|
Post by Xarxos on Jun 3, 2014 11:00:07 GMT -5
I think it would be more fitting to have a formable Nordic Union (or something like that) instead of Scandinavia in any start date after WW2, or perhaps somewhat earlier. By this time Sweden had given up their claims on Finland and Iceland was independent from Denmark, with Greenland achieving greater and greater autonomy. Because of this it feels like incorporating those lands under a "Scandinavian" administration feels outdated, since the non-Scandinavian territories of Finland and Greenland (and arguably Iceland) should be considered more or less equal parts of the union as the Scandinavian territories. Of course it also fits with modern terminology ("Nordic countries", "Nordic Council" etc).
|
|
Panzer
Developer
Jakob Zaborowski
Posts: 16
|
Post by Panzer on Jun 3, 2014 15:06:41 GMT -5
Greenland and Iceland are still arguably Scandinavian culturally and linguistically however.
|
|
|
Post by Xarxos on Jun 3, 2014 16:55:22 GMT -5
Iceland is, sure. Greenland less so, they have their own language even if they are taught Danish and the indigenous population have a completely separate origin from the Scandinavian settlers, being more closely related to the Inuits of North America. Regardless I think a Nordic Union would make more sense in modern times if it includes Finland, Iceland and Greenland, since the term Scandinavia officially only refers to Sweden, Norway and Denmark and if it would be used as a name of a union including the non-Scandinavian countries it would imply some sort of Scandinavian dominance, which makes sense in start dates before the 20th century but less so in modern times. At least if it would be formed peacefully, or formed by Finland, Iceland or Greenland.
|
|