PDA

View Full Version : Scandinavism/Nordism



King Yngvar
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 02:50 AM
I ask you, people of Scandinavia, what do you think of a unification of our lands?

Either it is just to oppose the EU, or because you feel we are one people as I do (which also include opposition to the EU)...

Phill
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 06:23 AM
Call me stupid (it is early in the morning) but can I ask specifically what kind of union?

Like... something more like an alliance? Where they're together but still seperate states? Or actually join all the states together like what happened after the Plague?

King Yngvar
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 07:25 AM
One union, but not like the one that "happened after the plague". Not like the Kalmar Union. In the Kalmar Union the countries were not equally represented, the power was based in Denmark and the kings was foreigners (Germans). I am talking of a union where a new capital could be made (at the border between Norway and Sweden), the languages could be mixed into one (they are pretty similar anyway) and one goverment (or royal council) with representatives from all three countries would be present (in equal amount) to form a new nation.

Dagna
Monday, December 1st, 2008, 06:21 AM
Scandinavism (also called Pan-Scandinavianism) and Nordism are literary and political movements that support various degrees of cooperation between the Scandinavian or Nordic countries.

Scandinavism and Nordism are interchangeable terms for the literary, linguistic and cultural movement that focuses on promoting a shared Nordic past, a shared cultural heritage, a common Nordic mythology and a common linguistic root in Old Norse, and which led to the formation of joint periodicals and societies in support of Scandinavian literature and languages. However, political Scandinavism and political Nordism are two distinct political movements which emerged at different points in time.

Political Scandinavism

Political Scandinavism paralleled the 19th-century unification movements of Germany and Italy. As opposed to the German and Italian counterparts, the Scandinavian state-building project was not successful and is no longer pursued.

It was at its height in the mid-19th century and supported the idea of Scandinavia as a unified region or a single nation, based on the common linguistic, political and cultural heritage of the Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden. (These three countries are referred to as "three brothers" in the sixth stanza of the national anthem of Norway.)

The movement was initiated by Danish and Swedish university students in the 1840s, with a base in Scania. In the beginning, the political establishments in the two countries, including the absolute monarch Christian VIII and Charles XIV with his "one man government", were suspicious of the movement. The police in Denmark therefore kept the proponents of Scandinavism under close guard. However, when Oscar I became king of Sweden and Norway in 1844, the relationship with Denmark improved and the movement started to gain support in liberal newspapers like Fædrelandet and Aftonbladet, which saw it as a way to counter the conservative powers that were. During the war between Denmark and Prussia in 1848, Sweden (then in union with Norway) offered support in form of a Norwegian-Swedish expeditionary force, though the force never actually saw combat. The movement received a blow from which it never fully recovered after the second Danish-German war over Schleswig, when the Swedish government refused to jeopardize its future by joining in an alliance against the rising German power on the continent.

Political Nordism

Political Nordism was introduced with the Nordic Association which started through Swedish initiatives in 1919. The movement also includes Finland, Iceland and the Danish territories Greenland and Faroe Islands and has an ideological base in Nordic economic co-operation and integration supported by the Nordic Council. It has been described as "collaborative nationalism".

Scandinavism and Nordism today

Modern Nordism and Scandinavism has played a part in the close cooperation among the five Nordic countries, examples include the Nordic Passport Union, the Nordic Council the Scandinavian Airlines System and the Royal League. It also surfaces amongst Danes and Swedes in criticism of the EU, saying a Nordic union between Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Iceland would have been better. According to a poll in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, "a slim majority of voters in Norway and Sweden is in favour of a Nordic, rather than European, union. A slight majority of Danish voters favour the EU, but would support closer ties to a Nordic union, if a partnership with the EU on free cross-border movement and free trade would be arranged."

The overall lukewarm feelings among some Nordic citizens toward European integration is reflected in varying degrees in their governments' late or incomplete integration into European institutions. Finland and Sweden did not join the EU until 1995 and Norway has voted not to join at all. As for adopting the Euro as the national currency, Denmark negotiated an exception for itself to the Maastrict Treaty which would have required it to adopt the Euro; Sweden has rejected the Euro in referenda, and so far only Finland has adopted it.

Scandinavian unity in literature


The Sherlock Holmes story A Scandal in Bohemia mentions a fictional "King of Scandinavia" whose daughter is about to marry the (also fictional) King of Bohemia, a major protagonist in the story.
The hope of a Nordic political union is the topic of a poem by Danish poet Kaj Munk: Norden: Fra hvor Isen kroner Jorden (The North: From whence Ice crowns the Earth)


Scandinavian unity in popular culture


In the Japanese anime Gundam SEED Destiny, there's a nation called "The Kingdom of Scandinavia".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavism

Do you support Scandinavism or Nordism? Do you believe the countries mentioned should united based on their common characteristrics?

Patrioten
Monday, December 1st, 2008, 07:03 AM
I support the current status of Nordic/Scandinavian cooperation but I would not want to take it further in trying to weld our countries together in a new Kalmarunion or blurr the political/national distinction between us. I would however support a Nordic military alliance, primarily inbetween Norway, Sweden and Finland (the Danes seem more Europe and Nato focused and would probably be harder to bring into such a project). Norway would have to leave NATO and instead share the burden of building a credible and potent defence specific to the task of protecting the three Nordic countries' territorial integrity. We should also remove ourselves from all international military missions and instead focus solely on Nordic defence. This way we will have more leeway in terms of our foreign policy as we wont have to come to the aid of some eastern European nation or breakaway republic in the Caucasus and risk an unnecessary war with Russia.

Carl
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 04:39 PM
what are the propects of Norway leaving NATO when the Russians are actually threatening an Artic expansion.........

otherwise - go for a loose Scandinavian Union - based on Native Rights! :D

Anfang
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 04:50 PM
I support the current status of Nordic/Scandinavian cooperation but I would not want to take it further in trying to weld our countries together in a new Kalmarunion or blurr the political/national distinction between us. I would however support a Nordic military alliance, primarily inbetween Norway, Sweden and Finland (the Danes seem more Europe and Nato focused and would probably be harder to bring into such a project). Norway would have to leave NATO and instead share the burden of building a credible and potent defence specific to the task of protecting the three Nordic countries' territorial integrity. We should also remove ourselves from all international military missions and instead focus solely on Nordic defence. This way we will have more leeway in terms of our foreign policy as we wont have to come to the aid of some eastern European nation or breakaway republic in the Caucasus and risk an unnecessary war with Russia.

In the best scenario I would like to see a new military union which would include Germany and Holland and no Nato. With Sweden and Germany going multi-culty,and the BRD politics what they are, This seems further away every year.

I think that the russians would not be interested in a conventional war with Germany plus all other germanic states.

Hauke Haien
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 05:36 PM
In the best scenario I would like to see a new military union which would include Germany and Holland and no Nato.
What about the other 10 provinces of the Netherlands and Vlaanderen?

Anfang
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 05:56 PM
What about the other 10 provinces of the Netherlands and Vlaanderen?

Yes, excuse me. The Netherlands et Vlaanderen. In the US it is shorthanded as "Holland"

Koenigsberg
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 12:14 AM
I think Scandinavia should be unified and closely allied with, if not incorporated into, a larger Germanic Empire or Union.

Hauke Haien
Tuesday, December 30th, 2008, 06:19 PM
The Scandinavian peoples are closer to each other than to the rest of the North Germanics, let alone West Germanics and those outside of Europe. Scandinavism seems like a natural first step toward increased Germanic cooperation and, in Swiss terms, a Sonderbund within the EU (although Norway is currently not a member). I understand that it is not exactly the dream of the Scandinavian nations to be part of such an alliance/confederation and only maintain a status barely surpassing that of Bavaria (which is still a lot), so "collective bargaining" is an issue when it comes to guarding their interests.

Svalbard
Thursday, January 1st, 2009, 02:49 AM
The Scandinavian peoples are closer to each other than to the rest of the North Germanics....

- Really?

Anyhow I don't think a union with Denmark nor Sweden will be preferable for Norway, unless there will be more profiting from it this time...

I wouldn't mind if we are to stand alone, but the constant aggressiveness from the Russians ain't giving us much of a choice really.

Snorre
Sunday, January 4th, 2009, 02:44 PM
- Really?

Anyhow I don't think a union with Denmark nor Sweden will be preferable for Norway, unless there will be more profiting from it this time...

I wouldn't mind if we are to stand alone, but the constant aggressiveness from the Russians ain't giving us much of a choice really.
I don't see what profit has to do with anything. The LAST thing we should consider in this matter and the sole reason we (well some of us) are in the mess, they call EU, is money. Money should have no power over our decision, the creation of a unified Scandinavia which I dream about, should be based entirely on ideology, the recognition of the historical and cultural/racial bond, we Scandinavians have. I'm well aware that you in Norway are quite content sitting alone with your millions of dollars of oil, but I think you should look a little farther ahead and try to free yourself from the curse of gold.
A unified Scandinavia, one nation with somewhat free states, would make us a superpower, a big nation, which would have a lot more power to stand against the other nations of Europe and especially the USA, would give us a much easier way of controlling the immigration and abolish the non-white immigration and last but not least the ability to secure our existence forever via pan-Scandinavian breeding programs.

Berrocscir
Sunday, January 4th, 2009, 03:56 PM
Close cultural ties and trading links, yes. But as a decentralist, I'd oppose political union.

rainman
Sunday, January 4th, 2009, 04:17 PM
Exactly. I don't think 'democracy' and even altruism is reinforced by large groups, empiralism etc. Independant groups can cooperate voluntarily without being forced under the rule of another or forced into a giant union where their voice goes unheard. "Unions" are steps in controlling people better.

I notice the mindsets of the international leach on TV. They usually state "we are too large to fail" or they automatically think clinging to another will create more wealth. I think that comes from social parasites who want larger and larger hosts to feed off (and mistakingly think that a large enough host is sustainable in feeding them). Most people that actually contribute to society want to be small and independent. This way they can better take responsibility for their actions- their success and failures, and they have greater control over their environment and immediate group- rather than relying on the dead weight of dumb masses or some far away leader to take care of them like a child. (also different political ideas are better played out in a smaller area and people have more freedom to live the way they want to live).

Put it this way- the whole point of nationalism is united to blood and soil. Why don't we unite into one giant "world nation"?? Because I'm vastly different from the other %95 of the world. I have different ideas of how i want to live from my culture and genes. I have different concepts of right and wrong, and beauty. Also my local landscape creates different demands on me that some far away leader cannot understand. Europe's small states are an ideal size for folkish ideals.

I see the ideal unity as similar to how ancient Greece was united. A series of small independent states that may fight one another occasionally but unite against a common outside foe militarily and run military drills together to further promote cooperation. A unity that mostly has free trade between them, provided all members agree to certain common social terms that promote a fair and balanced trade (similar worker protection laws etc.).

Let nations work together voluntarily in issues because they see it benefits them, not force them together and force them to submit to the will of a single central authority. People who see strength in numbers I think are weak people who need to be led like sheep. We each should be able to take care of ourselves, and like a civilized man work with our neighbors when neccessary.

The only neccessary unity of Germanic peoples is to militarily work together to defeat our common enemies and to agree on certain common standard cultural values between us that define us as "Germanic" again similar to the old Greecian concept.

Snorre
Monday, January 5th, 2009, 01:40 AM
I think the problem with your argumentation is that you don't take into consideration that many (all) of today's countries with the borders they have, are somewhat artificially created, they have changed so much due to for example wars and conflicts; why it is incredibly difficult even to define a nation. If Germany were to invade and annex Sjælland, I surely wouldn't feel German because of that. Even in a small country like Denmark, the differences between the people who live on Sjælland and those who live in Jylland are big, we speak, act and even look very different. Skåne was once Danish and linguistically, the language spoken in Skåne has more in common with Danish than Swedish, still the majority of the people in Skåne feel Swedish (though only 51% according to a recent pole in a magazine). We Scandinavians are so incredibly alike in all fashions and have been united many times before. The fact that it has failed in the past is no reason not to try again.
A great union of all Scandinavian countries is the most natural of all, since countries and nations have nothing to do with simple dust, dirt and stone, but rather solely the inhabitants of those countries. Culture is blood and blood is culture. Denmark is nothing without the Danes, Sweden is nothing without the Swedes and since Danes and Swedes are so much alike, I'd say Scandinavia is nothing without us all, united!

Rozenstorm
Thursday, January 8th, 2009, 03:03 PM
I'm not very clear about this, but is it true that the Fins and Swedes don't get along very well?

Patrioten
Thursday, January 8th, 2009, 04:26 PM
I think the problem with your argumentation is that you don't take into consideration that many (all) of today's countries with the borders they have, are somewhat artificially created, they have changed so much due to for example wars and conflicts; why it is incredibly difficult even to define a nation. If Germany were to invade and annex Sjælland, I surely wouldn't feel German because of that. Even in a small country like Denmark, the differences between the people who live on Sjælland and those who live in Jylland are big, we speak, act and even look very different. Skåne was once Danish and linguistically, the language spoken in Skåne has more in common with Danish than Swedish, still the majority of the people in Skåne feel Swedish (though only 51% according to a recent pole in a magazine). We Scandinavians are so incredibly alike in all fashions and have been united many times before. The fact that it has failed in the past is no reason not to try again.Aren't you contradicting yourself here? We are different, I agree, different enough to be separate nations, and different enough within these nations to feel a special regional kinship apart from a national kinship. Therefor it makes sense to maintain the current nationstates and not try to cram Norwegians, Danes and Swedes into a new political union that would only work towards more centralism. The friendly and close ties that are found inbetween our peoples, after many centuries of infighting is something very valuable and I think that we best serve to further nurture these feelings by allowing each nation to remain independent.

Snorre
Thursday, January 8th, 2009, 11:36 PM
Yes, I might be. Sorry, that was badly written. What I meant to say was that the varations within a single people can be relatively big and on a larger scale in my opinion the variations between the peoples of Scandinavia (Danes, Swedes and Norwegians) are so small that there's almost ground to consider us as one. That means that the variation within Danes between the people of Sjælland and Jylland are no bigger than those between Danes and Swedes on a larger scale.

I don't think we will be 'crammed' at all. I think that by uniting, we will be much more powerfull and able to protect our culture better against those of the other peoples of Europa and especially USA.

Neophyte
Friday, January 9th, 2009, 12:06 AM
Norway has, more or less voluntarily, been in political union with Denmark and Sweden for quite a long time, but that has not made the Norwegians any less Norwegian, and the same goes for the Finns.


- Really?

Anyhow I don't think a union with Denmark nor Sweden will be preferable for Norway, unless there will be more profiting from it this time...

I wouldn't mind if we are to stand alone, but the constant aggressiveness from the Russians ain't giving us much of a choice really.

The future belongs to large power blocks and large players able to project military force in order to control and block trade routes, just as it always has. If you do not wish to bet on total self-sufficiency (like North Korea) the alternative is to either ally yourself to such a player more or less as a vassall or to build those military and economic capabilities yourself.

Today USA alone has those capabilities, but will without a doubt soon be joined by China, Russia and, perhaps, India. If Scandinavians, Germanics and Europeans want to lead an independent political life in such an environment the only road is through a politcal, economic and military union of some sort.

Our first priority should be to regain our ability to project naval power across the globe.

Eoppoyz
Sunday, February 15th, 2009, 01:00 AM
I support Nordism.


I'm not very clear about this, but is it true that the Fins and Swedes don't get along very well?

That's not true.

Gustavus Magnus
Wednesday, February 18th, 2009, 08:08 PM
A unified Scandinavia, with Finland as observing member.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 04:35 AM
No way, I oppose Nordism
If I dedide to vacation or move to Sweden or Norway I want to know that these countries' leaders are choosing to keep their patriotism, nationhood and freedom. Being integrated into some Cosmopolitian melting pot would turn into something like the EU and the North American Union. This would also integrate the altaic nations of Finland and Finnmark with the Germanic Scandinavian nations, maybe leading to further multi-culturalism and mixing of blood between them.:thumbdown:thumbdown

Gustavus Magnus
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 11:40 AM
No way, I oppose Nordism
If I dedide to vacation or move to Sweden or Norway I want to know that these countries' leaders are choosing to keep their patriotism, nationhood and freedom. Being integrated into some Cosmopolitian melting pot would turn into something like the EU and the North American Union. This would also integrate the altaic nations of Finland and Finnmark with the Germanic Scandinavian nations, maybe leading to further multi-culturalism and mixing of blood between them.:thumbdown:thumbdown

I agree with you, which is why Scandinavism is an alternative, since this would exclude the uralic Finland and the Baltics. However, since those countries are in the same situation as us, having Russia as a neighbour, we should incorporate them somehow, an observing member, or simply incorporating their armies into one army to defend northern Europe from The Drunken Bear.

Though I fail to see why someone as mixed as you could argue about the preservation of the Scandinavian people, we are in fact very, very close, racially speaking. My nephews' mother is Norwegian, from just across the border into Norway, would you say they are mixed?

Eoppoyz
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 01:08 PM
No way, I oppose Nordism
If I dedide to vacation or move to Sweden or Norway I want to know that these countries' leaders are choosing to keep their patriotism, nationhood and freedom. Being integrated into some Cosmopolitian melting pot would turn into something like the EU and the North American Union. This would also integrate the altaic nations of Finland and Finnmark with the Germanic Scandinavian nations, maybe leading to further multi-culturalism and mixing of blood between them.:thumbdown:thumbdown

The people in the Nordic countries have same ethnicity except the Sami people and the Finns.

Gustavus Magnus
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 03:56 PM
The people in the Nordic countries have same ethnicity except the Sami people and the Finns.

Are you kidding me? The Sami and the Finns are Uralic, and so are Estonians (and Hungarians, and Turks, etc...). Lats and Lithuanians are Slavic. Pretty far from Germanic.

No, we stick to ourselves, the Scandinavians.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 04:19 PM
Its sounds like you misunderstood what I meant in my post, I meant that I was against integration and mixing between Germanics and Uralics not Germanic Norwegians and Germanic Swedes. I do however think that Finland and Estonia should definately form a military alliance with the Scandinavian countries if Russia starts to act threatening or starts to throw its weight around over there.

Eoppoyz
Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 07:47 PM
Are you kidding me? The Sami and the Finns are Uralic, and so are Estonians (and Hungarians, and Turks, etc...). Lats and Lithuanians are Slavic. Pretty far from Germanic.

No, we stick to ourselves, the Scandinavians.

I know. Read my comments again because you missunderstood what I was written.

Gustavus Magnus
Friday, February 20th, 2009, 11:52 AM
I know. Read my comments again because you missunderstood what I was written.

No, I didn't misunderstand -- The Baltic countries are also included in the nordic region, and they are culturally and racially separate from us.

Eoppoyz
Friday, February 20th, 2009, 04:33 PM
No, I didn't misunderstand -- The Baltic countries are also included in the nordic region, and they are culturally and racially separate from us.

The Baltic countries is not a part of the Nordic region.

NUXiY
Friday, March 13th, 2009, 10:51 AM
I am in total denial of any kind of union between Norway and other nations. Be it Scandinavian or not. Whatever might happen to the other Scandinavian countries are for my part just the same. Norway have had their independence for only a 100 years, and I am in no favor of any more centralized form of government.

Isolation and uniqueness.

TheGreatest
Friday, March 13th, 2009, 10:53 AM
The Baltic countries is not a part of the Nordic region.

Adding the Baltic to a Scandinavian Union would be like adding Turkey to the European Union. The Baltic will just be an invading point for millions of Russians, Urals and other Asians.

Dagna
Tuesday, March 17th, 2009, 06:39 AM
I have found some graphics clebrating Norwegian independence. They were originally posted on the Althing gallery, but luckily I saved them on my computer and posted them in the Skadi gallery.

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/25182/large/1_1_bog88_2901.jpg

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/25182/large/1_1_6ce33w7.jpg

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/25182/large/1_1_Vik_25_Gud_signe_Norges_Land.jpg

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/25182/large/1_1_Brodeskap_Frihed_Pk.jpg

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/25182/large/1_1_norge_pk.jpg

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/25182/large/1_1_3_august1905_Pk.jpg

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/25182/large/1_1_Vik_33_Solopgang_i_Norge.jpg

Halfr
Sunday, March 22nd, 2009, 11:34 PM
Plague or cholera? In a world threatened by globalization I guess a Scandinavian union would be a lesser evil.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Monday, March 23rd, 2009, 01:17 AM
Plague or cholera? In a world threatened by globalization I guess a Scandinavian union would be a lesser evil.

Maybe instead of a union you could just have a Scandinavian and Baltic military alliance against Russia instead of a union. It would be just as effective.

Freja_se
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 06:34 PM
I think it's very important for Scandinavian countries to increase their co-operation and to seek more unity. Even though we have so much in common in every sense there seems to be a strange lack of feeling and even resentment.

Most of those unhealthy negative feelings are due to historic events. There are some wounds that never entirely healed after the second world war, for example. This is such a shame since it prevents us from becoming stronger and unified, and from setting common goals and a common plan for the future.

I would like to see some kind of political and economic union for Nordic countries, where also Germany would have a place. I would like to see Nordic countries unified in their effort to support each other racially, culturally, economically and socially. It seems to me that for example latin countries have understood the importance of co-operation and unity, whereas Nordic countries have not, not yet.

Take for example the "Mediterranean Union". We would need a "North European Union" to balance that out.

I would like to see a different Northern Europe where the rightful owners of our countries take back the power they have given away primarily to zionist interests and their race-mixing- and globalization agenda, which goes against our interests culturally, ethnically and nationally. I would like to see a healthy respect restored for our history, traditions and identity.

I want our Scandinavian/Nordic culture, heritage, values and roots preserved and cherished, and the foundation - our race - which is so fragile, protected. In order to do that I think it will be helpful to seek strength in numbers, and a union would be much more resilient to attacks by those who would not like to see these goals become reality.

Sweden, for example, is weak, and has been brainwashed into believing that ethnic genocide of its people is a good thing, and that opposing it racism. Many Swedes go out of their way to show how liberal and "progressive" they are.

The self-hatred and masochism take such extreme proportions that even our most influential newspaper in the South of Sweden, Sydsvenskan, is full of pity articles about "our" immigrants, always muslims who they adore, and when our firefighters are attacked by stone throwing muslims when they try to do their job in THEIR neighbourhoods it receives a small note at the back of the paper.

Even carrying a Swedish flag is sometimes seen as racist and offensive by liberals and immigrant groups who work like trojans inside Sweden to weaken its people and their sense of identity. If you don't love mass-immigration and ethnic- and cultural mixing you are racist, is the message.

I have no doubt at all, tragically, that my country will become a muslim country in the future, and that Swedes will become a minority that little by little will have to give up power and control over its own country. History has shown that no people can hope to survive if they let foreign invaders outbreed them in large numbers, and that is what is happening right now. Muslims are also very aggressive and aware of their "rights".

I wonder what would happen if Swedes emigrated to Iraq...demanding to be financially supported there, to have their entire families with them also to be supported by Iraq. Swedes throwing stones at their fire fighters, raping their women (never Swedish women), robbing, stealing, assaulting, and then cry racism when Iraqis wave their national flag.

Everything about Sweden would receive massive attention by the media, and anything related to Iraq and its people would be at the very end of the papers or just in small, insignificant articles. If someone in Iraq was tired of this and protested they would immediately be labeled racists. How many minutes would they tolerate the exact same situation we Swedes have lived through for many years now, that's what I want to know.

If a union of Nordic countries and Germany - in the interest of the survival and prosperity of these countries' rightful citizens - can achieve a vital and lasting change and an end to the madness and genocide of our people, I am very much in favour of it. Sweden has shown it can do nothing on its own.

Birkebeinr
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 09:09 AM
Read about the Kalmar union and the bloodbath in Stockholm.
A Nordic union wasn't a good idea in the first place.
I'm rather for a loose Germanic federation.
With capital in Berlin..

Blod og Jord
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 09:28 AM
I support Scandinavism but not Nordism. Finland shouldn't be included in a union.
Finland is a country which isn't the same like Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
In my opinion any way.
The language isn't Indo-European.
There are some barriers.

Snowman
Sunday, June 28th, 2009, 08:57 PM
I am for the independence of the nordic countries. But I do want all the countries work more together on military and enviormental issues and protection it resources and jobs. We already have the open market and good collaboration between the nordic countries.

But to achive all the goals we want to do, we first have to clean up the political mess we have in Sweden.

Matrix
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009, 04:37 AM
I don't think they should unify in a single nation. I think they should stay independent but establish friendly relationships between them.

Jarlsson
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 11:08 AM
I don't think they should unify in a single nation. I think they should stay independent but establish friendly relationships between them.

Indeed. But what I would rather like to see, would be a more complex union. Not only Nordic countries, but rather European. Tho the idea of making an alliance in between the scandinavian countries would be a wise first step. Wheter military (independant from EU) financial and so forth, the main prior must be the people who leads an eventually agreement of this bond tying. Based upon today this seems very hard to accomplish. A sniff of nationalism or any sort of Nordic thought could easily ruin it. But I would indeed like to see this happen. It would may be the new spiritual awakening of Baldr (life force).

- Jarlsson

Baldomar
Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, 12:30 PM
I vote none of above...
Since I want to see Sweden as one strong independent country.

Méldmir
Tuesday, September 15th, 2009, 11:45 PM
I am against the idea that Scandinavia should be one single country or nation. As being half Swedish and half-Norwegian I sometimes the similarites that peopke talk about between the different Scandinavian countries can be exaggerated. Norwegian, Danes and Swedes ARE different people, and the languages are different, and not just dialects as some people say.

Of course, you can argue that people within the nations are also different from each other, and that someone from Skåne can have some similarites with a Dane that he does not have with a northern Sweden. But still, Scandinavia is a very big area, and cultural differences are bound to occur. So I think the current borders that are set are a somewhat good way of knowing where the major cultural differences occur, and they should be respected. Also we have the pride in the national state, and some may say that it is a little superficial, but as I said there are general cultural differences between the states, and some national romanticism has added to that, and I think that also should be respected, although too much national romanticism (which sometimes can feel "fake") is not always good for friendliess between brother nations.

So therefore I propose a union between the Scandinavian countries that is mostly political and militaristic, but with culutral exchange so that the pope learn more about the other' countries. I could see this kind of union including all Germanic countries too, albeit maybe in a little looser form.

Blod og Jord
Friday, October 16th, 2009, 06:30 PM
Indeed. But what I would rather like to see, would be a more complex union. Not only Nordic countries, but rather European. Tho the idea of making an alliance in between the scandinavian countries would be a wise first step. Wheter military (independant from EU) financial and so forth, the main prior must be the people who leads an eventually agreement of this bond tying. Based upon today this seems very hard to accomplish. A sniff of nationalism or any sort of Nordic thought could easily ruin it. But I would indeed like to see this happen. It would may be the new spiritual awakening of Baldr (life force).

- Jarlsson
The difference between European countries is greater than between the Nordo-Germanic countries.
At best we could have Germanicism,
but no Europeanism.
A Nordic person from Scandinavia,
and a Southern person from Sicily or Greece are little related.
Besides speaking Indo-European language.
Culturally and racially they are different.
I think we should keep our identities and not mix.
North in the North and South in the South.

MotherNorth
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009, 07:48 AM
Nordic countries should unite in one nation? Hell no. That would be a very bad thing to do. We are all close related but still free,independent, separate nations.
This kind of union no, stay separate, but defend, help and support each other yes

Gryning
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009, 07:49 AM
While I do think that most people realize the difference between the Nordic countries and Scandinavia, it is important to observe the different constellations in this matter.

I do not believe in a Nordic union. As a Finland-swede, that is the direct descendant of Swedes who came here during the Crusades and later relocating within their own country since there was no "Finland", I realize the vast cultural differences between the Fenno-Ugric Finland and the Germanic Scandinavia. Finns have always been more isolated than Scandinavians. Finnish villages barely even had contact with each other by the time the Swedes started building infrastructure in what is Finland today. Generally, ethnically aware Swedes tend to have warm feelings Finns, while vice versa is not true. Sadly, many Finns still see Swedes as some kind of persecutors or even weaklings. Because of this, Finns need to take care of their own matters, even if they would be welcome in the eyes of the Scandinavian countries in a union.

The Finnish group instinct is very strong, which is seen by the low percentage of immigrants in comparison to the other Nordic countries. Finland-swedes such as myself sadly dominate the multicultural support groups, I'm sure that without us, the country would be much better off. That being said, a Scandinavian union sounds much more appealing in my ears. The national states would still exist, yet with a broadened field of co-operation in order to gain more influence in Europe. As much as I like the thought of European unity in a broader perspective, I am not fond of the European Union. Scandinavia as a political force would be much better off influence-wise if the co-operation was increased.

sunne
Thursday, November 19th, 2009, 07:34 PM
i think scandinavians denmark norway and sweden should retain their independence from the EU. we are our own people. dana pallessen

Freja_se
Friday, November 20th, 2009, 10:12 AM
I vote none of above...
Since I want to see Sweden as one strong independent country.

Strong and independent? Not very realistic. Well, independent as in sovereign, yes, very much so, but we need to co-operate much more with our Scandinavian neighbours in areas that affect us all, I think, and to strengthen our ties and common goals. We are much stronger as a unified voice than we are alone as we are very small countries in terms of the number of inhabitans.

We especially need to work out a common plan for the repatriation of the immigrants that have been allowed into our countries in insane numbers, and work to restore our own traditional, healthy and ethnically homogenous societies that we once had.

We are facing a situation where we WILL inevitably be replaced by other racial groups, and the Nordic countries as history knew them will be no more. I really hope the future of my people is not extinction, and I would like to work together with my fellow Scandinavian countries, and other Germanic countries as well, to see to it that this will not be the outcome.

NorthWestEuropean
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 08:20 PM
From a National Socialist perspective, you could never accept a democracy. And that also means that one cannot accept a national state. National states splits the Nordic peoples and their interests apart. Look what the true democrats did when Finland was invaded by the Russians for example.

I want to see at least a Nordic union, but rather a Nordic-Baltic union. Of course the countries would stay the same, as some elements in Finland and the Baltic states are a different subgroup of the white race compared to Scandinavians and some elements in Finland/Estonia. But we would be united and co-operate while would share the same interests.

Méldmir
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 08:37 PM
Why the Baltic states? The Baltic Sea was important in the past, but nowadays I don't see why we would need them or why they would want us, after all they are even different from each other. A union with three ethnicities (Germanic, Finnic, Slavic) doesn't sound like a good idea.

As I've said before, I prefer federation/union of only one ethnicity, Germanic. And for west Scandinavians, even Celts would be closer at hand to form a union. Icelanders would probably be closer to Irish than to Latvians. And places like Orkney and Shetland would in my opinion, have much more place in a Nordic Union than even Finland. Finland have of course been close to Sweden politically in parts of modern history, but we must build a union on a stronger foundation that could last longer.

NorthWestEuropean
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 08:55 PM
I never wrote anything about ethnicity. Like I said, some elements in Finland and the Baltic states are quite different from Scandinavians, and I never wrote that race laws wouldn't be drawn between these. The Baltic states would simply be added so that the Finns wouldn't "feel alone".

SMR wants a Nordic union, and they don't want to exclude Finland from it. But by having a Nordic-Baltic union, Åland and the Finland-Swedes would be with the Swedes/Scandinavians, as well as the Finns would be with the Baltics. Everyone gets happy.

Méldmir
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 09:01 PM
Yeah, and the Latvians and Lithuanians may want Poland or Russia there as well, we can't let anyone feel excluded can we. Seriously, why do we need Finland anyway? They have a non-germanic majority, they can create a Great Finland with Estonia instead. I can't see why Finland should be in this Nordic Union, please explain.

NorthWestEuropean
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 09:09 PM
So that the Swedish minority of Finland could be joined to Sweden smoothly? Because Finland is the only Nordic country that you could say actually has an army? Because the more soldiers, the better protection if foreign influences wanted a reason to attack a nationalist government in the North? So it seems that you think the less soldiers in a case like this, the better. Okay, that's fine.

But go and ask SMR this question instead, and why they have a Finnish sister organisation. I am not a representative for them.

Méldmir
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 09:16 PM
Why are you mentioning the SMR all the time? Anyway, in a better future we would all have good armies and defense. But why don't you want a union with Russia, they have an even bigger army that could protect us. And the Swedish minority in Finland is small, and I'd rather have them stay outside of Sweden than to have all the Finnos to be a part of Sweden alongside them. The Swedish Finns could move to Norrland or something.

NorthWestEuropean
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 09:23 PM
I mention SMR because they are only nationalist organisation in Sweden that promotes a union at all, as far as I know. I, or nobody else, don't want Russia because Russia isn't in the North, and because Russians don't have anything to do with the North at all.

And where have I said that Finns should be in Sweden?! How is that relevant at all when speaking of a military union?

If genetically Swedish individuals with "non-standard" dialects shouldn't be allowed to move to Sweden, then I guess Scanians shouldn't be allowed to move to "standard" Sweden either? How old are you anyway?

Méldmir
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 09:30 PM
I mention SMR because they are only nationalist organisation in Sweden that promotes a union at all, as far as I know. I, or nobody else, don't want Russia because Russia isn't in the North, and because Russians don't have anything to do with the North at all.

Much of Russia is located in the North, like Moscow and St. Petersburg, their most important cities. They are just as Northern as Latvians and Lithuanians and also Slavs. If we include them we would be very powerful. However, just military power is not something I would base a union on.


And where have I said that Finns should be in Sweden?! How is that relevant at all when speaking of a military union?

Just now did you mention a "military union", first you just said a Union. Why not have a military union with Germany and the UK instead? They have better armies than Finland.


If genetical Swedes with another citizenships, or with "non-standard dialects", shouldn't be allowed to move to Sweden, then I guess Scanians wouldn't be allowed to move to "standard" Sweden either?

I said that they could move to Norrland, which is a part of Sweden. Norrland have alot of space, so I'd be glad if the Finland Swedes would want to move there.

NorthWestEuropean
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 09:49 PM
Much of Russia is located in the North, like oscoq and St. Petersburg, their most important cities. They are jsut as Northern as Latvians and Lithuanians and also Slavs. If we include them we would be very powerful. However, just militar power is not something I would base a union on.

Only the individuals hailing from Western Russia are to be seen as white, or am I wrong here?


Just now did you mention a "military union", first you just said a Union. Why not have a military union with Germany and the UK instead? They have better armies than Finland.

I emanated from a military/political perspective from the very beginning. I wrote that race laws between "pure" Finns, as well as Baltics, and Scandinavians would be drawn. I thought everyone should understand that this also would mean that these sort of individuals wouldn't be allowed to move to Scandinavian countries, as well as Scandinavians not being allowed to move to Baltic areas.

As for the latter question, these countries could might as well be in this union too. But I kind of doubt that would be very realistic.


I said that they could move to Norrland, which is a part of Sweden. Norrland have alot of space, so I'd be glad if the Finland Swedes would want to move there.

Fine with me, but I don't think Ålanders even should need to move to Sweden. Mainland Swedish-speakers from the Southwest of Finland could perhaps move to Sweden then, as they are a little minority. Finnish-speakers in Swedish Ostrobothnia could move to the Finnish-speaking areas of Ostrobothnia instead of Swedish Ostrobothnians moving to Sweden.

Méldmir
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 09:56 PM
Only the individuals hailing from Western Russia are to be seen as white, or am I wrong here?

If you ask a Russian, they of course make differences within Russia. The ethnic Russian would probably be similar to other eastern Europeans in their racial make-up. They don't consider others from Russia, such as Chechens, as real ethnic Russians. But Moscow and St. Petersburg belong to the ethnic Russians, or western Russians as you said.

Anyway, we still have different views on what a union can be like. A union can't be centralized, like the EU or the Swedish-Norwegian union, and that is the reason I am skeptical towards any union. I'd prefer some sort of Germanic federation of many smaller tribes/nations.

NorthWestEuropean
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 10:18 PM
I'd prefer some sort of Germanic federation of many smaller tribes/nations.

You have a point here, but unfortunately it should be considered that Germanics are more diverse in comparison to Slavs for instance. There are "pan-Germanicists", but in compared numbers to pan-Slavicists, these probably exists in lower numbers.

I see all Germanics as the same. But due to my experience, not many seems to agree with me here. This includes nationalists. When it comes to Germanics, there is an Anglo-Saxon sphere, a German-speaking sphere, a Scandinavian sphere, a Dutch sphere and so on. Many Dutch and English nationalists that I have spoken to have said that they feel no fellowship with Germans at all. I have even seen Swedish and Norwegian nationalists show hostility against each other. I wish Germanics in general would get along better, and that these sort of hostilities will disappear.

As far as it goes for Finns and Balts, these are not Germanics, and this fact is of course something that I realise. But these groups are usually not hostile against Germanics either, like Slavs (especially Russians and Poles) usually can be.

Méldmir
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 10:26 PM
That is the problem, a federation or a union is not possible in the current situation, nor do I see the reason to create one since all nations are under enemy control so to speak. This Germanic federation that I mentioned, is only a future possibility, in a future where people are nationalist/folkish, are not anti-German, have understood what their roots are etc. So before any unions or federations we must work toward this goal of awakening people (which even includes the nationalists you mentioned).

olavnorsk
Sunday, November 29th, 2009, 07:55 AM
Do you support Scandinavism or Nordism? Do you believe the countries mentioned should united based on their common characteristrics?

Scandinavians are one people much like the Germans are one people. The differences between Scandinavians in terms of language, culture, ethnicity and religion are much smaller than the differences were/are between the Germans. The only reason the three Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish) are officially considered separate languages is because they have "an army and navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and _navy)". But in reality, Scandinavian is a dialect continuum and the differences between dialects within, say, Norwegian, are greater than the differences between the four (including Neo-Norwegian) standard languages. The Scandinavians also share their ancestors, religion and values.

I think Scandinavism is a good idea, and definitely would support some sort of unification of the three Scandinavian countries, preferably as a loose confederation (similar to the unification of Germany in 1871) with three separate kingdoms. I also think more cultural cooperation between the countries is necessary, it's important that Scandinavians are exposed to other varieties of the Scandinavian languages than their own to make sure Scandinavian remains one language (or mutually intelligible dialects of one language).

I'm not opposed to political and cultural cooperation with Finland, Iceland or other countries with ties to Scandinavia ("Nordism"), but it's important to remember that these countries are not Scandinavian and have languages that are not mutually intelligble with Scandinavian (Icelanders are ethnically Scandinavian, but their language has evolved differently than mainland Scandinavian and is not mutually intelligble). For this reason, these countries could never be part of a unified Scandinavia (unless they adopted Scandinavian language to a much larger degree, which is not going to happen).

Josef S
Monday, February 8th, 2010, 10:41 PM
Scandinavia as a collaboration of independent states, with an independent and non-EU Germany as their partner. That would work in the current reality we live in. Helping each other, trading with each other, helping preserve local culture etc and allowing for immigration within the germanic cultural sphere.

Cooperation in questions regarding immigration, ethnicity, cultural preservation, as well as an obligation to help each other in times of need, would benefit everyone I think.

Holt
Friday, April 30th, 2010, 06:42 AM
I am inclined to support a Nordic union at this point, encompassing today's members of the Nordic Council. This would not only strengthen the Nordic region's economical and political backbone, but also offer a culturally sustainable alternative to the gray and tasteless mass the European Union has become.

Sindig_og_stoisk
Friday, April 30th, 2010, 09:27 AM
I support the notion of a Scandinavian federation similar to either Germany, Switzerland, or even the USA, meaning a united federal government presenting a united front in matters of military and foreign policy, but allowing local government to decide on their own matters.
Ideally, it would consist of Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, and maintain close relations with Finland and the Baltic countries, for historical and strategic reasons.

Let us have a brief look at the statistics:

Population: Denmark 5 million+ Sweden 9 million + Norway 4,8 + Iceland 300,000= Scandinavian Federation 21 million approx. Not quite Germany (81 million) or France (65 million) but more then Netherlands (16 million) or Belgium (10 million)

GDP: Denmark $197 billion+ Sweden $331 billion+ Norway $255 billion+ Iceland $12 billion= Scandinavian Federation $795 billion. Again, not quite Germany ($ 2.8 trillion) but more then the Netherlands ( $658 billion).

It would definitely bring the peoples of Scandinavia up in the world, from small European states to one middle ranking one. Perhaps Finland and even the Baltic countries could be included later on, given the shared history.

Méldmir
Friday, April 30th, 2010, 01:12 PM
Scandinavian unity is good, but not Nordic. The Nordic countries have both Germanic and Finno-Ugric components. The Finno Ugrics should have their own union or something, like Finland with Estonia.

Neophyte
Friday, April 30th, 2010, 03:50 PM
Scandinavian unity is good, but not Nordic. The Nordic countries have both Germanic and Finno-Ugric components. The Finno Ugrics should have their own union or something, like Finland with Estonia.

True, but they are still good people and nice neighbours. It's not like you cannot work together with them.

Méldmir
Friday, April 30th, 2010, 04:26 PM
True, but they are still good people and nice neighbours. It's not like you cannot work together with them.

Yes of course one can work and be friendly with them, but I prefer outright unions or federations to be more homogenous.

Freja_se
Friday, April 30th, 2010, 05:42 PM
Scandinavian unity is good, but not Nordic. The Nordic countries have both Germanic and Finno-Ugric components. The Finno Ugrics should have their own union or something, like Finland with Estonia.


I agree. Finland is generally speaking racially far removed from Scandinavians due to their East Baltid/Sami/mongoloid genes, and they do lots of damage on the recessive Nordic race due to their heavy presence here, so it is important that they are kept more isolated from Scandinavian countries.


Each country deserves to be racially preserved, and so do we.


I am against the ethnic destruction of ANY European country. We need to preserve our ethnicity and culture and open borders is not the way to do it, obviously.


Sweden, Denmark and Norway should have much closer cooperation and unity on important matters, and we must protect the racial purity of Scandinavia because it is very much under threat right now.



We see today with the Uralic/Finno-Ugric, Sami and non-white elements introduced into the Nordic gene pool a steady decline of the Nordic sub races, and if it continues like this Scandinavia will no longer be Nordic but rather a mixture of East Baltics, half-Samis, half-Asians, half-Arabs and so forth.


The Scandinavian people - proud descendants of the Vikings - will become racially marginalized in Scandinavia, and it is already an ongoing process. The remedy, I believe, is to better unify Scandinavia and set common goals in order to protect it, and keep it more isolated from foreign, non-Germanic intrusions.


Above all we must stop the ongoing foreign invasions of our countries, whether it comes from Finland or from Africa or Asia. Ethnic preservation demands it.


We need strong, traditional nationalism and Scandinavism, I think, or else our small and vulnerable people will become extinct. When we are outbred by muslims we might even become muslim countries, so we will be not only racially overtaken but religiously conquered as well.

Méldmir
Friday, April 30th, 2010, 05:54 PM
...

I agree with all that. Scandinavianism and/or Germanicsism are the most important sort of nationalisms or identities we need other than our regional ones, as opposed to the much more superficial "Nordism" or "Europeanism". But with the religious part, I don't really think it makes a difference if we happen to be Christian or Muslim if our countries have been taken over by foreigners... I would actually prefer secular Heathenism in our homogenous countries.

Freja
Monday, May 3rd, 2010, 07:55 PM
I'm not very clear about this, but is it true that the Fins and Swedes don't get along very well?

In what way please enlighten me please... finland is by the rightful means our eastern part of the country we both shared our blood with them and shed it side by side for hundreds of years they are our brothers... (this is not Freja answering it´s a friend of her) :) regards from a swede

Méldmir
Monday, May 3rd, 2010, 08:15 PM
In what way please enlighten me please... finland is by the rightful means our eastern part of the country we both shared our blood with them and shed it side by side for hundreds of years they are our brothers... (this is not Freja answering it´s a friend of her) :) regards from a swede

Tell your friend that the Finnish DNA is quite different from Swedish. It is not "rightfully" ours either, in my opinion Finland belongs to the Finns.

BPP Commissioner
Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 11:14 AM
I would like to see a Canada/British Isles/Iceland&GreenLand/Scandanavian co-commonwealth that would deal with Russia, United States and the Rest of the World in a manner to protect their common homelands.

When the whiteman can look on a map and see an official cultural cradle of nordic civilization drawn up he then will have a concept of to rally his politics around!

Méldmir
Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 11:25 AM
I would like to see a Canada/British Isles/Iceland&GreenLand/Scandanavian co-commonwealth that would deal with Russia, United States and the Rest of the World in a manner to protect their common homelands.

When the whiteman can look on a map and see an official cultural cradle of nordic civilization drawn up he then will have a concept of to rally his politics around!

Although, a Germanic USA would be a natural ally, too bad it's not the case now. The Russians, however, I would not trust.

BPP Commissioner
Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 11:29 AM
Dunno, they have a definente anti-Zionist streak in them, we could negotiate good gas prices in return for not being an EU/Pain in the arese over Georgia, Faggots and Nukes...

Méldmir
Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 11:41 AM
Dunno, they have a definente anti-Zionist streak in them, we could negotiate good gas prices in return for not being an EU/Pain in the arese over Georgia, Faggots and Nukes...

Yes, but I would never really trust them fully tbh.

BPP Commissioner
Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 11:45 AM
Can we really trust anybody but our own really? Of course Russia & the JewEssay would like to take land but that is a reflection of healthy instinct of aggression, especially done the old-fashioned way.

I loved the manner the Tanks rolled into Abkhazia & S'Ossetia, nice and old fashioned, why let the niggers have all the fun!

Méldmir
Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 11:53 AM
Can we really trust anybody but our own really? Of course Russia & the JewEssay would like to take land but that is a reflection of healthy instinct of aggression, especially done the old-fashioned way.

I loved the manner the Tanks rolled into Abkhazia & S'Ossetia, nice and old fashioned, why let the niggers have all the fun!

No, especially not Slavs. That's why I would like to see a USA run by good honest Germanics, not enemies to Germanics like now.

BPP Commissioner
Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 11:57 AM
Thats a fair point, but I see some of the anti-westernisms of the Slavs as positive virtues we once had and would like back:

Remember Peter Tatchell in Moscow 'Somedoby Protect Me!' Ha Ha!

Méldmir
Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 12:01 PM
Sure, I'm also against Western liberalism all that that stuff we've seen in the last 60 years, and that Russians are against it, is very positive for them! But we must rely on ourselves to fix things, because I'm not too eager to see the Russian army marching into Germanic lands, even if they are nationalists, it could go pretty wrong for us. But we can let ourselves be inspired by the struggle Russians make in Russia.

BPP Commissioner
Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 12:08 PM
Agreed there! Lets get our people marching in one direction, theirs into another (hopefully trying to resolve the mutual border) and neither against...

Reminds me of a game of 'Risk' I played when I was pissesd!
Out of four players I took Europe, my mate the Americas and we sealed the Iceland/Greenland Border and I went clockwise into Asia, he anti-clockwise into Africa & Oceiana. We agreed a deal to everybody's horror!

Seriously though, its not as simple as that as Slavs share a land border and that means racial mingling and conflict!

Thorsteinn
Wednesday, August 25th, 2010, 01:20 AM
I say the idea of a Scandinavian union wouldn't be bad as long as it's not full of non Europeans.

nordfrisk
Wednesday, August 25th, 2010, 03:43 AM
scandinavia is today for the most part united economically and politically they are very similar (minus denial of EU membership by norway). I would say there is no need to unite the scandinavian people because although they are very similar, they have differences that make them unique. i am against imperialism in terms of matching people and calling them one. the world is interesting with many countries, if every country was united based on a genetic, regional level the world would be very boring. i am for dividing nations more to better respresent the people. i for one would love to see big countries like russia, germany, and france to divide into regional ethnic nations. just my oppinion.

DetRundeBord
Wednesday, August 25th, 2010, 08:02 AM
Scandinavism (also called Pan-Scandinavianism) and Nordism are literary and political movements that support various degrees of cooperation between the Scandinavian or Nordic countries.

Scandinavism and Nordism are interchangeable terms for the literary, linguistic and cultural movement that focuses on promoting a shared Nordic past, a shared cultural heritage, a common Nordic mythology and a common linguistic root in Old Norse, and which led to the formation of joint periodicals and societies in support of Scandinavian literature and languages. However, political Scandinavism and political Nordism are two distinct political movements which emerged at different points in time.

Political Scandinavism

Political Scandinavism paralleled the 19th-century unification movements of Germany and Italy. As opposed to the German and Italian counterparts, the Scandinavian state-building project was not successful and is no longer pursued.

It was at its height in the mid-19th century and supported the idea of Scandinavia as a unified region or a single nation, based on the common linguistic, political and cultural heritage of the Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden. (These three countries are referred to as "three brothers" in the sixth stanza of the national anthem of Norway.)

The movement was initiated by Danish and Swedish university students in the 1840s, with a base in Scania. In the beginning, the political establishments in the two countries, including the absolute monarch Christian VIII and Charles XIV with his "one man government", were suspicious of the movement. The police in Denmark therefore kept the proponents of Scandinavism under close guard. However, when Oscar I became king of Sweden and Norway in 1844, the relationship with Denmark improved and the movement started to gain support in liberal newspapers like Fædrelandet and Aftonbladet, which saw it as a way to counter the conservative powers that were. During the war between Denmark and Prussia in 1848, Sweden (then in union with Norway) offered support in form of a Norwegian-Swedish expeditionary force, though the force never actually saw combat. The movement received a blow from which it never fully recovered after the second Danish-German war over Schleswig, when the Swedish government refused to jeopardize its future by joining in an alliance against the rising German power on the continent.

Political Nordism

Political Nordism was introduced with the Nordic Association which started through Swedish initiatives in 1919. The movement also includes Finland, Iceland and the Danish territories Greenland and Faroe Islands and has an ideological base in Nordic economic co-operation and integration supported by the Nordic Council. It has been described as "collaborative nationalism".

Scandinavism and Nordism today

Modern Nordism and Scandinavism has played a part in the close cooperation among the five Nordic countries, examples include the Nordic Passport Union, the Nordic Council the Scandinavian Airlines System and the Royal League. It also surfaces amongst Danes and Swedes in criticism of the EU, saying a Nordic union between Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Iceland would have been better. According to a poll in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, "a slim majority of voters in Norway and Sweden is in favour of a Nordic, rather than European, union. A slight majority of Danish voters favour the EU, but would support closer ties to a Nordic union, if a partnership with the EU on free cross-border movement and free trade would be arranged."

The overall lukewarm feelings among some Nordic citizens toward European integration is reflected in varying degrees in their governments' late or incomplete integration into European institutions. Finland and Sweden did not join the EU until 1995 and Norway has voted not to join at all. As for adopting the Euro as the national currency, Denmark negotiated an exception for itself to the Maastrict Treaty which would have required it to adopt the Euro; Sweden has rejected the Euro in referenda, and so far only Finland has adopted it.

Scandinavian unity in literature


The Sherlock Holmes story A Scandal in Bohemia mentions a fictional "King of Scandinavia" whose daughter is about to marry the (also fictional) King of Bohemia, a major protagonist in the story.
The hope of a Nordic political union is the topic of a poem by Danish poet Kaj Munk: Norden: Fra hvor Isen kroner Jorden (The North: From whence Ice crowns the Earth)


Scandinavian unity in popular culture


In the Japanese anime Gundam SEED Destiny, there's a nation called "The Kingdom of Scandinavia".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavism

Do you support Scandinavism or Nordism? Do you believe the countries mentioned should united based on their common characteristrics?

Scandinavism and Nordism both arose as part of the upsurge of nationalism in the 19th century. Strange as it may sound that nationalism should lead to fusion of nations, it was a revolt against artificial divisions caused by separate states, dynasties, languages and economic interests. Nationalism focused on a deeper community of race and culture, looking into the remote past as well as the soul of the people, especially the peasants who had remained true to themselves. Therefore nationalism did not stop at scandinavism, it pursued the links of common heritage and was soon looking at concepts of pan-germanism and the nordic race. The point was never to unite the existing states. On the contrary, as long as many states remained freemasonic in nature (notably Sweden from the 18th century on), nationalists were violently opposed to unions, and we norwegians fought very hard to throw off the swedish-freemasonic yoke. Nationalists opposed the power of the jews, capitalists, freemasons, the church and dynasties. They also opposed the liberalism, cosmopolitanism, and communism of the french and american revolutions which were driven by freemasonry.

Today the situation is still the same: We want nationalist revolutions in each of the nordic states. Until that happens we want strict separation of the states, but community and cooperation on a folk level.

sunne
Monday, February 21st, 2011, 05:19 PM
yes, we need to actually re-unite. we were united under the kamar union many many years ago.

if there was any way we could kick all the coloured foreigners baack to THEIR homelands AND reinstitute pride in our own gene pool, were might actually survive as a gene pool.

a type of kalmar union (research this easily online)::thumbup

Wyrd
Tuesday, September 5th, 2017, 09:43 PM
I voted "Another form of Scandinavian or Nordic unity."

Aside from Sweden, Norway and Denmark, a Nordic union could also include Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. The union would have to respect the autonomy of each Nord-Germanic nation and the purpose of the union would be externally cooperative, such as all coming to the defense if a single member is attacked.

An interesting thing is than not only Scanvinavism, but also pan-Germanicism was at some point popular in Norway. Pan-Germanic tendencies were particularly widespread among the Norwegian independence movement. Prominent supporters included Peter Andreas Munch, Christopher Bruun, Knut Hamsun, Henrik Ibsen and Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson. Bjørnson, who wrote the lyrics for the Norwegian national anthem, proclaimed in 1901:

I'm a Pan-Germanist, I'm a Teuton, and the greatest dream of my life is for the South Germanic peoples and the North Germanic peoples and their brothers in diaspora to unite in a fellow confederation.

I'd ideally also like to see a wider pan-Germanic union which would include Scandinavians and other North-Germanics.

Scandinavism:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Skandinavism.jpg

Blod og Jord
Saturday, March 31st, 2018, 07:44 PM
The Nordic nations are pretty awesome. This video shows what would happen if they all united today into one country. A bit like when the Kalmar union existed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL_66JE7NHY

Finnish Swede
Sunday, April 1st, 2018, 08:28 AM
Norway: hardly would like/support the idea (as long as oil has the value as it has today).
Finland: Finns (Finno Ugrics) would want to have equal position as Scandinavians.
Iceland: Would be worry how to take care of their best interest in that big complex.
Denmark & Sweden: Would ''debate'' which one should be the ''mental'' leader of it.

Us (Finnish Swedes) would just love it :D

PS: I wonder what Putin would think about it .... LOL.

Aelfgar
Sunday, April 1st, 2018, 09:54 AM
Putin would like anything which interferes with NATO.

I've heard that Danes from different regions can have difficulty understanding each other's speech :)

I prefer the idea of a Northwestern European Community - all the Nordic and Germanic countries with the British Isles.

Finnish Swede
Sunday, April 1st, 2018, 09:17 PM
Putin would like anything which interferes with NATO.

Sure. I would like to add...Putin (Russia) wants as weak neighbours as possible. Many times weak here mean small.
(Even a small Nato country might not be seen as a weak one; that's the problem).



I've heard that Danes from different regions can have difficulty understanding each other's speech :)
Don't know. I just have been in Copenhagen. Can understand only words here and there (pronoucing is so wierd). Written Danish is quite ok.
Someday I would like like travel there bit more....for example to west coast to see coastal of Atlantic Ocean.



I prefer the idea of a Northwestern European Community - all the Nordic and Germanic countries with the British Isles.

Sorry, what you meant by ''community'' above?

Finnish Swede
Monday, April 2nd, 2018, 12:12 AM
Anyway....I just now read this thread from page 1 to the end. As a Finnish Swede (who is also half Swede and has also Sweden's citizenship) .... I would say that Denmark, Norway, Sweden .... should first handel their non-European immigrants ... before writing very hard line comments against Finland (like in this thread). Meaning: those are much bigger (and even real) problems ... incl. what comes to their ''germanic race purity'' than any possibility collabration with Finland. And Samis people (like it or not) have lived long time in Scandinavia. Plus some 60% of World's Samis lives in Norway, some 25% in Sweden, and only 10% in Finland (and the rest in Russia). What to do with them?

Below is a estimation of muslims in Nordic countries (Iceland is skipped away .... their total numbers are so small, but today their prosent is half of Finland's).
Sorry, as text are in Finnish:

Y-axel: muslim % of total population
X-axel: year; estimates to year 2100

Green line: (Ruotsi = Sweden)
Light blue: (Tanska = Denmark)
Red dash line: (Norja = Norway)
Blue line: (Suomi = Finland)

http://olliimmonen.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/kuva4.png

And what comes to talks about military collabration (Scandinavian countries with Finland ... or Scandinavin countries with some other Germanic country)? Finns have a saying: The enemy arrives ''always'' from east (but if it will not come from east, then it has first circulated to west and attacks from there). If that happens....Finns will fight against it to the last man ... no matter how ''huge'' it is (as they simply have nothing to loose). If some other country, which is not even in Fenno Scandia .... shortly .... they do not ''need to'' do the same. Signed papers are ... just signed papers. Geography is reality and it stays. Something to think about.
But of course what a more allies one has, the better.

Aelfgar
Monday, April 2nd, 2018, 10:51 AM
Sorry, what you meant by ''community'' above?
Similar to the European Community before it became the European Union - close economic cooperation, lots of cultural exchanges and easy travel arrangements but each country has immigration control and its own currency (money).

About Sami people, I don't think there is any justification to discriminate against them - they are about as European (genetically) as North Italians and, like you say, they have been in Fenno-Scandinavia for a very long time. The numbers for Muslims are only really bad for Sweden. Obviously you should not let any more in. The ones who are already there are better kept segregated in their own communities - if they are 'integrated' then they are more likely to mix blood with the natives.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, April 11th, 2018, 11:58 PM
Actually, the most appropriate organization would be through the intermarriage of the British and Norwegian royal families, bringing unity to the House of Oldenburg. The royals in Sweden and Denmark are foreign parasites and ought to be replaced by the closest to natively Northern possible, for the Oldenburgers are actually Saxons. It would be a cross between Alfred the Great and Knut the Great, by having, say, the Saxon dynasty based in Winchester again or London and yet, aligning the four Nordic kingdoms again, with Celtic and Uralic protectorates. Otherwise, I would prefer to preserve the territorial integrity of each, with some border adjustments.

Aelfgar
Thursday, April 12th, 2018, 09:19 AM
Actually, the most appropriate organization would be through the intermarriage of the British and Norwegian royal families, bringing unity to the House of Oldenburg. The royals in Sweden and Denmark are foreign parasites and ought to be replaced by the closest to natively Northern possible, for the Oldenburgers are actually Saxons. It would be a cross between Alfred the Great and Knut the Great, by having, say, the Saxon dynasty based in Winchester again or London and yet, aligning the four Nordic kingdoms again, with Celtic and Uralic protectorates. Otherwise, I would prefer to preserve the territorial integrity of each, with some border adjustments.
A royal personal union between Britain and a Nordic country would be cool. Essentially, the current British royal line is still the House of Hanover from George I. In theory, an independent Normandy could also share a monarch with us since its last King was John of England before it was absorbed into France.

You see my plan! :eking

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, April 12th, 2018, 08:24 PM
I'm not sure how the Windsors, who are a cadet branch of the House of Saxony, are Hanoverians. Similar to the Stewarts' fate in Jacobitism, Hanoverians were deliberately bypassed by having Victoria take the Throne instead of Ernest, but his family lost their kingdom to Germany. Despite dynastic relationships with German Protestant Holland, Denmark and Hanover, antidotes to Roman Catholic France, Spain and Sicily, it seemed perhaps easier to take the Crown of India, but we see today's results. Also similar to the Stewarts, the Hanoverians faced a popular republican revolution, although I don't count what happened in Ireland, being a French conspiracy and all. Union with Scotland and Ireland, along with coddling the Papacy, was not really what proud Englishmen believed in. Unlike the Stewarts' many bastards, I'm not sure if there are even any extant royal dukes in Britain of the Hanoverian dynasty.

People forget that Sophia of Hanover was heiress to the Protestant Stewarts and that the Union was due to the Stewart inheritance on both sides of King James's family, of Stewart and Tudor, although it was technically illegal for them to take the Crown, per the Henrician Acts of Succession, along with the Edwardian Device, as well as earlier laws passed by Parliament to ban foreigners from inheriting the Throne, despite their superior genealogical claims. The Hanoverians were foreigners no different than the Stewarts, keeping the government out of the hands of the People. In this fashion, it is certainly the case that the Saxon Windsors followed Hanoverian footsteps, but tried mitigation through identity politics, including changing the name of government from Empire to Commonwealth. Those of Saxony lost their inheritance by choosing the Kaiser in the Great War, after which, the family was naturalised as Windsor. The Queen wants to keep the Windsor name going, but unless there's only one occupant of the Throne, the "Mountbatten" family is really just a reboot of Queen Anne's husband's dynasty, from Denmark-Norway, only this time, it's Denmark-Greece.

As for Normandy, that ought only ever have been a mere dependency, because that's a spillover population of the Saxon Shore on the south coast of the Channel and Danish exiles from Alfred. They both just followed the Bretons there. If you look at the map, it's plain as day how there's an ethnic unity between England, Lothian and Normandy in the East, Wales, Strathclyde and Brittany in the West. Between the Forth and Clyde, or Somme and Loire, all folks have common origins. Political borders and ethnicity don't exactly coincide, but it's more accurate than for some others. Scotland North of the Antonine Wall, Mann and Ireland are all in another spectrum of folks in the Isles.