EP41: Urho Kekkonen

Urho Kekkonen served as President of Finland between 1956 and 1982. Kekkonen towered over the Finnish political system, creating a complex system whereby he co-opted his potential adversaries into an ever-larger coalition, such that at election time, he was safe from serious political opposition.

Early on in his political career, Kekkonen decided that faced with a much larger much stronger neighbour, Finland’s best hope was to give the Soviet Union just enough control over Finland that the Soviets wouldn’t lose their temper with them.  As you’re about to hear, this had mixed results, but succeeded in its principal aim of maintaining Finland’s de facto independence. My guest today points out that Finland cannot have a bad relationship with Russia; their proximity to each other makes this utterly out of the question.

My guest today is Finnish historian Henrik Meinander, who is a professor at the University of Helsinki. Henrik’s English-language book, A History of Finland, was released in 2011 and updated in 2019. As well as discussing Kekkonen’s life and politics, I asked Henrik what he thought of Finland joining NATO, and whether he really thought the Finns are the happiest people in the world, as they’re often designated. 

Transcript

Unknown: 0:04

Hello and welcome to the hated in the dead with Tom Leeman. This week's episode sees as examined the Nordic countries for the first time with a look at her her Kekkonen, who served as President of Finland between 1956 and 1982. Whilst Finland was not a dictatorship during the post war era Kekkonen towered over the Finnish political system, creating a complex system whereby he co opted his potential adversaries into an ever larger coalition, such that at election time, he was safe from serious political opposition. When dealing with the Finnish Parliament and the country's trade unions, Kekkonen was a master negotiator, hammering out deals between different parties, namely the Social Democrats, leading to a corporate economic structure that contributed to remarkable increases in living standards in the 60s and 70s. It's easy to overlook that even in 1950, Finland was an almost totally agrarian country. In spite of his tendency to engulf everything in Finland politics, kick in in this time and power has to be viewed with this economic success in mind. The most interesting element of Kekkonen, though, is that he perfectly summarises his country's difficult relationship with its eastern neighbour, Russia, or as it was in Canons time, the Soviet Union. Early on in his political career, Kekkonen decided that faced with a much larger, much stronger neighbour Finland's best hope of survival was to give the Soviet Union just enough control over Finland, such that the Soviets wouldn't lose their temper with them. As you're about to hear, this had mixed results, but succeeded in its principal aim of maintaining Finland's de facto independence. The country remained a market economy, and avoided the fate of countries like Czechoslovakia and Hungary, both of which, among others disappeared behind the Iron Curtain. Indeed, kicking him was close personal friends with Leonid Brezhnev, who I covered two weeks ago. And my guest today points out that Finland cannot have a bad relationship with Russia. Their proximity to each other makes this utterly out of the question. This fact is something that is giving the Finns a serious headache now that Europe is once again turning its back on the Russians. My guest today is finished his story and Henrik my Nanda, who is a professor at the University of Helsinki. Henricks English language book a history of Finland was released in 2011, and updated in 2019. As well as discussing Katherine's life and politics, I asked Henrik, what he thought of Finland joining NATO, and whether he really thought the Finns are the happiest people in the world, as they're often designated. They just enjoyed gentlemen. It's time to introduce a hoe Kukkonen. Hi, Henrik, how are you? Fine. How are you? Thanks. I'm very well, I have to say, you win the prize. I've done nearly 40 of these episodes, and you win the prize for the best backdrop of recording your by a lake in somewhere in rural Finland. And it's and it's magnificent. Yes, I'm actually I'm beginning my summer holiday thing that we have our summer holiday in July, not in August. And so because in August, you know, Autumn is is arriving almost. Yes. That's a good idea. I think somebody should recommend that to our to our government. We're talking about oho Kekkonen. Today, Henrik. He's often referred to as his by his initials UK K. And he was the President of Finland between 1956 and 1982. So he has a longevity in politics that rivals or the politicians I've, I've focused on in in this podcast series Eamon de Valera in Ireland Salazar in Portugal. He was born in 1900. What was life like as a young man for hoecake island in the Finland of the sort of early part of the 20th century, Finland obviously different from other Nordic countries in the sense that it's been independent for much less time phenom as a part of the Russian Empire. So Grand Duchy had been such since the Napoleonic Wars when Finland was ripped off the Swedish kingdom and joined to Russia or UK economic game for the northern half of Finland from from alters the Lake District from rather humble backgrounds, but one could say somewhere between working class and lower middle class, so he was sent to secondary school and took a guess from there became a energetic nationalists already during his school years and began to write in the local newspaper and join then the white Gods when when the Russian Revolution spread to Finland in in late January 1918. And then he was not even 18 years old, he, you know, he had his birth, then a third of September. So his first visit to Helsinki, was when he took part in the victorious parade in in Helsinki, the 60s of Maine 1980. And that is to say, when the wildcards then arrived to, to Helsinki, now, actually, it was a German troops that had had taken over the control in southern Finland, you know, it was in Finland, we have usually call it a civil war, but it was an integrated part of the Russian Civil War revolution. But the Bolsheviks then demanded that the Finnish Social Democrats should take the power and the Germans then also demanded that the whites would declare Finnish independence, which they did, so it was actually part of a civil war. So Kekkonen, then began his studies in early 20s, and was Ultra nationalist, he required that Swedish speaking minority in Finland and that limit language rights that were written in our constitution should be written and, and took part in demonstration against this bilingual education at the University. But then, in the 30s, he, you know, began to take part in politics and was elected to the Parliament 1936. Now, you have to remember him, but apart from him being a journalist, he also worked for our security service. So he's, he learnt pretty much about communists, and they're sort of thinking us when when the arrested communist interrogated and he took part in that, but he was also a very skillful sportsman. He was, yes, a skillful sportsman. And I think very tall if I'm right in saying so. six foot five, or Yes, I think so. Something like that. Yeah. Maybe for Finnish people, maybe for Finnish, Finnish people that's not that tall. I don't know. No, no, no, no, he's clearly above average, clearly above average. And he maintain his physical condition up until he, you know, he had was forced to resign in autumn 1981. You know, of course, he took a lot of, you know, in also drinks, and that it never became an alcoholic, because he may maintain his condition very well. But that was something is the kind of idea that he should make the physical endures and, and he was very much known for that. I think something in the conversation that we've been having, so far, something that's come up already is the relationship with the Soviet Union. Obviously, the Soviet Union was a much larger country, geographically than Finland. So it that I suppose gave it a kind of natural advantage, and perhaps gave a natural sort of inferiority in a securitization, among the fins of the of the Soviet Union and a fear. If we discuss what happened in 1938 1939, there was obviously the Finnish Soviet war. What was Kekkonen experience of this war? Quite a brief war but but a one that's been very important in the sort of finished national psyche. It was the Winter War between, you know, late November 1939, and March 24. It was a part of early stage of Second World War, and now Finland had been a part of the Russian Empire had declared its independence and fought the kind of war that was seen by the bourgeoisie troops described as a war against Russia, which strictly speaking was not but but the Soviet Union, of course, tried to D balance the Finnish young, democratic parliamentary system and in the late 1930s, then Vienna had a gutter coalition between social democrats and the agrarian league in which in which take on a play that quite strategically, you important role he became minister of domestic affairs, but His attitude was Soviet Union was really different interpretations of how he saw it. Now, after the war, he often, you know, tried to emphasise his version of what had happened in late 1930s. By emphasising that, if Finland would have understood to, to find a compromise with the Soviet Union, Finland could have avoided this for now in late 1930s. His opinion was not really that it was very difficult to think that that Finland, for the Finnish parties to reach a compromise with Soviet Union, the Baltic states very soon reach a compromise and let the Red Army establish military bases in the territory. Whereas the Finnish negotiators, in fact, were not prepared to give an inch over the Soviet Union to get going and was understood in that situation as to so to stiffen his policy. Although we have to add the that he had also fought us as Minister of domestic affairs, a kind of political struggle against our fascist party, he tried to implement a law that would form a fascist activity in Finland, but was not successful in that. So when a new government was formed, when the war had began, he lost his minister position because he was understood as as not political. So to say, why isn't really understanding what was happening, the finish, I think it's fair to say really, that they beat the Soviet Union in this war. And obviously, then the Second World War came fairly shortly after once that conflict had come to an end. What sort of position did that leave kicking in, as a politician for the post war period? I think you should remember that the war winter was, was a part of a world of the Second World War, because Poland had been divided between between Soviet Union and Germany and the border between the Western countries. So, you know, powers and Germany had begun already then. So it was really kind of, during the first week, winter, in Second World War, actually, the most fierce fighter actually fought in Finland, then on the, on the Balkans, but get going and heading away lost much of his political credibility, due to what happened, he remained a member of the Parliament, but would not you know, be named to the new new government are formed, then after the peace treaty was signed with Soviet Union, he had actually demanded that the fight would continue. The reason being that the Soviet Army was strongly motorised, and in Finnish harsh conditions, the when the transport ways in a freezing barrier is over, they are very difficult to advance along. So that was the idea that the Finns should continue their fight and that even even more made Kekkonen look like too radical and unrealistic political figure that would actually continue up until 1943. He was active in a columnist in our political weekly. So I'm a Googler. And in the beginning of the of the war 1941 to 1944, when three numbers German ally, because the Finnish state leadership had come to the conclusion that after birth, the Baltics states had been occupied by Soviet Union and Denmark and overbuy by Germany and Sweden. And Finland could not my that Germany also be doing a lot of Finland and Finland and Sweden to join Soviet state union. So what was what kind of realistic option was left? If you didn't want to be occupied by by by Red Army, but that was an ally with with German Yeah, that actually then took place and it was very systematic up until the bitter end, in autumn 44 Kekkonen was very much in favour of this this Allianz, I've wrote enthusiastically about This idea was that when Germany had crushed Soviet Union, Finland would gain back the territory that it had lost in the meantime or gain even even more, you know, large territories in in eastern Karelia, this was something that was inspiring for a cake for an ultra nationalist as Kekkonen was, you know, the the finish shot to say nationalistic ideology included very much the idea that Eastern Karelia, East Korea was kind of the the heartland or the Finnish civilization, which which was clearly mythology. But then in 43, he changed his mind when he understood that Germany was going to lose his lose the war and his cronies, kind of real, political thinking became stronger. And he began to, you know, prepare already for for this kind of change in politics that then took place in 1944. That that change, obviously, ultimately being the sort of the grinding defeat of the of Nazi Germany. And if we look at Finland in the post 45 era, you mentioned, the the agrarian party that later became obviously the Centre Party in Finland, to kind of bring it forward to when Kekkonen is President kicking in became president, eventually, in 1956. How powerful was the agrarian party after 1945 until the point where kicking him becomes president? And what sort of role is he playing in government. During that time, it was one of the big parties, we had the biggest party what was then as up until 1990s, the Social Democratic Party, and in 1944, the Communist Party became also legalised again. So it was the agrarian party, social democratic, agrarian League and Social Democratic Party in a communist led by three big parties in 45. Actually, the communist got 1/4 of the votes in 1945. And kind of kind of shock for, for, for many, non socialist, but that was rather typical in different parts of Europe, think only about what happened in Great Britain where the Labour won an election, even if the Churchill had been the prime minister up until then, like everyone was able to establish from the beginning in working in a relationship with gate, KGB in an encoded way that led the back game in the KGB, through the agents and through that also to Dano and Moscow. So when Finland in 1948, and 47 was signed a treaty a peace treaty with with the victors in second world war that was about same Me included the same so to say, things that in the armistice three team fought before but 9048 Finland and Soviet Union signed a treaty or have a long, long name of treaty by the it's actual, such a function was that Finland was obliged to defend this territory against attacks that were directed towards severe tuna through finished territory. It was not a open military alias, but III think it had kind of military one could say consequences if a kind of great power would recover, again, get Coronavirus, actually, then possibly we had advanced it became 1946 President and kick on it was one of his closest advisors when this treaty was designed under very sad to say nervous conditions because in in spring 1948, a coup d'etat had happened in Czechoslovakia, and many thoughts of this. This was going to happen also in Finland. And many in Western Europe, thought that it would be the end of the finish. Independence, it did not happen, but it also lay the ground for kind of finished Soviet relationship that in the long run would be problematic. Well, this is what I want to come on to because Kekkonen I think is remembered for sort of orchestrating policy, which has been called neutrality in the wider Cold War between the Americans and the Soviet Union. As you've just said, this wasn't really his policy exactly because it predated when he became president eventually in 1956. But do you think that that's a fair word to describe Finland's role in the Cold War neutral is obviously because obviously the situation that you've just described about the Finns sort of taking part in a war, yes, in which the Soviet Union would also be involved can't really be described as neutral. Finland was neither neutral during the war, nor after the war, because this this treaty, the Soviet Union, that was signed in 1948, included such obligations that really, among Western commentators and politicians, really was understood so that Finland, in one way or another, was included in the Soviet interests fair, or the failure was not, you know, the finished political system was not socialist, the enemy maintained our parliamentarian democracy about it was kind of claimed in the treaty. It is from 1948, it is, it is expressed that Finland attempt was to maintain or keep a distance to conflicts that would arise between the great powers that was to the aim and it was not expressed in that treaty that Finland was a neutral country. But then from during CONUS presidential era, this kind of interpretation of this treaty was emphasised more or more so called active neutrality policy, it was a kind of way to follow the Swedish so to say rhetoric. In Sweden, it was emphasised that Sweden had a military, non allied neutrality policy. Whereas in fact, as we know, Sweden, in pretty soon after NATO was established, began to cooperate with NATO. And Finland, again, was outside of this fair, so it was, as many other things during the Cold War, things were not expressed with the right name. But then, of course, it was not the western countries had nothing to lose by, by in a way, officially, to emphasise that they believed in finished neutrality. What was people like canons, rationale, for pursuing this policy? You could interpret it? I suppose it's kind of walking a tightrope between East and West? Yes, you could do it, you know, one, could I sometimes express it like that, the things that we had, we got the kind of trauma from winter Whoa, and Finland was left to fight a war in practice alone. Now, since then, the Finnish foreign policy has always built on this experience that the Finns good should remember that no one will come and help us if the question is only only about Finnish independence, because NATO wasn't was an ally. And that did not include Finland and the Great Britain and America had in fact, and accepted the Soviet dominance in the Baltic area. Finland was left to cope on its own. And this was actually the certain hard Bay for this policy, that always you should always, you know, taking countries unfortunate possibility that Finland will be left left alone, and how should you then cope with the Soviet Union. Then, of course, there was also selfish mode default, we're talking about Cape Cod, he wanted to become the next president in 1956. And his, his way to handle also the relationship with Soviet Union was was clearly also coloured by this his his his, so to say, personal motives, were combined with the idea that phenol had to cope with Soviet Union, you have to also remember the Soviet Union 1950s and 60s, was understood as a kind of dynamic superpower. And some people thought that, especially after RWJF, had had had rich power that Soviet Union could maybe overtake or become stronger than the United States. His biographer, you only saw me claims that actually that is what Khan and Fed does. Of course not he was not a socialist, and as I said he had been a first nationalist This was probably his ideas in early 1960s. At the same time, Soviet Union and Finnish communists, you know, helped him to power. And so he wanted, I think, to, he wanted to try and kind of take the sting out of the possible relationship with the Soviet Union, right? You wanted to keep this peaceful in and to try and basically keep Finland as an independent country, even if it was independent in a kind of vassal state. Yes, right. Yeah, so if you put it so rudely, but it's pretty much it was the case. Of course, it was a way also to reap the rub the shirt to say, special relationship that our communists had to watch Moscow, that if you are able to establish direct contact with the Soviet Communist Party, then Moscow would not need the our our domestic communists to have an impact on what happened in Finland. So you clearly see that Kekkonen had also this idea. And actually, it was the same idea that our social democrats then would apply from 1970, from mid 1960s Onwards and have just finished the biography of a longtime Finnish Prime Minister, calorie source on which I described this, that this was actually kicked on, so to say, strategy was taken over by by all the, you know, possible parties of Afghan government. So it is forgetfulness. It was also taken as good relationships with, with Moscow that made it possible for Finland to then sign a kind of treaty with F Tae 9060. And with EC 1973. I want to come on to his sort of relationship with the West rather than the east. Later affairs, I just want to try and look at his political career. But more closely. You've mentioned two different roles in the last answer the presidency and the premier, and the prince President and the Prime Minister, kicking in and as I've said, a couple of times became president in 1956. What was the role of the President in that area? Because because I know that it's sort of shifted over time, perhaps due to Kekkonen, in part, but how powerful was the presidency? When Kekkonen was occupying that role? It was pretty powerful, because our constitution that had been been in in, in in use since 1990, gave the president he was he was sovereign when a question of, of foreign policy, but he was also some kind of central person in question of how to form the government. And he had the right to D solve. The Parliament get going and use this kind of weapon pretty, at least at least three times during his 25 years as as president, and each time he did not because it was a real political crisis, but because it it was something that favoured or strengthened his position in, in politics. So that was why if I mean, if you compare the Finnish constitution with, you can compare it in a way to the French constitution during the goal. And that meant that really all the parties that wanted to do maximise their societal impact, wanted, of course, to have their own money in US president even if the President would leave or his party party member book after he had been elected, this connect connection would remain. We haven't had a president that that hasn't, so to say, maintain kind of certain political dependency or impact on on its own party. So that's why the presidency was a really crucial in in Finnish politics up until the year of 2000, when we got the new constitution, in which President was stripped of all his domestic power, and that was very much because of the experience of what had happened during cabinet era. Well, let's let's drill down into that experience a bit more than I've seen Kekkonen described as being autocratic. You mentioned his sort of attempt to kind of crush parliamentary or position to him. How did this kind of manifests itself at election times? Imagine if you know so Kekkonen is standing to be president at an election in Finland. Some of the tactics that we might think of autocrats, now or contemporaries, of Catalans would be things like intimidation of hostile press, attempts to sort of shut down political debates, shut down political parties, what tactics did kick in and use. Now, he didn't go so far as I lead the say, some of the autocrats today that was not to have to direct or censor political opposition. But he could, through different means, then then hinder that the Conservative Party and the Populist Party we got the Populist Party in, in our parliament in 1970, that was led by a man who had who hated cake. To put it shortly. He had been, you know, member of, of the same party as cake on it had been in close in cooperation with him. But then the skis were so to say, cost us we say anything. So he was able to, you know, guarantee that after after there was a crisis in 1961, when those parties who really didn't like that kick in and become president in 1956, try to there, they then found, you know, a common candidate for the President and carry on and then was able to, it is also very much debated, how much can a rolling, automatic 61. So the government so we sent a note demand to the Finnish government in which it suggests that military consultations would now start then, and they then mentioned the Berlin crisis and what happened in West Germany, but in fact, it was a way to do reassure that Tikona would be reelected. Now, since then Kekkonen. Could each time in the elections had been arranged, he he would then stop that any party that was against him would join the the government. And when that was established, it maintained it, that was the sort of a political rule up until 1987 1987, when the Conservative Party had been opposition since 1966. And social democrats had again been also in kind of having lost in the presidential election, RT 56 was in a very difficult position up until 1966. When it then decided to accept Conan so to say, rule and and follow follow his route in also establishing a close relationship to Moscow through KGB. Could you in that case, call him maybe a been a benevolent autocrat, a benevolent dictator in the sense that he wasn't really enforcing his continued power through army presence on the streets or, or, you know, kind of this this sort of violent intimidation of his opponent? It was it was a more it was a Baptist softer form of the authoritarian rule. And a good not equal another talk about dictatorship or or really an authoritarian rule because it was according to our Constitution, and now even even he arranged you know, 1973, he arranged that he didn't have to, you know, that, because the presidential election elections were, were planned to be arranged in 1974. And he said that he could think of that to continue as president but he didn't want to, you know, take part in election so, so, in a way, then, in order for the parties to maintain their so to say, favour position in the government, they then a bed they see they've had also to do with the Kekkonen combined the question of a Finnish EC treaty with the continuation of his presidency. So he was able to get also together with that kind of support for So we tune in to arranger but it would be too much to claim that he was a dictator or or be being that he was overruling our Constitution, it was more that the citizen political culture had developed in that direction that he was able to use that then it actually in the 70s, it was more a question of the parties were already preparing for who would be come after him. And, and so those who Social Democrats, therefore, were also accepting the idea that he would be elected through extra ordinary law in 1973, up until 1978, to avoid that, that Centre Party list that was favoured by Soviet Union, so that was a kind of, it was a presidential game that was going on, going on all the time and get gonna use the social game for its own purpose. It was a it was a negotiation, then essentially a constant negotiation with different parties. In that case, I mean, do you think that kicking in can really be described as having a sort of ideology? Because obviously, if you're going to be bartering with all of these different groups, domestic and foreign all the time, you're gonna have to be giving up quite a lot of ground politically to them. Right. I mean, do you think he was you've mentioned, the Social Democrats, you mentioned the conservatives, what what was what was happening in that controversy? Anyway, according to the Social Democrats, she became more kind of social democratic minded in his late 90s, and 60s, and during the 70s, it is questionable of if that was the case, but having his background, he was, of course, in favour of, of strengthening the, the equality, you know, the social equality, and, you know, so in that sense, he was pretty close to the Social Democrats. But that did not mean that he was so much. He didn't really have such strong ideas about what what Parliament could could could reach. And he had been, you know, he had had had the experience of War, Second World War and 9030. So it was really, more questions that he was, once he had ruled for so long time, in 1970s, he really begin to think that he was a man who he knew better than the parliament that the government. Now the Finnish society developed, you know, if we don't talk about this complicated political culture that you had in the 60s and 70s 1960s, and 70s, were decades when when the social mobility was, was higher. And so to say, and tax taxation, progression of taxation was stronger than ever before or later, there was a large really reforms that were put in practice our our comprehension school, that is one of the few comprehensive schools are still in function Europe was established, then a number of very important social reforms were put in practice in 1970. So you should ask yourself the question, how many things apart from the parliamentarians suffered from this? So if we talk about what was the ideology, I would say that it was still there was, of course, some clear, you know, selfish and and Machiavellian motives. There was also the idea that this kind of very stable and political governance would be the best way to, to move ahead, because still, we had a large communist party that had 1/5 of all the votes. This was his ideology, or was he popular among those who voted for him, and even I mean, among those should remember what kind of opportunity had been in 1930s. And later on, they had they were forced to accept that this Finnish relationship with Soviet Union was stable, and those who were you know, in the fifth, you know, were in middle age in 1970s, had, you know, had fought in the war knew that it was very close and Finland would have been crushed. So this thing that we had a functional relationship ship with Soviet Union was a good thing. And of course, some Some parts of the of the population thought he was so autocratic and used methods that were not really accepted. Finns used to use the expression Cushing constant that meant the AMA his, the way at KCON. It's the same manipulation, one could say, but it sounds better you finish. Click on an art, maybe one could say, was an expression that was used. So there was a our leading daily, Helsingin Sanomat had a cartoonist that continued to draw rather harsh and ironic, sarcastic by political cartoons, or get going even if he had become President of the Republic. So in 1978, when he was the last time elected, he got a very large number of all the votes, but that much more because people all knew that that would be his last, so to say round, and so it was more of a celebration of his statement, ship than real. Election. It sounds as if, although Canons presence made politics, kind of the upper echelons of politics quite closed off, and perhaps quite stilted. That actual political culture within the country remained quite strong and quite democratic, kicking in eventually left power in 1982. Were people glad to see him go. But I mean, yes, yes. I mean, because it was so obvious that it had been much too far. This is way to rule the country. And there was when his successor was, but like the amount of COVID, the social democrat was elected, it was the highest number of votes given in any, you know, election during the independency field, never before or after, so many things have been taking part in the election, that was clearly a protest election, in which things thought that this now we have really want to leave that behind. Still, you have a number of things are still you know, celebrate the memory of of, you know, his statement shape, of course, among his party members, but also made among many others, social democrats and communists and former commission as such, when you look back at the overall effect of his policy towards the Soviet Union, of basically allowing them a certain degree of influence, so long as Finland kind of retained its its overall independence, or at least its superficial independence. I mean, the downside is fairly obvious there, that it very much restricts Finland's ability to kind of manoeuvre on its own terms. But can you see a successful side to it? You know, in terms of perhaps being able to kind of extract advantages from the Soviet Union? Can you see any? Yeah, I can see many that ongoing debate in Finland, the so called term Finland the session that I'm gonna get going on was a personification of this Finland decision. That was this dark era in Finnish history or was it as as defenders okay can claim us? These were these so to say, manoeuvres deem required in order to maintain the finisher to say, political system because in when you're talking about municipal municipality, politics, it was in a totally different story. There was a strong coalition often in urban areas within Social Democrats, and conservatives. And in other parts, then communist were strong and Swedish People's Party. So it was really I would, I would play only municipality anymore, it was pretty well functioning. But as you said, there were some problematic parts, but then it was not only gonna be hard, we had strong corporatism, you know, the, the labour movement. I mean, I don't mean with that as the Social Democrats but the trade union movement, free Yeah, clearly your third unit. So the trade union, they were what, and also the export industry together was an important power structure in that so it was not only good Whenever that played a role in that, altogether, I would say that there were some problematic parts of it that had to do with the job politics. I highlight the research programme for some years ago, in which we compare the Finnish and Swedish democracy and the democratic nation during 20th century with each other. And I developed an a kind of thesis that, to simplify it, in which I claim that democratisation in a country is dependent on three things. First, the political culture, the subtitle, which is the base, if you don't have a rule of law, and trust in your compatriots forget democracy. But if you have that it's possible. But in order to that, it's not only a question of this domestic order, but you need to have a growth that is dependent on how the country is situated in bird economy. If you don't have a growth in in length, democracy is not possible. And that's, of course, a difficult thing to discuss when you for the for the environment movement that thinks that we should leave behind this growth idea. And thirdly, the third factor that mentioned is geopolitics if countries is threatened or it is manipulated or occupied. democracies, of course, threatened and unfinished case you can see that the the neighbourhood of the Soviet Union meant during the Cold War that our democracy parliamentarian, that kind of democracy did not function as it should have functioned according to the rule. But otherwise, you can clearly say that 60s and 70s, you know, we're talking about social development was extraordinarily good. Yes, I mean, Finland did become a genuine export oriented, market, democracy with a certain degree of kind of social protection in there as well, which is pretty amazing. I'm considering that in 1945, it was basically a an agrarian economy, right? Very much. Yes. Through, like way, way more than than Germany, it was much more like France that hadn't in the sense that it hadn't really industrialised very much at all in the first half of the 20th century. Yes. I mean, it was clearly a more grey area than Finland was clear, like, like the bulk of Balkan countries. And that continued because we had two large land reforms one of the First World War, another after the Second World War, that's really, so to say, then one could say, in one way was was something that hindered social unrest, but then it also was something that hindered urbanisation. So that was a situation up until 1960s, when everything then very rapidly, but began to change much, much more rapidly than the other countries in Sweden, the industrialization, urbanisation had had continued since late 19th century, whereas in Finland was much later phenomena. Yes, I suppose. If you're looking at the reason that cat kingdom was able to stay so long, you could attribute maybe two things. Two possible things. One is a kind of fundamentally positive thing, which is that he improved the state of the economy and social protection for average Finnish people, and then there's probably a more negative one, which is that he kind of lambasted political opposition and bullied people and sort of restricted democracy to stay in power. Which one do you think is more prevalent? Obviously, it's a bit of both these things always are but what's more important tricky question. Of course, it's, I cannot I cannot defend the way the political order was manipulated by him. But then if you think about if you really, if I think about my friends and and what I have seen in my life in Finnish society, there are some very important positive things that happened during his role, but you have to remember it plus, of course, not only Kekkonen did it because it was the collisions between the Social Democrats and the Centre Party that that made it possible so it was the Social Democratic Party has claimed in in its history writing it was that it was a social democrats that achieved this and among the liberal son sent the parts of the claim the opposite of course, But it was possible because they were forced to train together. And that has been the Finnish way to to form governments whereas in Sweden, it has been very much so called bloc policy either left or right. But whereas in Finland, such governments would not have been wise because they that would have only made the, you know, relationship with Soviet Union difficult. That was why we also kept on trying to avoid such, you know, left clear lift governments. But but you have to remember, we haven't had a lift kind of majority in our parliament since 1970. Yeah, I mean, I mean, politics there is, is very factional, and such that sort of no one party rules, I guess, I want to ask you a couple of questions about Finland, as it is now, sort of 3040 years on from the Kekkonen period, your country is often ranked as one of the happiest in the world. And I wanted to ask him, I think being born in any part of Europe really is a is a big stroke of luck. Being European is you're very lucky to be to be European, I think. But I think even by European standards, most people would say that Finland, if you're born Finnish, it's a pretty lucky place to be born, even by European standards, by the standards of the wealthiest continent are one of the wealthiest continents on the planet. What are there any big downsides to being born in Finland? Do you think? Or do you basically see it as a real blessing, I would share with this how you measure luck, we've been so very sceptical about this kind of all these measurements, as you probably understand, because if you meet the Finn, that would be not your first impression of that it's a lucky person. I think it has more to do with our social structure, and, and the concentration of wealth and comparing with most other European countries, the concentration of wealth, of course, we are a class society, I'm not a Marxist. But, of course, everybody understands that we live all in class societies, but our glasses are these more flat than clearly more flatter than in Sweden, that we have, you know, because we have so little unfortunately, immigrants, that this has also made it possible and due to maybe the the to say long effect of the the positive development in in in postwar Finland, you can see also kind of, kind of feeling of, of of that it's a question of degree of envy or or, or not, not feeling very strong envy towards your neighbours. That is what the Bible is, is is forbidding us to to feel. But it's difficult, of course to, to avoid it. But it has to do with the land reforms. But it also actually is much, you know, historically a much longer phenomenon because Finland was a part of Sweden. The land owned in Finland was much, much more owned by the peasants than in under somebody is part of the Swedish Kingdom, where it was the aristocracy and the state was about owning the land and this kind of continuing so to say experience and also the regional policy in Finland during the Cold War. Because agrarian party, of course, it was an interesting, interesting when they had their compromises with social democrats to invest pretty much in in regional development universities, infrastructures, and, and also industry. And I think that also, you know, improved this feeling of having say luck, or it's difficult. I mean, Unity unity might be the word that sort of sums up a lot of what you've described. There's a quite, there's quite an interesting book that's just been released called free by layer RP is about communist Albania, and she grew up in communist China and said that there were many many downsides very, you know, very repressive system, but there was a sort of suppression of, of jealousy and one upmanship among people, people didn't feel that somebody else had more than then. Yeah, things very, very stable. I think I read the review of that thing in London Review The children are very interesting. She has become very good. Yeah. So I think that's, that's, that's one explanation. We have some economic, you know, structural, you know, rather severe problems today and that we have in our opposite to then, you know, Norway is, of course another story. But both Denmark and Sweden have been able to do take a step forward in in the world economy and Finland is still somehow longing for era where we could do business with Russia that is of course lost. Because if you look at historically when Finland has been able to develop in a faster than its than other countries, it has been purchased when, when the trade with the Soviet Union, Russia has been been looking at the when pretty important, not the not dominant. But of course, Europe has been overtime, the most important markets have been. But so that's that's what we have now to solve some. I just have one more question. Just five, five more minutes of your your time, Henrik, if that's all right. I mean, so much of what we've discussed with cackling today has revolved around around Russia. And the thing that the thing that for which Finland is sort of most well known in the international media, right now is of course, that you're probably about to join NATO. I just wanted to know, I mean, after after so long of this, again, I'm gonna use sort of tightrope act between East and West. How would you feel about finally kind of throwing all your chips in with NATO? Do you think they would, that would make you feel safer? Yes, that's what what we feel but you have to remember that when Finland joined European Union 1995 It was in foremost a kind of question of security policy, even if it was not admitted, because when Finland applied for membership, the 1992 there was a real fear that unrest in Russia would develop into civil war. And so the same year I've seen and applied for EU membership, Finland bought 64 F a hornet fighters. So the finisher to shy step towards NATO began actually in 1994, directly after Soviet Union had rumbled down and the 3d for 9048 was for gamers this solved so again, it was this fear and that feeling didn't want to be left alone with this, this power, but the thing that the veneer governments have since 1995, in each government programme, it has they have included the so called NATO option the things change in Europe, European security, politics, Finland maintain its preparedness to apply for NATO membership and step by step the cooperation with the United States and UK and also Sweden became deeper. So by now the Finnish Defence is a totally synchronised and you know, as a system with the NATO of forces, actually, we have, I think, one of the few, two, conscription army so we have kind of, it's like what you now say, Ukraine, we have had the kind of Ukraine they have, you know, faster laying to this kind of feeling that they that they will there is they have a strong motive to do what they do when they fight their wars. And this is something that fulfils it has not been so much a question ideological things. We look forward to some in the future in a reach some kind of again, if not good, but let's hope also good relations with Russia. I mean, if you want to continue to live in Finland, you have to cope with that. It's not it cannot remain the relationship that Finland now has with with Russia. And that is something that we were really, you can see in our media and how we discuss Russia is clear, clear difference compared with how it's discussed in in other Scandinavian countries where this kind of the pendant woman is much stronger, so we avoid still To be emotional about and discussed. I think that can only be a good thing. Not being too too can be, you know, impulsive or hot headed. Henrik, thank you very much. I really enjoyed that talk. If people want to find out more about about what you've written either about kicking in or just about Finland more generally, where can you direct them towards? I mean, they could read my history of Finland that was first put in a new edition was published in 2019. And next year, I have my, my biography of a very famous also finished state man and a military Attorney John Monahan will be published in Great Britain. So that's, I mean, it sounds selfish, but that's what I would, wherever I would start, look, look at my reference. Fish. No, no, you can be a self referential as you like, that's why I asked the question. I want to I want to you know, I want to get you to plug your stuff. So thank you, Eric. Cheers. Thanks. Bye. Thank you for listening to the hated in the dead. If you've enjoyed this podcast, follow it on Spotify and Apple podcasts. And for good measure. Leave us a review. You can also follow the hated in the dead on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, so you never miss new content.