Western European democracies have been preparing for potential aggression from
the east since the end of World War 2. They formed organisations like the
European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community,
and eventually the EU to merge much of their economic and social interests,
but the West’s primary defensive organisation in the post-war world has always been NATO.
Very simply, NATO membership entitles a state to the protection of all other members
in case of an attack by an outside power,
however not all European democracies have joined NATO, in spite of the imperialist
tendencies of the former Soviet Union, and its successor, the Russian Federation.
Most significantly, Finland, which was invaded as recently as 1939, and Sweden,
which borders Russia in the Baltic Sea are not signatories to the alliance.
Which begs the question, why? Why haven’t Finland and Sweden joined NATO?
Well, first of all it's not because the two Scandinavian states were particularly sympathetic
to the Soviet Union; they also didn’t join its version of NATO: the Warsaw Pact. Rather, for a
variety of reasons, they saw Cold War neutrality as the best way to keep themselves out of any war
between the two blocs. The original NATO members were almost all democracies that had fought
against Nazi Germany, while the Warsaw Pact was comprised of states in the east that the Soviet
Union had “liberated(?)” during the war. But neither Sweden nor Finland fell into those camps;
Sweden, unlike its Nordic neighbours who did join NATO, was never invaded by the Nazis,
mostly because the Swedes agreed to supply them with a mountain
of iron ore which fueled the German war machine.
Finland on the other hand was invaded during the war, but not by Germany.
The Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, ordered the Red Army
to cross the Finnish Frontier in late 1939, starting the so-called Winter War.
The Soviets, at the very least, wanted to push the border away from the USSR’s second city,
Leningrad, and they probably also wanted to conquer the country outright.
(Finland had previously been a part of the Russian Empire). Long story short, the outnumbered
and outgunned Finns held off the Red Army, and dealt them severe casualties, for about 3 months
and then agreed to peace in exchange for giving up only about 9% of their territory.
A year and a half later, they tried to get that back and assisted in the German
invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa, in 1941.
The Finnish theatre of Barbarossa is usually called the Continuation War.
Of course, the Germans and Finns lost, and Finland had to give up a bit more land, but
more importantly, they signed a neutrality treaty with the Soviets in 1948. It forbade the Finns
from actively siding against the USSR (say, by joining NATO), but unlike Warsaw Pact countries,
it didn’t put Finland under the Soviet Union’s effective control, and the Finns didn’t have to
come to the USSR’s defence, unless an invasion was being launched through Finland itself.
Essentially, throughout the Cold War, Finland tried to have it both ways in regards to the
East-West split, and that, actually, worked out quite well for them. Their economic recovery
suffered in comparison to other democracies which accepted billions of dollars of aid from
the United States through the Marshall Plan, but unlike almost every other state that bordered the
Soviets pre-war, Finland was able to retain its sovereignty and its liberal democratic system.
The Soviets would respect their treaty with the Finns,
and the Red Army never again returned to Finland.
The origin of Sweden’s neutrality, on the other hand, goes back quite a bit further than that
of Finland, in fact, the country hasn’t been involved in a major war since the era of Napoleon.
In 1809 the Swedish King, who had opposed the French,
was overthrown following massive losses to Napoleon’s then ally, the Russian Empire.
Incidentally, the territory they lost was Finland. That thrashing saw Sweden renounce aggression
after the Napoleonic Wars, though before they ended the Swedes had made sure to grab
Norway, which they held for nearly a century.
Ironically the new King, Jean Bernadotte, had been a general under Napoleon but nevertheless,
he formally proclaimed Sweden a neutral state in 1834, so,
when World War II came around, Sweden's decision to avoid involvement was based on over a century
of precedent. And their neutrality worked well, certainly for them. Unlike almost all of Europe,
Swedes were not subjected to the horrors of the bloodiest war in history,
though that’s not to say that their neutrality came at no cost to anyone else.
Swedish iron was critical for maintaining Germany’s armed forces.
In the 1930s they supplied a plurality of Germany’s total iron,
later even trading through occupied ports. Of course, much of that ore would be turned into
weapons that would then be used to commit atrocities on a never-before-seen scale.
Additionally, despite their stated neutrality, Sweden allowed some
German troops through their territory as a part of Operation Barbarossa in the east.
But, again, the Swedish people themselves didn’t suffer from any fighting,
so after the end of the war, the idea of aligning
with either of the new Cold War blocs simply didn’t make any sense to them.
Neutrality had worked so far, why stop now?
And like in Finland, that sort of thinking paid off for Sweden.
They were able to maintain relatively cordial relationships with both East and West,
without having to worry about being drawn into a conflict between them.
OK, so both Finland and Sweden maintained their neutrality throughout the Cold War,
but NATO’s largest period of expansion actually came after the fall of the Iron Curtain as new
democracies in Eastern Europe joined the alliance. Finland and Sweden did not go with them then,
but with the USSR gone, they definitely did move towards the West in other ways.
Just like with NATO, both had stayed out of common European institutions.
Institutions that eventually became the European Union.
The EU also expanded following the fall of Communism, and in 1995 both Sweden
and Finland became members. Why not go all the way and sign up for collective defense?
Well from the Swedish and Finnish perspectives there simply wasn’t any need.
Being a part of the EU entitles the two countries to virtually all of
the economic and political benefits of Western alignment, and, on top of that,
back in the 90s the idea of Russia, the Soviet Union’s smaller successor state,
successfully launching an attack on a European country was laughable.
At that point, they couldn’t even suppress their own rebels in Chechnya.
Both did join a new NATO program, the Partnership for Peace,
but that exists to foster trust and cooperation among European neighbours;
members aren’t signed up to NATO’s key tenet: collective defence obligations.
Without any perceived threat, the only purpose that joining NATO proper could serve would be to
end any ambiguity; it would have essentially been an official middle-finger aimed at the Russians.
Which, again, at the time, would have been pointless as the fragile,
post-Soviet Russian state was not yet about to go empire-building.
That being said, neither Scandinavian country was willing to rule out NATO membership either.
In 2009, for example, Sweden’s centuries-old position of neutrality was abolished as the
European Union which both countries remain members of, implemented treaties that call for some form
of mutual defence. Through the EU, the Swedish and Finnish militaries already cooperate with
NATO members, though the EU’s defense provisions are not as strong as NATO’s, and an attack on
one EU country is not necessarily seen as an attack on them all. Until very recently,
public opinion in both Sweden and Finland was solidly opposed to NATO membership,
but a desire for greater Western alignment on security has exploded recently in both countries.
The resurgence of Russia as a military power and its renewed commitment to expansion through
force have at last pushed Finland and Sweden into applying for NATO membership.
How quickly the pair will be integrated into the alliance,
and what Russia’s response to their joining will be, remains to be seen.
If you enjoyed this video don’t forget to subscribe for more, or check out another one
right now to the left. As always, I’ve been James and thank you for watching Look Back History.