Lenin had important role in securing Finnish independence - 50 years after his death

print this

By Unto Hämäläinen
     
      Exactly 90 years ago, on Sunday, January 6th, 1918, Helsingin Sanomat wrote in its editorial: "Russia has thus agreed to release the binds that have kept our nation tied to it for more than 100 years".
      The Central Committee of Russia's revolutionaries had definitively reinforced Finland's disengagement from Russia. A few days earlier a delegation led by P.E. Svinhufvud had been granted recognition by Vladimir Lenin, but only the decision of the Central Committee sealed the detachment from Russia. After that, Finland was also recognised by the Western powers.
      Since then there has been discussion on why Lenin and the Bolsheviks allowed Finland to become independent. This debate warmed up again, when a group of influential figures in politics and cultural life proposed in the autumn that a statue to Lenin should be erected in Helsinki. The supporters of the project based their proposal on the important role that Lenin had in Finnish independence.
      Although one might not support putting up a statue to Lenin, his role can nevertheless not be completely dismissed. In the 1970s - 40 years after his death - Lenin made a significant contribution to the preservation of Finnish independence.
     
After the occupation of Czechoslovakia in the autumn of 1968, the leadership of the Soviet Union began to make efforts to reduce Finland's independence as well - even though official speeches oozed with peaceful coexistence and friendship.
      President Urho Kekkonen had to come up with a way to rebuff pressure from the neighbour in a delicate manner. Thus Kekkonen began to speak about Finland's independence as a gift from Lenin, which Leonid Brezhnev and other Soviet leaders supposedly laudably nurtured.
      Diaries and other documents show quite well that Kekkonen had understood at an early stage how Brezhnev in particular emphasised the cult of Lenin: whatever Lenin did, was right.
      Juhani Suomi concedes in the last part of the Kekkonen biography, that "with respect to Lenin, Kekkonen's statements were determined purely by expediency", and that "History and the results of historical research were set aside."
     
Naturally Kekkonen knew and felt that research indicated something quite different. Tuomo Polvinen showed already at the end of the 1960s that Lenin did not grant Finland independence. Instead, he intended to bring Finland back into the Soviet state, once the time was right for such a move.
      Brezhnev had the same goal. "Finland is in the back pocket of the Soviet Union", Brezhnev said in 1973 in a secret speech in Prague. Kekkonen copied this speech into his diary, and answered it by adding praise for Lenin's role in Finnish independence.
      "By way of caricature, one might say that he created an image of Lenin as a godfather of Finnish independence, and as a benevolent guardian spirit, coldly calculating that if the founder of the Soviet state, who is seen as infallible, could be shown to have this kind of an attitude toward Finnish independence, none of his successors would dare raise a hand against it", Suomi wrote.
     
The praise of Lenin reached a pinnacle in the 1970s. It began at the centenary of Lenin's birth in 1970, with the nation's participation in over 1,000 different celebrations showing great devotion. Not even the children were spared the propaganda. Schools had to organise quizzes about Lenin.
      Dozens of commemorative plaques were unveiled on the walls of Finnish buildings where Lenin had lived during the time he spent in Finland. Authors, poets, and artists produced many works on Lenin, the most grandiose of which was the feature film Luottamus ("Trust").
      Scientific research was also required to do its part. Therefore, the best historical researchers were recruited to investigate, once more, the relation between Lenin and Finland. The task took about ten years to complete, and it resulted in a three-part study - Lenin ja Suomi ("Lenin and Finland").
      When the third part appeared in the autumn of 1990, Lenin's greatest creation - the Soviet Union - was already disintegrating, and statues of the founder of the state were coming down. The best gift of Finnish scientific research was forgotten in storage, and the book no longer had any use, although it was, to a large extent, a perfectly respectable study.
     
The toadying of the 1970s had consequences. The educational work performed under Kekkonen's leadership had a result that the President probably had not intended. Many Finns began to believe seriously that our independence was a gift from Lenin and an indication of his benevolence. The myth of a good Lenin remained, and it is still nurtured.
      Old monuments to Lenin must not be torn down. The Lenin Museum in Tampere must absolutely be preserved. They are important documents both of Lenin, and of the time when it was necessary to put them up. It is honest to tell future generations that this was what life was like in the 1970s.
      But if a new Lenin statue were to be built, it would give the wrong image of the matter. Russia is not demanding that such a statue should be set up in Helsinki. Present-day research offers no new reasons to award Lenin - even more - about his noble intentions toward Finland. In fact, the image of a good Lenin has faded, and turned rather gruesome.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 6.1.2008


Previously in HS International Edition:
  President Kekkonen and his successful balancing act (28.9.2004)
  Diaries show President caught between rock and a hard place (30.9.2003)

UNTO HÄMÄLÄINEN / Helsingin Sanomat
unto.hamalainen@hs.fi