History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine

This is the fifteenth part of a blog series in which I go through the most significant phases of Finnish history. In the fourteenth post, I described how Finland became involved in the Second World War due to a treaty between Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany as well as the naivety of the Cajander government, and how Finland managed to navigate its way out of a losing war without foreign occupation, thanks to military brilliance and President Risto Ryti's personal responsibility.

After the peace treaty, Finland was in a new situation. On the one hand, there was the threat of a far-left revolution, and on the other hand, there was the fear of the Eastern superpower. In addition, a large part of the population had to be resettled.

The sense of national unity during the war ensured the successful resettlement of the Karelian population, which was unique internationally. The creation of the welfare state prevented the growth of the extreme left-wing support base and thus led to the gradual disappearance of the danger of revolution.

At the same time, the portion of the population whose livelihood in the countryside disappeared in a changing world emerged as labor for the rising industry in the cities. This, in turn, supported the rise of private economy partly due to the hiring of new urban populations and partly due to income transfers. In addition, the surplus of people coming from the countryside - which Finnish industry was not able to integrate into the economy development fast enough - disappeared across the Baltic Sea, boosting the rise of Swedish industry instead of radicalizing at home.

In foreign policy, the guideline was to act according to the interests of the Soviet Union, forced by the aftermath of the wars. In practice, there were no other good options. President J.K. Paasikivi was chosen as the leader of this ideology, and his successor U.K. Kekkonen continued it - hence the name Paasikivi-Kekkonen line.

These presidents, often considered as great men, were favored by the leaders of the Soviet Union, and their favor allowed for the preservation of domestic political independence. During the latter's tenure, Finland was even able to take a step towards the West by joining as an external member of the EEC.

However, entry into the economic community required an extremely undemocratic solution in Finland, namely Kekkonen's election to a third term through a state of emergency that bypassed citizens' democratic rights. However, this was apparently necessary because only in this way could the rulers of Moscow be convinced of the continuity of Finland's foreign policy after certain Social Democrats - including Erkki Tuomioja - had tried to torpedo Finland's western orientation by leaking secret information about negotiations between Kekkonen and the Soviet leadership in Zavidovo.

Kekkonen's time also saw a huge increase in people's level of education. The offspring of the previous generation's educated elite were expected to achieve or even surpass their parents' achievements, but at the same time, the descendants of the common people also embarked on the path of education, both from rural areas and urban centers.

However, these opportunities for advancement for student youth were overshadowed by cutbacks in higher education, which left the future of young students unclear. This uncertainty about the future of the offspring of the old elite led to radicalization, in which support was sought from the working class in much the same way as the Fennomans sought support from peasants in the late 19th century.

The construction of the welfare state after the wars had taken the revolutionary edge off the traditional labor movement, which, despite provocation from the student movement, aimed, like other European communists, to improve the workers' position through democratic means. The fanatically radical student movement, ended up in the arms of Soviet communism and lost its credibility, resulting in the entire leftist revolution eventually dying out.

According to Professor Heikki Ylikangas, the radical student movement was essentially a tool for its leaders to seek power. They were the offspring of the best-performing parents of the previous generation and would eventually inherit their position - albeit only after a change in ideological sign, as demonstrated, for example, by Björn Wahlroos, who became one of the richest men in the country.

The significance of the student movement was mainly in its support to President Urho Kekkonen, who utilized it skillfully, and at the same time started a slight shift towards leftism across the entire political spectrum - including the previously very conservative National Coalition Party. However, these effects were relatively short-lived, although the student movement may still have some significance as a conscious or unconscious role model for later radical movements.

The original blog post in Finnish:
Paasikiven-Kekkosen linja

All the blog posts in this series:
History of Finland I: How did Finland become culturally part of the West?
History of Finland II: From a hinterland of the Union into a modern state
History of Finland III: The legal and economic weakening of the position of the people
History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history
History of Finland V: The pursuit of economic profit saved the country
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility
History of Finland VII: The dictator of the era of Enlightenment promoted capitalist economy
History of Finland VIII: Joining of Finland to Russia led to an increase in crime
History of Finland IX: Enlightended dictator initiated economic growth
History of Finland X: The birth of Finnish identity
History of Finland XI: Finnish democracy and gender equality for women
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
History of Finland XVI: Through rise and fall to a new kind of future