What happened to Sweden during Doomsday? I presume from the habitation areas that Malmö and Stockholm were nuked -- but the rest? Did the king et al die in Stockholm? --Louisiannan 16:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
First of all: the Nordic Union is an expansion of the OTL Nordic Council, and thus all nations (Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) are fully sovereign countries.
Sweden and Finland was not as targeted as Norway and Denmark during WW3, due to the fact that neither are NATO members (while Norway and Denmark are (OTL)/were founding members of that alliance). Thus, the Swedish governemt, parliament, and the royal family would have had a chance of avoiding any Soviet attack. In the case of Denmark and Norway the parliaments, government and royal families would have been evacuated before Copenhagen and Oslo, respectively, were targeted by nuclear attacks (other nations would have been given a higher priority in terms of being targeted by nuclear weapons.
Okay, in light of the above, how does that correlate with your map? From the map above it looks like Copenhagen/Malmö and Stockholm were all nuked, because no one lives there, according to your maps. Am I reading it wrong? --Louisiannan 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I get the sense that the NU is a little more than a typical international organization, and a little less than a typical federal state, and that autonomous regions like Greenland and Faeroe participate as full members. So is Åland a member now, or is it treated as a part of Finland? [EDIT] I've skimmed a Wikipedia article thoroughly researched the Nordic Council and see that Åland was/is definitely a member in its own right, as are Faeroe and Greenland - so why not also in the Council's pepped-up and strengthened version? Benkarnell 22:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I have a final exam on Monday, so I can update the article later that week. - Realismadder 22:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
OK... mind if I make suggestions? I think it would make sense if Aaland joined the NU in the first enlargement, together with Greenland and the Faeroes. With Finland no doubt having lots of troubles, being right on the Russian border, I'd imagine that Aaland was left to fend for itself for a while. And if the Swedes were also having problems of their own, it's possible that there were attempts to retake Aaland for Sweden. The Aalanders appealed to the NU to maintain their autonomy, and they were admitted together with the Atlantic islands, on the basis of their earlier membership in the Nordic Council. Within a few years, of course, Finland & Sweden had gotten their act together, and everyone respected Aaland's status again.
EDIT: Almost forgot - I found an Åland flag on site, so no need to upload one: Benkarnell 17:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting - although I doubt Finland and Sweden would "go to war" against eachother over Åland, as they are closely bound to eachother due to history, culture and the fact they have also have close relationsships with Norway, Denmark and Iceland. However, I will look at this later next week. - Realismadder 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. I wasn't thinking a proper war, more that rogue elements within Swede or Finland would try to take it over. Benkarnell 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC) And PS: Don't feel like you have to take my suggestion.
Flag?[]
is someone going to crate a flag for the union? all we have at the moment is the logo.--HAD 12:13, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
And the logo's out of date, since it doesn't include the most recent members. But Realismadder has never made anything in the way of a flag for the NU. He was pretty clear that the NU used a logo, both when it consisted of just Norway-Iceland, and when it grew to four members. If the NU ever needs a flag, if, say, they are being jointly represented at a conference and the ambassador needs something on his desk, I suspect they just stick their logo on a sheet. Benkarnell 16:34, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the absence. I would assume any Nordic Union would be similar to the current Nordic Council (Nordisk Råd), which actually uses a flag. Either the Nordic Union would be a continuation (or expansion) of the Nordic Council, or a seperate organisation. I would assume the former. However, the reason I used a logo in the first place is that I have absolutely no idea how a flag for this union would look like. Any suggestions are welcomed.
If it is a continuation of the Nortdic Council, then why don't you use the flag of the earlier organization.
--Yankovic270 20:16, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
That does make a lot of sense. Or else, a flag similar to it, but different enough to show that it is a new organization. This is just one idea. The emblem is shifted toward the hoist to match the geometry of the Nordic cross flags and the Greenland disc.
Maybe the NU used the current logo between 1991 and 1993, and then when all remaining Nordic Council members joined, they adopted a NC-like flag. Benkarnell 04:14, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
What about useing the flag of the Kalmar Union? It was the flag last used when all of the Nordic Countries were (sort of) united, like in this timeline.--ShutUpNavi 14:47, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
i think the Kamar Union flag is pretty good as an idea. --HAD 15:37, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
But would the Nordic governments decide to start using the Kalmar flag? It was a flag used for a dynastic union in an age of feudalism (transitioning to absolute monarchy). I think they would seek out something more modern, something that conveys a spirit of looking ahead, not back. That's why the Nordic Council went with a new symbol, the swan, to represent Nordic unity. Benkarnell 18:41, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
How about this: change the position of the swan so it looks like it's rising, or about to take flight - like the typical depiction of phoenix? It would symbolize the Nordic nations rising from the ashes, and so on. Benkarnell 12:54, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
i ilike the original swan flag idea. --HAD 11:10, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
Sweden[]
wouldn't sweden be a more plausible figure as the the dominamt nation
in this Union? uit's was neutral, got powerful militray and
industrial bvase. --HAD 11:05, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
I think the premise was that Sweden took longer to get itself back together than Norway & Iceland, and so it was something of a latecomer to the Union. I'm not sure why, though. Benkarnell 13:38, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
thats my point. since Sweden was neutral, was it nuked? i doubt Finland
would be. they were (sought of) the USSR's friends after all. emphesizes
on the "Sort-of". --HAD 15:25, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
Finland would suffer damage from nuclear attacks on Leningrad. Rural Finland (north) would most likely survive. Sweden the same. Copenhagen would nevertheless be nuked. I will look into it this weekend.
Denmark and Norway would be nuked. Oslo and Cophenagen would be
obilitared. but would Sweden have been hit at all is my question. the
article seems to say a Former NATO State would cope better than a non
NATO state. Sweden's military was defensivily orientated. it was
powerful, but a tool of denfence. i doubt Sweden would be nuked. i might
be wrong, but thats my view. i don't think Finland would have suffered
any direct hits either. --HAD 11:10, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But Norway's population are spread out, many of whom are living in rural areas which wouldn't be affected, or at least not bee too affected, by a nuclear strike. Finland (its southern coast) might be affected from fallout due to nuclear attacks on Leningrad, except that be relatively unaffected. Sweden would most likely be the nation least affected - except Skåne (due to attacks on Copenhagen) and Western Sweden (due to attacks on Oslo). Thus, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland would be the dominant nations in the union.
i think the military would be using Swedish equipment built by saab then norwegian equipment.
--HAD 15:32, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
Combination of Swedish, German, U.S. and Norwegian locally made equipment. Sweden would most likely be the main contributor to the air force, Norway navy. Land forces would be combined.
In terms of economy, Norway would have oil, natural gas, fish and lumber. Sweden would have lumber and industry. Iceland would have fish. Denmark would have agriculture, while Finland would have lumber.
i agree. but my point was that sWWEDEN AND Finland would have Higher
populations then there neighbours. they hadn't been nuked, after all.
--HAD 11:04, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
i just made a couple of changes. i'm not to comftable on the language side of things, so i'll
leaves that to someone else. --HAD 15:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
Very 60s-chic, Mumby. I also noticed that I've given nothing useful to the conversation, 'spose it's time for me to stop talking.
Mr.Xeight 17:00, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
Frankly I think the third flag is way too confusing visually. The bizarre patterns of colour make me think that certain people would get seizures just by looking at the blasted thing flapping in the breeze.
i agree. this flag looks LSD induced. Also, the Country pages profile doesn't dispay the current flag, which has nothing wrong with in my opinion. HAD 19:09, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
this for scandinavia?... i wan see a european union version... really fun
Ok, this flag didn't turn out exactly how I wanted. But going for the rising pheonix motif. I figured a nordic cross was a must, I originally had reversed Kalmar union colors but it looked almost as ugly as the Kalmar union flag. So I went with the colors of the nordic council logo, then it turned out that was the old flag of Iceland. So I went with the black cross, possibly signifying the ashes the pheonix is rising from.Oerwinde 08:40, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
I love the phoenix flag design. It just looks so much more asthetically pleasant than the others.
Can someone please redo the map to show that all of Sweden and Finland are NU territory, as well as removing the "as of 2000" bit. Also, can someone edit the WCP page to show the Flag of the Union, rather then the logo?Ramdominsanity 07:23, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Why does Norway have more seats than Sweden if the representatives are based on population? Sweden has twice the population of Norway.Oerwinde 15:48, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, you are right. My mistake. Even though the number seats are measured partially by the size of the population as well as economic importance, I have given Sweden 26 seats instead. Realismadder 15:14, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Estland[]
Out of curiosity, why did Estland wait so long to proclaim its independence?--Vladivostok 13:08, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
You are right. My mind is still stuck with the OTL fall of the Soviet Union. It is now changed it to a more suitable date. Realismadder 15:10, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Also there is an article about Estonia , if you're going to add it, changing Eastland, please use the flag, and the correct independence day. VENEZUELA 01:35, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Nordic Union Military - Saab JAS Gripen[]
In OTL, the first Gripen fighter was rolled out in 1987, so I don't think that Saab, or the Swedish Air Force would delay production of the new fighter for ten years. It would probably be delayed by few years, but most likely be out by 1990. TheHeavensWillRise 09:09, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Antartic Claims[]
Norway had sizeable Antartic claims prior to Doomsday...What has happened to them? Could someone please make a page for them and link them to the Antartica page? Also please do not expand the claims, Antartica already has several big powers vying for it and I don't want Keslov to get crushed. I was kind of hoping it would get Byrd Land. Michael Douglas 00:33, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
Leaders in Communication?[]
I came across this article, concerning early mobile (car) phones. It seems that this would be a big advantage in the early days. The network was extensive, so at least the common people could keep in touch. Perhaps once they made contact with the uneffected south, they'd be able to lead the industry in developing radio phones and eventually even miniturized versions similar to OTL "cell phones." SouthWriter 17:08, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Nordic Law Thing?[]
Nordic law thing? Surely that is a placeholder for a more official title :) BrianD 15:38, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
It's the name of the traditional Scandinavian ruling council. Look it up. First used by the Vikings. Caeruleus 16:41, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Come on, he was joking. Fun with false cognates :). Benkarnell 16:48, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
I had to look it up at first. It baffled me that it had such a terrible name.Oerwinde 21:13, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am sorry but I am relatively new to this page. I just wanted to make a brief comment concerning the Nordic Law Thing. The word "Thing" is not a correct translation. The word "Ting" in all Scandinavian languages means both "thing" and council, in Scandinavian (råd). The correct translation in this specific context is therefore The Nordic Law Council. I took the liberty to edit this, I hope no one minds but the horrible translation was just too much to bare. If anyone disagrees I would like to recommend the following link: http://www.easytrans.org/se/?q=ting. Viktor H 05:09, July 6, 2011
Apparently, the English speakers rule the day, Victor. Oerwinde, the one who made the decision in the first place, decided to go with the historical - and original - word as found in the English rather than Scandinavian sources. Personally, since it is a Nordic "Thing" (pun intended), I am in favor of changing the organization name to Law Ting, removing the confusion. If this is not done, the at least put a footnote on the page giving the etymology or an alternate translation.
In all languages with which I am familiar, the "t" and the "th" are interchangeable. Some languages, it seems, don't even have the "th" blend. Also, the "t" and the "d" are phonetically so close that they also are interchangeable in the evolution of some words in the English. The problem with the English language is that it is very eclectic, drawing from many traditions, and thus is always 'evolving.' Whereas a translation of "Council" was out of hand, perhaps a transliteration of "Ting" would be the best way to resolve the confusion. SouthWriter 15:14, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason to do either. "Thing" has always been the accepted literal translation of the term. If anything, remove the word "Law." Then it remains accurate and makes sense too. Lordganon 20:37, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
As usual, you have the right to your opinion. And yes, etimologically the word first meant the assembly and then moved over to refer to objects. However, the Nordic peoples pronounce and spell it 'ding' and sometimes 'ting.' Since the international community is not held to the English pronunciation, and often uses indigenous words for bodies such as this, using Ting rather than Thing would not be out of sync with the modern language. You have to admit, to a modern, the "Nordic Thing" definitely sounds strange. At least it should be given a footnote, if not an inline 'translation' explaining the term. Otherwise, though the most curious among readers will 'look it up,' others will think the editor 'odd.' Just saying. SouthWriter 00:50, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Not strange at all.
Have a look around at the various Nordic and Nordic-descended parliaments. The English version of "Ting" is "Thing."
Lordganon said its time for the Sapmi Republic entry into the Nordic Union. I'm going to add it as a member. If anyone objects please tell me. CheesyCheese 18:57, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
We need a new map.[]
The map of the Nordic union may be miss leading. put a political map first then the map you got here.Mr.Minister 09:47, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
The map is fine, so long as you have enough common sense to read an obvious caption. That'd be your fault. Lordganon 15:58, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with the caption comment, I agree that there should be a better map. The map is fine as part of the History section or something, but the maps in the infoboxes are generally outlining the political borders of the nation in question. The current map doesn't even reflect current membership. Its out of date and should be updated.Oerwinde 04:44, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Accurate to today, but by sometime next week, that isn't going to be the case anymore. Lordganon
Are Courland or Lithuania joining the union too?Oerwinde 09:38, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
Still need to talk to Yank on that one, but I'd imagine they'd be more likely to go observer, though I hope for outright, myself. But, the Sapmi and Novgorod would be the additions. Lordganon 09:46, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
Great Belt Bridges[]
Were these bridges (East and West Bridges) finished, or even started? as i'm writing a section on the renovation and reopening of the Humber Bridge between Yorkshire and Linclonshire (this time lines Kingdom of Cleveland and Newolland) and if they didn't finish these bridges i've got a good chance of having the longest bridge on earth as the next two largest (and number 4 on the list) were built in Japan and China, and therefore did not happen--Smoggy80 19:01, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
I think we can likely assume that they were built. The tunnel built with them, not so much, but the bridges, being built and designed by Nordic firms, probably would have been. Same goes with the Øresund Bridge.
Really though, there are so many bridges built over the entire world longer than the Humber Bridge, that even with the events of Doomsday, that the Humber probably wouldn't even make the top 20. Atm, otl, it is the 20th smallest on the wikipedia list of bridges over 2 km long. Doesn't even seem that it would be the longest in the British Isles.
The Humber Bridge is the fifth longest single span suspension bridge? (and it held the record from its building until 1997) after the Akashi Kaikyo bridge in Japan, Xihoumen Bridge in China, the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark and the Runyang bridge in China, as all but the great belt bridge wil not have been built (the areas have no need for such a massive investment of time, money and manpower.
I'll put in as the longest in the former UK and the second longest in the world--Smoggy80 15:56, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
You'll note that nowhere in all of what you originally said mentioned "single span suspension bridge" at all. Without that moniker, it is wrong to say anything about it being "longest." Lordganon 17:22, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
President of the Nordic Union[]
By the looks of things, his term is now up. Should we have him stay on, or have someone else elected? I'd like to see a Finn in charge, myself. Lordganon 10:13, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
North Sea oil[]
I've written a section on the Cleveland page that a survey of pre-DD North Sea oil rigs have found five that could be repaired and refurbished, i've given Cleveland two and the Nordic Union three.
I feel that the number of votes per nation in the Nordic Law Thing is in need of reformation. My reasoning is based upon the populations of each state, its respective GDP, and the level of DD damage.
First, some OTL Modern Day Populations and GDPs:
Sweden - 9.5 million - $525 billion
Finland - 5.4 million - $250 billion
Norway - 5.0 million - $499 billion
Denmark - 5.6 million - $314 billion
Iceland - 320,000 - $14 billion
So, if it were a Modern Day, OTL institution, Sweden would have the most votes, followed by Denmark and Norway, about the same amount, and then Finland and then Iceland. As we have it now, the Swedes have the most, followed by the Norwegians and then the Finns and Danes, tied, and then the Icelandic people.
So, in DD we have a few differences that need to be taken into account.
First is the loss of Copenhagen, which destroys anywhere from 1.5 million to 3.5 million in population, and tons of GDP. The page, which is a proposal, states that there are still 3.8 million citizens, but this seems to be a high estimate. Somehow, there are still the number of Danish representatives as Finnish ones.
Then we have Oslo, which results in the loss of 950,000 to 1.4 million. Bergen's destruction would cost another 400,000 lives. So, Norway estimates 3.2 million and would have its economy crushed by the war with the Soviets and the disbandenment of NATO. Again, a high estimate, but somehow they have more representatives than the Finns.
So, taking all this in, I would like to propose the following shift in representatives:
You both overstate, and understate, DD damage at the same time. The Denmark article has too low of a population, and, overall, you overestimate the number of dead in both of those countries.
But, then you forget that Sweden had fallout, and Finland had both mild fallout, and fighting on its borders. Both had losses.
All of these states would have had their economies "crushed." Again, irrelevant.
Moreover, military power is not something you take into account. Finland, imo, is weaker than Norway. Norway also still has its oil, and lots of it.
Add to that that Finland is also less "Nordic" than Norway and Denmark.
And, for that matter, in the otl Nordic Council that this has its basis in, Norway, despite having less people than Finland, still has more representatives.
So, while your overall point isn't invalid, it is also irrelevant.
A lot of the territories bordering Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, etc. saw the Soviet Union deport the original population and replace them with Russians. This is most prominent in Soviet Karelia and the Novgorod Oblast. In OTL, as of 2010, Novogorod is 95% Russian and Karelia is 86.4% Russian. It is also indicated that the Soviet Union removed the local population between 1940 and 1956.
I think it is more likely that these regions end up rejoining the USSR vs. Nordic Union.
Benkarnell 17:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
? --Fero 22:42, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
and yjis?--Fero 04:58, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
