@@brandonlyon730 Singapore simply because of where it is controls the Strait of Malacca (which name is hilarious in Greek). Which is where almost all of the trade goes through between East Asia and the rest of the world. Singapore couldn't have avoided being an economic power.
@@Dyknown 3:05 I like how HM snuck the Swedish Chef in there. Fun tangent: I have a few Swedish friends who insist that the Swedish Chef sounds Norwegian, and not Swedish at all. And they take offense to that character being referred to as Swedish. Unfortunately, I have no Norwegian friends who can give their opinion, either to confirm or deny.
@@HakunaMatata-os1og Norwegian here. The Swedish Chef speaks mostly gibberish, snd I can’t personally make any sense out of it. Your Swedish friend most likely joked about it being Norwegian because gibberish is what us scandinavian describe other scandinavian languages (danish in particular :P) I hope this clarified :)
@Hakuna Matata I have a German friend who argues that the Swedish Chef is the Danish Chef because that's how he was presented in Germany. I've let her know that she's been lied to her entire life.
The Norwegians really love their kings. I read a story about a woman who told her friends that her bus-friend looked a lot like the king. They rode together every day to work and talked about this and that. Turned out that he really was the king, but didn't like to make a fuss about it.
The king even got mad at the tram conductor when he was exposed. Not because he got exposed, but because the conductor didn’t want to take payment from the king, but this pissed him off. Especially since Norway was in the middle of an economic crisis. Very fair and righteous.
@@DanielLavedoniodeLima_DLL a prime ministers job is to lead a country, a royals job is to represent it. A president has to do both. I feel like a person consumed with protecting their image could have a hard time leading a country. Also for good or bad, a royal is trained from a young age on how to represent a country and their image, and we have seen some questionable presidents defining the country by their actions.
"Hey, we're finally our own country, after being ruled by Denmark for 500 years and Sweden for 100!" "Cool, so who should rule us then?" "I dunno, a Dane?" "Fair enough."
@@andrewwotherspoona5722 And I pity Scotland if they decide to go through with it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a remainer at heart and I'll fully admit that the British government & media (largely based in England) is corrupt and stupid. Scotland has been dealt a lot of bad hands over the centuries (and some good ones too, which are too-often forgotten) and the referendum was certainly one of them. Being cheated & lied to by your politicians & then being forced to accept a bitter economic hit because of it is rough. At the same time, though, I can't help but think the narrative Scotland will be all sunshine & rainbows if they decide to leave is as nonsensical as the Brexiter arguments are. Scotland's biggest trade partner is with England. They're a tiny, geographically isolated country without much in the way of (non-oil) natural resources. I'd love to be wrong, but I have a feeling that if Scotland leaves, it'll just end up being more of the same woes brought on by Brexit only slightly worse. Whether the Scots feels that's worth it for the price of independence, that's on them. But I think the SNP shouldn't sugercoat the situation.
@@jeandehuit5385 Hi Jean, I don't want you think I'm pro independence for Scotland. I am too pragmatic. I'd much rather remain in the UK. However, my feeling is that Scotland couldn't do much worse than England at running the Scottish economy. I think no matter what there needs a unified defense policy. Maybe some form of Devomax and Scotland having full taxation control over oil, gas and renewable energy. You are incorrect though regarding resources. It is the only part of the UK with food self sufficiency. They need to want to remain a part of the UK otherwise it just isn't going to work longterm. When Scotland joined the union it was very backward, but that simply isn't the case today. Out exporting England 2:1, 4th financial capital of Europe. Edinburgh has the 19th best University on the planet and with 3 more in the top 150. It'll certainly not grow any poorer (although that is relative as it is still quite a rich country). However, my feeling is that London will in the future truly dethrone New York (since the US I feel is a declining power...certainly compared to China), as the worlds financial capital and so the UK as a whole could prosper....the latter option for Scotland mean how ever greater handouts from Westminster and even more cries of we're supporting the Scots....which I personally would object to. Westminster will grow tired of providing "handouts" from a London which will just be nothing more than a corporate casino for all the worlds corrupt kleptocrats, oligarchs, tax evading company HQs.
A strange fact is that there were a demilitary zone of 1km on both sides of the border between Sweden and Norway which was canceled as late as 1993! So in reality it was only a cease fire agreement that took place in Karlstad Sweden in 1905! I experienced this myself as a professional officer in the Regiment of I17 placed in the town of Uddevalla at the Westcoast of Sweden. We had tactical exercises at the border, however in civilian clothes and of course unarmed. We also informed both the Norwegian and Swedish border police and the Norwegian military about the exercises.
@@looinrims Due to prohibit to wear guns and uniforms, this was the only way to evaluate the terrain etc. Check out peacetime prepared channels/ tunnels for demolition. So it definitely had it's purpose. A civilian, as I assume you are in general very little knowledge about is prepared in peacetime.
@@bengtmowitz5012 so you’re evaluating terrain without even the ability to see if your uniform camouflages into it No guy, I can’t say it’s because I don’t know x amount, I think I can safely say it’s a bit silly unless you’re in a non combat unit to begin with, which then…I disagree but fine
@@looinrims Uniform and weapons is not necessary when you doing a tactical and/or Strategies evaluation, in fact rather commonly used, when you do not want to draw attention to an object a specific objective.
>And the Swedish responded with a well formulated logical argument, "No and if you keep asking, we're going to invade." Hard to argue with such hard hitting logic.
Norway responded by spending decades on military buildup. Also the world had moved on. The Swedes couldn't just invade without social and international repercussions. So they accepted the constitution Norwegians had made while European major powers had been negotiating in Versailles. The constitution served us well, and is still mainly in use. It was based on the French and US constitutions and such did a good job, even if we had to insert the Swedish King some places.
Ironically, I'm drinking my coffee from a mug my wife had found for me a few Christmases ago. It a "Norwegian Levels of Anger" Starting with Mild Irritation the list continue with Indignation, Wrath, Fury and Rage with the final line being, When Someone Thinks You're Swedish.
Fun fact: in that picture where a Norwegian soldier is in a bunker. There is a "made in albania" on the bunker as a reference to his video about why albania sided with china months ago where he said the leader of albania had built a billion defense bunkers 😅😅
It's not a reference to the video, Albanian & Hoxha have always been known for bunkers ever since that latter built hundreds of thousands of them. It's a well known meme.
Albania would've been better off without the bunkers and instead focusing on the overhaul military and infrastructure. That's also what Enver Hoxhas generals told him. But spoiler alert: He killed them all off.
An interesting note. One of the many reasons Norway wanted separate foreign and trade policy was because Norway had one of the largest merchant fleets in the world (far larger than Sweden, a country with twice the population of Norway). Norway was much poorer at that time so using the merchant fleet to trade between other countries was a great way for the country to gain foreign currency. As you can imagine if your country had a far larger fleet and divergent trade interest compared to Sweden, having your foreign and trade policy being run by Swedes in Stockholm was rather impractical.
I recognise a lot. Comparable situation between Belgium and the Netherlands. Belgium being industrial economy wanting protectionism, the Netherlands, trading economy, wanting free trade. The Netherlands' religion being protestant, Belgium catholic and 2nd class citizens therefore. Another thing was the language, 30 % of Belgians and the ruling elite spoke French. The Dutch spoke Dutch and wanted everybody to speak Dutch. Consequence: break up, althouth we did go to war for 10 days in 1830.
I think also Swedes and Norwegians have a different personality, in the old days, not many Norwegians lived in Sweden, while thousands of Swedes lived in Norway, we in Norway like to be independent, not be told what to think and in general be pushed around
This channel really packs a lot of history into a short video. I walk away knowing actually a lot of history, unlike a lot of other history channels who go so deep into one tiny slice of history
Foreign newspapers noted in the years following the breakup that the now peaceful relations and trade between the two countries had resulted in a better relationship than had ever been the case during the union time, and that the two countries had finally become two brother states 🇸🇪🇳🇴🇸🇪🇳🇴
3:10 The Norwegian referendum where everyone used the Swedish word for "for", för, but written with a Norwegian "ø" instead of the Swedish "ö", witch actually means "before" in Norwegian. Norwegians use "for" for saying for.
It fckd with my brain that it said "før".. I was waiting for the "after" poll results, but it didn't make sense as the "før" poll was already maxed out and there never was any "after" poll bar. I realized after replaying the scene for the third time to make sure I didn't miss it. I wish people would stop using "ø" instead of "o" because it really fcks with Norwegians reading it, the ø-sound gets placed where it doesn't belong. Like reading the band name Mötorhead for Swedes and Germans, I guess. Møtorhead. wtf.
While the situation was tense, it's a great thing that in the end, the dissolution was peaceful. There is a quote from the dissolution talks, which finally was asserted in during a conference in Karlstad, which goes something along the lines of "if these two fraternal people wouldn't be able to settle this matter peacefully, what substance would any future peace treaty in the world ever have?" And that really hit me when I first read it. The peace monument for the dissolution of the union in central Karlstad is truly beautiful.
I was encouraged by the fact that even though political and military leaders wanted a war, they were forced to back down the citizens of the country and rank & file of the army not wanting senseless war.
"They thought the Norwegians would just keep demanding more, and they did" As a Norwegian, can confirm. If we cant fight out way out of it, we'll demand our way out of it
Some funny details: The swedish king had to inspect the fortifications in Norway, as he was commander in chief of both countries. It is said that he asked, visibly annoyed, the Norwegian minister of war "agains whom are you building these fortifications?". The minister replied "against enemies of the realm, your highness". Also, in the years around 1883, the Norwegian parliament refused to treat ALL legal propositions from Sweden, as both the Norwegian parliament and the swedish counterpart had to ratify for it to pass into law. Refused all propositions, with one exception: in 1883 they passed the "common sami law" (felleslappeloven), which essentially made it impossible for samis to let their reindeer graze in Finnmark.
The Swedish king didn’t die, the old one (Gustav IV) was ousted after losing Finland, while the next one died of a heart attack in 1818, after Sweden got Norway. Also Sweden was basically run by her new imported crown prince since (a former french marshal) 1811.
Good video. Here's some addenda from a Norwegian history teacher. :) It is often said that the rise in Nationalism was the reason Norway broke with Sweden. While true, it can also be said that the need for having separate Norwegian consulates and a separate Norwegian foreign policy became more important with the rise of industrialisation from the mid-1800s. This is because we did a lot more foreign trade with our huge trading fleet (third biggest in the world in 1885). Another thing: When Norway did secede, there was a discussion about whether we should go for a republic or a monarchy. The monarchy was chosen because it was seen as a less radical option, and one of the reasons the Danish prince Carl (later king Haakon VII) was chosen, was that the English king approved of the match... essentially guaranteeing English support for the secession.
And I've learned that the reason for the English approving of our secession was that it was seen as favourable if Sweden were to be weakened. The reason behind this being Sweden was cozying up to Germany, the new up-and-coming state which everyone was afraid of.
This was again one of those things I missed on the first watch through which is why I always have to watch the videos at least twice. I absolutely love that about them
Gotta love how the Swedish people were actually willing to stand with Norway when they felt their government was being unreasonable. And this was in 1905 no less.
It's rather interesting because I as a Norwegian has not heard that argument before. The military powers of Norway and Sweden was fairly close in 1905 and Norway was a sea nation and could attack the Swedes by sea if they chose to attack by land. I've heard that the military oinSweden thought the battle would be very even and they could not predict the outcome. Being a Norwegian with the historic knowledge we have of the Swedes, the Swedish King and nobles listening to the Swedish people sound like a joke. It must be a later story they have invented for themselves to make the loss more acceptable in modern terms. Norway had a democratic tradition from 1814 at that time. We would have listened to the people, the Swedes did not have the same traditions. They have had a democracy since 1920 according to google. After this event.
@@TullaRask You vastly overestimate Norway's military power. And that's full and equal democracy, Sweden had a weighted democracy for centuries before that. What happened in 1920 was female suffrage. Also we're a Nordic country we have a general estates parliament stretching back to before recorded history just like all Nordic countries do. In the Nordic countries the nobles were never as high nor the peasants as low as on the continent. Denmark-Norway had a bit more of the continental mindset during it's union because Denmark had lots of influence from the continent.
@@DaDunge Nah. I've seen a list of the forces on each side. It was fairly even. Also a Swedish military historian has said so. We didn't have nobles in Norway at that time remember ;)
2:36 is spot on! xD As a swede I think this was a dumb union to begin with, and was only forced on by the frenchman Jean Baptiste Bernadotte as a substitute for the loss of Finland. Bernadotte was a smart man, but he didn't seem to understand that the differences between Norway and Sweden and the fact that they hade been enemies for (almost) forever despite being a brother-nation. The more logical thing would have been to retake Finland when Russia was weakened. But because Bernadotte was a foreigner he pretty much saw Finland as a wasteland with only a huge border to Russia which would just lead to future conflicts and didn't have the emotional cord to the Finns that we Swedes have.
I highly doubt there was much of an emotional cord between Swede's and Finns back then, seeing as the Swedes were primarily concerned with exploiting the Finns in whatever way possible.
if Bernadotte tried to get Finland back, not only would the Swedish have to fight Russia but also Prussia(who HATED him for being one of the reason for their humiliating defeat at Jena) and Denmark (in case he also took Norway)
@@radovankekistanovic1342 It may have been so, but Norway was more diffucult in terms of terrain and the fact the norwegians hated to be put under Swedish rule. Charles XII failed TWICE to take Norway.
Then you have Malta, who practically begged to stay with Britain but Britain just politely kick them out of the house by saying bs like "I love you too and that's why we need to break up".
1884 was also an important date, since it was the year parliamentarism was established in Norway and the king no longer appointed the government. The Norwegian constitution actually became more democratic under negotiations with Sweden since the Swedes needed to be quick before support for the union disappeared in Britain. They wanted a strong Danish king, and when that was impossible preferred a weaker Swedish king with more limits on his power
My understanding (from the Swedish perspective) was that Bernadotte was quite lenient/benign when negotiating the Sweden/Norway union and Norway's subsequent constitution. Before being recruited to becoming Sweden's crown prince and later king, he had been one of the highest-ranking officers in the French army, and had been a part of the French Revolution. So he saw Norway as a showcase of sorts for how he thought a country should be run, whereas he was quite a bit more limited in what he could do in Sweden.
As a creationist like Vikings, I have to say that they would go berserk if they saw modern Scandies go liberal, atheistic, gay and feminazi, so insane they import Islam.
@@pecadodeorgullo5963 I know that the US backed Panama's independence bid from Colombia so we could have a small, easily influenced country to administrate the Panama Canal without imposing excessive tariffs, but what's with Belize?
They used to be one country called United States of Central America (or Federal Republic of Central America) that separated from Mexico on the 1820s. During the 1840s the country went into civi war resulting in the secession of its states. Which are now Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras and El Salvador. Belize used to be a former British colony.
@@torg2126 Belize was originally called British Honduras and was founded in 1862 so that's why they're the only English-speaking nation in central America.
@@christianvalencia4489 yes, this is what happened. Denmark joined napoleon after the bombardment (which included experimental incindiary rockets launched into civilian centers) because he promised to force britain to pay reperations for the attack.
@@christianvalencia4489 even worse because the British feared that the danish were going to join Napoleon, which lead to the attack, which lead to... the danish joining Napoleon. Also this happened twice
@@javieraravena5345Yes but by attacking first, they destroyed the Danish navy in port, which were the crucial assest of Denmark. Without the navy, Danes siding with Napoleon meant little.
As a Norwegian, I'm honoured to see that you made a video about my country. I hope you can make a video about Norway during WW2 one day; you can talk about the sinking of Blucher, the battle of Narvik, the Heavy Water Sabotage, Haakon VII, Max Manus, Vidkun Quisling etc.
The sinking of Tirpitz as well in the North, which helped take control over trade between Soviet and the United Kingdom/US through the Barents Sea. Such an underrated part of the Norwegian war effort at home.
But they resolved their disagreement without open warfare, which isn’t the norm on the European continent. Makes me happy that war-hungry politicians and generals can be put in their place by populations who would rather have peace.
I always believed the Scandinavian resolution of the treaty of Vienna was unfair, Denmark shouldn't have been punished so harshly for siding with napoleon, the only reason they had to was cause the did not stand a chance against a french invasion. Even Sweden was bullied by France to side with napoleon at some point and conducted a fake war against Britain one which they did not fight in practice for about a year, and yet they were not punished. If even Sweden was forced to side with Napoleon, how could Denmark have stood a chance? And Russia should have been reprimanded for invading Finland or forced to give it back. The whole point of the treaty was to restore balance of power but instead only made the russian juggernaut stronger for no reason and caused sociopolitical problems in scandinavia.
@@Iason29 congratulations ! You just realize that the congress of Vienna wasn't about keeping peace or being fair but was about keeping monarchs of the coalition from getting too strong to threaten the others !
@Colonel Martinez Haha you are joking, right? Sweden allowed Norway to keep its constitution and have its own parliament. Denmark was 10 times worse than Sweden.
@@TheSlyngel At least they took our refugees. Also some Swedish volunteered to fight with the Norwegian resistance. Although it was far fewer than the Swedish/Norwegian contingent that volunteered to fight USSR in the Winter War.
2 года назад
I absolutely love the animation, so simple and entertaining.
Fun Fact: During the Napoleonic wars, a British ship was captured off the coast of Norway by Norwegians, who claimed them to be Pirates and were put on trial, my Dad and Brother, who live in Kristiansand, played the British Captain and First Mate in a film made about it a few years ago.
@@renfors3931 Brother I wish I could tell you haha, a small production made a few years ago for Norwegian television, I'll try and find the link my Pa sent.
@@lazlow9640 Thanks, I was interested to see it if I can get my hands on it because it'll not be that hard to understand for me if it isn't bokmål or something like that
@@renfors3931 bokmål is not a dialect. It's a writing form of norwegianized Danish. No one actually speaks bokmål, as the regional dialects was a thing long before the writing form was invented. The dialects that are the most similar to bokmål are the east-norwegian dialects, especially those around Oslo as those were the ones most influenced by Danish
As a Norwegian I must say it was a brilliant summary! Must add an anecdote about the brilliant Norwegian PM at the time in 1905 (Christian Michelsen) during the 'consulate crisis' (aka Norway wanting their own foreign policy). A political ally to Michelsen said: 'Now is the time to stick together'. Michelsen responded: 'Now is the time to shut up!' Sums up why it actually went well (no war) 😊
that story is half true, as it was made into a joke with those lines by a newspaper, and the friend was famed writer Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson, who seemingly lost a lot of his glamour in his later years
Now is the time to shut up. Yeah Brilliant! Had Norway started shooting the Swedish people would have supported the army and the King no doubt, glad it ended the way it did.
Norway and Britain have had a good relationship due to trade for centuries, in that regard it made sense, but Britain was probably consumed entirely by concerns about the Napoleonic War.
It was probably hard to fit in a video of 4 mins but you missed some key points... -Denmark-Norway wanted to be neutral during the Napoleon war as the Danish king had no interest in sideing with either side of the war, it was only when the British launched a full on attack on Copenhagen to steal part of their naval fleet that forced the hand to side with Napoleon in the war, though no one in Norway really wanted to be involved in that war and suffered greatly from it in terms of higher food production taxes as well as a naval blockade from the British between Norway and Denmark (which in turn made naval piracy of British ships legal and highly rewarded) -the second point you missed out is that Norway actually wanted the Crown Prince of Sweden as king after the Swedish-Norwegian break up, but got the middle finger from King Oscar in return... making them elect the second candidate to become King who was a prince of Denmark
As a Norwegian, I could not resist clicking on this. Also, thank goodness our politicians didn't sell our oil to private investors, like a certain neighbour did. >.>
Great video, couple of things though. Christian was invited by the Norwegian governmentin 1814. And Norway wasnt part of the kingdom of Denmark. It was its own kingdom, but the Danish king was also king of Norway. The kingdom was called The kingdom of Denmark-Norway for a reason. And whilst the danes were the more powerful, and most decisions wasdone by the Danish king and government, it was atleast on paper an equal union. A leftover from the Kalmar union between Denmar- Norway and Sweden. Also a bit surprised you didnt mention Bernadotte. You would have had a great opportunity there. The man was invited to be king of Sweden around 1812 ish and became the king, he was one of Napoleons former generals and had a tattoo which said Death to kings XD. Otherwise great video :D. More scandinavian history please :D
- Have a tattoo with anti-royalist quote. - Cuck Napoleon because why not. - Become a king and ally against your former friend. This is a whole new level of sigma grindset.
“But fun fact, no.” “Here be tariffs.” And of course the best part, when the Swedish chef showed up. Spinning Three Plates arranged for that cameo, just for the record.
I also want to mention the important role of the growth of the labour, and social democratic movement in Sweden which pushed the country to let Norway go. You kind of allude to it in the end when you talk about the Swedes threatening to strike if Sweden attacks Norway, but important non the less 🌹✊🇸🇪🇧🇻
This is such an understatement of how the Swedish king manoeuvred his options and played the lords of the coalition when campaigning against napoleon, it wasn't so much others saying, "go ahead, take Norway." He kind of did it with his own initiative and desire.
The British fleet did lay siege to Denmark's capitol and bombard it with firebombs and burnt down half the city and their whole fleet as it was moored in the harbor and delivered a demand also signed by the many German states that Denmark should surrender and turn Norway over to Sweden. Then once Napoleon was gone I guess The British were fine with supporting breakign Norway away from Sweden some years later. After all the several hundred thousand Swedish troops that came to help depose Napoleon had already done it job decades ago by then and it's usually better to divide and conquer, to stay in power. It might be Scotland's turn to leave the UK, especially after that Brexit debacle and catastrophy. Brexit was ofcourse backed and given financial support from Russia. And Shortly after leaving the Union with Sweden, Norway got a chance to test those mighty defences of theirs against a german invasion in WW2.
Very interesting, @3:18 the people said they won't fight a senselyess war and the government listened. I wish we in the U.S. had a goverment that gave a shit about what the people want and what's best for them instead of what will make richer.
When the people wanted an end to Vietnam the government was forced to end it. Just look at the support for a war like Iraq at the time, the American people are as bloodthirsty as their government.
I could use more Scandinavian history knowledge. Thank you for another comical and informative video! Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you friends! :)
Fun fact: Until 1852 Iceland was subjected to some very harsh trade laws; basically only merchants from The Danish Realm where allowed to do any trade with Icelanders. How ever after Denmark lost Norway they were naturally a little salty about it so Norwegian merchants continued to be allowed to conduct business in Iceland.
The king norway got at the end was named Haakon VII. He was a great king, his son Olav V and our current king Harald IV are also really well liked. I am proud to be living with such a strong monarchy. 🇳🇴Our national day is 17. May🇳🇴
Great video! Just a tiny language nitpick. You wrote "Før" on the board in the video. I guess you were trying to write the norwegian word for "for", but the norwegian word "Før" means "before". "For" in norwegian is simply "for".
Automatic 10/10 for the Swedish Chef cameo! Oh, and the whole succinct, entertaining answering of questions we didn't know we had about events we had no idea happened...
Whose bright idea was it to ask the British, of all nations, about the prevention of being ruled by a foreign power in the early nineteenth century lol
Beautiful video! As a norwegian, i'm very happy to see such a well made video about my own country. Prince Christian really sparked the idea of norwegian independence in the 1810's
I think it'd be a stalemate as Sweden-norway are mostly surrounded by the sea. So they could defend themselves pretty eficiently is my guess. Austria-Hungary on the other hand was so large and had brother Germany as well to count on.
if they had a border together, most likely Austria-Hungary. However they exist on far diffrent locations, Austria Hungary would never gain access due to UK France and mainly Germany
AS a Norwegian Historian, i think it's a decently done video, some mistakes in it and overall, lack of context. But overall Norwegian Nationalism began when we got a constution, and Prins Christian wasn't the man whom declared Norway independent because fun fact, they just said it as the first line in our constution. Christian Magnus Falsen is regarded as the Norwegian Constution's (1814) father whom wrote it mostly and lead most of the talks. Well, after during 1850 too 1860 we had the height of Norwegian Romatic-National which. Also, this is more a fun fact during 1905 Norway had the most modern miletary in Europe also, Sweden has also provided support for Norwegian Border defenses because they feared Russia would invade.
From what I have read the Swedish military was pretty well armed too at this time. Our liberals and social democrats used to call sweden the "fortified poor house" because so much money was spent on the military when the lower classes had some real hardships. The Swedish armed forces expected to defeat Norway in a couple of weeks. However no serious politician nor the king was interested in a brothers war. The threats of strikes and the campaigns from the Swedish left was just political rethoric. The Swedish government of 1905 were a lot smarter than for example Putin is today when is antagonising a country with close cultural ties.
@@henrik3291 So many border forts, as well. Sweden has just lost Finland. And whilst bogged down besieging Norwegian border forts and trying to capture and HOLD Oslo, the eastern border could look mighty tempting to the ever-expanding Russia. Denmark might've also intervened, as well as England. It probably made absolutely no sense for Sweden to invade. Also, like you say, a further drain on the economy would spark uprisings, which would in turn make Sweden even more susceptible to Russia's influence. Oh, and yeah, not very popular to kill your brother.
