Exam tomorrow, ask me anything

This is the German ship Blücher, which was sank at the battle of Drobakssund. Down with it, went a lot of German soldiers whose objective was to take Oslo. The sinking of Blücher is said to be very important for the evacuation of the Norwegian parliament, government, and royal family, as well as the gold reserves of the Norwegian Bank.

A famous phrase attributed to the commander of Oscarsborg fortress, is said to be "visst fanden skal der skytes med skarpt!", loosely translated to "of fucking course we're shooting live ammunition at them!" The attack on Norway on the 9'th of April was one which (possibly due to incompetence and naïvitè) was not foreseen by any relevant officials; and as such the decision to fire against the unidentified ships that day is viewed as a bold and strong decision which shaped the Norwegian defense against the Germans, which lasted for all of 62 days: Not bad for a small and completely unprepared country like Norway.

9'th of April is a day which will forever be remembered in Norwegian history.

can you tell me more about how Greenland Iceland and Faroes moved from Norwegian to Danish?

I can't give you the specifics on how they were moved, but here's some info which you can deduce your way from. I'll also tell you how they stayed Danish after 1813/14.

The last "stenderforsamling" (I don't know the English word, but it's the same thing the Frogs used, almost like classes, but divided by occupations instead) in 1661 gave the royal power over Norway to Denmark with the Oldenborg-family. The "kinglaw" of 1665 clearly stated that the king did not have the power to turn Norway over to any other countries. I'm assuming that the Norwegian colonies went with Norway in 1661.

Then, at the end of the Napoleonic wars, Denmark was in quite a pinch. Karl Johan (or Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, a frog) who gained the Swedish royal power a few years before 1814 was dead set on gaining Norway to Sweden, after Sweden having lost Finland to Russia. He made a deal with the powers that were that he would get Norway after the end of the war, and after the battle of Leipzig, instead of going westwards with his Northern Army, he invaded Denmark in what was a big surprise. He managed to catch most of the Danes at Middelfart on Fyn, where they barricaded themselves in their fortresses. Here Frederic The Sixth had to negotiate over Norway and the peace agreement of Kiel, and even though he was not legally allowed to hand over Norway due to the kingslaw of 1665, he still did so out of necessity . It's possible that he didn't really think Sweden would be able to gain Norway though, as him and his relative Kristian Fredrik were trying to get the Norwegians to claim independence.

Here's some very important things:
>In the agreement leaving Norway to Sweden, it was *clearly* defined what was being given over. Just the kingdom of Norway, and not the Atlantic islands. Why the Swedes accepted this and didn't go for the whole shebang is not entirely sure, but it was probably to save time and just get it over with. Another possibility is lacking historical knowledge (cont)

When will you return to the fold of Sweden?
Storsverige when?!

continued
>The transfer of Norway was done in a way which hints at a lacking will of the Danes to see a tight integration between Sweden and Norway.
It was clearly defined as a personal-union, and for a while the heir to the Swedish throne was actually a Norwegian, Kristian August (which I mentioned earlier in the thread). The way the agreement specifically states that it was the "kingdom of Norway" which was being turned over, and how it was given to the King of Sweden. Two possible reasons for this: Bernadotte wanted to be 100% sure he would become a king, one way or another, because he wanted to avoid the return of the family of Gustav the 4'th Adolf which could claim the throne again. Another reason being Danish lack of will to see a tight integration, and possibly Fredrik the Sixth trying to see his relative Kristian Fredrik succeed in creating an independent Norway under its own king again.

Either way, the Danes are a tricky people, I have heard people say they are the "jews of the north" before....

>When will you return to the fold of Sweden?
When you give back Bohuslen, Varmland, and Jamtland.

What was the samekongedommet? Also when did the union at Calmar happen again?

>When you give back Bohuslen, Varmland, and Jamtland.
But that won't be necessary seeing as it will belong to you as swedish citizens once you come back.

>What was the samekongedommet?
I don't know. Samis were doing their own thing for quite a while, we didn't really give a hoot as long as they paid their Finnskatt (special tax/tribute from the sami).

>Also when did the union at Calmar happen again?
1397, but I know nothing about this really. The history of Norway after the plague of 1349 and leading up to 1814 has to a certain degree been viewed as a sort of paranthesis in Norwegian history: The Norwegian spirit was sleeping and resting, to wake up again in the 1800'ds.

>But that won't be necessary seeing as it will belong to you as swedish citizens once you come back.
We were never Swedish citizens. Norway had its own and separate state after 1814, with out own parliament. The union of 1814 was a personalunion, based around the king. The only politics which we were under from Sweden (pretty much) was foreign policy.

Er alltid moro aa lese ting som dette. Vet jo liksom hvordan det meste foregikk, men detaljene har jeg alltid mangla. Han tilfeldigvis proeve i dette imorgen paa paabygg, så dette kommer til å hjelpe masse. Hva kan du si om overgangen fra embetsstaten til moderne demokrati?

The biggest issue with getting those back is that they're filled with Swedes

Tror jeg har hjerneskade fåvæ

The Swedes there are pseudo-norwegians, except for Jamtland, which just has Norwegians.

Just listen to their accent.

>Hva kan du si om overgangen fra embetsstaten til moderne demokrati?
Ikke nok, dessverre. Veldig bredt sporsmål dog. Her er noen viktige trekk du burde huske på:
>utdanningsnivå og lesekunskaper
>bondestortinget på 1830-tallet og bondemobiliseringen
>hvordan Nordmenn var selveiende bonder
>okt innflytelse av borgerlige krefter
>bruk av riksrett som demokratisk-ish middel

After the constitution of 1814, Norway was one of the countries in Europe with the highest percentage of eligible voters. This was mostly because the requirements for voting (aside from being a man over 25 years of age) was either owning soil, or renting taxed soil, or owning so and so much property in the cities. Norwegian farmers have traditionally been relatively free, and in 1814 most Norwegian farmers were free farmers, and as such, eligible to vote.

>We were never Swedish citizens. Norway had its own and separate state after 1814, with out own parliament. The union of 1814 was a personalunion, based around the king. The only politics which we were under from Sweden (pretty much) was foreign policy.

What makes you think that the swedish incorporation of Norway would be based on the old personalunion?

I don't really care about /int/ memes and Swedish/Norwegian rivalry/bantz. Let's keep this thread to what happened in the past.

Do you know anything about the financing of Norway's industrialisation? Sweden relied heavily on capital import (loans).

hvorfor har vi ikke privatisert lånekassa?
(jeg bare spǿr)

So, here is a question: strawpoll.me/14647064/

>Norway is the way to the North, norvegr.
omstridt etymologi fåvæ.
t. norrǿntanon

Yes, I do actually.

After getting fucked over by the Danes in 1813, it was decided that Norway had to shoulder parts of the debt incurred by the Danish state during the Napoleonic wars. This caused financial problems, and along with Norway not having its own modern banking system (was granted in 1813, possibly as a way to appease the Norwegians? But way too late anyways) also created problems: Norway had to establish a functional currency system, which would be backed by silver.

Now, this led to a problem: How would they acquire all this silver, and how would they get their currency working? The answer was the silvertax, which was instated around or after 1816. The silvertax was very unpopular, as people did not always have the will or the means to pay it. There was only enough silver acquired around the middle of the 1820's, and pari was only reached in the 1840's (we'll get back to the 1840s in just a second). The silvertax caused massive deflation, and made it next to impossible to actually get a loan. It didn't exactly go as planned.

The fishing industry got a boom in the 1820s, relatively early compared to the foresting-industry which got going again in the 1830s, and during this time the Norwegian market also saw a liberalization in general, making it easier to do trade and other capitalist ventures.

Now we're getting back to the 1840s, which was the first wave of industrialization in Norway. A lot of the capital came from earlier capital ventures involving trade and foresting-industry; most of the capital thus came from previously acquired capital. The intellectual capital was mostly taken from Germany and the UK.

Norway has always been a seafaring nation, and as such we've always relied a lot on trade. A lot of the people present at the Eidsvoll congregation who wrote the constitution were enlightenment-men who took inspiration from the UK and the US, and we can see a clear laissez faire attitude through the 1800ds.

>omstridt etymologi fåvæ.
>t. norrǿntanon
Så du loker her altså? Jeg brever aldri her med mindre jeg vil ove meg til en eksamen fåvæ. Har ikke sett deg i tråden i det siste heller, kom tilbake, vi savner deg.

Men opplys meg, jeg har bare blitt lært om norvegr-teorien av Ottar av Hålogaland. Noe lesestoff jeg kan tygge på?

>Så du loker her altså?
egentlig ikke, jeg bare kom borti krysslenka di hit.
i ordet "nordmann" (på norrǿnt "norðmann", i akkusativ) er det fǿrste elementet uten tvil "nord", men rim i skaldedikt avslǿrer en lang vokal i ordet "Nóregr" (altså IKKE "Noregr"). det er vanskelig å forklare dette uten å gå bort fra ideen om at det fǿrste elementet har betydd "nord".

academia.edu/25123022/Etymologien_åt_namnet_Noreg

academia.edu/25114501/Skaldedikt_som_kjelda_til_etymologi_og_ljodleg_vokster_av_norske_namn

Why one of the titles of Russian Emperors was Norwegian Heir? Did they have any right on the throne? Was it recognized in Norway?

>Why one of the titles of Russian Emperors was Norwegian Heir?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know much about Russian history except for about the Rus people.

Why did Bernadotte agree to a union of nations in 1814 with Norway being more of a puppet than a annexed country with rights?

Not related to history, but good luck man. Jeg har også eksamen i morgen, i psykologi. It will all be over soon

>Why did Bernadotte agree to a union of nations in 1814
Because Sweden had ambitions to gain Norway from the Danes as early as the 1870's with Gusav the 4'th Adolf. The loss of Finland to Russia as well, along with the taxing Napoleonic wars made getting Norway Bernadottes main priority.

>Norway being more of a puppet than a annexed country with rights?
What do you mean by this? Norway had a large degree of independence from Sweden during the union. It was a personalunion, where the biggest "disadvantage" Norway had was Swedish dominance in foreign policy matters. We literally said "fuck it" and left the union over disagreements over whether or not Norway could get their own consulates, and this was 20 years after we told the Swedes to suck it and instituted parliamentarism (a sad day, desu ;_;).

Takk, og i lige måde. Suger så heftig å ha eksamen så sykt sent altså, alle andre jeg kjenner har vinterferie nå.

Varför gick Bernadotte med på en union mellan Sverige och Norge istället för att enbart annektera dem? Han hade militärt överläge, goodwill från de allierade och svenska folket bakom sig.

>alle andre jeg kjenner har vinterferie nå.
>mfw my large assignment is due 4th of january

In English so others can read too.
>Why did Bernadotte agree to a union between Sweden and Norway instead of just annexing Norway completely?
Alright, now we're talking. Interesting question, and I'm not even sure about it myself.

There are a few possibilities. Bernadotte wasn't king before 1816 (but as crownprince, and with a very very old Karl the 13'th, he held pretty much all of the power Karl had), and it was only just recently (1809) that the Swedes made a coup to get rid of Gustav the 4'th Adolf. He might have been scared that the followers of Gustav would come back and make another coup, and as such during the negotiations of the Kiel peace agreement, he explicitly made it so that the Kingdom of Norway was not transferred to Sweden, but instead to the Swedish king. Big difference, meaning that even if they came back, Bernadotte would still have a crown available to him. Bernadotte was after all French, and the French were not exactly the most favorable people in Europe after the Napoleonic wars. He did have reasons to fear for his political safety, but that's just speculation on my side.

There's also the fact that Norway had already spilled the beans with wanting to be independent. Whether or not there were nationalism in Norway before 1814 is a bit hard to say, due to the censorship from the Danish crown (although in 1771 to 73 there was freedom of the press, and we saw *a lot* of Norwegian dismay towards the Danish rule, but it might have been artificially strong, considering how sudden the freedom of the press was), but there was indeed some form of patriotism (not nationalism or separatism) in Norway from as early as the 1760's. The nationalism is a bit hard to find, but Rousseaus ideas of popular sovereignty had definitely made it to Norwegian society by the 1790's.
Cont

Noreg er kalla opp etter jotnesonen Kong Nórr i frå Kvenland.

Continued

This supposed wave of Norwegian nationalism, or the "prelude" to 1814, would have been hard to quell completely by the Swedes. Ernst Sars is the major proponent of the school of thought regarding 1814 that it was not the result of just politics done on a global level that "just so happened" to give Norway its (short) time of independence, but rather a growing will of the people, and a deep seated wish for national freedom that made the constitution of May 1814 possible for the Norwegians.

There's also the point that during the negotiations for the transfer of Norway, the danes made a few changes which could hint at their unwillingness to see a deep integration between the two states. It's possible that Fredrik the 6'th was playing a double-game, with putting Kristian Fredrik as the Norwegian stattholder and allowing and (probably) encouraging him to raise resistance against the Swedish king.

There was, for a short while, a war between Norway and Sweden in 1814, but it turned into negotiations at Moss, resulting in Mossekonvensjonen. It's possible Bernadotte just underestimated the Norwegian will to cling to independence and accepted Mossekonvensjonen thinking he could grab the power later on.

tl;dr: Norwegians already spilled the beans and wanted to be independent.

Sheeeeit, good luck my man. Sending good vibes.

hvem jobb er det liksom du forventer å få med denne megmeggraden?

Fy faen, privatiser!

Do you know anything about the German occupation of Norway? I remember reading somewhere that supposedly, the size of the occupation force of Germany was something like 1/6th of the general population at the time, and putting so many troops there, although possibly not the most far-reaching of Hitler's blunders, was considered the dumbest on the kind of "What the hell were you thinking" scale.

Not OP, but I'm pretty sure I've read there were something on the order of 400,000 german troops stationed in Norway. Which is pretty retarded indeed.

>Do you know anything about the German occupation of Norway?
Mostly about resistance and cooperation with the Germans, this seems to be what the Norwegian focus on this kind of history is.
>I remember reading somewhere that supposedly, the size of the occupation force of Germany was something like 1/6th of the general population at the time
I don't want you to take my word on this, because this is knowledge I gained from watching history channel documentaries as a child, but supposedly Hitler was absolutely sure the Allied attack in Europe would come through Norway. Pretty stupid, but on the other hand, getting Norway would ensure access to Swedish iron ore and other resources which they could then trade, as well as possibly creating a united front with the soviet union from the North.

It's hard to call things stupid when studying history, hindsight is always 20/20.

McDonalds or burger king?

bra svar

Holder i massevis, er tross alt bare vgs
Takker!

The Norfags fear the neger

>Down with it, went a lot of German soldiers whose objective was to take Oslo.

That's not English grammar you ridiculous mountain troll.

youtu.be/RyUf7r_9yNs

Got a slew of questions, don't need to answer them all if you don't want to.

1. How did the revolutions of 1848 effect Scandinavia, or more specifically Norway?
Were there any similar unrest around that time or any time of great civil strife in Norway?
I remember my history teacher mentioning something about a small movement of Marxists around that time, any clues?

2. Has Norway had any long grievances/rivalries outside of Sweden and Denmark?

3. What was the reason for the influx of Norwegian volunteers to fight for the Boer cause in the second Boer war? did it have anything to do with their past rivalry with Britain or was it largely a humanitarian cause?

Thanks.

not OP but I believe they once had rivalries with scotland

Sorry for the late reply. I was going through the material I've studied with some student friends of mine who are also sitting the exam tomorrow.
>1. How did the revolutions of 1848 effect Scandinavia, or more specifically Norway?
It made the farmers (who were gaining more power as an opposition to the Swedish regime) more apprehensive about allowing more people to vote. The regime at the time also prepared for any revolutions to be violently beaten down.

>2. Has Norway had any long grievances/rivalries outside of Sweden and Denmark?
Depends what you mean by long grievances, we've gotten fucked over by Germany once. Our relationship to the British was not always that good under the Danish rule (mostly due to the British not being too fond of trade by neutral nations that could benefit their enemies war efforts).

If we go all the way back to the Viking age, we had rivalries with pretty much everyone, even ourselves.

>3. What was the reason for the influx of Norwegian volunteers to fight for the Boer cause in the second Boer war? did it have anything to do with their past rivalry with Britain or was it largely a humanitarian cause?
I don't know anything about the Boer wars, and I barely know anything about the historical relationship between Norway and Africa. I think we might have had some minor role in Congo or something? I also think we did some UN work in the 50's or 60's in Africa. I think I've heard of some veterans getting fucked over by that.

I'll probably go to bed soon, but feel free to ask more questions. I've learned a lot for the last four hours. I also studied a bit by myself about the political climate in the late 1800-ds in Norway, very interesting stuff, a lot of similarities to the American war of independence, except of course, like everything Norwegian: A lot more down to earth, humble, and "soft".

We might have, but not of my knowledge. I'm not an expert, I'm just an average student just trying to get his bachelors.

Bra svar. Jag önskar dig all lycka i världen. Rapportera tillbaka här när du är klar imorgon.

How did the norwegians delude themselves into believing Spitsbergen is rightfully theirs? It was discovered by the dutch and the first permanent settlement was dutch as well. On what historical grounds does Norway base their ridiculous claim?

It was up for bargain.

svalbard is mentioned in icelandic annals/ the landmanbok from the 1100-1200s. the dutch reaching it was simply a rediscovery

Im American, but my grandpa said Norweigians are all a bunch of miserable drunk retarded socialist who are crypto nazis behind closed doors. dont know how true that is though

A mentioning of the same name earlier doesn't mean it refers to the same piece of land as it does now. It might as well have been Greenland.

sounds like an average /pol/ poster to me

nope, greenland was fairly known at that point. we do know that the icelandic annals mention frozen islands to the far north, 200 years after greenland was settled. landnambok mentions its about 4 days of sailing away from the north east of iceland

>Im American, but my grandpa said Norweigians are all a bunch of miserable drunk retarded socialist who are crypto nazis behind closed doors. dont know how true that is though
Your grandpa sounds like a drunk commie nazi himself. For most of the 1800'ds, Norway was actually ran by economic libertarians. We were the rightful heirs of the American enlightenment, but sadly sometime around 1887 these cunts called the "labour party" came around and kind of ruined literally everything done by the Left (liberal, as in, actually liberal) and Right (conservative, as in, actually conservative) party had fought for by inciting communist labour unions and yadda yadda yadda. I didn't really study a lot about the inter-war period, but for Norway it was marked by a lot of social incohesion caused somewhat by the labour movement.

Also, honestly, calling people nazis just for the sake of it is so unintelligent it just hurts. We fought for 62 days, and even then, we didn't just give up: We started fighting a resistance war instead. A shitload of people died.

But yeah, tell your grandpa that you can't really generalize that much.

I honestly don't know, but I'm guessing is right. And even if he isn't right, it's ours now, nothing you can do about it when you're pretty much a non-country.

I'm leaving to go do my exam now! I'll report back in this thread later about it, hopefully it doesn't 404!

Feel free to ask even more questions, I'll answer then when I get back home!

Wish me luck!

Lykke til

Vurderer å ta Historie som nettstudie neste år men fyttihelvette, det inkluderer jo gammel og nyere Norsk historie, eneste jeg bryr meg noe om er Europeisk historie.

>norsk med stor n

>antyder at jeg bryr meg
Osj

>2. Has Norway had any long grievances/rivalries outside of Sweden and Denmark?
not op but norway controlled parts of northern scotland (sutherland and caithness) and the western isles which are now scotland during the middle ages and this obviously resulting in conflict between the two as far as raiding and territorial delineations are concerned. it ended when shetland and orkney were annex by scotland because of some collateral thing i dont remember and norway lost its prescence in the british isles

heia Norge

30 minutes remaining to ask question
OK, did Norway have its own social scene in the 1920s, or did its people follow the Jazz scene in the United States?

>hvem jobb
gjor slutt på deg selv

Hello everyone. Exam went swell. I wrote a whole lot of info (over 4.5 thousand words, a lot more than anyone else I spoke to), and sat the whole exam to the end. Hopefully the information I wrote down wasn't just rumbled garbage from the study-drugs I took and all the redbull I drank.

I wrote about 1884, which is the year Norway changed to a parliamentary system instead of entirely constitutional monarchy where the Swedish king named the executive government and had the right to deny the suggestions of the legislative branch. this in turn caused a huge furore because of some bullshit I'm too tired to explain.

>30 minutes remaining to ask question
what?
>OK, did Norway have its own social scene in the 1920s, or did its people follow the Jazz scene in the United States?
I don't know. The 20's in Norway and most of the interwar-period was characterized largely by social unrest and economic troubles. Overexpansion of the shipping industry during WW1 caused a crash (if I remember correctly) which led to large amounts of unemployment and failure of businesses. Norway has always gained massively from remaining neutral during wars with its shipping industry, although it has backfired a few times on us (the fleet robbery of 1809 or 08, can't remember right now, and the crashes in the 20's).

Altså, jeg var også skeptisk til nyere norsk historie, men der er dritinteressant. Foler at jeg har mye bedre forståelse for hvordan samfunnet rundt meg ble som det ble nå, og hvordan det fungerer. Har også lært veldig mye om Norges relasjon til de Europeiske stormaktene osv. Gå for det mann, du kommer ikke til å angre.

Det gikk kjempebra.

I'm considering making more of these threads, as a way to sharpen my own heurmenetics and improve the general level of knowledge on this board. Does this sound like a good idea?

Are you that faggot that has semi long hair, wear glasses and constantly stammer each time asking a non related question during lectures, which is almost every lecture.

Osj, må vell gå for det da, skal ta voksenopplæringen til hosten for å forbedre karakterene slikt at jeg ligger bedre ann.

>Are you that faggot that has semi long hair, wear glasses and constantly stammer each time asking a non related question during lectures, which is almost every lecture.
No no and no. Why are you asking?

Ja, kjor på min mann. Det er verdt det altså.

Do you know anything about nynorsk? And if you do why it seemingly failed?

>ywn see the Norwegian part of the Reich

feels bad man

>Do you know anything about nynorsk?
Yes, had to suffer through it like every other Norwegian who didn't die before the age of 12. Basically, it was an attempt to create a new language based on the dialects found along the west coast of Norway. Nynorsk is not the only written language that was tried out, there was also landmål or some other stuff which I honestly don't remember.
>And if you do why it seemingly failed?
Well, not sure if it failed or not. Nynorsk was a part of the rediscovery of a Norwegian identity. It is still in use today, at least by law, and it can be said that it probably had an impact on Norwegian society as a whole, but I'm not exactly an expert on it.

A theory I've heard for why Nynorsk is so shit, is the fact that it's not actually close to any specific dialect in and of itself; it's an amalgamation of a bunch of dialects collected along the west coast of Norway around the middle-late 1800'ds by one person.

It should be said, that in the cities the bokmål (not sure if they called it that back then, but regardless) form of Norwegian was more heavily used, as well as in other parts of the "elite" society, as they often still had close ties to Denmark, either culturally (pretty much all of the Norwegian elite prior to 1814 were educated in Copenhagen), financially (trade), or through family (a lot of the Norwegian public officials were of Danish descent). As such, the language which was already in use at the time (the amalgamation of Danish and Norwegian) was slowly "norwegiafied", and turned into what we today call Bokmål which in some ways is close to the Ostlandsdialekt (eastern dialect).

I don't study linguistics but I saw a youtube video once on easy writing languages, and Bokmål was mentioned as one which was easy to learn due to its relatively young age and how it was slowly adapted to fit with the spoken language of times gone by.