A Foreign Country

The last chapter of the book returns to the discussion raised in its first chapter, where traditionalist Scandinavian historiography was pitted against the general political and national developments in Europe in the 1850s and 1860s. It concludes that Scandinavianism shared all the characteristics of the nationalisms of the period, and despite all its challenges, it must be seen as possible past future. This is done on the background of an in-depth examination of the different windows of opportunity that were open to the Scandinavianists between the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871). It is, however, underlined that if a united Scandinavia had been realised it could have taken many different forms. Some of them less attractive seen from a present-day perspective. Moreover, it is argued that it is far from certain that a Scandinavian union would have been viable in the medium to long run. Yet, when Scandinavianism politically failed to materialise, it was not only—as traditionally claimed—due to structural circumstances. Agency, politics, timing and chance events need to be considered. Hereafter, the chapter turns its attention to the master narrative within Scandinavian historiography in general and the writings on Scandinavianism in particular. The battled for history is analysed. It is concluded that the historiographical master narrative is the outcome of an interplay between politics and history, methodological nationalism and a Scandinavian variant of the Whig interpretation of history. The book ends with a call to study nineteenth-century nationalism in a comparative and transnational perspective in a manner that combines nationalism studies with international history and international relations. A study of the importance of the threshold principle is an obvious point of departure for such an approach.