Under the national paradigm: Cold War studies and Cold War politics in post-Cold War Norden

Abstract

On a comparative basis this article explores the profile of Cold War University teaching and Cold War research as carried out in the Post-Cold War period in the Nordic countries. A number of overall conclusions are drawn from this exploration. Firstly concerning teaching, that Cold War courses are mainly taught within the setting of History, and that the political aspects of the Cold War conflict are mostly in focus in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway whereas a culture and society approach dominates in Sweden. Secondly concerning research, the article argues that Cold War research during the last 10–15 years has taken a tremendous leap forward, often through government-sponsored research programmes or appointed commissions. All the same, the author is critical of the strict national approach of most research and the complete lack of comparative Nordic studies, but also of the limited attempts to insert Nordic research findings into the international Cold War debate. However, and thirdly, the article is also analyzing and discussing the role of the Cold War in post-1989 politics and debates. It is demonstrated that Cold War issues have continued to play a prominent role in the Post-Cold War period albeit with a varying degree of intensity within the individual Nordic countries with Norway seeing least controversy and Denmark at the other end having experienced a very radical and intense political debate on issues like alliance (dis)loyalty, fellow travelling and police surveillance and control. The article concludes that level of intensity of these debates is mainly defined by the degree to which such Cold War issues are and can be inserted into national controversies of contemporary politics.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Valur Ingimundarson (Reykjavik) Helge Pharo (Oslo), Karl Molin (Stockholm), Alf Johansson (Söder Törn) Ulf Bjereld (Gothenburg), Kim Salomon (Lund), Mikko Majander and Juhana Aunesluoma (Helsinki), Kimmo Rentola (Turku), Anette Warring (Roskilde), Poul Villaume (Copenhagen) and Nikolaj Petersen (Aarhus) for spending their valuable time on providing input for this article.

Notes

Thorsten B. Olesen is professor of contemporary history and the coordinator of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence at the University of Aarhus. His main reserach areas are Nordic Cold War history, the History of European integration and Danish foreign policy history. His most recent books are: I blokopbygningens tegn 1945–1972 (The Challenge of Bloc-Building, 1945–1972), vol. 5 of Danish Foreign Policy History. Gyldendal Publishers, 2005, 2nd ed. 2006 (together with Poul Villaume), and Idealer og realiteter. Dansk udviklingspolitiks historie 1945–2005 (Ideals and Realities. The History of Danish Development Aid Policy, 1945–2005). Gyldendal Publishers 2008 (together with Christian Friis Bach, Jan Pedersen and Sune Pedersen).

 [1] Throughout this article the Nordic word Norden (as opposed to Scandinavia) is used to designate the combined area of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. These are the five sovereign states in the Nordic area which however also comprises the home rule territories of the Faroe Islands, Greenland and the Aaland Islands. Scandinavia on the other hand only comprises Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

 [2] Østergård, Norden; Stråth, ‘Scandinavian Identity’; Ingebritsen, The Nordic States; Hansen and Wæver, European Integration.

 [3] Miljan, The Reluctant; Eriksen and Pharo, ‘Kald Krig’; Tamnes, ‘Oljealder’; Olesen, ‘Choosing’.

 [4] Pharo, ‘Scandinavia’; Olesen, The Cold War.

 [5] Lundestad, America; Olesen, ‘Brødrefolk’; Molin and Olesen, ‘Security Policy’.

 [6] Nevakivi, Finnish–Soviet Relations; Whitehead, The Ally.

 [7] Andrén, ‘Changing’; Wiberg, ‘Begrebet’; Villaume, Allieret med forbehold, 24 f. and 261 ff.

 [8] FN, Verden og Danmark; Olesen, Norden; Olesen, ‘Stabilitet’.

 [9] Bjereld, Sverige.

[10] Together with historians Karl Molin and Alf Johansson, Ulf Bjereld is publishing what could be considered the overall synthesis of the ‘Sweden during the Cold War’ project, Från igelkott, whereas Nikolaj Petersen in 2004 published the first overall synthesis on Danish foreign policy in the 1973–2003 period – in the second edition of 2006 updated to cover the period 1973–2006. For Demker see Sverige and Dans på slak lina.

[11] This title is from a course recently taught at the University of Lund.

[12] These are course titles offered at the Universities of Aarhus in spring 2007, Copenhagen in spring and autumn 2005 and Oslo in autumn 2006.

[13] The home page of the two museums may be consulted at http://www.stevnsfortet.dk/ and http://www.info-langeland.dk/MuseumogSevardigheder/Langelandsfortet.htm

[14] Two German Architectures 1949–1989 – One Reflection in a Changing Europe, exhibition by Der Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen E.V. in cooperation with Föderation Deutscher Architektursammlungen and the School of Architecture at the Danish Art Academy, Meldahls Smedie Copenhagen March–April 2007.

[15] Whereas Westad and Tønnesson both have a specialization in the Cold War in Asia, Lundestad has for years been one of the most prominent scholars of the transatlantic relationship. In the other Nordic countries you may also find individual historians representing the more international approach of which the Finnish historian Jussi Hanhimäki (Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva) is one example and Swedish Anders Stephanson (Columbia University) another. In Denmark a more internationalist approach is primarily found within European integration studies.

[16] Pharo, ‘Scandinavia’, 194 ff; Pharo, ‘Post-Cold War’, 97 ff.

[17] Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace.

[18] An influential article from 1968 by the Danish professor of international politics Erling Bjøl was an early Nordic contribution to the description and development of the concept ‘The Power of the Weak’. Recent studies such as Lunák, ‘Kruschchev’; Schäfer, ‘Weathering’; Mastny and Byrne, A Cardboard Castle? on the relationship between the Soviet Union and its satellites based on new archival material from Eastern archives have directed new attention to the ‘Weak Power’ concept. See also Tony Smith's advocacy of a ‘pericentric framework’ for studying the Cold War (‘New Bottles’). For Majander, see ‘Post-Cold War’, 71.

[19] For a further discussion on the lack of comparative Nordic history research on the Cold War, see Olesen, ‘Introduction’, 11 ff.

[20] et al., Norden. In contrast to the approach of the Molin book, when it was decided to publish the papers from the 19th Congress of Nordic Historians on the theme ‘The Cold War and the Scandinavian Countries’ individual national chapters were published with no comparative Nordic ambitions, see select topic issue of Scandinavian Journal of History 10, no. 3 (1985).

[21] An example of this is the Nordic Security Policy Research Programme 2001–2006 on Nordic Post-Cold War issues of security. This project was mainly a political and social science project working in English and on the basis of a comparative approach, see for instance Bailes et al., The Nordic Countries.

[22] The report, Grønland under den kolde krig. Dansk og amerikansk sikkerhedspolitik 1945 –68, consists of two volumes: the main report (vol. I) and a source volume (vol. II) in which the majority of the documents reproduced are in fact in English because they originate in American archives. For the summary, see Greenland during the Cold War: Danish and American Security Policy 1945–68. Nikolaj Petersen, one of the researchers drafting the report, has treated some of the central issues of the report in English-language publications, see Petersen ‘Negotiating’, ‘The H.C. Hansen Paper’ and ‘The Iceman’.

[23] A short seven-page summary of the ‘highlights’ of the DIIS report may be downloaded from http://www.diis.dk/sw266.asp – here the full Danish report, Danmark under den kolde krig may also be accessed for free.

[24] For a presentation in English of the report and the political circumstances under which it was commissioned, see Olesen, ‘Truth on Demand’.

[25] Majander, ‘Post-Cold War’, 71 ff. Jussi Hanhimäki is an example of a Finnish historian who has published extensively in English on Western attitudes and policies towards Finland, see Hanhimäki, ‘Containment’, ‘Self-Constraint’ and Containing Co-Existence; see also , From War to Cold War. The latter also published a fine book in 2003 on the British–Swedish relationship in the Early Cold War (Britain, Sweden and the Cold War). It should also be stressed that Kahönen and Hentilä have recently published interesting studies in English and on the Finnish card in Soviet foreign policy 1956–1959 (Kahönen, The Soviet Union) and German Finland's policy towards the two Germanies during the Cold War (Hentilä, Neutral).

[26] Olesen, ‘Introduction’.

[27] Bjereld, Sverige; for a general presentation of Swedish Cold War research see Bjereld and Ekengren, ‘Cold War Historiography’; for the reports by Neutralitetspolitikkommissionen, see Om Kriget kommit … .; for the Ekéus report, see Fred och säkerhet.

[28] Book titles (in translation) like Menaced Idyll. Narratives of the Swedish Welfare State and Cold War, by Salomon, Larsson and Arvidsson (Hotad idyll), The Man in the Middle. A Spy Drama in Cold War Culture, by Cronqvist (Mannen I mitten) and A Narrative of the 1950s. The Cold War of Popular Culture in Welfare State Sweden, by Kim Salomon (En Femtitalsberättelse) are indicative of the methodological and thematic approaches of the Lund project.

[29] For general presentations of Icelandic and Finnish Cold War research, see Ingimundarson, ‘Post-Cold War’; Majander, ‘Post-Cold War’.

[30] Important recent works on Iceland include Jóhannesson (O´vinir ríkisins) about state enemies and internal security, Whitehead (‘Smáríki og heimsbyltingin’) on Iceland's security in dangerous times; and Ingimundarsson (‘In memoriam’), who is discussing the contemporary debate about the US decision to leave the Keflavik base in a Cold War perspective. For Finland, see Rentola (Vallankumouksen aave) on the relationship between Kekkonen and the Finnish Communists in the late 1960s and beginning of 1970s; Majander (Pohjoismaa) on the fight between Social Democrats and Communists about Finland's international orientation 1944–51; Vesikansa (Salainen sisällissota) on anti-communism in Cold War Finland. See also publications referred to above in note 25.

[31] At the University of Helsinki Juhana Aunesluoma is directing a research project on Finland's foreign trade and integration policy 1945–95 while Sari Autio-Sarasmo is heading a project on the transfer of knowledge and technology in Cold War Europe.

[32] Villaume, ‘Post-Cold War’, 17. This article gives a general survey of Danish Cold War historiography of the post-Cold War period.

[33] Olesen and Villaume, ‘I blokopdelingens tegn’; Petersen, ‘Europæisk’; Danmark under den kolde krig.

[34] For more detail about the Centre for Cold War Research, see below. The activities of the Centre for Cold War Studies are aiming at creating a Danish–international network for Cold War Studies, see http://www.koldkrigsstudier.sdu.dk

[35] Midtgaard, Småstat; Mariager; I tillid; , Den nye nabo and Den usynlige front; Hansen, Firmaets. See also the anthology edited by Petersen and Sørensen (Den kolde krig) in which a group of students has published articles within a culture and society approach on the Cold War at the home front.

[36] See Anne Sørensen's book (Stasi) on the unorthodox relationship between Rote Arme Fraktion and the Stasi and Simon Valentin Mortensen's Ph.D. dissertation on the ABM policies of the Johnson and Nixon administrations (‘The Imperial Shield’). Although not belonging to the young generation the books by Bent Jensen (Gulag) on the Soviet Gulag and Mogens Pelt (Tying Greece) on the Cold War in Greece are also recent examples of research outside the national paradigm.

[37] The research projects mentioned are all in progress or in the process of formulation at the Universities of Oslo and Trondheim. For a general presentation of Norwegian Cold War historiography until the beginning of this century, see Pharo, ‘Post-Cold War’.

[38] Norsk utenrikspolitikks historie , vols. 1–6 and Norsk forsvarshistorie , vols. 1–5.

[39] The central aspect of the commissioned report on Greenland during the Cold War mentioned in note 22 was whether nuclear weapons had been stationed in Greenland contrary to official Danish policy.

[40] Bjereld and Ekengren, ‘Cold War Historiography’; Bjereld, ‘Forskarna’.

[41] Majander, ‘Post-Cold War’.

[42] See the Storting-commissioned Lund Report, and Bergh and Eriksen (Den hemmelige krigen) on the Ministry of Justice mandate. See also Pharo, ‘Post-Cold War’, 131 f.

[43] In 2002 the Swedish Commission report, Rikets säkerhet och den personliga integriteten , was published, and since 1998 the government-sponsored research programme MUST (on the Swedish military intelligence and security services) has bee in operation and is still publishing its various results, see Bjereld, ‘Forskarna’ and Molin, ‘Between Scholarship’. In Iceland it was the works by Jóhannesson (Óvinir ríkisins) and Whitehead (‘Smáríki og heimsbyltingin’) which initiated a fierce debate provoking the government to create a committee to evaluate the problem of citizens' access to confidential surveillance and registration documents. The report was published in early 2007 and immediately became the basis for a proposed new law granting access for scholars to government documents on Iceland's internal and external security during the Cold War, see Report on Access to Public Records on Icelandic Security Affairs . For Denmark, see below.

[44] There is by now a rich research literature as well as a variety of journalistic books covering these issues, for instance political and economic relations between Nordic Communist parties and the East, see the various national contributions in Olesen, The Cold War.

[45] The PET Commission is now working in its eighth year striving to combine both the judicial and historical dimensions of its mandate. Meanwhile several reports and publications have appeared, for instance the DIIS white book of 2005 and Davidsen-Nielsen (En højere sags tjeneste) treating some of the same aspects as the PET Commission. On the establishment of the PET Commission, see Olesen, ‘Truth on Demand’, 82 f.

[46] When not otherwise indicated the exposé below is based on Olesen, ‘Truth on Demand’.

[47] Supplementary mandate quoted form Danmark under den kolde krig vol. 1, p. 15.

[48] The footnote period is extensively treated in the DIIS Report of 2005 and in Petersen, Europæisk.

[49] ‘Danmark må gøre op med småstatsmentaliteten’ (interview with Fogh Rasmussen), Mandag Morgen, 11 September 2006; Petersen, ‘Europæisk’, 574 ff.

[50] Danmark under den kolde krig, vol. 4, p. 93 f. A great number of historians while acknowledging the profound and sober research of the DIIS report have in fact voiced some reservations as to the design and some of the interpretations of the report. Thus, the ‘grand old man’ of Danish Cold War research, professor emeritus Nikolaj Petersen, has been quite critical of some of the elements of the DIIS report, for instance its interpretation of the footnote period quoted above, and Petersen's own volume 6 on Danish Foreign Policy (Petersen, ‘Europæisk’) offers – in some respects – an alternative to the DIIS report.

[51] ‘Bestilt forskning: Bent Jensen skal lede koldkrigsforskningen’, Information 12 January 2007; Olesen, ‘Truth on Demand’, 108 ff.

[52] ‘Strafferetsekspert: Bent Jensen har en dårlig sag’, Information, 17 January 2007; ‘Den kolde krig: S rykker for PET svar’, Information, 10 April 2007.

[53] ‘Forsker anklager journalist for KGB-samarbejde’, and Bent Jensen, ‘De kaldte ham for nr. 1’, articles in Jyllands-Posten, 14 January 2007. See also ‘Kort snor til koldkrigsforsker’, Ritzaus Bureau, 16 May 2007 and ‘Hvad vi må vide om den kolde krig’, Jyllands-Posten, 20 May 2007.

[54] Quote from the mandate for the research to be undertaken by the Centre for Cold War Research from press release of 26 January 2006, reproduced at the homepage of the Danish Ministry for Science, Technology and Innovation at:: http://www.videnskabsministeriet.dk/cgi-bin/doc-show.cgi?doc_id = 266590&doc_type = 35

[55] Quoted from ‘Fri forskning: Mystik om koldkrigscenter’, Information, 2 February 2006.

[56] The way in which the Centre for Cold War Research has been established and the ‘handpicking’ of Bent Jensen for the job as director has been severely criticized by historians, see Olesen, ‘Truth on Demand’, 108 ff.; N. Petersen, ‘Historien sat på plads’, Weekendavisen, 10 February 2006; I. Faurby and N. Petersen, ‘Det ligner inkvisition’, Weekendavisen, 19 January 2007.

[57] Bjereld, Forskarna.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Thorsten B. Olesen

Thorsten B. Olesen is professor of contemporary history and the coordinator of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence at the University of Aarhus. His main reserach areas are Nordic Cold War history, the History of European integration and Danish foreign policy history. His most recent books are: I blokopbygningens tegn 1945–1972 (The Challenge of Bloc-Building, 1945–1972), vol. 5 of Danish Foreign Policy History. Gyldendal Publishers, 2005, 2nd ed. 2006 (together with Poul Villaume), and Idealer og realiteter. Dansk udviklingspolitiks historie 1945–2005 (Ideals and Realities. The History of Danish Development Aid Policy, 1945–2005). Gyldendal Publishers 2008 (together with Christian Friis Bach, Jan Pedersen and Sune Pedersen).