Norway in 1905
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
Norway declared its independence from Sweden on June 7, 1905 and was recognised by Sweden as an independent constitutional monarchy on October 26, 1905 when Oscar II renounced his claim to the Norwegian throne under the personal union of the kingdom of Sweden-Norway. This event was quickly followed by Haakon VII's ascension to the Norwegian throne on November 27 the same year, and was the result of a series of events that almost led to a Norwegian war of independence against Sweden.
| Contents |
Background
Norwegian nationalistic aspirations in 1814 were frustrated by Sweden's victory in a brief, but decisive war that resulted in Norway entering into a personal union with Sweden. The Norwegian constitution was largely kept intact, allowing for an independent Norwegian state with its own parliament, judiciary, and executive powers. Foreign relations were, however, conducted by the king through the Swedish ministry of foreign affairs. There were largely feelings of goodwill between the two peoples, and the common kings generally tried to act in the interest of both kingdoms.
But over the years, a divergence of Norwegian and Swedish interests became apparent. In particular, Norwegians felt that their foreign policy interests were inadequately served by Sweden's ministry of foreign affairs. There were several driving factors behind the growing conflict:
- Norway's economy was more dependent on foreign trade and therefore more sensitive to the protectionist measures the Swedes were adopting
- Norway was more affiliated to the United Kingdom, Sweden to Germany
- Norway had greater interests outside of Europe than Sweden
In addition, Norwegian politics were increasingly dominated by liberal tendencies, whereas Swedish politics tended more toward the conservative. When free trade between the countries was restricted in 1895 through the abolishment of the "Interstate laws" (Mellomrikslovene), the economic reasons for the continued union were also diminished.
The conflict came to a head over the so-called "consul affair," in which successive Norwegian governments insisted that Norway establish its own consular offices abroad rather than rely on the common consuls appointed by the Swedish foreign minister. As the long-standing practice for the conduct of joint foreign policy had been that a Swede always hold the office of foreign minister, the Swedish government and king rejected this insistence as an abdication of the throne's right to set foreign policy.
While Norway's Liberal Party (the predecessor to today's Venstre), had pioneered an uncompromising position through the so-called "fist policy," the Conservative party also came to adopt a strong policy in favor of at least de facto independence and equality within the personal union. Although both parties made efforts to resolve the issue through negotiations, Norwegian public opinion became gradually more entrenched.
Both Sweden and Norway increased military expenditures. Norway modernized the frontier forts at Kongsvinger and Fredriksten and built a series of new forts along the border.
Prelude to dissolution
- Since all the members of the cabinet have resigned their positions; since His Majesty the King has declared his inability to obtain for the country a new government; and since the constitutional monarchy has ceased to exist, the Storting hereby authorizes the cabinet that resigned today to exercise the powers held by the king in accordance with the Constitution of Norway and relevant laws - with the amendments necessitated by the dissolution of the union with Sweden under one king, resulting from the fact that the king no longer functions as a Norwegian king.
Initially reacting to this declaration as a rebellious act, the Swedish government indicated an openness to a negotiated end to the union, insisting among other things on a Norwegian plebiscite.
The plebiscite was held on August 12 and 13th and resulted in an overwhelming 368,208 votes in favor of dissolution against 184 opposed. The government thereby had a clear popular confirmation of the dissolution. 85 % of Norwegian men had cast their votes, but no women, as universal suffrage was not extended to women until 1913. But Norwegian feminists collected more than 200 000 signatures in favor of dissolution.
Fridtjof Nansen weighed in heavily for dissolving the union and traveled to the United Kingdom, where he successfully lobbied for British support for Norway's independence movement.
Negotiations in Karlstad
On August 31, Norwegian and Swedish delegates met in the Swedish city of Karlstad to negotiate the terms of the dissolution. Although many prominent right-wing Swedish politicians favored a hardline approach to the issue, historical scholars have found that the Swedish king early had determined that it would be better to lose the union than risk a war with Norway. The overwhelming public support among Norwegians for independence had convinced the major European powers that the independence movement was legitimate, and Sweden feared it would be isolated by suppressing it. Also, there was little appetite for creating additional ill will between the countries, closely related as they were and are.
Even as the negotiations made progress, military forces were quietly deployed on both sides of the border between Sweden and Norway, though separated by two kilometers. Public opinion among Norwegian leftists favored a war of independence if necessary, even against Sweden's clear military superiority.
On September 23, the negotiations closed. On October 9 the Norwegian parliament voted to accept the terms of the dissolution; on October 13 the Swedish parliament followed suit. Although Norway had considered itself independent since June 7, Sweden formally recognised Norwegian independence on October 26 when Oscar II renounced his and any of his descendants' claims to the Norwegian throne.
Choosing a Norwegian king
In its second constitutional plebiscite in less than six months, Norwegian voters decided with 259,563 votes to establish a monarchy against 69,264 in favor of a republic. Many who favored a republic in principle, voted for a monarchy because they felt it would improve the chances of gaining legitimacy among the European monarchies.
In its resolutiong of June 7th, the Storting had invited king Oscar II to allow one of his younger sons to assume the Norwegian throne. This offer was formally declined by the king when he renounced his claim on October 26th. However, the king's decision had been anticipated months earlier, and already during the summer a Norwegian delegation approached Prince Carl of Denmark, a younger brother of the crown prince of Denmark. The Norwegian parliament had chosen Prince Carl because he was married to Maud of Wales, the daughter of King Edward VII. By bringing in a king so closely tied to the British royal family, it was hoped that Norway could court Britain's support.
Prince Carl impressed the delegation in many ways, not the least because of his sensitivity to the liberal movements that had led to Norway's independence. He would only accept the throne if a plebiscite favored a monarchy and the parliament then elected him king. The parliament by an overwhelming majority offered him the throne on November 18, and the prince accepted the same night, changing his name to the traditional Norwegian king's name of Haakon, thereby becoming Haakon VII, King of Norway. His son Alexander, the heir apparent, was renamed Olav and became Crown Prince Olav. The new royal family arrived in the capital Kristiania on November 25.
Haakon VII was sworn in as king of Norway on November 27.
Importance of the events of 1905
In many ways, the events of 1905 formed a sequel to the events of 1814, but there were some important differences:
- Whereas the 1814 independence movement in large part was driven by political opportunism among the national elite, the 1905 movement was a result of political trends largely driven by elected officials with massive popular support.
- In 1905, Norway was not put in play by war as a territorial prize.
- By 1905, Norwegians had established many of the institutions and infrastructure of a sovereign, independent state.
- By 1905, European statesmanship was more inclined to favor Norwegian independence than in 1814
Much has been made of the supremacy of diplomacy in averting war between Sweden and Norway in 1905. In truth, the Norwegians had much more to fight for than the Swedes if it had come to war. Both parties recognized that their geographical proximity made long-term hostility untenable under any circumstance.
Though there is some lingering resentment in Norway toward Sweden, it can safely be said that the relationship between the two countries is that of a very close friendship - and in many minds between that of two close brothers.
Many documents related to the specific events of 1905 were destroyed during and following those years. Some historians speculate[1] (http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/article1030091.ece) that foreign interests played a stronger role than what had previously been assumed; in particular, that Great Britain influenced the dissolution in order to reduce German influence over Atlantic ports. Although Sweden's close relationship with Germany did not last long, Norway's independence immediately put it inside the British sphere of influence.
External resources
- Joint website by the Norwegian national library and Swedish national archive on 1905 (http://www.nb.no/baser/1905/english.html)
- Norwegian website on the 100th anniversary of the dissolution (http://www.norway2005.no/)nn:Unionsoppløysinga i 1905
