided. Bravo !! / my recomendations !! / thank you !! Yours Jens, Oslo

[@P4Tri0t420]

Another great Video, thank you

[@janhanchenmichelsen2627]

Some important issues, as seen from Norway a century later: 1. Large parts of Norway‘s (surprisingly democratically elected) constitutional assembly of 1814 wanted independence and a Danish prince as king, thus crossing the post war-agreements settled in Kiel and Vienna. The later, forced acceptance of a new union was moderated by the Swedish accepting a very liberal constitution and a personal union, with a lot of «home rule». 2. Norway was a the time a really undeveloped nation with scarce communications and no deep, common «national» identity. Trading routes inland and abroad followed century long traditions, based on export f fish and timber. The coast line and inland rivers were very important trading/transport routes, and these businesses were largely self-contained and - except for mining - not that much controlled by a central power. 3. Norway as partner in a new union continued this path, but with Swedish help, money and expertise, science, industry and especially shipping quickly became more important. The latter was to a great extent made possible by a Swedish-British agreement of extemption from the British Navigation Acts. Amendments to the constitution further secured minorities’ rights (jews were soon allowed to immigrate, patching a disgraceful part of the original constitution) as well as expanding civic rights for other religious and ethnic minorities. Further more, the nobility was dismantled. In 1884, parliamentarism was established. This finally reduced the king to a mainly ceremonial figure and vastly reduced the power of civil servants and administrators. The Swedes did not like this, but accepted. 4. When the dissolvement of the union became a real and urgent issue, Norway was a modernised country with far better communications, roads and railways, a well-established industrial sector, and a vivid political and cultural life. Many, maybe most historians of today will say that one main cause of all this was the awkward, but in reality quite beneficial union with the far more powerful Swedes. So while the union was forced on us by the threat of war (and some very real skirmishes), this is not a story of hard core exploitatory colonialism. This will also explain the close relationship between Norway and Sweden after 1905. Finally, to clarify: The left alliance of 1884 was a progressive liberal movement, not socialist. The "left" name came from the liberal faction in the National Constituent Assembly in revolutionary France. They sat on the left side in the hall. The later very important socialist and social democratic movements came a few years later, when voting rights were extended to all men - and then women, regardless of property ownership.

[@saibot7218]

Norway was forced to union with Sweden. That was not the case with Denmark. And Norway used danish written language until start of 1900s

[@Anonymous-zu7dh]

​@@saibot7218 Norwegian has 2 different (major anyways) writing languages. Bokmål, which is basically a slightly modified Danish. And nynorsk, which was specifically designed to purge as much Danish influence as possible.

[@janhanchenmichelsen2627]

@@saibot7218 Yes, the union was forced upon Norway in the Treaty of Kiel, confirmed by the Congress of Vienna. All according to the system of international law at the time. This was way before the rise of national states as "primary" entities. Norways union with and later de facto annexation into Denmark was a result of feudal and monarcic laws at the time. The King disassembled the Norwgian state council in 1536, and the new kingdom became an absolute monarchy. I would say, by force. Now, regarding Danish: Yes, during the union, Danish was the written standard. But new, written Norwegian forms were developed way before the start of the 1900s. Already in 1885, both the two main forms of Norwegian (not Danish) were sanctioned by law.

[@saibot7218]

@ yes but not that time. books in Norway were in Danish

[@saibot7218]

@ still Danish were used up to early 1900s

[@raedwulf61]

"Stewking?" Storting is not pronounced that way.

You guys don´t make stew there? Damn, I´m disappointed. ;) greetings from Sweden, and i am glad Norway got its independence and this unbloody. Love Norway.

[@borstracks]

I also noted at least three instances of "stool king" :D

@@borstracks Oof. lol

[@kl10sx]

At 5:34 he says Schießwig instead of Schleswig. Like, what?

[@erf3176]

It's a shame. They have perfect stew weather for most of the year. A stew king and a soup minister are must-haves.

[@Pwood1488]

Now do a modern one with muslims in sweden norway

[@Chris-ki6ui]

correction, sweden, they act as a shield. my flatmate is gonna be happy you dont mind ethiopians though, but youre probably too dense to understand the difference

[@Pwood1488]

@@Chris-ki6ui I understand europe for europeans, I dont want any africans or middle easterners. It's my right, my country for my people.

[@leethomas7539]

Has norway/Sweden got Muslims

[@emikomina]

@@leethomas7539sweden has a lot of muslim immigrants now

[@33d672]

@@Chris-ki6ui Norway full of Somalis and got tonnes of Muslims so you know

[@davea6314]

This is more evidence that Napoleon Bonaparte was among the top 10 most influential people in world history.

[@esyr]

In 1807 UK attacked the neutral kingdom of Denmark-Norway to keep the Danish fleet out of Napoleons hands. My Norwegian great-great* grandfather was at the time serving in the Danish navy and barely survived the Battle of Zealand Point aboard the ship of the line. Later he captured a British Frigate outside of Kristiansand with help of "gunboats".

[@AustrianPainter14]

Uh ya think?

[@Greksallad]

Disappointing that this video fails to mention the role of the Swedish Social Democratic movement, which campaigned for Norwegian independence. The leader of the Social Democrats, Hjalmar Branting, coined the slogan "Hands off Norway, King!" leading up to the dissolution. They threatened the government with a general strike if Norway was invaded and organized Swedish soldiers to flat-out refuse to go to war. Basically, Swedes were also tired of the bullying from our government and made it very clear that they would not help them in keeping Norway by force. Norwegians are our brothers.

[@albertconstantine5432]

Great presentation and thank you - I relearned a lot and "get it" much better. Loved the graphics. Amid your fine narration, you pronounced "interests" interestingly. Bet you are a polyglot!

[@KiaHunson]

Can you make the history of drc plz🙌❤️❤️❤️ and great video

[@Bern_il_Cinq]

This video doesn't really take into account the previous 1000 years of shared history: the joint Viking Kings, the North Sea Empires, the Hanseatic League, the Kalmar Union. This is not the first Norway-Sweden Union; actually it's the last.

[@okklidokkli]

It is the only Norway-Sweden union, but yes there was a Kalmar union 300 years earlier with the three Scandinavian countries.

[@jansundvall2082]

Swedish prime sphere of interest and influence has always been the Baltic region. During the prehistory the Swedes were mainly travelling eastward through the rivers of Eastern Europe to the Black Sea region, not the North Sea. Denmark and Norway had some joint kings during the late prehistory and early medieval period. The Hanseatic influence was stronger in Sweden due to the iron and copper export. Except of the king and his men there was no popular interest in the union, as it didn’t gave us Finland back.

[@vendist]

@@okklidokkli One could argue that there was a union when Magnus Eriksson was made king of both Norway and Sweden in the years before the Kalmar union.

[@norwegianboyee]

True. There's even now cross-border co-operation between Norway and Sweden in regards to police and security. And with Sweden having joined NATO, that kind of trend is going to increase.

[@33d672]

@@okklidokkli No there was another union before the Kalmar union between Sweden-Norway.

[@faze_fox2092]

While Norway and Sweden disagreement caused little violence and some sort of gap that led to dissolution of the union, Malaya and Singapore disagreement caused to the _(extreme)_ violence, political insult to each other and income gap(?) which all led to exclusion of Singapore from Federation

They are also brown.

[@dickwintered]

Norway and Sweden are ethnically similar only divided by nationalistic interests. The people of Singapore and Malaya are not just ethnically different, but religiously diverse as well, driving further divide during federation times.

[@P4Tri0t420]

I find it kind of sad how Norway had never a say before for its own desriny (after the french wars)

[@kremepye3613]

I think the landscape was so hostile and they didn't have a high population that pre oil they were just doing fishing and shipping and didn't really have much money for war, also the towns in norway were very isolated from each other so most peoples loyalties laid within their town/village (they still have around 300 seperate dialects).

[@raedwulf61]

The victors railroaded Norway.

[@runefredriksen9336]

@@raedwulf61 Norway became the railroaded of the Black Plague and Denmark so we were impoverished! Norway was involved in all the wars Denmark and Sweden had! 60% of soldiers in the then large and notorious navy in Denmark were Norwegians! And Sweden tried many times to take Norway by military force! They were never capable of it!And there king was killed in Norway. But England had been capabel to do it! And Norway was involved in Danish foreign policy involuntarily.

[@TullaRask]

It's what they did in those days. The people didn't matter, it was all about the royals and noble families, people just followed wether they liked it or not. They didn't like it when we created our own constitution though, but it turned out to be very nice when the Swedes realized they had to negotiate. With a few changes it was approved.

[@P4Tri0t420]

Thanks for all the explanations.

[@jasongaston17]

Let's go another spectacular video luv Chicago

[@LinaGenX]

The union between Norway & Sweden did not collapse. Norway was literally given to Sweden as a prize of war in 1814. This was not what Norway wanted, 17 May 1814 the Norwegian constitution was signed, there was a strong will in Norway to get out of the union. In 1905 we accomplished it

[@PetraRocks100]

The answer is very simple, Norway didn't want to be in this union from the start and never gave up on it's dream of indepence. You can't force an unwilling partner to stay with you indefinitely.

[@jansundvall2082]

And most swedes were not interested.

[@DaveSmith-pm2yq]

"We can still be friends...."

[@hildemoe9355]

PetraRocks; you write "Norway ... never gave up on it's dream of indepence." Have you forgotten that the Norwegians in 1814 elected the Danish crown prince king of Norway. Hardly a dream of independence ! Regards Jens

[@tomihodet354]

​@@hildemoe9355 This was an act of rebellion against Sweden, there were very few candidates to elect as king. Also the Elites who gave Christian Fredrik the crown made him relinquish his dynastic claim onto the Norwegian throne.

[@33d672]

And us Swedes didn’t want to pay even higher taxes to pay for poor Norways roads and infrastructure!! Never forget that while Denmark treated you as nothing, Sweden treated you as a (unwilling sure) partner, still a partner. And that Swedish citizens paid their taxes so that Norway (who was even poorer than Sweden at that time) could afford schools, new roads and buildings, etc.

[@depekthegreat359]

This is a video of a realisation of how the two respective nations being a rival at that time but no more as they are a farther developed country,good friends!!!LONG LIVES RESPECTIVELY TO BOTH NORWAY AND SWEDEN!!!🎉🎉

[@tony18662]

The Swedish people and Army Refused to go to war With Norway thus essentially forced the king to break up the union. This refusal then led to that the title king lost power forming the government we have today. This is the only time the threat of a civil war scared Stockholm and the crown into submission. There are a huge difference between east and west part of Sweden history in this issue historically.

[@melk100]

Thank you! Important info for Norwegians and Swedes. Swedes played a very important role in the Norwegian liberation. Neglected history ...

[@Cineres]

"Both nations seems embarrassed"? Sweden, maybe. Norway never wanted the union, and fought (non-militarily) against it the whole way, ending with Sweden eventually giving up its overlordship of us.

[@12345678981010]

yup the fact is also that norway was poor and not worth holding at the time.

[@Jotaro-o]

On the bright side if Sweden was never given overlordship of Norway, Denmark probably would still be cucking Norway till this day.

[@notlyxu]

@@ShawnFrost2317 lol what? You seem to have no idea why germany invaded Norway in ww2 then lol. And of course Norway wanted out of an unfair, and unequal union, that Norway was forced into via a military invasion by Sweden. I can't think of a lot of countries that would want to be invaded and treated as lesser lol

[@bennyklabarpan7002]

@@notlyxu norway wanted to be treated as a lesser under denmark

[@notlyxu]

@ No. problem was that the entire Norwegian ruling class was wiped out by the black plague, so Danes became the new ruling class of Norway, and they obviously wanted to be a part of Denmark

[@stormmalm7049]

Was never much of a Union to begin with. Norway wanted complete independence since before the swedish union was established. Norway also had some independence from Sweden to govern themselves. Norway was pushing for independence since very early on in the union.

[@TullaRask]

Norway was with Denmark before this union and we made a constitution. We were convinced we could do it alone, so why follow Sweden at all.

[@Elenrai]

Denmark-Norway was at its conception a sensible thing to do, post Sweden-breakup, it still made some sense, the 1600s and 1700s especially demonstrate a Norway acting as its own entity even if a lot of the nobility spoke more German than anything else

[@Bubajumba]

@@Elenrai Why? Only threat to Norway at this time was Sweden Danmark, Uniting with either makes sense in defese against one or the other, economically Norway was fine and had Sweden Danmark inbetween them and other threats. Problem for Norway since the Viking age was population as it was the country in europe that was hit the worst by the plague. You can argue Uniting with Danmark was horrible idea as Norway have close ties with England but was forces to fight a losing battle on the french side because of the Danes

[@33d672]

Swedish populace never wanted the union neither, but I guess they don’t teach you that in Norwegian schools. They only teach you to hate Sweden.

[@Ciech_mate]

Thanks for this video!

[@jayfreechavez0000]

God bless the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Norway

[@charbel123567]

Nice to see my hometown Jönköping getting some attention on the graphic, so cool thanks dude!

[@Egobyte83]

The union was an interesting idea with great potential (but poor results) for a united Scandinavia. Eventually, Norway wanted independence too much and Sweden were only half-hearted in keeping it. But in true nordic fashion, no blood was spilled during the dissolution. Just a "look, this isn't working, let's go our separate ways" and a "fine, we might as well." XD

[@kurt54]

Hi Knowledgia! Which resource did you download the global map from?

[@dri_him]

Answer to this video: You never lose what you're best friends with ❤ Sweden + Norway = Siblings for life 🧬

[@thli8472]

A more relevant question might be why they accepted Danish rule for so long.

[@linav7705]

We did not accept it. Other than that the answer to your question lies in some very easy available history sources.

[@hildemoe9355]

To thli8472 Denmark was a mulinational state. For the time, it had a high performance in culture and governance. The civil servants that came to Norway had university education. And when abuse, the populace had the oportunity to complain to the state (the "king") who occationally intervened. A major issue for the Danish state (king) had been the struggle for power against the nobility. With but some exeptions, Norway did not have nobility, so the match between the Norwegians and the state (Denmark) was made in heaven. This is now largely forgotten in Norway, most people belive we were ready to break up with Denmark. Otside some students in Copehagen (!) this was far from the case. Yours Jens

[@zatraz2573]

Title is sooo wrong!

[@Draktand01]

The union between Norway and Sweden was still-born from the very beginning. For a union based on our shared Scandinavian or Nordic identity to actually work, there has to be a sense of unity and equality. The only functional unifying institution was the monarchy, and as we know, monarchies were losing power and influence by the year back then. Thus, the union only served as an undemocratic shackle holding Norway down. And then there’s the fact that Norway was supposed to be Sweden’s compensation for losing Finland. But Norway was no Finland. The Finnish provinces had been integrated as a core part of Sweden for 500 years, while Norway had a history as a seperate, if not independent kingdom for longer than Sweden existed. Norwegian identity was too strong to integrate it as another part of Sweden, so the politicians were left with that awkward arrangement. If we want a Nordic union to work, we need a unified parliament elected by all members, union legislation that sometimes supercedes national law, and more than two member state, to balance out Sweden’s population advantage. Only then could such an arrangement be considered fair yet functional. Of course, that predisposes that Norway doesn’t nope out entirely out of instinct, lol.

[@ThomasL58]

The strongest argument of the pro-remain side was that Sweden in 1905 had a quite strong army, that could protect Norway from foreight aggression. However, the Norwegians made it very clear that they under no circumstances wanted Swedish troops in Norway. The Swedes remembered that 35 years later, and didn't lift a finger when mr Hitler invaded Norway.

[@SveinJohnnyFedje]

Oh, you mean when Sweden let Hitler transport troops through Sweden and into Norway?

[@mrchambers31]

1:06 When Denmark stole Greenland and Iceland

[@enzobusk4735]

Stole??

[@Steiper]

@enzobusk4735 Iceland was colonized by Norway until Denmark took it, but Greenland was actually abandoned by Norway and was later recolonized by Denmark.

[@kjell-egonstrandh5334]

The Viking Leif Eriksson, borned in what we call Sweden today, was the first viking that visited Greenland and America.

[@runefredriksen9336]

​@enzobusk4735Yes!

[@runefredriksen9336]

​@SteiperWhith Norwegians?

[@arnespon1]

Where did you read this?

[@thalmoragent9344]

Seems like Norway just didn't have much going for it, but they'd rather do their own thing. So I guess they'd just take their win and everyone was fine to split. That said, I've heard that people in either nation wouldn't mind a Pan-Scandanavian nation, but they'd need a proper, equal union of the 2, plus maybe Denmark

[@treybie1]

"One thousand Swedes ran through the weeds, chased by one Norwegian."

[@rolfnilsen6385]

It could be mentioned that there are quite large cultural differences between swedes and norwegians. Especially the coastal regions of Norway vs. Sweden in general. Norway was forced into the union unwillingly. This of course created resentment from the outset. It did not help that Norway through marriage had been in union with Denmark for 400 years, and got the rough end of that union as well. The new, enforced, union was hopeless from the get go. The central foundation of the whole liberation process was the Norwegian constitution that was created in the power vacuum between Napoleons loss at Waterloo and the treaty of Kiel where the king of Denmark-Norway ceeded Norway to Sweden as Denmark-Norway had supportet Bonaparte. The swedish king (one of Napoleons former generals, ironically) met a fait accompli of either accepting the norwegian constitution or go to full war against a sovereign Norway. Sweden did invade Norway and after a short loopsided war a compromise was accepted. The constition of 1814 was the foundation for 1905.

[@MarcusiUppsala]

I'm from Sweden. It was an amicable union but the Norwegian parliament simply had no desire to keep it going. There would be trade anyway, and so on - their media still use our weather institute SMHI located in Norrköping for their daily weather update. So why maintain a union? It was a "personal union" in the person of the Swedish king, the way we've seen in the Austrian empire also. When he died they said that meant the union was dissolved. Sweden's king asked his cousin, the German kaiser, for advice, and the kaiser suggested Sweden let Norway go. Final thing: There was actually a brief border fight when the Norwegian military attacked the Swedish military, where they knew there'd be much fewer Swedish soldiers. So they killed and wounded a few soldiers and took the border post, big victory, hooray. Sweden could of course easily have fought back with nearby forces. In the Balkans they'd have done that right away "for honor," and then they'd have gone on for a year or more. But Sweden refrained. Let the doofuses have their "victory" if it means saving lives, Swedish and Norwegian, as in the end Norway would be a separate country anyway. And after that, no one remembers that day's border fight.

[@-ingar-]

amicable? Norway was forced into the union after the napoleonic war as sas compensation for sweden losing finland to russia

[@_Lumiere_]

@@-ingar- It was amicable by the 1900s, in the sense that there was not much hostility between the nations, as evidenced by the peaceful and rather quick dissolution.

[@thalmoragent9344]

Sounds like Norway just doesn't like other people in Scandinavian 😅

[@thalmoragent9344]

​​@@_Lumiere_ Fair enough. Plus, I heard that many still wouldn't mind a proper Scandinavian union

[@runefredriksen9336]

@@thalmoragent9344 It's more that someone portrays it as if Norway was not against occupation and that everything was peaceful! And, for example, the black plague had nothing to do with it! And that Norway did not lose land areas! Norway was never taken militarily by, for example, Sweden! Not that there was a lack of trying!And that no one mentions that Scandinavia was one of the areas in the world with the most military conflicts.

[@nicce12]

During the 2nd world war Sweden sent initially a substantial military aid to Finland in the form of volunteers and material but not much help to Norway (not even providing refuge for the Norwegian Royals). At a joint military dinner in the 1970's a Norwegian officer lamented the fact that Sweden had left Norway on their own, and got the response from a Swedish officer "Well I believe that decision was made in 1905...)

[@charlesiragui2473]

Russia was the big victor of the Napoleonic Wars. It demanded new lands in recognition of its win. Finland was one of its desires. Sweden was part of the anti-Napoleonic coalition and owned Finland, so Russia wanted a piece of its own ally. This is where Norway came in: Sweden, which had ruled Finland since the Middle Ages, would lose Finland (where there was a significant Swedish ethnic minority) and be compensated with Norway. This could have made sense in that the cultural/linguistic variation between Swedes, Norwegians and Danes is small. At times in history, the three countries were united. By setting up a joint political system, no collective nation could be forged, especially in a time of ever growing nationalism.

[@Merecir]

Extra stupid reasoning from Russia, as they had been allied WITH Napoleon when they took Finland...!

[@charlesiragui2473]

@@Merecir Everyone fought on both sides, other than the Brits, protected on their island.

[@Thannoyer]

Just look at the map. We should be together.

[@fayeandtrevor]

I had no idea there had ever been a united kingdom of these two countries ..... most interesting, thank you.

[@johnnymartinjohansen]

Norwegians aren't "embarassed to remember" the union. No, it's one of the worst periods in our history, being oppressed and treated as 2nd class citizens. That's a substantial amount of hate and a lot of national pride, not embarassment. And that lead to the end of the union. It's a miracle we actually love Swedes today, we don't hate them at all. And btw, because of this, Norwegians still hate the word "union", which was a major factor to why we said no to joining the EU. Not just once, but twice (1972 + 1994).

[@nom_chompsky]

When you and your brother can no longer live in the same house.

[@Djuuugarn]

Funny how things work out. Sweden and Norway are far more united now than we ever were during the union.

[@DonPozeidon]

The title is wrong

[@DenOndeMister]

It's always understated how important the people of Swedens unwillingness to go to war over Norway is to their freedom. Had the hawks in Sweden gotten their way Norway would have been annexed.

[@crossfire7474]

It is rare for both nations to avoid conflict after resolving apolitical dispute. A shining example.

[@mango2005]

Sweden being allowed to take over Norway was part of a trade off for Sweden losing Finland in 1809 to Russia. When Norway heard of it they mobilised troops so a compromise was made allowing Norway wide ranging autonomy except on foreign policy. However this wasnt enough by the late 19th century,. Norway had originally preferred to offer the crown to a Danish prince. The current Norwegian royal family is a branch of the Danish House of Oldenburg.

[@TheLordRichard]

Fun fact. The man (Haakon VII)who would be Norways first independent King for many centuries, actually ascended the Norwegian throne a few months before his father (Frederick VIII) ascended the Danish throne.

[@LadyZeldaia]

sorta forgot the entire norwegian war of independence and WHY norway had such a strong constatution, kieltraktaten did not make the union, it was the Mossekonvensjonen that made the union later that year after the war

[@VonGrav]

a funny note: Sweden was preparing to fight Norway over the split. THough it has been noted that norway had alot of something sweden did not have a crapload of modern Kraag Jorgensen rifles.. and a bunch of these fancy new things Machineguns. (hotchkiss ) Apperently this helped sway the swedes to not go to war :)

[@Aronre]

I'm Norwegian and ever since i learned about the pan-scandinavian movement i've been pro united Scandinavia. A Federation of sorts with closer cooperatiion of economy, military and political affairs, i know its a more or less unobtainable dream, but a scandiinavian union would only strengthen us all Gotta play EU4 agaiin now xD

[@douglasschliewen4302]

It was only a matter of time before all four Nordic countries wound up going their separate ways when it came to sovereignty since strong nationalist tendencies existed in all four. Union was tried in centuries past, as during the 14th century, but that ended up dissolving. As for the war between Denmark and Prussia, the Prussians took back land that was originally German which had been seized by King Christian IV during the Thirty Years War.

[@riddick7082]

Sweden didn't lose Norway, they did everything they could to get rid of it.

[@tor6372]

The union never stood a chance, the trouble makers in the west would never bow to Stockholm, Norwegians was a terrible replacement for the Finns, Sweden had lost Finland to Russia and saw the chance of getting crown jewel instead with Norway. In 1814, before the snow had melted and new union had been established, Norwegians revolted, wrote down Europe's most democratic Constitution and said no to the Kiel agreement. Then came Sweden last war, they attacked Norwegian rebels with their military. The Swedish-Norwegian peace agreement in 1814 was that Norway was allowed to keep it's new Constitution, it was so well written, Swedes was actually impressed. This was a huge victory, the King veto power was limited to 2-3 times, Norway got a good union and the Norwegian economy was booming in 1800s. Yes, late 1800s came national romantic movement and Norway found national identity through Polar explorers making the headlines, the trekking club and the ski clubs arrived, European elite invented fjord cruises and British upper middle class started using Norway as their play ground, fishing and mountaineering. The other big shift was massive emigration to US, half of the Norwegian population growth 1820-1920 went to US. Democratic Norway was like an economic runaway train, the economic growth followed UK and outperformed Swedish economic growth. In 1870, at peak of sail boat time, the biggest merchant fleet by far was the British, but then came US and Norway. Norway is way more Anglo oriented than Sweden, the underlying reason for union failing was that Norway need different economic and trade policies, we needed to handle our own foreign affairs in UK and US. The point is, Norway was a big shipping nation and needed to have good agreements with UK and US. Sweden lacked international support, the referendum on dissolving the union got 99.95% yes votes from Norwegian voters. Neither population wanted another war, the power hawks in Stockholm was out of options in 1905, if blocking democratic reforms, it would end badly.

[@AllrightNOR]

It's like asking why the collonies didn't work out

[@darkomier398]

As someone who is from the rather small town of Skövde from Sweden, why tf is it marked on the map in the begining? lol Skövde is like the 31st largest town :P

[@Carewolf]

It didn't collapse, it never really formed and mostly existed as a diplomatic delusion between the winners of the Napolionic war. It just took 100 years for Sweden to admit it.

[@VikingOlberg-NymoenOfNorway]

Glad i dere kjære naboer. Skål

[@hedgehopper9055]

Godt sagt, helt enig 🐺🦊

[@calebcalhoun6417]

At 12:12 - You have a picture of the wrong Swedish prince. You have a picture of Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten (born in 1906 -after these events took place.) The Crown Prince at this time was Gustaf, Duke of Värmland (Gustaf V from 1907-1950) - He was the Grandfather of the Prince you have pictured.

[@Carewolf]

And no, there was no supreme power by the swedish king of his proxy. Norway invented constitutional monarchy to deal with the necessity of having to have the Swedish king as king, but not give him any actual power.

[@LarsOleBergersen]

Union? No, Norway was a war price according to the Kiel tractat. Declared however sovereignity in spring 1814 and signed its own constitution May 17th. But Sweden went to war in the summer. Norway couldn't match the Swedes and agreed to a union in the Moss convention in the autumn. Norway wasn't allowed an own king and foreign policy, but otherwise the union was liberal. In 1905 Norway was ripe for full sovereignity, and Sweden did the right thing. Both states benefitted.

[@matswinberg5045]

I am not sick, I am only a Swede: kzbin.info/www/bejne/opSkXplrnLWhsKc The Norway Song (cover with altered text): kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z4fMlIygoJJ5pJY The Norway Song (original): kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYu7o35pm5mtmM0 The Norway Song(original, english subtitles) kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2izk2qEbKekeJY And as an antidote to all this pettiness: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJq1oaN9iKtgqqs

[@theconqueringram5295]

Norway and Sweden are like that divorced couple that get along better as friends and partners than as spouses.

[@EuroScot2023]

I know (and live) exactly what you mean. Now, if only, Westminster/England would get the message.

[@silversurfer8818]

Before I even started watching I assumed it was about 3rd world immigrations, but it was a completely different topic!

[@capio78]

Norway have done okay, one of the worlds richest countries; showing that a small country (Population wise) doesn't need unions)

[@inpersonaDK]

Oil and salmon. Beside generations of hardworking population.

[@legoman716]

Was Norway more content in being a part of the Danish Kingdom, than being in a union with Sweden?

[@jeriksson7686]

The nations made a deal and split the union. Neither Sweden or Norway where happy with the union anyway.

[@pereldh5741]

Sweden invaded Norway, Norway wanted out & got out. Simple

[@annbjorn]

Wrong

[@Chris-ki6ui]

@@annbjorn no

[@valentinr.dominguez2892]

It is unfortunate that the Norwegian-Swedish union did not work out. At the international level, "scale" is very important. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have had relatively small populations. A federation of these Scandinavian nations in the 19th century would have created a single larger population, not to mention a country covering a vast geographic area. Their united military forces would have been formidable. Iceland is implicitly included in my comment since it was part of Denmark in the 19th century. Greenland still is part of Denmark.

[@kmortensen9312]

But we very much do function as one large union.. denmark sweden and norway dont need passports to travel between.. you can move address and take work in any of the countries without applying for any kind of citizenship (you just have to officially register your address like you would in your own country anyway) you can chose to take any education in any of the 3 countries at any school you desire to go to.. you can chose which hospital you want to get treated at for free in any of the 3 countries (handy if you need specialist treatment and theres longer waiting times in your own country) all our 3 militaries work together and train together intimately.. we are basically our own closer version of the eu within the eu..

[@valentinr.dominguez2892]

@kmortensen9312 Don't most of the items that you cite also exist as members of the EU and NATO?

[@kmortensen9312]

@@valentinr.dominguez2892 Nah not to the same degree.. for example any non scandinavian eu citizens must have residence permit and getting citizenship takes 8 years iirc (had to help some latvian friends with it years ago) taking an education in other eu countries is possible but its a whole process and since not all eu countries have education paid for through taxes you may need to apply for it to be paid by the state before going there.. again you can go to other countries hospitals as well but its not as easy as simply booking an appointment.. same goes for the military of course we are part of NATO but the scandinavian countries has their own internal cooperation

[@valentinr.dominguez2892]

@kmortensen9312 Thank you for all this information.

[@krone5]

If you go today, there are only 4 border crossings for such a long border, the areas are not connected well.

[@okklidokkli]

Actually it is 64 border crossings on road, and 4 on rail.

[@EuroScot2023]

@@okklidokkli And I'm sure there are huge lengths of the border where the local folk don't give a toss!

[@Chris-ki6ui]

theres a joke in north norway that if only the nazis held on a little longer there would finally be railways going north

[@VincitOmniaVeritas7]

They were close to a compromise but rakfisk was a deal breaker for the Swedes and the surströmming was a bridge too far for the Norwegians. It was probably for the best, as a fermented fish civil war was looming in the horizon…

[@julianshepherd2038]

They tried to talk it through but no one knew how

[@thomaswatvedt5812]

yeah yeah Norway and Sweden are good friends today, that's all that matters. no need to try to stir this sh*t, comrade

[@theawesomeman9821]

So Scandinavia was once a country

[@jankusthegreat9233]

It lasted till 1905?? Impressive

[@perrob]

Sweden didnt have Norway. The swedish king was also king of Norway

[@kohZeei]

norway was definitely better under sweden than under denmark

[@je3996]

Wasaremsan lost Finland to Russia and felt Norway could offset this a little.

[@christoffer235]

This video shows Schleswig Holstein under German control even though this was not the case at the time

[@davea6314]

Now you can see why the Swedish Chef was so frustrated with his country's history that he accepted Kermit the Frog's job offer to join the Muppets in the USA. 🤪Lol

[@luca_history]

If it wasn't for the Swedish King overreaching his boundaries perhaps it would still exist

[@patrickjeffers7864]

It actually lasted way longer than it should

[@notlyxu]

@@patrickjeffers7864 Yup. Norwegians were never really pro union. Tried to fight against it, even when they knew there really wasn't a point to doing so. And considering the large % that voted for independence . . . yea

[@Merecir]

If Sweden had just annexed Norway and incorporated it properly into the Swedish realm, perhaps it would still exist.

[@notlyxu]

@ possibly, but it wouldn’t be pretty. It’s much more likely that it would just end in a violent separation instead The Norwegians didn’t want to be a part of Sweden afterall

[@Merecir]

@@notlyxu Opinions can change, especially if there were more pressure for proper representation the democratization process could have gone faster and perhaps Sweden (with annexed Norway) could have introduced full suffrage in 1905 instead of 1921.

[@Ludo-n3w]

Same discussion in the Netherlands and nowadays Belgium. However, the cards have changed and unification finds it way within the EU. Cultures and langages shall always remain but should not hinder in far going European cooperation.

[@aj9918]

The negotiations is Karlstad 1905 must be seen as an preemptive peace deal because Sweden mobilized the army and the coastal fleet amassed. It was the kings wish ” no war between my peoples”, that moastly swayd Sweden from war. I think the flag reform 1905 after this event, which saw the color fade from dark blue to light blue, is telling: the coulors of the nation washing away because we can’t stand up for our selfs. Fitting prediction for the rest of the century

[@Chris-ki6ui]

That's storting, not stoolking. And riksdag with a G. if youre not gonna try, you can just say parliament.

[@kjell-egonstrandh5334]

I have talked to many Norwegian people that want the union back again. And when Sweden was a member of EU and Norway was not, Norway wanted Sweden to talk for Norwegian interest in Eu.

[@NotArrestad]

Oh my, how bad can it be whey you try to explain events and you don't have the facts straight. The Kalmar union between Denmark, Norway and Sweden was established in 1397 and was a agreed upon union between all three countries. When Sweden broke out of the union in 1523, Denmark decided that Norway should become a Danish province without even consulting Norway. For practical reasons Norway was formally upheld as a country, but just on paper. When Norway was given to the Swedish king as a war bounty, it was expected to become a Swedish province. Fool me once, Norway had no intention of repeating the mistake from 1523, thus establishing the Norwegian constitution in 1814. This forced Sweden to call it a "union" with Norway instead of a Swedish province, but it was not a true union. The majority of Norwegians had wanted Norway as a sovereign state for a long time, and with the new constitution they had the means to work for it. Still it took almost 90 years to break loos from Sweden.

[@SatrapOfficiel]

Does anybody know both Sweden and Norway made a funny disstrack song against each other ?

[@linusschult6790]

Nice vid

[@vadimuk-bx9yo]

that union on the map reminds me of something.....

[@SentencesFromMyThoughts]

Khalmer Union?

[@P4Tri0t420]

8:22 Kulturkampf. Reminds me of something.

[@mrchambers31]

When will Scotland be let go the same way

[@vadimuk-bx9yo]

@@mrchambers31 never, my friend!

[@sopwithsnoopy8779]

Why did Sweden lose Norway? No blue parrots in Sweden...

[@Tirana112AL]

Nice explanation video! 🫡👍

[@marcbelisle5685]

When Norway had Stockholm Syndrome…

[@teodoraustin3505]

@@marcbelisle5685 No we actually didn’t. In 1905 Norway had a referendum on leaving Sweden and guess how many who voted to leave this union 99.95 percent. So please shut up and educate yourself.

[@zatraz2573]

Norway prepared for war with Sweden in case they should say no. Norway built several fortresses and coastal batteries along the Swedish border and coast, and reformed and upgraded the Norwegian Army and Navy. It would have been a war between highly motivated and nationalstic driven norwagians and poorly motivated and indifferent sweeds. Luckily here was no war.

[@marcbelisle5685]

@teodoraustin3505 Wow all of that is so intensely relevant to the pun I made! Please keep talking and educate me harder!

[@JanCahan505]

Small detail, but annoying nonetheless, 1877 Christiania changed it spelling to Kristiania.

[@hentehoo27]

TLDR: Swedish cockiness towards Norway