The Soviet Union Doesn’t Return Porkkala (Military Base) to Finland in 1956

[General Tirpitz]

As a part of Moscow Armistice in in September 1944, Finland was, besides other territorial loses, forced to lease the Porkkala area nearby Helsinki to the USSR for 50 years. While the main function of Porkkala was for navy use, the area did also include a military airport and large amount of artillery whose range extended to Helsinki. (The distance between Porkkala and the Helsinki railway station is only about 20km; nowadays the area is very much a part of Helsinki metropolitan area and the planned westernmost metro station in Helsinki metro will be only 1km from the area’s border.) In addition, one of the main railway routes in Finland, Helsinki-Turku railway, went through the area. The Soviets had had a similar base further west in Hanko during the Interim Peace but the area’s limited usefulness had led them to demand a new base with a better location and transport capabilities after the Continuation War ended.

Not surprisingly, the area did cause some fear among Finns, as popular as it was among foreign tourists who wanted to experience a railway trip “behind the Iron Curtain”. However, due to changes in Soviet military doctrine, Khrushchev’s foreign policy and better relations between the Soviet Union and Finland, the USSR eventually decided to return the area in 1956, even if there existed some opposition to transfer in some circles, especially in the Soviet military. (It’s also possible that the Soviets wanted to help certain friendly politicians in Finland by giving them an easy foreign policy victory before the 1956 presidential election.)

However, what if the Soviets hadn’t returned the area? While it is true that changes in military technology had made the area less important when it came to the defence of Leningrad area, the military seems to have thought that it would have been still better to keep that area just in case. It certainly would have allowed a way to pressure Finns if there ever was need for such actions.

For Finns, the continuing Soviet presence in Porkkala would have certainly caused many difficulties. How seriously would have any foreign nations taken Finnish insistence on neutrality when the country housed a Soviet base with about 20.000 soldiers next to its capital, especially when we consider that many people didn’t believe in Finnish neutrality even IOTL? Then there are of course numerous effects on Finnish domestic policies this would have caused. Maybe this would have been just enough so that we could have got President Fagerholm instead of Kekkonen?

 

[Corjomc]

Most likely reverts to Finland when the Soviet Union collapses in the 90s

Or we have a very nice "Hong Kong-esque" ceremony in 1994

 

[Hazazel]

Fagerholm presidency could be interesting. SDP:s relationship with Moscow wasn't that great so maybe Soviets would other "guarantees" Say, SKDL in the cabinet from the late 50's on? That wouldn't do great things for the credibility of Finnish "neutrality." Might also have some interesting policy consequences internally.

Other interesting would be the long term development of presidency without Kekkonen. Without him abusing the position of President there probably wouldn't be a later movement to reduce presidential powers.

What about a post cold war NATO membership?

 

[Lalli]

Fagerholm presidency could be interesting. SDP:s relationship with Moscow wasn't that great so maybe Soviets would other "guarantees" Say, SKDL in the cabinet from the late 50's on? That wouldn't do great things for the credibility of Finnish "neutrality." Might also have some interesting policy consequences internally.

Other interesting would be the long term development of presidency without Kekkonen. Without him abusing the position of President there probably wouldn't be a later movement to reduce presidential powers.

What about a post cold war NATO membership?

Agree. Without Kekkonen president might has more power if Fagerholm doesn't use so much power during his presidency and is only two terms.

Nato membership is intresting question. It of course depend when we get Porkkala back.

Intresting thing is that when Western Block doesn't see Finland as neutral nation there might not be Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) on 1970's.

And how this affect to status of Sweden? Probably it doesn't join Nato but might cause some changes there.

 

[DrakonFin]

The first thing that comes to mind is that the Finnish military will need to think the capital's defence differently ITTL - they'd need to find ways to try and neutralize Porkkala in case of a war against the USSR. That would give a lot of food for thought to both the army and the navy. ITTL, the Navy would also need to use a different main base on the Gulf of Finland post-1956 as Upinniemi is butterflied from existence. Will the Navy stay in Helsinki itself? Very likely, as there it would be close to the capital to protect it from a Soviet surprise attack from/via Porkkala.

 

[Hazazel]

The first thing that comes to mind is that the Finnish military will need to think the capital's defence differently ITTL - they'd need to find ways to try and neutralize Porkkala in case of a war against the USSR. That would give a lot of food for thought to both the army and the navy. ITTL, the Navy would also need to use a different main base on the Gulf of Finland post-1956 as Upinniemi is butterflied from existence. Will the Navy stay in Helsinki itself? Very likely, as there it would be close to the capital to protect it from a Soviet surprise attack from/via Porkkala.

There might be a stronger military presence in Helsinki in general then? At least during the cold war.

What about internal policy consequences? More socialistic policies during the cold war followed by a harder turn to right in the 90's? Especially if there has been more trade with SU and hence a harder drop than OTL.

 

[General Tirpitz]

The first thing that comes to mind is that the Finnish military will need to think the capital's defence differently ITTL - they'd need to find ways to try and neutralize Porkkala in case of a war against the USSR. That would give a lot of food for thought to both the army and the navy. ITTL, the Navy would also need to use a different main base on the Gulf of Finland post-1956 as Upinniemi is butterflied from existence. Will the Navy stay in Helsinki itself? Very likely, as there it would be close to the capital to protect it from a Soviet surprise attack from/via Porkkala.

Do we know what sort of planning the Defence Forces did have regarding the area IOTL?

I really wonder what would happen to the area after it is returned to Finland in the 1990’s (assuming there’s not any surprising butterflies.) It would be a rather big, empty area, comparable in its size to many Finnish municipalities. I would assume that quite major cleaning up of the area would be needed before it could be taken into any other use.

 

[DrakonFin]

What about internal policy consequences? More socialistic policies during the cold war followed by a harder turn to right in the 90's? Especially if there has been more trade with SU and hence a harder drop than OTL.

At the very least Porkkala would be a sticking point to any discussions and the Soviets could squeeze the Finns with it at suitable times. In comparison to the 60s and 70s IOTL, the USSR would already have a presence in Finland and it would try to leverage it in different ways, which would make the Finnish political position much more wrought. As there already would be a Soviet base in Finland, leasing other bases for the defence of the USSR (and to help Finland fulfill its FCMA treaty obligations) could always be brought up when relations sour between the NATO and WP. An attempt towards increasing creeping Soviet military presence in Finland, especially in regards to the Navy would be expected. I'd also expect that several Soviet-manufactured "Crises" between Helsinki and Moscow would centre around Porkkala in the 60s and 70s.

The question of course is, how Finland would react to such pressure, and who would be leading Finland through this? How would a Fagerholm presidency fare in these conditions, who would be likeliest Prime Ministers and Defence Forces commanders under these years? A lot could come down to personal chemistry and the compatibility of leading styles and goals, for example.

Do we know what sort of planning the Defence Forces did have regarding the area IOTL?

I can't answer that off-hand, but happily I can point you towards a very recent study - Juuso Säämänen's National Defence University dissertation (February 2017) about the 1945-1965 developments in Finnish naval defence seems to address the Porkkala issue as well on several pages. It is entirely available online, as well.

 

[General Tirpitz]

At the very least Porkkala would be a sticking point to any discussions and the Soviets could squeeze the Finns with it at suitable times. In comparison to the 60s and 70s IOTL, the USSR would already have a presence in Finland and it would try to leverage it in different ways, which would make the Finnish political position much more wrought. As there already would be a Soviet base in Finland, leasing other bases for the defence of the USSR (and to help Finland fulfill its FCMA treaty obligations) could always be brought up when relations sour between the NATO and WP. An attempt towards increasing creeping Soviet military presence in Finland, especially in regards to the Navy would be expected. I'd also expect that several Soviet-manufactured "Crises" between Helsinki and Moscow would centre around Porkkala in the 60s and 70s.

Taking into account that we had preliminary discussions about common Finno-Soviet defence planning IOTL, the chance for concrete negotiations seem much more higher here. The Soviets could claim that having the FCMA Treaty and its articles concerning military cooperation become meaningless if some level of pre-planned coordination between the Soviet military in Finland and the Finnish Defence Forces doesn’t exist. Similar arguments could be used for common military exercises. There’s even some merit for this argument from practical reason, if we look at this question purely from the Soviet military perspective.

The question of course is, how Finland would react to such pressure, and who would be leading Finland through this? How would a Fagerholm presidency fare in these conditions, who would be likeliest Prime Ministers and Defence Forces commanders under these years? A lot could come down to personal chemistry and the compatibility of leading styles and goals, for example.

I have hard time seeing Fagerholm developing similar deep relations with the Soviets than Kekkonen did. He certainly wouldn’t be as much a player as Kekkonen was.

I can't answer that off-hand, but happily I can point you towards a very recent study - Juuso Säämänen's National Defence University dissertation (February 2017) about the 1945-1965 developments in Finnish naval defence seems to address the Porkkala issue as well on several pages. It is entirely available online, as well.

Thanks for posting this! It looks very interesting.