Why did Sweden-Norway Collapse
video description
Date: 2025-01-11
Related videos
• TED-Ed
Comments and reviews: 20
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
levkriscoins9115
The union of Norway and Sweden is the strangest in history.
The Swedish king knew that it was impossible to conquer Norway militarily, even though the Swedes tried in 1814. Norway and Sweden entered into a union with the Swedish king, not with Sweden itself. Norway was allowed to keep its army without Swedish involvement. Its own currency and its own self-government except for foreign policy which the Swedish king would take care of.
The Swedish king was so afraid of losing Norway that Sweden had to pay for roads, hospitals, schools, etc.
Yes, you read that right, Sweden paid for Norway to be in the union, Norway paid nothing in return.
Finally, the Norwegians had enough of the Swedes and declared independence from Sweden in 1905.
reply
The union of Norway and Sweden is the strangest in history.
The Swedish king knew that it was impossible to conquer Norway militarily, even though the Swedes tried in 1814. Norway and Sweden entered into a union with the Swedish king, not with Sweden itself. Norway was allowed to keep its army without Swedish involvement. Its own currency and its own self-government except for foreign policy which the Swedish king would take care of.
The Swedish king was so afraid of losing Norway that Sweden had to pay for roads, hospitals, schools, etc.
Yes, you read that right, Sweden paid for Norway to be in the union, Norway paid nothing in return.
Finally, the Norwegians had enough of the Swedes and declared independence from Sweden in 1905.
reply
jcliu
If Sweden knew about North Sea oil and gas in 1905, it wouldn’t have been so sanguine about letting Norway go. The EU can rectify this mistake and save its future by building a few old-fashioned 19th century gunboats, sailing into Oslo, and demanding a new Quisling hand over the state oil companyor, better yet, the massive sovereign wealth fund that Norwegians have done miraculously little to deserve. (Then again, the Brits have so mismanaged their share of the jackpot, it’s not even worth swiping at this point) These are continental geologic resources that should be shared by the whole continent, not a tiny kingdom that lucked into being the Kuwait of the North. Call it the Saddam Hussein solution
reply
If Sweden knew about North Sea oil and gas in 1905, it wouldn’t have been so sanguine about letting Norway go. The EU can rectify this mistake and save its future by building a few old-fashioned 19th century gunboats, sailing into Oslo, and demanding a new Quisling hand over the state oil companyor, better yet, the massive sovereign wealth fund that Norwegians have done miraculously little to deserve. (Then again, the Brits have so mismanaged their share of the jackpot, it’s not even worth swiping at this point) These are continental geologic resources that should be shared by the whole continent, not a tiny kingdom that lucked into being the Kuwait of the North. Call it the Saddam Hussein solution
reply
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 1814 (Constitution Day) as our one true national holiday, but 7th of June 1905, the dissolution of the union with Sweden, is an independence day celebration we should not overlook. It is important to our nation's history.
reply
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 1814 (Constitution Day) as our one true national holiday, but 7th of June 1905, the dissolution of the union with Sweden, is an independence day celebration we should not overlook. It is important to our nation's history.
reply
salehsaleh-rz1ug
its clear that any union between 2 country or more must keep by military power and not democray although we know that norway sweden have highist level of democracy in world but its false and only dreams drama hhhhh for union although they are belongs to same race and same geography history can any one tell how arab countries states can be unite and they have no even democratic goverments or how can albania unite with kosovo or moldavia with romania or turkiye with azerbaycan all of these same race ethinicly and geography so no union with out power while democracy keep it in your night dreams with thankes im turkmen from iraq
reply
its clear that any union between 2 country or more must keep by military power and not democray although we know that norway sweden have highist level of democracy in world but its false and only dreams drama hhhhh for union although they are belongs to same race and same geography history can any one tell how arab countries states can be unite and they have no even democratic goverments or how can albania unite with kosovo or moldavia with romania or turkiye with azerbaycan all of these same race ethinicly and geography so no union with out power while democracy keep it in your night dreams with thankes im turkmen from iraq
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
knowledgia
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.
reply
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.
reply
knowledgia
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
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
reply
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
reply
Giuseppe_1994
Sweden, an example of modern education, when the scars of history have healed so much so that they aren’t remembered. This works to the countries detriment. Sweden (like many European countries) have surrendered there traditional necessities to preserve statehood and independence (military/economic policies that are pro Sweden, rather than pro Europe. Now Sweden only exist so long as EU and U. S. remain committed to its defense. Like most countries in EU. Sad.
reply
Sweden, an example of modern education, when the scars of history have healed so much so that they aren’t remembered. This works to the countries detriment. Sweden (like many European countries) have surrendered there traditional necessities to preserve statehood and independence (military/economic policies that are pro Sweden, rather than pro Europe. Now Sweden only exist so long as EU and U. S. remain committed to its defense. Like most countries in EU. Sad.
reply
salehsaleh-rz1ug
can one tell me why israil and westren countries support kurdish movement to separate from different 4 independent countries iran iraq syria turkiye and then union in one big kurdistan in this case you must destroy these 4 countries// but we reverse seeing no support for these independent and ready to unit germany with austria siwzerland. albania with kosovo. moldavia with romania. turkiye with azerbayjan and why europ has 2 faces in this case
reply
can one tell me why israil and westren countries support kurdish movement to separate from different 4 independent countries iran iraq syria turkiye and then union in one big kurdistan in this case you must destroy these 4 countries// but we reverse seeing no support for these independent and ready to unit germany with austria siwzerland. albania with kosovo. moldavia with romania. turkiye with azerbayjan and why europ has 2 faces in this case
reply
idahagen9760
Good video, but it is important to mention that the Norwegian Parliament, the Storting, was a new concept. We didn’t have that under Denmark, and our Constitution was also new in 1814. If the union with Denmark hadn't been dissolved in 1814, I think it's likely that Norway would still be part of Denmark.
But Denmark-Norway had fought many wars against Sweden, and that union was unpopular in Norway from the moment it was decided.
reply
Good video, but it is important to mention that the Norwegian Parliament, the Storting, was a new concept. We didn’t have that under Denmark, and our Constitution was also new in 1814. If the union with Denmark hadn't been dissolved in 1814, I think it's likely that Norway would still be part of Denmark.
But Denmark-Norway had fought many wars against Sweden, and that union was unpopular in Norway from the moment it was decided.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
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)
reply
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)
reply
Vaultted-History
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. Disappointing that this video fails to mention the role of the Swedish Social Democratic movement, which campaigned for Norwegian independence. It's always good to hear both perspectives on historical matters, cheers!
reply
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. Disappointing that this video fails to mention the role of the Swedish Social Democratic movement, which campaigned for Norwegian independence. It's always good to hear both perspectives on historical matters, cheers!
reply
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
reply
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
reply
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
reply
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
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
