Scandinavia and the World
Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9713126:


100 in European years 25 12, 8:20am

@sahkari10000

"All of our historians claim that separation between Sweden and Finland was necessary.
At least i haven't heard any of them claims otherwise and some times it has been compare to divorce rather than occupation."

Well it was forced on us by Russia, so we didn't have a say in the matter.
But if that hadn't happened Finland would probably have wanted to break out as an independent nation later in the 19th century or in the early 20th century.
And considering how Sweden peacefully dissolved the union with Norway in 1905 that we had originally forced them into in 1814, I think it's safe to say that Sweden and Finland had been able to split in the same peacefull way as well.

So either way Finland would have ended up independent.

"If you ask me i would say that most smartest thing Alexander I did was that he visited in Finland personally. The people saw him and they get a picture of friendly man rather than some distant "god figure". "

It's always a good idea for rulers to show an interest in his/her subjects.
But it's still the case that if Finland wouldn't have been allowed to keep their laws and rights from the Swedish time when they where conquered by Russia, Russia and all it's rulers had been universally hated in Finland.
So the smartest thing any Russian tsar ever did to Finland was to let them keep the laws and rights they where used to. And conversely, they most stupid thing any Russian tsar ever did was to try to take that away from Finland.

"There was one thing that Russia truly wanted from Sweden was the Sveaborg sea fortress, they really felt it was a threat to secure of St Petersburg."

Yes, in 1809 that was probably the case. But Russia still had to be forced by Napoleon to attack Sweden. It wasn't their idea.
Sweden wasn't a major threat to Russia - we hadn't won a war against them in over a hundred years at that time, despite having started two during that time (that we both lost).
We were more like an irritating little wasp that from time to time stung Russia a little and then they'd just swat us away.
But they where more preoccupied with fighting the Persians and the Turks in the south and not really interested in expanding their borders in the Baltic region.

"Back in 1800's was founded some of largest industry's in Finland like paper industry and saw milling."

Yes, but that's the result of the industrial revolution spreading from Britain.
The same thing happened in Sweden at the same time and if Finland had still been part of Sweden that same industry had probably been built anyway.
So it's hard to argue that Finland gained anything by being part of Russia at this time that it couldn't also have gotten if it had been part of Sweden - or independent.

"By the way what the attitude towards the Swedes is to the Finnish war today and what do you think your self?"

If you're talking about the war of 1809 it's remembered for being our last war (which it actually wasn't, as we did some fighting in 1814 as well, when we fought Denmark and gained Norway - but most people don't know that).
Other then that, and that that's when we lost Finland, most people know little about it.

I think it was a short term defeat for Sweden of course - but also a long term gain.

It made us (except for that war with Denmark 5 years later) stop with our stupid wars and give up any ideas of fighting Russia - which was a really stupid idea.
As I said, we hadn't won a war against them in over a hundred year, but we still started two wars against them.
So we apparently needed to lose and lose badly to learn to stop that nonsense.

I also have a personal connection to that and the previous war with Russia as my great-great-great something grandfather actually fought in both those wars.
He was an ordinary soldier in Smålands Cavalry and managed to survive both wars - which is lucky for me, as otherwise I wouldn't exist. ;-)