14:58 Not only that, Korea would be united. Due to the war in Europe ending faster, the Red army would have more time to defeat the Japanese army, resulting to a Communist united Korea. Also, due to the Soviets reaching Berlin in late 44, East Germany probably would've been bigger, maybe everything east of the Rhine river would be east german
Moreover, a lack of the korean war (no korean division, no korean war) would mean a chinese intervention in Vietnam, since the USA would not have learnt not to approach China's borders
You nazis dream of a time where your favorite country had their greatest extents. Forgetting that there was a reason for the situation developed as it did historically.
Norway has always been on the sidelines of Nordic power. It makes most sense to have a Swedish ruler because it's the most populous and largest country.
Scenario: Germany never attacks Sweden-Norway. That means that they have 300k to 500k more troops available against the Soviet Union, which means that they conquer them. I don't know if those troops would win them the war, that's above my paygrade. But Germany did actually station that many troops in Norway throughout the war, which arguably was a waste of troops in retrospect.
When the alternate history comes to WW2, this fell apart completely because it looks like you have misunderstood why Germany invaded Norway and Denmark. Germany didn't want to invade either country, the situation with them was the same as with Sweden, Germany would much rather just trade since they desperately needed all their manpower in other places, and they needed their fleet intact to have any chance of threatening Great Britain. However, the iron ore trade from Sweden needed to be shipped along the Norwegian coast (due to the northern Baltic coast freezing in the winter), and the Norwegian coast was very exposed to the British navy. GB prepared an invasion of Norway and actually launched it (though called it off mid-way due to Germany intercepting it), and before that GB mined Norwegian waters in clear violation of Norwegian neutrality to force Germany to respond, thus giving GB an excuse to invade. Germany was aware of the British plans and launched their invasion of Denmark and Norway as a direct response to them intercepting the British invasion plan dates. This is also a reason why the invasion of Denmark was over so fast, and why the defense of Norway was so sporadic. The Danes knew they were just sort of in the way, while the Norwegians didn't know if the Germans were there to help them against the British or if they were the enemy. A united Sweden/Norway would change nothing from a German point of view, but the question is if GB would have risked provoking Sweden/Norway into joining Germany of their own accord by attacking Swedish/Norwegian shipping to Germany. As the countries were split, a quick surprise invasion of Norway was feasible given the low population and long coastline of Norway. If Norway and Sweden were united, a quick invasion would no longer be realistic. If that's not realistic, it would make no sense to mine Norwegian waters to try and provoke Germany into attacking, since all it would do is force Sweden/Norway to join the Axis instead. As it happened, the invasion of Norway damaged the German navy to the point that it was no longer a threat to GB. Without that happening, the balance of power would swing more to Germany in the conflict with GB, while Germany would free up a lot of manpower too. So a united Sweden/Norway would have been a huge boon to Germany as that would have prevented GB from luring out the German fleet in a hurry like it did.
The port of Narvik was too important to the Germans/British to just let go. 50% of Swedish iron was imported through there due to their coasts freezing up in the baltic. Which isn’t even accounting for how much Norway imported. To say Great Britain wouldn't mine the absolute hell out of the sea to make sure these Imports don't make it to Germany is absurd. The Scandinavians would've been dragged in either way due to the sheer amount of resources they were giving to Germany just to stay neutral.
@@staticsomeoneI agree it's likely Scandinavia would have been dragged into the war, but the main point is that the initiative would have been with Germany. GB would have needed to directly commit hostile actions against Sweden-Norway, which would force them to side with Germany. This would preserve the German navy and also remove the need for a large occupation force in Norway, while lend-lease to the USSR would have been made almost impossible with Sweden-Norway as German allies (given how much of it was delivered via Murmansk). In particular the Swedish animosity to Russia and the Russian hostility towards Finland (Sweden closest ally) would have made the allies clearly the 'bad guys' from a Swedish perspective, being the first to attack Sweden and also giving a lot of aid to their main enemy. So it would have been a substantial boon to Germany compared to how history played out.
You seem to forget how inportant it was for Norway to have its own consulat services, and how much impact that had on the merchant fleet. This sparked the Norwegian Industry and later made it possible for the oil to be nationalised.
Also I have a pretty outlandish scenario but a fun one what if Rome beat Persia and went on to conquer Central Asia and China, it's not realistic but it would be fun to see how cultures in Asia would progress as well as religions
I will always recommend to avoid being demonetized over a certain evil fidget spinner to use the TH-cam logo. The color scheme matches and I always find it hilarious to associate the two as a way to get back at TH-cam over-censorship
I'm sure Germany would still invade if they were united. Norway was invaded mostly to control the export of Swedish iron ore from the port of Narvik. Sweden was not invaded because they were not seen as a threat, plus they were neutral. The Germans would have no problem taking out the Swedes too if they had to in order to secure the iron ore and Norwegian coastline. Of course, this would increase the invasion fleet and amount of resources that would have to send north and away from the western and eastern fronts. But i'm quite confident Germany would still go through with it.
I agree with you, but this would make Germany weaker on other fronts. Perhaps the Franco-British union also gets formed, due to the fall of France being delayed
honestly fascinated with this, because with the exact same reasoning i find it really unrealistic, because there would be no need to secure swedish exports from swedish lands, and the threat a neutral sweden posesses is still minimal, yet its much harder to invade. this union would be very strong defensively but have the same problems sweden had during the great norhtern war of just not having the manpower for an extended fight
Uhm, why scandinavia didn't get slight adjustments into deutschland even though they won? It's the same germano-danish borders as before, just blue. Why not to the end of the jylland/jutland peninsula, or to the kiel river basically taking all of schleswig?
Simply because the allies wanted to occupy these bits of Germany themselves. Why would Sweden-Norway want these parts of Germany? They were historically Swedish, but the population is almost 100% German. It would only create problems and be hard to govern. Imagine Finland annexing Leningrad just because.
Uh no? What you're suggesting is a terrible idea. Unless they annex it and deport all the Germans, which most likely won't happen + The UK already controlled these parts of Germany and they won't give up control to the Swedes for no reason.
The same reasons Denmark didn't gain any territory from Germany following WWII irl, it would've been costly, and the British wouldn't have wanted to give up parts of their occupation zones.
After the Napoleontic Wars there would be three 'United Kindoms': Britain, Netherlands and Norway & Sweden. All around the North Sea coincidentally.If they allied they would've ruled Europe.
10:49 That would simply be impossitle. The first railroad in Sweden was built in 1856 and I don´t see how anything else in this scenario would make the aquistion of raildroad any faster in Sweden (or Sweden-Norway). I mean it´s a 42 year difference if it was built in 1814 like you suggested.
I don't get your Swedish logic. It's nonsensical. But I agree that it was strange to mention that there where no railroad between Oslo and Stockholm before 1860 or 1865. The completion of the whole track between the capitals was not done before 1871. The completion of the track from Oslo to Charlottenberg, right on the other side of the border was done in 1865. First railroad track was done in 1854 between Oslo and Eidsvoll, at the southern tip of Norway's biggest lake, so trains could connect with boat traffic on the lake. But video creator makes it seem like 1860/1865/1871 was very late for the to capitals to be connected with a proper infrastructure. When in reality railroads was a pretty new invention that had just started to spread out from major cities.
If Germany didnt invade Norway and forcing Norway to side with the Allies, Norway would stay neutral like Sweden and the Allies wouldn't benefit from having the world's fourth largest merchant fleet, the world's most modern tanker fleet, and Nortraship - the world's largest shipping company - on their side. During World War II, there was no land connection between the three major Allies: the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States. Therefore, almost all transportation between them had to occur by sea. Access to fuel was of paramount importance to Britain. Norwegian shipowners had built up the world's most modern tanker fleet before the war. Access to these ships was crucial, as Nazi Germany's attacks on Britain were most intense during "The Battle of Britain," from July to October 1940. About half of Britain's fuel was transported to the island nation on Norwegian ships during that time. Later in the war, war sailors participated in several major operations. In the Allied invasions of North Africa, Italy, and on D-Day, Norwegian ships and sailors were involved in supplying the military forces. Churchill himself said, regarding "The Battle of Britain": "If we had not had the Norwegian fleet of tankers on our side, we should not have had the aviation spirit to put our Hawker Hurricanes and our Spitfires into the sky. Without the Norwegian merchant fleet, Britain and the allies would have lost the war". As a bonus, the Germans had a plan for Norway called "Festung Norwegen" or "Fortress Norway" where they foolishly stationed over 300.000 German soldiers across the country. Norwegian partisans and special forces effectively sabotaged ship transports and train tracks to keep them there until the end of the war keeping a vast number of soldiers from the front lines down on the continent - shortening the war significantly.
In the first scenario where Germany does not invade. It's possible and quite likely tje allies {British and French at this time} would have invaded norway-sweden if the germans didn't. The allies wanted to cut of Swedish iron from Germany and planned to invade neutral Norway AND Sweden, but the germans did their invasion of Norway first. This is important as it means they would have invaded even if the countries were United. also Denmark was invaded to get to Norway, so if Germany does not invade Sweden-Norway (either due to no plans or due to hesitation resulting in delayed plans and the allies do it first) then neither does Denmark. So the first scenario will likely result in Denmark-Norway becoming a reluctant axis power atleast initially, that likely switched sides sometime after 1941 (and likely in or before 1943). As the German defeats in this time, Germany being stretched on multiple fronts and the joining of the Americans would convince the reluctant axis power they can safely switch sides. Meanwhile the allies would have recognised their diplomatic blunder in invading and offered good terms to switch sides. This would make the European war shorter as Germany would be cut off from Swedish iron ore AND fight a war on 4 fronts (northern scandi front, western front, eastern front and Italian front) over stretched and under resourced even more than OTL Germany would have collapsed quicker (possibly due to a coup/bomb plot, which would have even more support in the german army due to even more fronts). For the second scenario, a delayed barb would probably in someways be better for germany, as they would be forced to accept that the war would likely be fought in winter (and thus better supply for winter combat, aswell as potentially planing to do a 2 stage plan rather than a 1 stage plan due to even an optimistic timetable being drawn through winter) even if the Soviets are just as weak as they thought, which might also change depending on how much the Soviets advertise their new tanks/etc Eitherway the initial invasion would still go just as well as the Soviets didn't expect an attack until the British were at peace with Germany. And had most of their troops near the border and easily encircled. And the t34 would continue with its planned redesign rather than rushed into service so the added time would not be dramatically better for the Soviets. Except for the Americans likely being involved in lend lease earlier relative to the german invasion.
As someone who's both swedish and norwegian, the best way to secure the union would be harsher rule IMO. Swedish administrators etc. Make a more united army, station Norwegian regiments in sweden and swedish regiments in Norway. Perhaps even make Göteborg a the new capital, a parliament (riksdag) with both Norwegian and swedes. Encourage cultural unity, sponsor authors who subscribe to scandinavianism and spread their work, build even more railways, incentivise movement of peoples from both norway and sweden to further make independence seem ridiculous. United trade and foreign policy. Try to change the national identity to a more Scandinavian one, try to standardize Norwegian written language to swedish spellings instead of danish etc. This would sure create resentment from norwegians but any sort of autonomy instead of attempting to create a new nation would make sure it would never be a true country
So the Swedish was so salty after losing Norway that the permitted German troops through Norway so they could kill Norwegians. The Swedish "permittenttrafiken", never forgive, never forget.
Historically Norway was for the most part independent, not ruled by Denmark. Norway has existed from 872 to today which is 1152 years of existence. And was ruled from Denmark from 1397-1814, a total of 417 years, plus some short terms during viking age, but it's a bit unknown of the lengths and to which extents Denmark ruled Norway then. So let's be generous and say 50 years pre Kalmar Union. Sweden ruled Norway from 1814-1905 (91 years) plus some years before the Kalmar Union, can be a debate if it was Norwegian monarchs ruling Sweden from Norway or if it was Swedish monarchs ruling Norway from Sweden, since it was a lot of intermarriages and capitals was where the king/queen was at any given point. So let's be generous and say 20 years before Kalmar Union. 1152 - 467 = 685 685 - 111 = 574 574 year of independence is greater then 467 years of Danish rule.
For the sake of a pretty map. Not being part of the same language group didn't stop Sweden from controlling them for hundreds if years. Also they have geopolitical reasons
I belive Norway would have been invaded regardless. Due to the autonomy of Norway, Sweden would most likely back out of the Union. Our indepencve day would not be the 17 th of may, but rather the 8th of may. United Kingdom was already planning on a invasion of Norway before the Germans did, for the exact reason. Resources AND the coastline. The only real difference I see, would be Sweden being a puppet state of Germany from 1940 to 1945, and not giving any intel to the allied forces. Furthermore they would help Germany deport people who would have fled to Sweden back to either Norway or directly to Germany via Poland / Denmark. After ww2, we would have left the Union with Sweden, and I also believe that our relations would be a lot worse today.
Actually Norway and Denmark were united for much longer, since Viking times, and when Norway wanted to become a Kingdom again, after having ended the connection to Sweden, to connect to old times, the Norwegians asked the Danish Prince: Carl to become the new Norwegian King! He agreed, but only if the Norwegian Population would vote for it and he became Norwegian King: Haakon 7th. This fact has given several Danish actors a job, as if King Haakon is to appear in a Norwegian film, he is normally portrayed by a Danish actor! He spoke with a heavy Danish accent all his life! 😄
Dream on you natinalisic Dane. The majority of Norway was not ruled by Denmark since the viking times. It's debatable to which extents the Danish kings who claimed to rule Norway actually ruled Norway. And in the viking age and the middle ages before the Kalmar Union Norway was for the most part independent. Occasionally ruled by Sweden or Denmark or vise versa depending on who married who.
@@sunclausewitz2707 Danish King Christian 4th, whose name is represented on buildings and entrances all over Norway (Also the Silvermine in Kongsberg), actually visited the most northern places in Norway also. And several "Famous Danes" actually came from the Norwegian part of Denmark, and also from the Faroes. Norwegian sailors also took part in the triangle Slavetrade and joined the Danish Navy with a rank up to Admiral! So Denmark and Norway was one Nation for many years. But of course The Center of the combined Kingdom was Denmark, as the closest to Europe.
On a Tour from the DFDS, Cph - Oslo ferry we visit "The Royal Hand", where Christian 4th decided that "Christiania" should be built, after a fire I think? And it was outside Halden that Swedish King Carl d.12 became killed, during one of the many wars between Denmark and Sweden. Norwegians also fought in the Danish Wars.
By that it was Danish Architects that designed the new "Holmenkollen Skijump". And Norwegian Architects (Snöhetta? also known for the Munck Museum in Oslo) have just won a major competition, in Denmark.
@@rewriting-history most likely a filler word like "hi" until the next idea I possibly get! also this the only way I can get attention from TH-camrs I've never been into the patreons and stuff so i usually try to leave a like and comment on stuff my comment thanks for actually noticing me tho(no homo felt there was a need) I've been trying to get monsieur z to try it for over a year now I just lucked up that you and your friend group been blowing up in the alt history thing this year
its a good thing the "union" failed. the swedes would not have managed the oil money propperly. would have gone the same route as everyone else, and given all the money to private companies. no extra taxes, no state own oil company. its been good for us to be split, as it has allowed us to use very different economic policies. no gouvernmental involvement does not work well when dealing with natural ressourses
You are literally just making things up. Sweden for example do have state run companies when it comes to mining and other sectors so obviously something like that would have been set up for the oil industry as well.
Right off the back, this screams modern Kalmar Union. That's all I'll say for now
You're close, but since I already made a video on the Kalmar Union, I will not do it again
What if the treaty of Versailles was different? Say independence for the Rhineland or Sudetenland for Austria
Many creators have done it already, I will also look into it!
@@rewriting-historythanks:)
This union would have the best metal scene in the world.
As a black metal listener, I would love for it to succeed!
14:58 Not only that, Korea would be united. Due to the war in Europe ending faster, the Red army would have more time to defeat the Japanese army, resulting to a Communist united Korea.
Also, due to the Soviets reaching Berlin in late 44, East Germany probably would've been bigger, maybe everything east of the Rhine river would be east german
Moreover, a lack of the korean war (no korean division, no korean war) would mean a chinese intervention in Vietnam, since the USA would not have learnt not to approach China's borders
Very good! Didn't think about this! Should have explored the whole world, not just Europe
Not the timeline we get but the timeline we deserve
I hope this means that you liked the video! Cheers
@@rewriting-history I did, thanks for the effort you put into it
You nazis dream of a time where your favorite country had their greatest extents.
Forgetting that there was a reason for the situation developed as it did historically.
It would be rlly cool to see a scenario where Scandinavianism is successful and scandinavia is united with a swedish or danish "Keiser"
Will maybe do a video on that very soon!
PLS DO@@rewriting-history
Why does the leader always have to be danish or swedish?? As a norwegian this is making me mad!
@@Jimmothy4132 im Norwegian too, but norway was never gonna be the leader of a United scandinavia, sorry man it’s just reality.
Norway has always been on the sidelines of Nordic power. It makes most sense to have a Swedish ruler because it's the most populous and largest country.
As a Norwegian person i would take my life if this was reality :)
i mean this is just an alternate history scenario, no need to take it too seriously
@@rewriting-historyIt was a joke lmao. I just have a distaste of Sw*den since i'm Norwegian
@@rewriting-historyI didn't mean to send any hate towards you, and if you perceived it as so, sorry
sameeee
@@theexplodingDarkrai Im a swede and i loved norway, but after i saw ur comment now i hate norway.
Scenario: Germany never attacks Sweden-Norway. That means that they have 300k to 500k more troops available against the Soviet Union, which means that they conquer them. I don't know if those troops would win them the war, that's above my paygrade. But Germany did actually station that many troops in Norway throughout the war, which arguably was a waste of troops in retrospect.
When the alternate history comes to WW2, this fell apart completely because it looks like you have misunderstood why Germany invaded Norway and Denmark. Germany didn't want to invade either country, the situation with them was the same as with Sweden, Germany would much rather just trade since they desperately needed all their manpower in other places, and they needed their fleet intact to have any chance of threatening Great Britain.
However, the iron ore trade from Sweden needed to be shipped along the Norwegian coast (due to the northern Baltic coast freezing in the winter), and the Norwegian coast was very exposed to the British navy. GB prepared an invasion of Norway and actually launched it (though called it off mid-way due to Germany intercepting it), and before that GB mined Norwegian waters in clear violation of Norwegian neutrality to force Germany to respond, thus giving GB an excuse to invade. Germany was aware of the British plans and launched their invasion of Denmark and Norway as a direct response to them intercepting the British invasion plan dates. This is also a reason why the invasion of Denmark was over so fast, and why the defense of Norway was so sporadic. The Danes knew they were just sort of in the way, while the Norwegians didn't know if the Germans were there to help them against the British or if they were the enemy.
A united Sweden/Norway would change nothing from a German point of view, but the question is if GB would have risked provoking Sweden/Norway into joining Germany of their own accord by attacking Swedish/Norwegian shipping to Germany.
As the countries were split, a quick surprise invasion of Norway was feasible given the low population and long coastline of Norway. If Norway and Sweden were united, a quick invasion would no longer be realistic.
If that's not realistic, it would make no sense to mine Norwegian waters to try and provoke Germany into attacking, since all it would do is force Sweden/Norway to join the Axis instead.
As it happened, the invasion of Norway damaged the German navy to the point that it was no longer a threat to GB. Without that happening, the balance of power would swing more to Germany in the conflict with GB, while Germany would free up a lot of manpower too. So a united Sweden/Norway would have been a huge boon to Germany as that would have prevented GB from luring out the German fleet in a hurry like it did.
The port of Narvik was too important to the Germans/British to just let go. 50% of Swedish iron was imported through there due to their coasts freezing up in the baltic. Which isn’t even accounting for how much Norway imported. To say Great Britain wouldn't mine the absolute hell out of the sea to make sure these Imports don't make it to Germany is absurd. The Scandinavians would've been dragged in either way due to the sheer amount of resources they were giving to Germany just to stay neutral.
@@staticsomeoneI agree it's likely Scandinavia would have been dragged into the war, but the main point is that the initiative would have been with Germany. GB would have needed to directly commit hostile actions against Sweden-Norway, which would force them to side with Germany. This would preserve the German navy and also remove the need for a large occupation force in Norway, while lend-lease to the USSR would have been made almost impossible with Sweden-Norway as German allies (given how much of it was delivered via Murmansk). In particular the Swedish animosity to Russia and the Russian hostility towards Finland (Sweden closest ally) would have made the allies clearly the 'bad guys' from a Swedish perspective, being the first to attack Sweden and also giving a lot of aid to their main enemy.
So it would have been a substantial boon to Germany compared to how history played out.
You seem to forget how inportant it was for Norway to have its own consulat services, and how much impact that had on the merchant fleet. This sparked the Norwegian Industry and later made it possible for the oil to be nationalised.
:sob: ill be at school when this starts , if it stays up I’ll watch it
You can always watch it later! I won't remove this one
you should make a paradox mega campaign as Bulgaria also i love your vids
I could, but my audience is mostly not interested in this
Also I have a pretty outlandish scenario but a fun one what if Rome beat Persia and went on to conquer Central Asia and China, it's not realistic but it would be fun to see how cultures in Asia would progress as well as religions
I’m sorry I have to ask, it’s been bothering me, did you use MapChart to make the map outline?
The main map looks like it was taken from MapChart’s hoi4 map. Of course I don’t mean this in a negative way I just can help but notice. 😂
Yes it's mapchart
Nice, I feel like a major nerd being able to identify specific maps
Then PewDiePie won't hate Norway
This would be the worst! 🤣
Love your content the House of bernadotte deserved to preserve the union🎉🎉🎉🎉
Appreciate the constant support, as always! You're one of the most dedicated followers I have!
@@rewriting-history np man
I will always recommend to avoid being demonetized over a certain evil fidget spinner to use the TH-cam logo. The color scheme matches and I always find it hilarious to associate the two as a way to get back at TH-cam over-censorship
I'm sure Germany would still invade if they were united. Norway was invaded mostly to control the export of Swedish iron ore from the port of Narvik. Sweden was not invaded because they were not seen as a threat, plus they were neutral. The Germans would have no problem taking out the Swedes too if they had to in order to secure the iron ore and Norwegian coastline. Of course, this would increase the invasion fleet and amount of resources that would have to send north and away from the western and eastern fronts. But i'm quite confident Germany would still go through with it.
I agree with you, but this would make Germany weaker on other fronts. Perhaps the Franco-British union also gets formed, due to the fall of France being delayed
honestly fascinated with this, because with the exact same reasoning i find it really unrealistic, because there would be no need to secure swedish exports from swedish lands, and the threat a neutral sweden posesses is still minimal, yet its much harder to invade. this union would be very strong defensively but have the same problems sweden had during the great norhtern war of just not having the manpower for an extended fight
I love your videos!!! Keep it up mate!!!
Uhm, why scandinavia didn't get slight adjustments into deutschland even though they won? It's the same germano-danish borders as before, just blue. Why not to the end of the jylland/jutland peninsula, or to the kiel river basically taking all of schleswig?
I agree, these youtubers never think their scenarios through
Simply because the allies wanted to occupy these bits of Germany themselves. Why would Sweden-Norway want these parts of Germany? They were historically Swedish, but the population is almost 100% German. It would only create problems and be hard to govern. Imagine Finland annexing Leningrad just because.
Uh no? What you're suggesting is a terrible idea. Unless they annex it and deport all the Germans, which most likely won't happen + The UK already controlled these parts of Germany and they won't give up control to the Swedes for no reason.
@@rewriting-history schleswig had many danes, besides finland would never join scandinavian countries unless all of karelia was promised to them
The same reasons Denmark didn't gain any territory from Germany following WWII irl, it would've been costly, and the British wouldn't have wanted to give up parts of their occupation zones.
After the Napoleontic Wars there would be three 'United Kindoms': Britain, Netherlands and Norway & Sweden.
All around the North Sea coincidentally.If they allied they would've ruled Europe.
Will you make a senario were Denmark keeps scania and sleswig?
I could do a short, since nothing much would change
@@rewriting-history but @rewriting-history THICC Denmark deserves the Best
interesting idea, never considered this before
Thank you! Hope you liked it!
i did@@rewriting-history
I have said this for years! This would have saved us from so much problems
Great vid
yoo i appreciate it a lot!
Finland joining that union is like Germany joining panslavia
Swedish-Finnish relations are very good
Lets go!! elsker videoerne!
Wasn't the only reason why germany invaded denmark that they wanted to get to norway?
Yes, but why not still invade and get their manpower? They were very week, so why not
No Germany wanted to lock the Baltic Sea.
10:49 That would simply be impossitle. The first railroad in Sweden was built in 1856 and I don´t see how anything else in this scenario would make the aquistion of raildroad any faster in Sweden (or Sweden-Norway). I mean it´s a 42 year difference if it was built in 1814 like you suggested.
I don't get your Swedish logic. It's nonsensical.
But I agree that it was strange to mention that there where no railroad between Oslo and Stockholm before 1860 or 1865. The completion of the whole track between the capitals was not done before 1871. The completion of the track from Oslo to Charlottenberg, right on the other side of the border was done in 1865.
First railroad track was done in 1854 between Oslo and Eidsvoll, at the southern tip of Norway's biggest lake, so trains could connect with boat traffic on the lake.
But video creator makes it seem like 1860/1865/1871 was very late for the to capitals to be connected with a proper infrastructure. When in reality railroads was a pretty new invention that had just started to spread out from major cities.
If Germany didnt invade Norway and forcing Norway to side with the Allies, Norway would stay neutral like Sweden and the Allies wouldn't benefit from having the world's fourth largest merchant fleet, the world's most modern tanker fleet, and Nortraship - the world's largest shipping company - on their side.
During World War II, there was no land connection between the three major Allies: the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States. Therefore, almost all transportation between them had to occur by sea. Access to fuel was of paramount importance to Britain. Norwegian shipowners had built up the world's most modern tanker fleet before the war. Access to these ships was crucial, as Nazi Germany's attacks on Britain were most intense during "The Battle of Britain," from July to October 1940. About half of Britain's fuel was transported to the island nation on Norwegian ships during that time.
Later in the war, war sailors participated in several major operations. In the Allied invasions of North Africa, Italy, and on D-Day, Norwegian ships and sailors were involved in supplying the military forces.
Churchill himself said, regarding "The Battle of Britain":
"If we had not had the Norwegian fleet of tankers on our side, we should not have had the aviation spirit to put our Hawker Hurricanes and our Spitfires into the sky. Without the Norwegian merchant fleet, Britain and the allies would have lost the war".
As a bonus, the Germans had a plan for Norway called "Festung Norwegen" or "Fortress Norway" where they foolishly stationed over 300.000 German soldiers across the country. Norwegian partisans and special forces effectively sabotaged ship transports and train tracks to keep them there until the end of the war keeping a vast number of soldiers from the front lines down on the continent - shortening the war significantly.
In the first scenario where Germany does not invade. It's possible and quite likely tje allies {British and French at this time} would have invaded norway-sweden if the germans didn't. The allies wanted to cut of Swedish iron from Germany and planned to invade neutral Norway AND Sweden, but the germans did their invasion of Norway first. This is important as it means they would have invaded even if the countries were United. also Denmark was invaded to get to Norway, so if Germany does not invade Sweden-Norway (either due to no plans or due to hesitation resulting in delayed plans and the allies do it first) then neither does Denmark.
So the first scenario will likely result in Denmark-Norway becoming a reluctant axis power atleast initially, that likely switched sides sometime after 1941 (and likely in or before 1943). As the German defeats in this time, Germany being stretched on multiple fronts and the joining of the Americans would convince the reluctant axis power they can safely switch sides. Meanwhile the allies would have recognised their diplomatic blunder in invading and offered good terms to switch sides. This would make the European war shorter as Germany would be cut off from Swedish iron ore AND fight a war on 4 fronts (northern scandi front, western front, eastern front and Italian front) over stretched and under resourced even more than OTL Germany would have collapsed quicker (possibly due to a coup/bomb plot, which would have even more support in the german army due to even more fronts).
For the second scenario, a delayed barb would probably in someways be better for germany, as they would be forced to accept that the war would likely be fought in winter (and thus better supply for winter combat, aswell as potentially planing to do a 2 stage plan rather than a 1 stage plan due to even an optimistic timetable being drawn through winter) even if the Soviets are just as weak as they thought, which might also change depending on how much the Soviets advertise their new tanks/etc
Eitherway the initial invasion would still go just as well as the Soviets didn't expect an attack until the British were at peace with Germany. And had most of their troops near the border and easily encircled. And the t34 would continue with its planned redesign rather than rushed into service so the added time would not be dramatically better for the Soviets. Except for the Americans likely being involved in lend lease earlier relative to the german invasion.
As someone who's both swedish and norwegian, the best way to secure the union would be harsher rule IMO. Swedish administrators etc. Make a more united army, station Norwegian regiments in sweden and swedish regiments in Norway. Perhaps even make Göteborg a the new capital, a parliament (riksdag) with both Norwegian and swedes. Encourage cultural unity, sponsor authors who subscribe to scandinavianism and spread their work, build even more railways, incentivise movement of peoples from both norway and sweden to further make independence seem ridiculous. United trade and foreign policy. Try to change the national identity to a more Scandinavian one, try to standardize Norwegian written language to swedish spellings instead of danish etc. This would sure create resentment from norwegians but any sort of autonomy instead of attempting to create a new nation would make sure it would never be a true country
Why isnt there a scenario where germany has a way to ally sweway. Maybe play the symphaty card towards finland and work together to save a friend
if we stilltogether, we would have been what the germans wanted steel and oil XD
Norway wanted help from Sweden when invaded. Swedens prime minister said you wanted out not we. Sorry but no help. You made your own choice. 😂
Damn what a savage, should have added that to the video. I'm sure this is big part of the reason why both of them dislike eachother
then again, Sweden planned Operation Save Norway and Operation Save Denmark, which would've gone into action but the war ended too early.
So the Swedish was so salty after losing Norway that the permitted German troops through Norway so they could kill Norwegians.
The Swedish "permittenttrafiken", never forgive, never forget.
Historically Norway was for the most part independent, not ruled by Denmark.
Norway has existed from 872 to today which is 1152 years of existence.
And was ruled from Denmark from 1397-1814, a total of 417 years, plus some short terms during viking age, but it's a bit unknown of the lengths and to which extents Denmark ruled Norway then. So let's be generous and say 50 years pre Kalmar Union.
Sweden ruled Norway from 1814-1905 (91 years) plus some years before the Kalmar Union, can be a debate if it was Norwegian monarchs ruling Sweden from Norway or if it was Swedish monarchs ruling Norway from Sweden, since it was a lot of intermarriages and capitals was where the king/queen was at any given point.
So let's be generous and say 20 years before Kalmar Union.
1152 - 467 = 685
685 - 111 = 574
574 year of independence is greater then 467 years of Danish rule.
15:30 why they arent even the same language group that would never happen
For the sake of a pretty map. Not being part of the same language group didn't stop Sweden from controlling them for hundreds if years. Also they have geopolitical reasons
..thought no Norwegian. Ever.
True, but the concept is fun
It wasnt a real country tho it was a Personal union not a real union like the empire of Denmark-norway.
I'm very well aware, but this confuses people more
It would happen 1906
Sweden ruled Norway, we did not share the country.
Nice
Yoo I appreciate it!
What if Novgorod united Russia??
Christiania was the original name of Oslo? I thought I made that up for Medeinia 😭😭😭
Oslo was the original name for Oslo. Only changed name to Christiania between 1624-1924.
I belive Norway would have been invaded regardless. Due to the autonomy of Norway, Sweden would most likely back out of the Union. Our indepencve day would not be the 17 th of may, but rather the 8th of may.
United Kingdom was already planning on a invasion of Norway before the Germans did, for the exact reason. Resources AND the coastline.
The only real difference I see, would be Sweden being a puppet state of Germany from 1940 to 1945, and not giving any intel to the allied forces. Furthermore they would help Germany deport people who would have fled to Sweden back to either Norway or directly to Germany via Poland / Denmark.
After ww2, we would have left the Union with Sweden, and I also believe that our relations would be a lot worse today.
social democratic empire - budget edition
This would actually work, not gonna lie
I think a good name would be The
Swed-Norwegian Kingdom
Something like that, United Kingdoms sounds beyond stupid
Norden Kingdom
Kingdom of Scandinavia
@@xhorus88 Then Denmark would have to be parr of it so the name makes sence.
What about something like Samvaldet Norden? (Assuming I've not butchered the grammar)
Ie The Commonwealth of the North
I dont think Germany will invade denmark. After all, they only used denmark as a jumping board to norway
This is in the case they don't invade norway, if they do, then denmark would be again invaded
What do you mean that norway couldnt defens themself they had a good army many fortresses and one of the biggest navy fleets
I gona say somting realy fast
Polish axis
Oh my god no, not in this video, but I'm working on another similar video
I'd love to see a similar video but on the kingdom of Denmark-Norway
Oh nice! Didn't think about that one! Saving the idea right now!
nice, I love your content by the way, your videos are very interesting, and they never fails to entertain the history nerd in me@@rewriting-history
Actually Norway and Denmark were united for much longer, since Viking times, and when Norway wanted to become a Kingdom again, after having ended the connection to Sweden, to connect to old times, the Norwegians asked the Danish Prince: Carl to become the new Norwegian King! He agreed, but only if the Norwegian Population would vote for it and he became Norwegian King: Haakon 7th.
This fact has given several Danish actors a job, as if King Haakon is to appear in a Norwegian film, he is normally portrayed by a Danish actor! He spoke with a heavy Danish accent all his life! 😄
Dream on you natinalisic Dane.
The majority of Norway was not ruled by Denmark since the viking times. It's debatable to which extents the Danish kings who claimed to rule Norway actually ruled Norway. And in the viking age and the middle ages before the Kalmar Union Norway was for the most part independent. Occasionally ruled by Sweden or Denmark or vise versa depending on who married who.
@@sunclausewitz2707 Danish King Christian 4th, whose name is represented on buildings and entrances all over Norway (Also the Silvermine in Kongsberg), actually visited the most northern places in Norway also. And several "Famous Danes" actually came from the Norwegian part of Denmark, and also from the Faroes. Norwegian sailors also took part in the triangle Slavetrade and joined the Danish Navy with a rank up to Admiral! So Denmark and Norway was one Nation for many years. But of course The Center of the combined Kingdom was Denmark, as the closest to Europe.
On a Tour from the DFDS, Cph - Oslo ferry we visit "The Royal Hand", where Christian 4th decided that "Christiania" should be built, after a fire I think? And it was outside Halden that Swedish King Carl d.12 became killed, during one of the many wars between Denmark and Sweden. Norwegians also fought in the Danish Wars.
By that it was Danish Architects that designed the new "Holmenkollen Skijump". And Norwegian Architects (Snöhetta? also known for the Munck Museum in Oslo) have just won a major competition, in Denmark.
Also we have a small Skijump in a wood in the Copenhagen town-part of Holte! It is of course named: "Holtekollen"!😁
Im from Sweden
what if crassus conquered persia
Dude I'll make a video about this, but what else would you spam on my comments next?
@@rewriting-history most likely a filler word like "hi" until the next idea I possibly get! also this the only way I can get attention from TH-camrs I've never been into the patreons and stuff so i usually try to leave a like and comment on stuff my comment
thanks for actually noticing me tho(no homo felt there was a need) I've been trying to get monsieur z to try it for over a year now I just lucked up that you and your friend group been blowing up in the alt history thing this year
@@rewriting-history my comments aren't usually to deep I'll think of something
Minecraft?!!
No
Just no?
Yes
Norweden
Sounds better than Swenor
Jag höra bara norrmän gråta i kommentarerna
*fr*
Fr fr
Crimea is UUkraine
This video has nothing to do with that and Crimea wasn't mentioned even once? What do you mean?
its a good thing the "union" failed. the swedes would not have managed the oil money propperly. would have gone the same route as everyone else, and given all the money to private companies. no extra taxes, no state own oil company. its been good for us to be split, as it has allowed us to use very different economic policies. no gouvernmental involvement does not work well when dealing with natural ressourses
You are literally just making things up. Sweden for example do have state run companies when it comes to mining and other sectors so obviously something like that would have been set up for the oil industry as well.