• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Sweden-Norway intervenes in the Second Schleswig War

Ricardolindo

Well-known member
Location
Portugal
What if Sweden-Norway had intervened on the Danish side in the Second Schleswig War, with the condition that Denmark gave up Holstein and held a plebiscite in Schleswig? How different would the plebiscite's results be compared to the one after World War I in our timeline? Regardless, such an intervention would be a boost to Pan-Scandinavism. Could we have gotten an united Scandinavia?
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Maybe @Makemakean, considering your Swedish background?

Well, I mean, err-...

I have for the longest period of time been working on a timeline where both Sweden intervenes in the second Schleswig-Holstein War (well, a version of that conflict, the PoD is in 1770), and there is a United Scandinavia.

That being said, I honestly do not think that a United Scandinavia is anywhere near as easy to achieve as a United Italy or a United Germany. I certainly do not think that Swedish intervention alone can accomplish that, indeed, I am uncertain that Swedish intervention on its own can actually help Denmark win the war. The Prussians have the Austrians on their side, and basically all of Northern Germany. The way I see it, the only way the outcome of the war could have ended up differently (providing Prussia still has the support it had OTL) had been if Lord Palmerston had decided to act.

And he didn't.

He admitted that his sympathies were on the side of the Danes, but he felt that there was no clear British national interest at stake in the conflict (which is a point that cannot be refuted) and so he couldn't in good conscience commit British blood and treasure to the cause. He also said that he wasn't too keen on sending the Royal Navy into the Baltic Sea in winter, which strikes me as a fairly odd comment to make. Surely the Royal Navy ought to be able to handle that.
 
Well, I mean, err-...

I have for the longest period of time been working on a timeline where both Sweden intervenes in the second Schleswig-Holstein War (well, a version of that conflict, the PoD is in 1770), and there is a United Scandinavia.

That being said, I honestly do not think that a United Scandinavia is anywhere near as easy to achieve as a United Italy or a United Germany. I certainly do not think that Swedish intervention alone can accomplish that, indeed, I am uncertain that Swedish intervention on its own can actually help Denmark win the war. The Prussians have the Austrians on their side, and basically all of Northern Germany. The way I see it, the only way the outcome of the war could have ended up differently (providing Prussia still has the support it had OTL) had been if Lord Palmerston had decided to act.

And he didn't.

He admitted that his sympathies were on the side of the Danes, but he felt that there was no clear British national interest at stake in the conflict (which is a point that cannot be refuted) and so he couldn't in good conscience commit British blood and treasure to the cause. He also said that he wasn't too keen on sending the Royal Navy into the Baltic Sea in winter, which strikes me as a fairly odd comment to make. Surely the Royal Navy ought to be able to handle that.

Even if Denmark still lost, there would be a lot of good will towards Sweden-Norway. In our timeline, their failure to intervene destroyed Pan-Scandinavism.
Also, a plebiscite in Schleswig would almost certainly happen. Even in our timeline, Bismarck considered holding such a plebiscite.
 
Back
Top