If a person wanted to leave the Soviet Union without permission in the mid 1960s and go by small boat to?

Question

Sweden would he have a better chance of escaping by way of Finland or Estonia.
Please note this is a question about feasibility, not morality or legality. It is about what would have been possible in the 1960s not now.

Answer 1

While the Finnish waters were heavily patrolled by small armed boats (muck like US PT boats in WW2), sensors, and other fortifications, a small motorized boat could race across before anyone noticed it missing. It would be harrowing, though.

Finland had become a virtual satellite state of the USSR during the Cold War, due to the threat of invasion (Finland often acted against its own interests to placate the USSR, a phenomenon often called "Finlandization"). So many government officials might want your escapees returned for diplomatic convenience, while many Finns would want to help them to snub their noses at the USSR.

The boat would have to be wood hulled (sensors of the time detected metal), fast (something larger than a speed boat for fuel capacity, but small enough to outrun the patrol boats), and sit low in the water (to avoid radar detection).

Answer 2

First he'd have to escape to Finland. The Finns and the Russians did not really like, or trust each other. The USSR had in fact tried to invade Finland early on in World War 2, but the Finns put up an amazing fight and the Russians abandoned their attack under pressure from the rest of the Allies.



Most of the Russian coast is really far north, and the few places it's near another country are not promising. The small coast on the Baltic was heavily patrolled, and contained a Naval base. In the Pacific, it's a really long trek to Japan, and why would you want to escape to North Korea. Also, trying to get to Norway would be really dangerous because of the cold waters, and that was the busiest area for the Russian Navy.



However, if he did manage to get a boat out into the water, Finland is much closer to Estonia than Sweden. I'm not sure if the Finns would have been all that happy with him and may have turned him over to avoid giving the Russians an excuse.



Doable, sure. Likely to succeed, no.

Answer 3

True the Finns and the Soviets hated each other, and had been involved in two very bitter wars between 1939 and 1945. But the Finns had lost, and gave up substantial territory, and during the Cold War were in a 'bind' in that they believed that there were still Finnish soldiers held captive in the USSR.



For these historical reasons the border between Finland and the Soviet Union was heavily fortified, and the reception of anyone who got across the border was - it is suggested - unhelpful. If the USSR did not directly threaten to make conditions worse for Finnish prisoners in Soviet hands, then at least the Finns may have been mindful that the return of escapees from the Soviets might be used as bargaining chips in freeing their own people. Finland basically walked a tightrope all those years.



I might add that to understand Finland's position you need to remember that it was invaded by the Soviets just after the outbreak of WWII while the Soviets and the Germans were tied together by their non-aggression pact. Although the West 'protested' against the Soviet invasion, no direct aid came to the Finns from the West.



**edit**



It's important to add at this point that the Finn's then comprehensively defeated the Soviet Army which left deep scars in the Soviet's pride.



**edit**



Then when the pact was broken by the German invasion of Russia, the Finns allied themselves to Germany and attacked Russia as well. Britain declared war on Finland, while the US stayed neutral on that issue. This time round the Soviets gave the Finn's a drubbing, although that they held out without being overrun completely attests to their toughness.



All this left the Finns with the sense that they had few friends in the West, and would have to make their own way in the world, which was dominated by a very bitter Russian army on their border looking for any excuse to teach the Finns a lesson.



Sweden on the other hand was more actively pro-western. So your average defector, having a sense of all of this might have preferred to take the longer route to Sweden.

Answer 4

Finland.



Estonia was part of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Finland was at least a neutral country. Better check how strong the Finnish-Soviet border defenses were in the 60's .

___



P.S. : Another interesting detail about the Finnish-Soviet border is that it straddles Karelia, a vast inhabited area and a heavily disputed region, that Finland had to cede (again) to the USSR after the war, and all it's Finnish and Swedish/Finnish population had to be relocated to the rest of Finland.



See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelia



And don't forget the Sami (Lapps) in North Finland. Their territory is spread over Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Kola Peninsula of Russia. The Sami in Russia were forced by the Soviet authorities to relocate to a collective called Lovozero/Lujávri, in the central part of the Kola Peninsula.



Traditionally, the Sami had a variety of livelihoods; fishing on the coast and in the inland, trapping animals for fur, sheep herding, etc.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapp



I say, why not throw a disgruntled Sami fisherman/trapper/poacher/smuggler from Lovozero into the mix. Could turn into a buddy story. And you need a smuggler anyway to get gas or diesel for the boat. Let alone knowledge of local navigation hazards.

Answer 5

First, it would depend on what part of the USSR you were in to start with. If you were in Siberia for example your best bet would be to cross the Bering Sea (quite hazard ours) and arrive in Alaska. Or if you were in the Ukraine, you would want to cross the Black Sea to Turkey or Greece (warmer, but also more traffic and you have two other communist countries in the way: Romania and Bulgaria. Then there is the Baltic and yes, you could go to Finland which would be the closest, but this is, again, across heaven sea travel and a lot of risks as well.



P.S. Estonia was part of the USSR in the 1960s, so that's not an option

Answer 6

SFAIK one of the conditions of Finlands freedom was the duty to turn over all and any escapees back to the USSR



Your guy might have a chance on the Norwegian border- provided he had a travel permit (internal passport + a reason to go into that particular area)

If he was really tough then he should travel in winter, especially during/after a snowstorm. In this case he stands a chance because the sensors, barbed wire fences and mine fields might be covered over with snow



Another possibility is the Chinese border- but thats defended too.



Small boat? All boats were registered. He would have to steal one and that would be reported within hours.

Answer 7

Okay, so it's spring 1961 and I want to leave my Russian home. How do I get out? That's not easy.

Iwan told me a story of someone who went to Finnland first. But without papers I can't go to Finnland.

Estonia would be possible. But like all the baltic states, which are part of our USSR, it's not easy to get there. THEY know that people could try to cross the sea from there. So it's not allowed to go there without papers. A bit like Finnland but not so hard to get those papers. On the other hand I must keep in mind that there are more then 100.000 soldiers in the baltic region. Finnland isn't so heavily guarded.

It's a tough choice...



If you want to tell a story, go for Estinia. Easier to get there but more thrilling with all these soldiers.

Answer 8

It depends on how far they are willing to go. You are almost an adult, and there's little they can really do to stop you. But you may want to remember that you'll be LEGALLY an adult in a few months, and at that point they have absolutely no obligation to provide you with a home, food, or any kind of financial support. So if I were in your shoes, I'd obey their rules.