Hi! I was thinking about formable nations in HoI and i realised lack of Sweden- Norway Union. That would be nice to see this country in game. I think that in 36 many people missed this Union and it was a fresh wound.
- 4
- 1
- 1
Lack of Sweden and Norway Union
- Thread starter IsoI
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That would mean 3 formable nations if you're playing as Sweden/Norway.
Also, I don't think that many people missed the union considering it's break-up could have caused WWI from what I've heard. I've also been to this norwegian museum, and let me tell you what their early 1900s, post-Union section looked like: big flags everywhere and fancy lights!
But it's certainly something that should be looked at in the future. I've also heard that Norway had some territorial disputes with Denmark following the break-up, which could be touched upon in a norwegian focus tree. And considering we've gotten Byzantium, the Ottomans and what not, I wouldn't find it too far fetched if Sweden gets to reform the union if it gets a focus tree.
But another formable in Scandinavia? Feels a bit much...
Also, I don't think that many people missed the union considering it's break-up could have caused WWI from what I've heard. I've also been to this norwegian museum, and let me tell you what their early 1900s, post-Union section looked like: big flags everywhere and fancy lights!
But it's certainly something that should be looked at in the future. I've also heard that Norway had some territorial disputes with Denmark following the break-up, which could be touched upon in a norwegian focus tree. And considering we've gotten Byzantium, the Ottomans and what not, I wouldn't find it too far fetched if Sweden gets to reform the union if it gets a focus tree.
But another formable in Scandinavia? Feels a bit much...
Last edited:
- 6
- 1
Denmark kept the Norwegian overseas possessions (Faeroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland) that were originally part of the Kingdom of Norway when Sweden was handed Norway.
As for focus trees and decisions, a "Swedish War Profiteering DLC" is surely on the cards now that they can outsource it.
- 1
Despite the time periods so are Sweden and Norway not that close and quite frankly never were. It was purely pragmatic and geografic reasons that Sweden got Norway in the first place. It would make much more sense with a Sweden and Finland reunion as that would have been significantly more acceptable to the populations. But it's still alternate history stuff. As for additional formable so would the most logical be reforming Swedish empire, ie reforming what was once part of Sweden. The main problem is that it's not that diffrent from the Nordic union already in the game, just replaces Denmark with baltic states and some parts of Norway, Germany and Poland.
One could argue that entire Norway should be included as that was part of Sweden at one time too.
But it's not really needed as it's essentially what you can do in the game already. The only change would perhaps be that doing so as Sweden should give cores in those extra parts.
One could argue that entire Norway should be included as that was part of Sweden at one time too.
But it's not really needed as it's essentially what you can do in the game already. The only change would perhaps be that doing so as Sweden should give cores in those extra parts.
- 2
- 1
A DLC focusing on Scandinavia + Iceland and Finland would be nice. Of course I'm biased being a Scandinavian
- 2
Do we really need a formable for just Norway and Sweden when we already have a Scandinavia and Nordic one?
- 2
- 1
I think there were talks post-war about greater Scandinavian co-operation (don't have any sources atm), but it never went through though for various reasons.
But as you said Sweden-Finland is where it's at. In fact I think that was one of said reasons why ScandiNATO (sorry, couldn't resist) didn't happen.
That said, Sweden-Finland doesn't really seem like union material in my eyes (except for a Swedish empire branch). But I think Åland wanted to become a part of Sweden so there's that. Åland for guarantee maybe?
However, while the union between Norway and Sweden wasn't popular (Norway wanted independence and Sweden wanted Finland), it was a strategical move by the king at the time to make the countries more defensive. That could work in an alt-history WWII scenario as a Scandinavic equivalent to Franco-Britain.
How to do this: Sweden annex Norway. Sweden puppets Norway. In the end Sweden saw it as one country (Sweden annex Norway), while Norway saw it as two states under one sovereign (Sweden puppets Norway).
There is no need for a seperate Sweden-Norway and it is illogical gameplay wise.
There is no need for a seperate Sweden-Norway and it is illogical gameplay wise.
- 1
Both Norway and Denmark wanting to be under the nuclear umbrella of USA is the reason why, along with neither country wanting to become a subject of another country. To this date Norway remain outside of EU, much due to the issue of sovereignty. Moreover they threatened just 21 years before the start of the game to go to war.
Poland did not just surrender to the USSR since it was once part of Russia and later on the Warsaw Pact. Sweden-Norway etc could only come back if Sweden subjucated Norway through force.
There was talk at the end of the games timeframe to establish a Scandinavian Defence Union. According to wikipedia this was seen as favorable in both Denmark and Norway, although as mentioned it did fail in the end. This was not subjugation from what I know.
And in terms of re-establishing the union, I don't see it as a tad realistic. But if I were to add it to the game it would be on strategic grounds as a way to help the allied war effort in Norway. Provided Sweden itself isn't invaded the infrastructure and industry there would be of great help. I also think this would be the most fun way since it forces Sweden to take active part in the war.
This would obviously not just be a 70 day focus to annex Norway though, I'd rather make it an entire branch and then tie it to warscore/success. So the first focus guarantees Norway. If you can then keep the Germans out you get another to say integrate your economies and so on. Finally at the end you might be given the option to finalise this new union. Also make it apply to Denmark for added risk-reward!
And looking at other focus trees, this really doesn't seem too far-fetched. Almost every country these days gets a weird branch/event were they form some historical nation for no real reason. Napoleonic France, Byzantium, Holy Roman Empire, British USA etc... At this point not letting Sweden reform the union with Norway would be inconsistent no matter how unrealistic it is.
But don't worry, Norway probably gets a focus to retake Vinland, resettle Normandy and then form a faction with Byzantium
Last edited:
- 1
What should be possible is to make form an Faction including the nordic nations, that should be possible without threats. That should be an option of any future nordic national focuses.
- 2
There was talk at the end of the games timeframe to establish a Scandinavian Defence Union. According to wikipedia this was seen as favorable in both Denmark and Norway, although as mentioned it did fail in the end. This was not subjugation from what I know.
And in terms of re-establishing the union, I don't see it as a tad realistic. But if I were to add it to the game it would be on strategic grounds as a way to help the allied war effort in Norway. Provided Sweden itself isn't invaded the infrastructure and industry there would be of great help. I also think this would be the most fun way since it forces Sweden to take active part in the war.
This would obviously not just be a 70 day focus to annex Norway though, I'd rather make it an entire branch and then tie it to warscore/success. So the first focus guarantees Norway. If you can then keep the Germans out you get another to say integrate your economies and so on. Finally at the end you might be given the option to finalise this new union. Also make it apply to Denmark for added risk-reward!
And looking at other focus trees, this really doesn't seem too far-fetched. Almost every country these days gets a weird branch/event were they form some historical nation for no real reason. Napoleonic France, Byzantium, Holy Roman Empire, British USA etc... At this point not letting Sweden reform the union with Norway would be inconsistent no matter how unrealistic it is.
But don't worry, Norway probably gets a focus to retake Vinland, resettle Normandy and then form a faction with Byzantium
It's a difference between establishing an alliance than re-establish Sweden-Norway. In the end both Norway and Denmark realized that NATO was their true guarantee of independence. The defense alliance wasn't opposed by the public, but they were not really aware of it either. But to recreate a union that broke up just 21 years ago is entirely different than a defensive alliance.
But again Sweden-Norway is represented in the game, just annex or puppet Norway as Sweden. It was not much more to the union in practical terms than that.
British-America, Byzantium etc require conquests, just like Sweden-Norway should.
A Peaceful Kalmar 2.0 could be done with several steps such as monetary union, tariff union, defense union etc. But Denmark and Norway would likely put their trust in England, and Sweden would likely remain neutral and not protect their brother nations - on historical. Pan-Scandinavianism more or less died in 1861, it could be revived but would face even greater issues now from the same foe so to speak.
@safe-keeper why do you disagree that Sweden-Norway would be from Sweden's perspective Norway being annexed by Sweden and from Norway's perspective they being a puppet of Sweden? This difference in their perception is what led to the breakup in the end.
Last edited:
- 3
Yes, but here we are talking about alt-history and real history. In a scenario where the alliance gathers much stronger support is it really much of stretch from there to have a new union?
In regards to the second statement, yes they do, but if all these cazy scenarios are made to be about conquering, then that is what the name of the game will be. By adding a scenario where this is achieved through defensive co-operation you open up for greater diversity in terms of play-style. I think Paradox have said they want to make defensives more engaging and this could be one way.
(EDIT) Actually, come to think of it, aren't there at least one or two focuses which allow you to more or less "peacefully" unite the balkans into or under a single country? Is that more realistic than parts of Scandinavia uniting for strategic reasons?
Last edited:
- 1
The start would be to make it possible to create an alliance, ie a faction. It might make sense for the case of a scandinavian alliance comming out victorious from ww2 that it would be possible to form a nation out of it. But that would require it to have been in place for some time and won some wars. In game terms so should the alliance have been on the winning side against a major power.
- 1
As a professional Norwegian I can assure you that nobody misses the Norwegian-Swedish Union. We are very different culturally, and the only reason Sweden got Norway was due to geographic location and Denmark loosing the Napoleonic Wars. 26. October is not often celebrated, but we sure as heck is glad to be our own nation, without any Danish occupation or Swedish influence. Remember: the reason why the union ended was due to a referendum, which ended up with over 370,000 voting against the union, and 184 voting for it.
Also, Norway was it's own kingdom in the union. We were allowed to have our own parliament and constitution, and If I'm correct we was drawn as our own country on maps. To have Sweden and Norway in one country would make little sense, but I suppose it could be done for gameplay purposes.
- 1
- 1
We'll almost certainly see a reestablishment of the union as a possibility when Norway and Sweden receive focus trees.
Realistically, it wasn't going to happen. The union broke up because the Swedes were pretty domineering and the Norwegians felt they were respected as equals in a partnership. In fact, for close to the entire period of the union, Norway's foreign affairs were handled through the Swedish diplomatic corps and there was no real attempt to change this up to the very end of the union. There were also significant political differences between the two countries. Although it's hard to imagine today(at least from the perspective of a foreigner), Sweden was actually quite conservative at the turn of the 20th century, while Norway had been quite liberal since the mid 1800's.
Norwegians realistically probably would not go for a union willingly in most circumstances. I think the only way to even have it done remotely plausibly is to have it in the context of some kind of existential threat to both countries, where the move is seen as a consolidation of strength against potential external enemies like Germany. From the perspective of strict realism though, this would not have happened. Even with the Germans in active stage of planning an invasion, Norwegian political leadership absolutely refused a general mobilization and were so woefully unprepared for war that they had something like only 14,000 troops on the eve of the invasion. That's only a little more than 1 division in game terms.
Realistically, it wasn't going to happen. The union broke up because the Swedes were pretty domineering and the Norwegians felt they were respected as equals in a partnership. In fact, for close to the entire period of the union, Norway's foreign affairs were handled through the Swedish diplomatic corps and there was no real attempt to change this up to the very end of the union. There were also significant political differences between the two countries. Although it's hard to imagine today(at least from the perspective of a foreigner), Sweden was actually quite conservative at the turn of the 20th century, while Norway had been quite liberal since the mid 1800's.
Norwegians realistically probably would not go for a union willingly in most circumstances. I think the only way to even have it done remotely plausibly is to have it in the context of some kind of existential threat to both countries, where the move is seen as a consolidation of strength against potential external enemies like Germany. From the perspective of strict realism though, this would not have happened. Even with the Germans in active stage of planning an invasion, Norwegian political leadership absolutely refused a general mobilization and were so woefully unprepared for war that they had something like only 14,000 troops on the eve of the invasion. That's only a little more than 1 division in game terms.
once Sweden or Norway (or both) get unique focus trees, it will likely have a subbranch dedicated to restoring the union.
- 1