BOUNDARY BETWEEN NORWAY AND THE USSR

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 84
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 9, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 1999/09/ 1-6
Page
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. History of the Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Changes in the International Character of the
Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Establishment of the Boundary . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Tsarist Period (1826-World War I) . . . . . 6
2. Finnish Period (World War I - World War II) 8
3. The Soviet Period (Post-World War II) . . . 15
II. The Course of the Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
III. Description of the Boundary Area . . . . . . . 23
A. General Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B. Terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
C. Distribution of Population . . . . . . . . . . 26
D. Industries and ResourOes . . . . . . . . . . . 28
E. Transportation and Border Crossing. . . . . . . 35
1. Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2. Border-Crossing Points . . . . . . . . . . 38
IV. Boundary Administration and Potential Disputes . . 39
A. Boundary Regime Agreement and Boundary
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
B. Potential Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : LjRMffMjPLPVTqRT%W0040001-6
 Approved For Release PAWM_ n7-L.9T01018A000100040001-6
Page
V. Maps Showing the Norway-USSR Boundary . . . . . . . 4+9
A. Evaluation of Map Coverage . . . . . . . . . . 49
B. Evaluation of Individual Map Series . . . . . . 51
Maps
CIA 11738 USSR-Norway Frontier Area
CIA 1210+ Norway-USSR Boundary in the Mouth of the Jakobsely
25X1A2g
Appendixes Page
C. Gaps in Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
D. Sources and Evaluation of Sources . . . . . . . 75
List of Illustrations
Figure 1. -- Boris Gleb church, Kolttakengyas, USSR (probably pre-191+0).
Figure 2. -- View of marker posts along land boundary.
Figure 3. -- View of boundary cairn.
Figure 1+. -- Norwegian boundary marker No. 120, Skogfoss (1947).
Approved For Release I 999/O f 198A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-
S
IAL
BOUNDARY BETWEEN NORWAY AND THE USSR
Summary
The following report on the Norway-USSR boundary and border
area is one of a series dealing with the international boundaries
of the USSR. The reports are designed to give information on the
history of the boundary; to describe the terrain, transportation,
economy, and population of the boundary area; to discuss boundary
disputes or potential disputes; and to evaluate the more important
large-scale maps of the area.
The two countries are not new neighbors. The present boundary,
as a line between Norwegian and Russian territories, was first
established in 1826. Most of the 122-mile boundary from the point
where Finland, Norway, and the USSR meet to the Varangerfjord (an
inlet of Barents Sea) follows the courses of two rivers, the
Pasvikelv (Russian: Pats-Yoki) and Jakobselv (Russian: Vor'yema).
In the period between the two World Wars, Finland and Norway were
neighbors along this same boundary. In 1947, after the final trans-
fer of the Pechenga area to the Soviet Union, a detailed survey and
demarcation of the boundary was carried out by a'joint Norwegian-
Soviet commission. The very detailed maps resulting from the
demarcation survey are by far the best source for the exact position
of the line.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 :
NBAL 00040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 P79T01018A000100040001-6
Throughout most of its length the boundary passes through barren,
undulating terrain that is swampy in places. In the lower Pasvikelv
Valley, however., the terrain is level. to gently rolling and is
sheltered enough to support mixed forests of pine and birch.
The zones of greatest economic and strategic importance and
densest population are near (1) the Norwegian A/S Sydvaranger iron
ore mines and the Soviet nickel mines at Nikel' (formerly Kolosjoki),
both of which lie only a few miles from the boundary, and (2) the ice.-
free posts of Kirkenes, Norway, and Linakhamari, the port town of
Pechenga, USSR. Because of the rigorous climate, other activities
and concentrations of population are limited almost exclusively to
the lower Pasvikelv Valley and to a few sheltered fjords near the
Barents Sea, where the climate is moderated by the warm North Atlantic
Drift. Most of the population not employed in mining, ore processing,
or shipping is engaged in a seasonal combination of agriclture,
fishing, lumbering, and reindeer breeding. The area is accessible
by_land from Norway, Finland, and the USSR, respectively, by (1)
the Norwegian trunk road (Oslo-Kirkenes) No. 50, which was completed
during World War II, (2) the Arctic Highway from Rovaniemi to the
port of Pechenga, which was originally constructed by the Finns but
is now closed to Finnish traffic at Virtaniyemi on the Finnish-Soviet
border, and (3) the improved dirt road running west from Murmansk
and connecting with the Arctic Highway at Pechenga. The main roads
and border-crossing points lie in the Pasvikelv Valley, but travel
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 :
I018AO00100040001-6
t V ~01
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RI0-7g1TA108A-QQ 0001-6
across the boundary is prohibited (unless officially approved),
and all of the bridges that had not been destroyed during the
German retreat of 19lt have been dismantled. All of the main roads
have improved dirt or gravel surfaces, are difficult to maintain,
and often become completely impassable during the spring thaws.
The administration of the boundary is subject to detailed regu-
lations established by a regime agreement that went into effect in
October 1950. This agreement restricts activities on the boundary
rivers and along the land boundary and describes the method of
handling all border violations. The agreement does not deal with
the use or flow of the waters of the boundary rivers but merely
states that future agreements will be reached between Norway and the
Soviet Union on matters involving the building of installations or
other structures on the rivers. The lack of an adequate agreement
is particularly significant for Norway because Soviet control of the
water flow in connection with the Yaniskoski power plant (just south-
west of the boundary in Pasvikelv) has created serious fluctuations
between flood and low water, the first destroying crops and the
second preventing the floating of timber downstream.
The only potential problem related to the actual position of
the line is that of the extension of the line into the Barents Sea
for purposes of bounding the territorial sea of the two states.
Norway claims 4 nautical miles as the width of its territorial sea,
whereas the Soviet Union claims 12 nautical miles. It was probably
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RVfb-JW1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21: CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
SECRET
because of this difference that the Joint Commission for the Demarca-
tion of the Boundary decided to have this issue resolved in future
diplomatic negotiations between the two countries. t
I. History of the Boundary
A. Changes in the International Character of the Boundaa.a
The boundary between Norway and the USSR has existed in its
present position, with only minor changes, since 1826.l/* (See map
CIA 11738.) Before 1826 the area traversed by the boundary was open
to free travel by inhabitants of areas which are now parts of Norway,
Finland, and the USSR, and taxes were paid to both the Norwegian and
Russian crowns by the villages in the Lapland districts. In 1809
Finland, which had been a part of Sweden, was transferred to Russia.
From 1814 to 1905 the Norwegians and Swedes were united under a single
monarch, though their territories were distinct. In an effort to
prevent difficulties in the Foelleds Districter (Districts in Common),
the King of Sweden and Norway and the Emperor of "All the Russias"
agreed to a demarcation of the line of sovereignty in the boundary
area. The agreement was included in the "Convention of Limits between
Russia and Sweden," 2-1.4 May 1826, signed at St. Petersburgh.2/ The
division of the area by Norway and Russia precluded Finnish access to
the Arctic Ocean. This introduced a problem which was to exert great
* Footnote references in arabic numerals refer to sources listed in
Appendix D.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
influence and to result in several changes in Norway's neighbors
along the boundary.
From 1826 to 1917, when the Soviet Government came into
existence, the line was the boundary between Norway and Russia.
Although Finland became an independent, nation in 1917, it did not
receive the Petsamo district from the USSR until the treaty of peace
signed at Dorpat on 14 October 1920.3 From 1920 to 1940 the line
was common to Norway and Finland. By the peace treaty of 12 March
1940, between the Soviet Union and Finland (following the Soviet
Winter War invasion), Finnish sovereignty over the Petsamo district
was again confirmed. At this time the USSR was accorded the special
privilege of free access to the Norwegian border .V In 1941, however,
the treaty was nullified by the renewal of hostilities between
Finland and the USSR. The armistice agreement of September 1944
between the two countries proposed the cession of Petsamo (Russian:
Pechenga) district to the USSR .5/ The signing (in February 194'')
and the ratification (in September 1947) of the Finnish Peace Treaty
completed the transfer of the area to the Soviet Union and again
gave Norway and the Soviet Union a common boundary.6/
The juxtaposition of Norway and the USSR is of considerable
significance at present, since Norway is the only member of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that borders the USSR in Europe
and is one of the few non-satellite neighbors of the Soviet Union.
Norway also occupies a strategic position near the western terminus
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 :CIA-T&101018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
of the northern sea route at Murmansk and virtually lies astride polar
air routes. Prior to the association of Norway with the NATO, relations
between Norway and the USSR were not unusually bad and problems regarding
their common boundary were mostly of a minor and local nature. In
recent months, however, Soviet-Norwegian relations have become strained
as a result of the membership of Norway in NATO. Norway has rejected
the recent Soviet protests that Norway is ignoring the 1920 treaty pro-
hibiting the establishment of naval and. military bases on the island
of Spitsbergen. A recent corollary to the Spitsbergen issue has been
the Soviet protest regarding visits of persons of NATO countries to
the Norwegian-Soviet boundary.
B. Establishment of the BoundarX
1. Tsarist Period (1826 - World War I)
In 1826, when the boundary between Norway and Russia was
first established, it was described generally along the Pasvik:e1v and
Jakobselv rivers and on the ground by several long straight-line sectors.
A map at 1:168,000, prepared in 1825 for purposes of delimiting the
boundary in the agreement, was attached to the agreement. Another map
(at 1:8,400), prepared after the marking of the line in the summer of
1826, showed more detail for some parts of the line than the 1825 map.
Both maps, however, contained errors in directions and distances. The
actual 1826 marking of the present line consisted of only 10 m3xkers
or stone cairns, generally at the main break points. The location of
-6-
Approved For Release 1999/09121C-TIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RI PTMg1018A000100040001-6
Krokfjell (Muotkavaara), the meeting point of the present territories
of the USSR, Norway, and Finland, was established in 1833 by repre-
sentatives of Russia proper and the Grand Duchy of Finland, bWtthe
marker was not erected until after the 1846 Norwegian-Russian survey
of the boundary. At that time a map was prepared to show the loca-
tion on Russian territory of marker No. 363, near the mouth of the
river Jakobselv. In 1847 an agreement was reached providing for a
resurvey of the boundary every 25 years. This agreement applied not
only to the present Norwegian-USSR boundary but also to portion-.s of
the present Finnish-Norwegian boundary.
The periodic survey of 1896 resulted in the first relatively
accurate, correlated map series covering the boundary .7/ The 1896
maps were prepared at the scale of 1:42,000 and covered a strij one
verst (3,500 feet) wide along the entire boundary. These maps are
enlargements of the Norwegian topographic maps at 1:100,000
Detailed maps at 1:8,400 were also made of the terrain around each
cairn. The courses of the rivers also were more closely investigated.
At the time of publication, the maps were considered to be very good
and particularly valuable for clarifying problems resulting from
inaccuracies in the 1825 map. During the 191+6 negotiations, however,
the maps were found to be unsatisfactory in view of modern survccying
techniques and the current need for accuracy.
As a part of the 1896 survey, additional markers were placed on
the line near the old cairns to indicate the direction of the l:.ne to
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-F T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
the next marker. The boundary clearing was also widened to 8 meters
(26.21 feet) so that the line could be identified at a distance.
Another marker was placed at the mouth of the Jakobselv on the
Norwegian side of the river so that there would be no future misunder-
standing of the line. According to a special notation in the 1896
protocol, the new marker did not "in any way alter the provisions of
the Agreement of 1826." The protocol also specifically stated- that
the line in the Pasvikely River did not follow the thalweg at the two
islands -- Ostrov Chevessuolo (Norwegian: Skolte-kholmen; formerly
Nakholmen) and Ostrov Niva-saari (Nivansaari). Although the line was
to the disadvantage of Norway at these islands, it was in conformity
with the 1826 documents, and no attempt was made to change the boundary.
Norway never approved the 1896 protocol but'did approve maps in
1904. Russia approved both the maps and protocol and, in 190;1, requested
Norway to recognize the protocol. Even. though Norway had never approved
the document, its value as a supplement. to the maps was not ignored
in the 191+6 negotiations.
2. Finnish Period (World War I - World War II)
Before the next scheduled Norwegian-Russian survey in
1921, Finland had became a neighbor of Norway along the boundary. In
1920, Norway began investigations on problems created by the new boundary
situation, and in 1921. Finland decided to open boundary negotiations
with Norway. On 5 April 1922 the Norwegian Storting agreed to the
opening of talks concerning the boundary in the Finnmark-Petsamo area.
Approved For Release 1999/09/2E~ Cl&-RDP79TO1 RET
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- ~T01018A000100040001-6
Discussions were held from May 1922 to February 1924. An agreement
was reached on 28 April 1924 concerning the boundary between Finri-
mark Province (fylke) of Norway and Petsamo District (herred) of
Finland .9/
Although the agreement signed in 1924 superseded the 1826
agreement, it contained no basic changes in the description of the
course of the boundary, with the exception of a clause calling for
the establishment of the line in the territorial sea north of the
mouth of the Jakobselv. During the negotiations, however, the
Norwegians had proposed two modifications of the 1826 line, botIi
to no avail. First, they wished to apply the thalweg principle to
the Pasvikelv River near Ostrov Chevessuolo and Ostrov Niva-saari;
and, second, they proposed that the line leave the Pasvikelv in an
easterly direction in the vicinity of Ozero Kuets-yarvi and continue
to the Jakobselv, rather than follow the river to the point north of
the Kolttakengyas (formerly Boris Gleb) area, whence it takes a south-
easterly and easterly direction to the Jakobselv. The second proposal
had been rejected in the negotiations prior to the 1826 agreement,
which not only extended the boundary farther north but also provided
for the Norwegian cession to Russia of a small area around the Russian
church of Boris Gleb on the west bank of the Pasvikelv (see Figure 1).*
* The name Kolttakengyas is the present Russian version of Kolttak6ngas<
the name given to the town by the Lapps who settled in the area. In
the 16th century a Russian Orthodox Church was built at the site of
the present town of Kolttakengyas and dedicated to two eighth-century
Russian princes, Boris and Gleb.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-Rjj01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
In the 1922-24 Finnish-Norwegian negotiations, the Finns rejected the
proposal for a change, since Norway could offer no territorial compen-
sation.
In 1925, Norway and Finland conducted a survey of the boundary,
which resulted in several differences of opinion and interpr.etation.l0-`
According to the 1924 agreement the land boundary was to be in accord
with that of previous Norwegian-Russian agreements and should. therefore
run in straight-line sectors from one marker to another. During the
investigations this procedure was found to be agreeable generally, but
in the Boris Gleb area, particularly, a problem was encountered. Here
terrain characteristics and the absence of a referenced boundary road
made it impossible for the resident Norwegians to know where the line
ran, and some were found to be cultivating Finnish soil. So that there
would be no doubt as to the course of the boundary in the area, a boundary
road was built and additional markers were established.
The Pasvikely Sector of the boundary was to follow the line in
the river that had been established previously by the Norwegians and
Russians. The 1896-97 maps were to be used as sources, and where they
were not clear the middle of the deep channel was to be followed.
(Article I). The Norwegian representative stated that the maps could
be followed satisfactorily, despite the fact that they were old and
enlargements of the Norwegian topographic maps at the scale of 1:100,000.
* The points of view of the two countries are treated in two articles
which were written by members of the boundary commissions. The
Norwegian article, cited as Source 8, came as an answer to Source 10.
- 10 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/210W-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIASRC MT01018A000100040001-6
Although the Finns raised soiae objections to the use of the maps and
to the means of marking the boundary, the Norwegians felt that
resulting gains would not justify the expense of a new survey and of
the careful marking of the boundary, as advocated by the Finns.
Consequently, it was decided that the only new mapping in the Pa wikely
Sector was to be sketches of individual areas that were considered
significant or that were poorly shown on the 1896 maps. The Norwregians
also considered it unnecessary to mark the boundary line along the
rivers by pillars on the river banks, as had been proposed by the
Finns. The Norwegians argued that, although the scheme called for
a large number of new markers, it still left the line in doubt. The
main problem was to clarify the possession of the islands in the river.
In 1925, special signs were placed on the islands to designate i,he
country to which they belonged.
For the Jakobselv Sector of the boundary a new series of maps at
the scale of 1:10,0.00 was to be made and held valid until the nc!xt
scheduled 25-year boundary survey. As a result of the relativeLy
frequent minor changes in the river bed, the 1896 maps were out of
date by 1925, when the thalweg was redetermined and indicated on the
1:10,000 maps. In addition, each country had made a single-sheet map
of the outlet of the Jakobsely at the scale of l:20,000.*
Nei her the 1:10,000 nor 1:20,000 maps is available. However,
attention is called to Finnish 1:20,000 maps which are discussed
briefly on pp. 50-51.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-ROPI 1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/2152DP79T01018A000100040001-6
In the Jakobsely area some questions arose in regard to the loca-
tion of the line at places where an island divided the stream and it
was difficult or impossible to determine the main channel. Article II
of the 1924 agreement provided that the line in the Jakobselv should
follow the middle of the deep channel of the river and the middle of
the lakes formed by the river. Apparently there were two outstanding
areas in which it was impossible to determine the main channel. Con-
sequently, the line was placed to favor Norway in one case and Finland
in the other.
The island and channel problems were minor in comparison with
the issue raised over the mouth of the Jakobselv (see map CIA 12104).
At the time of the 1925 settlement the Finns maintained that the
tidal estuary of the river was actually a part of the sea and that
the line should run equidistant from the two banks. In 1924, the Finns
had refused to discuss the question on the spot. This stand was
regarded by the writer of the Norwegian rebuttal as a device for leaving
the issue open. The Norwegian Government, on the other hand, contended
that the line should follow the channel of the river at low tide, which
would have put the boundary close to the eastern bank of the open mouth
of the river.
The course of the line in the lower portion of the Jakobselv,
as well as in the territorial waters to the north, was not resolved
in 1925. Both problems were again opened for negotiations in 1931,
following the publication in 1927 and 1930 of articles written by
Approved For Release 1999/0EM_gtp 1A-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- 2T01018A000100040001-6
principal members of the Finnish and Norwegian commission of 1925
fot the investigation and marking of the boundary.
For the section south of the narrows, the view of the Finnish
representative in the 1927-30 battle of words was virtually the same
as the Norwegian view -- that the line should follow the channel. at
low tide. This view differed from that expressed by the Finnish
Government in negotiations in 1924-25. For the area north of the
narrows, however, the two writers again raised the issue concerning
the course of the line in their territorial seas. This dispute
involved many legal definitions and interpretations of tide levels,
skerries (rocky isles or reefs), sand banks, etc. Article III J.n
the 1924 agreement merely stated that the line should be established
according to principles of international law.
The 1931 negotiations resulted in a supplementary protocol,
which was signed on 12 September 1931. This protocol established 11
points through which the line was to be drawn and also provided that
vessels of both countries could freely lie and anchor on either side
of the boundary. The line provided for in the protocol of 1931 was
finally marked in 1939, using a series of 20 sight markers placed on
the land in such a manner that the sight lines intersected at the 11
points along the boundary line. The 1939 work resulted in a special
protocol and description, in addition to a revised copy of the 1925
- 13 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- M1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 ETA--RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
From available information the course of the line is riot clear,
nor can it be determined whether the line agreed more closely with
the Norwegian or the Finnish claims. Neither is it clear whether any
provision, was made for an extension of the line through the territorial
sea. The official Norwegian topographic map at a scale of 1:100,000,
dated 1949 (Sheet 05, Jarfjorden), differs from the 1895 original in
the portrayal of the line in the mouth of the Jakobselv south of the
narrows.- On the 1895 map the line extends down the middle of the
estuary. On the 1949 map the symbol is omitted from the estuary but
leads up to the estuary from, the south and is resumed again in. the
narrows to the north. On the Finnish map at the scale of 1:20,000,
dated 1941 (Vuoremi Sheet), the boundary symbol stops completely at
the southern end of the estuary. Therefore, neither the 1941 nor the
1949 map sheds any light on the exact course of the boundary as it was
marked in 1939. The 1939 edition of the Finnish 1:400,000 series
carried a line lying to the east of center in the estuary, thus resem--
bl.ing somewhat the Norwegian claim. The map also extends the boundary
symbol in a north-northeasterly direction about 3.45 nautical miles
into the Varangerfjord. Since the Norwegians show no line in the
territorial sea, the Finnish representation does not necessarily indi-
cate a definitely established line.
* The maps discussed in this paragraph are evaluated in Appendix D.
Approved For Release 1999/09//-10j,A--RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-FNM101018A000100040001-6
According to the Norwegian-Finnish agreement that the boundary
was to be resurveyed every 25 years, a survey was to be made in 1950.
This requirement, however, was nullified by the transfer of the
Petsamo (Pechenga) area to the USSR.
3. The Soviet Period (Post-World War II)
In August 1946, representatives of Norway and the
Soviet Union met and established the Joint Soviet-Norwegian Comrriis-
sion for the Marking of the International Boundary between the USSR
and Norway. Its basic task was to establish the international boundary
in accordance with the old Norwegian-Russian boundary. The 182E
boundary agreement and the 1896 Norwegian-Russian maps were to be
used.ll Under the Joint Commission there were two mixed Norwegian-
Soviet subcommissions, one supervised by the Soviet members and the
other supervised by the Norwegian members. The Joint Commission
agreed that the two subcommissions appointed to check and mark ,he
line might deviate slightly from the old boundary course where local
conditions justified the change. It was also realized that the spe-
cific measurement of the boundary by modern instruments might result
in radical changes. To keep the line in accord with the 1826 a;ree-
ment in such cases, the line on the 1896 maps would have to be used.
The two subcommissions were required to report all problems and
deviations to the Joint Commission for approval.*
* A detailed discussion of the negotiations is found in the proposal
which was submitted to the Norwegian Storting for ratification of the
boundary (see Source 1), which provided most of the information dealing
with the activities preceding the actual demarcation of the line.
- 15 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-F i101018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Pursuant to the permission granted by the Joint Commission to
make minor changes on. the basis of local conditions, the Soviet Union
proposed the two following changes in the boundary as related to the
waters of the Pasvikelv: (1) that the position of the boundary in
the Graensefoss (falls) area, where Norway controls both banks of
the river in two small areas northwest of marker No. 11, be changed
to follow the thalweg, and (2) that the Norwegian part of the Pasvikelv
some distance south of the main falls at Skoltefoss (totalling about
103,000 square meters) be given to the USSR in exchange for a part of
the Pasvikelv (totaling about 113,000 square meters) that lies near
the northern limit of the Soviet-held Kolttakengyas (Boris Gleb) area.
Both of these changes would have been to the advantage of the Soviet
Union in the development of water power and in the control of the flow
of the river. Norway rejected both proposals on the basis of the con-
sequent technical problems arising from the control and use of the
river for power sites, which would have to be solved in negotiations
regarding the combined water-power potential and planned use of the
river.
The thalweg measurements in the Pasvikelv gave rise to further
questions along this portion of the boundary. First, the Norwegians
proposed that the Soviet islands, Ostrov Chevessuolo (see map CIA
11738, marker No. 71) and Ostrov Niva-saari (marker No. 85), which
had been situated on the "wrong side" of the thalweg since 1826 and
had been the sources of differences in 1896 and 1925, be turned over
Approved For Release 1999/09/SECRET-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- T01018A000100040001-6
to them. Second, the Soviets demanded that the three small islands
of Ostrov Kiste-kholmen (marker No. 50), Ostrov Brenn-kholmen
(marker No. 82), and an unnamed island (marker No. 81) just to the
south and west of the latter be transferred to them on the basis of
the new thalweg measurements of the Pasvikelv. The three markers
mentioned are double markers, with those of the USSR lying on the
islands and those of Norway on the left bank of the river. Ostrov
Kiste-kholmen is located about one mile north of the town of Nyrud,
and the latter two are located at.the northeastern end of Lake
Vaggatemjavrre (Ozero Bukhtles-vandet). Since an agreement could
not be reached on these two issues, involving five islands, the
Commission reverted to the line as shown on the 1896 map for wht+.t
proved to be only a temporary solution.
The placement of the line in the mouth of the Jakobselv al:=o
proved to be a source of difficulty in the establishment of the new
boundary. The Soviets held that the 1896 boundary should be regained,
but the Norwegians contended that the 19+7 position of the thalweg of
the river at low tide should determine the position of the line- The
Norwegian view was based on the change in the course of the thai.weg
since 1896, as a result of which the placement of the 19+7 line to
correspond with the 1896 line would have precluded Norwegian use of
the harbor inside the river mouth and entrance into the river mouth
at low tide. The Norwegian delegation was anxious to insure to resi-
dents of the area the free use of the harbor and access to the mouth
of the Jakobselv from the sea.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/2 SEC IAA RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
At this point in the negotiations the Soviet delegation contended
that if the tha.Lweg principle were followed in the Jakobselv, as advo-
cated by the Norwegians, the boundary would also have to be changed
in the Pasvikelv at Gras nsefoss. The results of the discussions of
the Joint Commission were: (1) the line in the mouth of the Jakobselv
was to follow the thalweg as determined at low tide, as recommended
by the Norwegians; (2) the USSR was to give up the demands for the
change at Greensefoss; and (3) Norway consented to transfer the three
small islands in. the Pasvikelv to the USSR. Ostrov-Chevessu.olo and
Ostrov Niva-saari are still shown on the boundary maps as on the
eastern or Soviet side of the line, which indicates that the 1896 line
was followed in this area.
Only preliminary discussions were held on the problem of the
territorial sea north of the mouth of the Jakobselv. Since the view-
points and claims of the two countries to territorial waters differed
so radically, the Norwegians claiming 4 nautical miles and the Soviets
12, the Joint Commission decided to keep this question open for future
diplomatic negotiations.
At the conclusion of the marking of the Soviet-Finnish boundary
in 1945, it was agreed to place a three-nation boundary marker at
Krokfjell. A Norwegian representative was present to approve the
position of the marker and a tri-state protocol was signed on 26
October 1945. After the Yaniskoski-Niskakoski area was ceded. to the
Soviet Union by Finland in 1947, a new demarcation of the northernmost
Approved For Release 1999/09'c--RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA T01018A000100040001-6
sector of the Finnish-Soviet boundary, just south of Krokfjell, was
undertaken. In the summer of 1947 a Norwegian representative inspected
the marker, and on 3 December 1947 a new tri-state protocol was
signed, replacing the 1945 protocol, regarding the marker on Krckfjell.
During the summer of 1947 the two mixed Norwegian-Soviet sub-
commissions (under the Joint Commission) marked the boundary. The
Soviet-supervised subcommission marked the first section of the
boundary, from the junction of the Norwegian, Finnish, and Soviet
boundaries at Krokfjell northward 61.1 miles to 69?32'N, north of
Holmfossen. The Norwegian-supervised subcommission marked the :second
section, from 69?32'N northward 60.5 miles to marker No. 415, a buoy
stake north of the mouth of the Jakobselv. Each subcommission as
responsible for the placing, painting, and numbering of the boundary
markers. A topographic survey of a strip at least 0.5 kilometer wide
along each side of the boundary was made at the scale of 1:25,030,
and a polygon system was laid on which the rectangular coordinates of
the boundary markers were computed.
On 18 December 1947, with the final drafting and reviewing of
the boundary documents, the boundary agreement along with the maps
and protocols was signed in Moscow.l 13/14/ The Norwegian Storting
ratified the agreement unanimously on 3 December 1948, and the instru-
ments of ratification were exchanged on 23 May 1949 in Moscow.3.5/*
* The descriptive protocol includes: (1) a table of coordinates and
elevations of the boundary markers and the points in the geodetic net-
work along the boundary, and (2) a list of the boundary marker:.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-R0P7 '`$1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Before ratifying the agreement, however, the Norwegian Storting ques-
tioned the cession to the USSR of the three small islands in the
Pasvikely. The issue was dismissed because the islands were regarded
as being of no strategic or economic value, and it was agreed that
under the terms of the 1826 convention the islands fall on t:he Soviet:
side of the line. The course of the boundary as marked in the mouth
of the Jakobselv proved satisfactory to the Norwegians, since their
fishing vessels could enter and leave the river mouth without crossing
the line .16/17/ The demarcation maps show the boundary line along the
channel of the river at low tide, which was the line held by the Nor-
wegians during the dispute with the Finns over the issue following the
1925 investigation of the boundary.
The 19+7 agreement dealt only with the detailed description and
demarcation of the boundary. Issues relative to the administration
of the boundary (such as water, navigation, fishing, and logging rights,
and the maintenance of markers) were left to be settled by subsequent
agreements. These issues and agreements are discussed in the section
on. Boundary Administration and Potential Disputes.
The Norwegians agreed to the Russian proposal for the actual demar-
cation of the boundary, which differed notably from the former simple
demarcation. The line on the land. is marked by pairs of wooden posts
or by single stone cairns (see Figures 2 and 3). Each marker is
visible from the next, and in no case are the markers more than. 1
kilometer apart. Double markers on land are placed at a distance of
Approved For Release I 999/09// c kA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 :CIA-RQ ,RTMql
2 meters (6.56 feet) on either side of the line, and the line
itself is indicated by a small wooden post or by the center of
a 25-centimeter (9.84-inch) circle carved in the rock. A cleared
strip along the entire land boundary measures 8 meters (26.24
feet) in width, which, in the case of the double markers, includes
the 4 meters (13.12 feet) between the posts and 2 meters (6.56
feet) behind each post. Markers Nos. 11, 208, 211, 222, and 279,
shown on map CIA 11738, are old stone cairns at the main break-
points (changes of direction) in the boundary, which were restored
in 1947.
The boundary along the Pasvikelv and Jakobselv is marked by
double posts, one on either side of the river or lake, or one cn a
bank (see Figure 4) and. one on an island. North of the mouth of the
Jakobselv is the northernmost marker of the 1947 boundary, marker
No. 415. This is a buoy stake anchored at a depth of 17 meters, or
55.55 feet.
Most of the boundary posts are 2 meters (6.56 feet) high aad 22
centimeters (8.66 inches) square. The Norwegian posts are painted
yellow with black tips, and the Soviet posts are painted in alt,?r-
nating red and green stripes with red tips. Attached to each marker
is a signed protocol describing its position and a map of the
immediate area.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-Fl lP 9T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
II. The Course of the Boundary
Of the 121.6 mile Norway-USSR boundary, only about one-fifth is
on land. The course of the remainder of the line is determined mainly
by the deepest channels of the rivers Pasvikelv and Jakobselv and
their associated lakes.
The westernmost point of the Norwegian-USSR boundary, is at
Krokfjell Mountain (Mu(Dtkavarra), where the boundaries of Norway,
Finland, and the USSR meet (see map CIA 11738). From Krokfjell Moun-
tain the boundary follows a southeasterly direction in a series of
short straight-line sectors to the Pasvikelv, which it crosses to
marker No. 11 near Graensefoss. At that marker the entire river lies
within Norway. From marker No. 11, which is a main breakpoint in the
boundary, the line takes a northeasterly direction to the Pasvikely,
which it follows to marker No. 196 (a breakpoint) at Skoltefoss. The
boundary in the Pasvikelv follows the deep channel and, for the most
part, it also follows the middle of the lakes. Except for Ostrov
Chevessuolo and Ostrov Niva-saari, islands in the river and lakes are
allocated to the country on whose side of the channel they lie. Only
a few islands or sandbanks are crossed by the boundary, and the only
one of significant size is Store Grenseholmen (Russian: Ostrov Sture
Grense-kholmen), on which markers Nos. 169-171 are located.
At Skoltefoss the boundary leaves the Pasvikelv to the west and
proceeds in a straight line to marker No. 208 (a breakpoint). From
No. 208 the line turns, to the north-northwest to No. 211 (a breakpoint.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-R pPI01018A000100040001-6
then to the east-northeast and across the Pasvikelv to No. 219 on the
right bank of the Pasvikelv. This sector of the boundary encircles
the town of Kolttakengyas and leaves an area of more than 1.5 square
miles on the west bank of the river under Soviet control (see
Appendix A). The Soviet Union also has complete control of the river
for approximately 2 miles. This projection of Soviet territory on the
Norwegian side of the river was created by the 1826 convention that
ceded the territory to Russia. From marker No. 219 the boundary con-
tinues in a straight line in an east-northeasterly direction to No.
222 (a breakpoint), where it turns to the southeast, crossing fairly
rugged land, barren mountains, moors, marshes, and numerous small
lakes and ponds tq marker No. 279 just southwest of Hundvann (Lake).
From No. 279 (a breakpoint) the boundary takes an east-southeasterly
direction to marker No. 302, where it joins the Jakobselv. Thence
the line follows the deep channel of the river and in general the
middle of the lakes. Islands are allocated to the country on whose
side of the channel they lie.
At low tide numerous sandbanks are exposed in the wide section
of the Jakobselv River south of its mouth. The boundary in this area
follows the channel of the river at low tide, which places it close
to the Soviet side of the estuary (see map CIA 12104). The boundary
continues near the Soviet bank through the narrows to marker No. 412,
which is the last marker at the mouth of the river. From marker No.
412 to No. 415 (2,214 feet or 675 meters in a straight line;
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-R 01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21:C IIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
north-northwesterly in direction) the boundary is marked by a series
of sight lines from boundary markers and by special sight markers.
From marker No. 412 the boundary goes north-northwest in a straight
line for 47.8 meters (156.78) feet, north for 214 (701.9 feet), and
north-northwest for 429 meters (1,410.1 feet) to the final marker,
No. x+15.
:III. Description of the Boundary Area
A. General Characteristics
All of the area traversed by the Norway-USSR boundary lies
north of the Arctic Circle and therefore experiences continuous dark-
ness from the end of November to mid-January and the midnight sun from.
mid May to the end of July. Another characteristic of the area is the
evidence of severe glaciation in the past -- the large number of lakes
and swamps at lower elevations, the glacial drift on the slopes, and
the thin soil cover or bare rock surface on the exposed uplands (see
Figure 5). Stunted birch and tundra moor growth predominate on. those
upper slopes which have any vegetation at all. On the lower slopes
and in the sheltered valleys near the Pasvikelv and its tributary
lakes and rivers, there are mixed forests, which give way to swamp
pine growth or treeless bogs in the low swampy areas.
Physically the area along the boundary differs little from other
high-latitude areas of Europe, except that it includes the ports of
Kirkenes and Linakhamari, which are ice-free as a result of the North
Approved For Release 1999/09/2J6&,4-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 :CIA-RQ ,RTMql
Atlantic Drift. Although the ports are important locally in t1rie
exportation of ores from the Norwegian iron mines and the Soviet
nickel mines, they are of minor national value in time of peace.
In the field of strategic planning for northern air and sea routes,
however, the ports are of major significance.
B. Terrain
The area traversed by the boundary is generally undulating,
with higher elevations ranging from approximately 500 to l,!100 feet
.above sea level (see Figure 6). Terrain on the Norwegian side of
the boundary is less rugged than that farther east on the Soviet
side.
The southern section of the boundary area along the Pasvikelv
is characterized by many lakes connected by short turbulent stretches
of river and by swamps. Elevations in this area rarely exceed 750
feet. From marker No. 222 on the Pasvikelv to marker No. 302 on the
Jakobselv, the boundary crosses undulating terrain, with hills of
higher elevations than those near the Pasvikelv. Elevations range
from 700 to 1,000 feet above sea level, and slopes are more precipi-
tous than farther south and west. The most precipitous terrain. in
the immediate boundary area is found farther north along the Jakobselv.
Here the hills rise steeply, and scarps with elevations of 900 to.over
1,300 feet are not uncommon on either side of the narrow valley.
Near the mouth of the Jakobselv the land becomes flat to gently
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-R74T201018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
rolling. No single source describes the border area as awhole, and
pertinent information was selected from a variety of sources -lYl_9/L0/2:i/
C. Distribution of Population
Over most of this relatively isolated and cold border area,
access to routes of communication, by both land and sea, and the shelter
provided by the terrain are important factors in determing the over-
all distribution of population and the pattern of settlement. Mining
activities in the border area, however, have caused the main concen-
trations of population.
Population on the Norwegian side of the boundary is concentrated
chiefly in the vicinity of Kirkenes, the port and processing town for-
the A/S Sydvaranger iron ore mines near Bj rnevatn. The prese:at popu-
lation of these two towns and small nearby villages is probably at
least as high as it was before World War II, when the area had about
4,500 inhabitants.
Although information on population and settlement patterns on
the Soviet side of the border is lacking, it can be assumed that two
areas are by far the most densely populated: (1) near the 'nickel-copper
mines at Nikel' and (2) near the head of Guba Pechenga, where the port
town of Linakhamari is located. On the basis of the increased activity
at the nickel mines and in the nearby town of Salmiyarvi as observed
from the Norwegian side of the boundary, the population of the mining
area is estimated at over 20,000, as compared with a probable maximum
26
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-~ T01018A000100040001-6
of 1,500 or 2,000 in 1939. Presumably the port facilities and popu-
lation at Linskhamari have increased in proportion to the needs of
the nickel mines. In 1941, however, the population of the port was
probably about 500 and that of the Guba Pechenga area probably from
1,000 to 1,500.
Most of the smaller settlements of both countries are found in
the sheltered valley of the Pasvikelv or at the heads of the mo--e
sheltered fjords, where roads are relatively well developed and
lumbering, shipping, fishing, and limited agricultural activities
are possible.22/23 In the more rugged areas, away from the rivers
and fjords, the population is negligible. On the Norwegian side of
the boundary, numerous small villages, usually numbering about 25
persons each, are strung out as far south as Svanvik and east to
Karpbukt, each of which has about 100 inhabitants. On the Soviet
side of the boundary the general settlement pattern probably resembles
that on the Norwegian side, but with some modifications resulting
from the Soviet policy of moving residents away from the boundary.
The Norway-USSR border area lies in the northern part of Lapland.
The Lapps, however, do not predominate in any of the four countries
into which Lapland extends. It is difficult to make an estimate of
their numbers, but about a decade ago the total number of "more or
less full-blood Lapps" in Lapland was said to be about 32,000, of
whom about 21,000 resided in Norway, 7,000 in Sweden, and 4,00() in
Finland and the USSR.24/ There'are indications that at least Nome
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-R1W?RLTg1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
of the Lapps on the Soviet side of the line were moved from the
Pasvikelv Valley to Finland after the USSR acquired the Pechenga
area.25 It is likely that they were moved out of the Kolttak:engyas
The seasonal migrations of the Lapps, a reindeer-hetding; and
fishing people, caused international difficulties in the.past.. In
addition, the Lapps objected to the loss of pasturelands,to newcomers
within individual countries. Most of these problems, however, have
been resolved by national legislation which assures the Lapps of cer-
tain rights. Since these people have never formed a cohesive politi-
cal unit, the possibility of their being used as a tool for political
dissension in the area seems relatively remote and would probably be
based primarily on cases of abuse or negligence on the part of the
individual governments under whose jurisdiction they come'..
D. Industries and Resources
The economic importance of the boundary area is'based pri-
marily on the iron ore deposits near Bj~rnevatn in Norway.and the
nickel-copper deposits at Nikel' in the USSR and secondarily on the
installed and potentia-_ hydroelectric developments available to serve
the mining and processing activities. Free access to a source of
power for the Soviet nickel mines and processing plant was an influen-
tial factor in determing the present location of the Finland-USSR
boundary near the point where it joins the Norway-USSR boundary.
- 28 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/.21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- ~01018A000100040001-6
Less than two miles west of the Soviet Kolttakengyas (Boris
Gleb) area, east of Bj~rnevatn (lake), are the A/S Sydvaranger Nor-
wegian State iron ore mines (see Figure 7). These mines produced an
average of 800,000 tons of ore concentrates in the years immediately
before World War II., and provided almost two-thirds of the concentrate,,
exported from Norway. Most of the extracting, processing, and ;hip-
ping facilities of the mines were destroyed in the German retreat
of 1944.26 The 12-kilometer railway that connects the mines with
the port town of Kirkenes is in operation again, but not all of the
postwar reconstruction and modernization of the mines and processing
facilities has been completed.27 (See Figure 8.) It is estimated
that the program, as planned, will be completed by late 1952 or 1953,
.when production should reach the prewar level or possibly full pro-
duction, amounting to 1 million tons of concentrate (66 percent iron
content) annually.28 230 31 All of the A/S Sydvaranger production
of iron concentrate is to be exported to increase the Norwegian
supply of foreign currency-232/
The power for the A/S Sydvaranger mines and associated facili-
ties, including the processing plants, port facilities, and the town
of Kirkenes, is furnished by the A/S Sydvaranger Grid System. This
system is fed by the thermal-electric plants at Kirkenes (9,000 kilo-
watts) and by the hydroelectric plants at Tarnet (1,000 kilowatts)
and Kobholm (2,000 kilowatts). Although these three plants are not
located on the boundary rivers, they are important to the area as
- 29 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RpE07 01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
the source of all power on the Norwegian side of the boundary?33/3
35
The Soviet nickel-copper deposits, often referred to as the Pet-
samo or Pechenga nickel mines, are located at the foot of the moun-
taro Kaulatunturi near the town of Nikel' (formerly Kolosjoki), about
5 miles east of the boundary. These mines and the town of Nike1' are
connected with the port of Linakhmunari, about 40 miles to the northeast,
by a branch of the Arctic Highway that serves the mines and by a short;
stretch of the Highway itself (see! Appendix B).
The mines, which were discovered in 1921 and were barely ready
to produce in 19)41, were bought in. 1944, by the USSR from the Mond
Nickel Company and the International Nickel Company of Canada .36J
From 1942 to 1941+ the estimated annual production of nickel was about
9,000 tons and of copper between 3,000 and 4,000 tons. The mining
and processing equipment was destroyed during the German retreat,
but the Russians began reconstri.2etion almost immediately. By 1947
the smelter was reported to have been rebuilt.37
The present production figures are not known, but observers from
the Norwegian side of the boundary report an increase in activity that
indicates intense Soviet interest in the mines and processing plant
(see Figure 9). Vigorous building activities have been noted near
Nikel' and there has been evidence that the mines were being expanded
rapidly (see Appendix A).38/ Current production is estimated at 9,000
to 12,000 tons a year. The International Nickel Company reported in
- 30 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-F ~R79,j01018A000100040001-6
1942 that production of nickel "could conceivably be stepped up to
L0 41 It is estimated that there
20,000 tons in the future." 32t
were about 3,000 workers in the mine fields and 20,000 resident=s in
the area in 1939.42
According to a recent report, the Germans, during World War II,
planned to construct an underground concentration and smelting plant
at Nikel'. An open cut was to house the installations, which were to
be covered by reinforced concrete. Such construction may explain the
violent explosions that occurred in the area during the summer of
1950.43 During the German occupation, a similar concrete cover was
put over the Yaniskoski dam to insure an uninterrupted power supply.
The main source of power for the nickel mines is the Yaniskoski
power plant on the Pasvikelv (Russian: Pats-Yoki) about 8 miles south-
west of the boundary. The Yaniskoski dam and power plant, including
the concrete cover, were destroyed by the Germans in their September
1944 retreat, and the Niskakoski dam that regulates the level bf Lake
Inari and which is generally reported as lying above Vitaniyemi on
the Pasvikelv was partially destroyed.44/ Under the terms of the
German Assets Agreement of 3 February 1947, the Yaniskoski-Niskakoski
area was ceded to the USSR by Finland, and the Finns agreed to recon-
struct the dams and the power plant as part of their reparations.45
46 Reconstruction of the Yaniskoski dam was begun in 1947, and by
July 1951 the two turbines and one turbogenerator had been installed.
The Soviets were in the process of installing the other turbogenerator.)4 /
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-R J 01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
The planned capacity of the plant is about 28,000 kilowatts, all of
which is used by the nickel mines.48 The Yaniskoski plant was
reported by a Helsinki broadcast of 27 July 1951 to have been trans-
ferred to the Soviet Pechenga Nickel Company on 25 May :1951.4-9/
Apparently it was not until about 1 July 1951, however, that the
power plant was run solely by Soviet citizens.
Apparently another power dam is projected at Rajakoski (Nor-
wegian: Ragjeguoikka) near the Norway.-USSR boundary. It will have
a slightly lower output (about 25,000 kilowatts) than the Yaniskoski
plant since the falls are only 18-20 meters high as compared with
21.5 meters at Yaniskcski. Preliminary investigations on the
Rajakoski project were expected to be completed by the end of July
1951, but actual building activities probably would not begin until
the spring of 1952.50 The output of the installation could be higher
if the dam were built about a kilometer farther downstream where
there are additional rapids. The construction of a dam at this point,
however, would require Norwegian approval since part of the dam would
be located in Norway, as is also some of the land that would have to
be flooded. Another potential power plant has also been mentioned.
If a dam were built in the Kolttakengyas (Boris Gleb) area, no
agreement would be required and the power plant could produce
1.2,500 kilowatts. If the falls and rapids at Yaniskoski (Norwegian:
Narefossen) were utilized, 17,500 kilowatts could be produced, but
- 32 -
Approved For Release 1999/09//d ~A-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
this would require an agreement to flood some Norwegian
territory.*
Economic activities other than those associated with the iron
and nickel mines are carried on primarily to serve local needs and
include fishing, lumbering, limited crop production, livestock
raising, reindeer breeding, and hunting-51/52/53/54/ Although
these activities seem of slight importance compared with mining
activities, their part in the early development of the area was
significant, and currently they are the primary source of potential
dispute concerning the administration of the boundary.
Fishing, primarily for cod, is carried on in both of the
boundary rivers but mainly in Varangerfjord and Barents Sea. When
the Pechenga (Petsamo) area was under Finnish control, settlemeuits
on the western shores of Guba Pechenga (fjord) and Poluostrov
Rybachiy (peninsula) were established primarily on the basis of
cod fishing in the fjords and Barents Sea. Finmark Fylke (province)
in Norway, which dominates the Norwegian portion of Varangerfjord
and Barents Sea and lies adjacent to the Soviet Union, is one'of
the most important cod-fishing areas of Norway.55 The towns of
Vardo and Vadso, which lie outside of the boundary area, are the
most important centers of this industry, but fishing activities are
* The Yaniskoski referred to here is about 7 miles south of the
Kolttakengyas area and about 40 miles northeast of the site of the
existing Yaniskoski power plant.
- 33 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-R[AR?jJ)1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
also operating out of the port of Kirkenes, the settlements at the
southern end of Jarfjord, and the mouth of the Jakobsely, where bait
also is caught.
The Pasvikely Valley is the principal source of lumber in the
area, with pine and birch forests furnishing most of the wood for the
few sawmills. In general, the timber cut is for local. use, though
timber has been listed as an export from Kirkenes. Although the
course of the Pasvikely is an asset to the Norwegians in floating
timber to the main consuming area near. Kirkenes, Soviet control of
the flow of the waters of the Pasvikely and some of its tributaries
has restricted such activities in recent years. Rather than risk
losing timber in dry parts of the river, the Norwegians saw much of
their timber in movable sawmills and then transport it by truck.
The Soviets have no transportation problems with regard to the timber
supply for the nickel mines and nearby towns in the Pasvikely Valley
and vicinity. Timber for the port of Linakhamari, however, must be
transported via the Arctic Highway by truck from the Pasvikelv Valley.
. In most of the settled sheltered areas potatoes and a few other
vegetables can be raised. A small amount of grain is sown, chiefly
for fodder. The reindeer feed almost exclusively on tundra moss.
Many of the people, particularly the Norwegians, have several
seasonal occupations. In the off seasons, farmers may support them-
selves by lumbering of fishing, and many of the Lapps who live near
the coasts combine fishing with reindeer herding.
- 34 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/g~Cl-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-BT01018A000100040001-6
E. Transportation and Border Crossing
1. Routes
The principal contact of the remote Norway-USSR border
area with the outside world is by boat from the north. Only two roads
lead into the area: (1) Norwegian Highway 50, from Oslo to Kirkenes,
and (2) the Arctic Highway from Rovaniemi to Pechenga (formerly
Petsamo)3 which was originally constructed by the Finns-56/ (See
map CIA 11738.) Both routes are difficult to maintain because cif
harsh winters, spring thaws, and relatively rugged terrain. Mo;t
of Highway 50 was constructed by the Norwegians, but the far northern
portion was completed under German military pressure in 191+1.57/58/
The Arctic Highway, formerly entirely Finnish, now lies within ;soviet
territory from Virtaniyemi northward.59/* It provides only limited
access to the border area from the south since it is closed to all
regular traffic at the Finnish-Soviet border. The Soviets do have
land access to the border area, however, by the northern section
of the Arctic Highway, via an improved dirt road that connects the
port of Linakhamari with Murmansk to the east (see Appendix B).
* Plans to connect the Finnish section of the Arctic Highway with
the Norwegian road system in the border area have been reported.
This road presumably would run from a point southwest of Virtaniyemi,
near Lake Inari, across the Finnish-Norwegian border near Krokf.jell
(Muotkavaara), west of Oydevann (lake), to Norwegian Highway 955
at Nyrud. The Finns probably have begun construction of their
portion of the road in order to obtain access to the Arctic port
of Kirkenes and to compensate in part for the loss of Pechenga to
the USSR (see also Appendix B).
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/2 ISE W- DP79TO1018A000100040001-6
Several main routes serve local needs within the border area.
On the Norwegiana side are the north-south boundary route No. 955 and
the east-west route No. 960. The latter is practically an extension
of Route 50 from Kirkenes to Storbugten. On the Soviet side is the
Arctic Highway, which parallels the boundary as far north as Salmijarvi,
and two branches, one to Kolttakengyas (Boris Gleb) and the other to
the mines at Nikel'.
Norwegian Route 955, from Kirkenes to Graensefoss, was constructed
to facilitate settlement in the Pasvikelv Valley. (See Figure 6.)
At present it serves no particular economic function but
facilitates boundary inspection. It is a good gravel'road as far
south as Nyrud, where it connects with an unfinished section Leading
to Graensefoss.60/
Route 960, from K.irkenes to Storbugten, which passes north of
Kolttakengyas,is of importance because it connects with a "track" that
provides access to the Jakobselv portion of the boundary and to the
hydroelectric plants at Tarnet and Kobholm. The extension of Route
960 from Storbugten to the Jakobselv in the vicinity of Heimdal would
furnish better access to an area which can now be reached:only by
track from the west or by boat from the north.61/*
Several maps published during World War II show a route following
the alignment of the track to the Jakobselv north of Heimdal as under
coristruction. Possibly it had not been completed by December 1948,
when interest was evidenced in building a road from a settlement at
the mouth of the Jakovselv to Kirkenes, implying that the extension
of Route 960 had not been completed.
- 36 -
Approved For Release I 999/09( p A-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-R[R'CM@1018A000100040001-6
A third route in the area is a military road southeast from
Tarnet, to the Arctic Highway and Pechenga, which was built during
World War II. The road was destroyed by the retreating German army
and, since little reconstruction is in progress, it apparently is
regarded as only a military road.6/
The present condition of the Arctic Highway and its main branch
roads to Kolttakengyas and Nikel' is doubtful. Soviet accessibility
to the boundary southeast of Kolttakengyas and along the JakobEely is
by way of tracks, except for the military road from Tarnet to Fechenga,
which crosses the bounday near the lake Jakobselvvann (Russian-. Ozero
Vuoremi-yarvi).
Winter roads are not uncommon in the border area, especially on
the Soviet side. These routes follow the solidly frozen surfaces of
lakes and swamps, maintaining the same general alignment from year to
year. They reduce travel distances and are in many cases safer than
the narrow, snow-covered roads of standard construction.
Roads in the entire boundary area are typical of the Arctic.
They are gravel-surfaced to withstand the rigors of seasonal tem-
perature changes. In winter the roads are difficult to maintain and
traverse because of snow and in spring because of the deep ruts and
frequent crumbling of the shoulders caused by thaws. Traffic i3
forced to stay on the roads because of swampy terrain on both sides
in the Pasvikelv portion of the boundary area and relatively rugged
terrain in the eastern portion. The narrowness of the roads and the
scarcity of passing places further complicates transportation.
- 37 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- 7HT01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/S2E QJA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
Transportation on the Pasvikelv above Kolttakengyas is by means
of Lapp boat only. Portages are necessary at the falls.
There is only one known railroad within the border area, a 12-
kilometer line that connects the A/S Sydvaranger mines with the port
of Kirkenes. Another narrow-gauge line may connect the nickel. mines
and the smelter on the Soviet side of the boundary, but the existence
of such a line has not been confirmed.
2. Border-Crossing Points
All of the border-crossing points, except the Jakobselv
crossing near Jakobselvvann (lake),, lie in the PasvikelvValley, and
the majority are river crossings. (See map CIA 11738.)'
At present, communication and travel across the border are severe'_y
restricted, and the former Finnish-Norwegian customs posts are closed.
Along the Pasvikelv, bridges that were not destroyed during the German
retreat have been dismantled wherever possible and ferry services have
been discontinued.. The boundary'"can be approached, however, at several
points. Spurs of Route 955 to Nordmo and Hyrud are the most important
approaches (see map CIA 11738). Bridges were built at these towns to
connect the Norwegian road system with the Arctic Highway. A third
approach is provided by the road to Svanvik, which continues south of
the town for a short distance to Utnes, where there is a ferry landing.
The ferry, which traveled between Utnes and Salmiyarvi, formerly was
a fairly important crossing point. The ferry was large enough to carry
heavy vehicles, and in the winter the vehicles could cross on the ice.
- 38 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/N~A-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Two other boundary approaches are at Skogfoss and Graensefoss.
At both places, bridges were probably built during the war, but avail-
able information regarding the completion and use of the bridges is
vague, as is also information concerning road connections between thee
bridges and the main roads (particularly on the Soviet side of the
boundary). Another bridge, at Graensefoss, was designed to replace a
ferry service and connect Route 955 with the Arctic Highway near Nautsi.
The remaining two points in the Pasvikelv Valley at which the
boundary can be crossed by road are near Kolttakengyas. Two roads
that run south from Route 960 -- one west of the river and one east
of the river -- connect, via the Kolttakengyas-Akhmalkhti road,
with the Arctic Highway.63/64/J
IV. Boundary Administration and Potential Disputes
It is not expected that disputes on the administration of the
boundary or the position of the line as demarcated in 19+7 will
seriously affect Norwegian-Soviet relations in the near future.
The extreme detail of the boundary regime agreement, dated 29 Decem-
ber 1949, and of the method of demarcation used precludes many dis-
putes, provided the procedures set for dealing with disagreements
are respected. Furthermore, the people in the border area appear
anxious to avoid trouble, especially the Norwegians, who have rela-
tive freedom of movement. Certain problems may arise, however, in
relation to the boundary rivers and territorial sea north of the
mouth of Jakobselv.
- 39 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- Lp T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
A. Boundary Regime Agreement and Boundary Administration.
The severe attitude of the Soviet Union toward border secu-
rity, coupled with the desire of Norway to protect its own interests
while still maintaining good relations with the USSR, necessitated a
very detailed agreement regarding border activities and providing
means for the settlement of conflicts and incidents. Negotiations
for such an agreement began in Oslo on 30 November 191+9. The
resulting agreement was signed on 29 December 1949. Norway ratified
the agreement on 30 June 1950 and the Soviet Union on 23 October 1950.
The agreement went into effect on 30 October 1950, after exchange of
instruments of ratification in Moscow.66
The agreement provides regulations for the following: (1) the
inspection and maintenance of markers and a cleared strip (vista)
along the boundary; (2) the use of boundary streams and lakes,
including,shipping, log floating, and fishing; (3) land use along
the land boundary, including hunting, agriculture, and mining; (1+)
the avoidance of incidents; and (5) the solution of disputes and the
enforcement of the provisions of the agreement. Article I states
specifically that the boundary extends under the ground and into the
air. Points 2 and 3 are of particular interest, since their effective-
ness in guaranteeing to residents of the border areas the right to
pursue their means of Livelihood will determine whether the course of
the boundary will be subject to dispute in the future (see Appendix
A).
- 40 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-- T01018A000100040001-6
The provisions for the movement of vessels and for fishing
apply to both the Pasvikelv and Jakobselv, but the regulations on
timber floating apply only to the Pasvikelv, probably because the
Jakobselv area is almost barren. Vessels may use the main channel,
even if they must cross the line to do so, in the narrow portion;
of the rivers between markers Nos. 9 and 10 and marker No. 196 on
the Pasvikelv and along the entire Jakobselv boundary. This permits
Soviet travel through the part of the Pasvikelv that lies wholly
within Norway. Limitations at marker No. 196, on the other hand,
prohibit Norwegian transport through the Soviet Kolttakengyas area,
thus preventing Norwegian use of the river as a route to and from
the sea. It should be noted, however, that the river would not be
a main waterway above this area even if it were open, since only
shallow Lapp boats can navigate above the Soviet-held portion of
the river and portages are necessary at the falls and rapids. In
the larger lakes the only vessels allowed to cross the boundary are
those used in log floating, which may cross the line under certain
conditions.
Fishing is allowed up to the boundary, but fishing zones are
not defined by marker numbers. Presumably fishing by nationals of
the USSR is not permitted in the part of the Pasvikelv between
boundary markers Nos. 9 and 11, which belongs to Norway, or by Nor-
wegians in the Kolttakengyas regions, which belongs to the USSR.
Both travel along and fishing on the rivers at night is prohibited
- 41 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-PIRMT101018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
except on the larger lakes, where vessels must stay at least 200 meters
(656 feet) from the line and be adequately lighted. All vessels must,
be marked clearly, and landing on the bank of the other country is
allowed only in case of distress..
Limitations of the floating of timber are not so strict. Normally,
logs may be floated freely through the two sectors of the Pasvikely
that lie entirely on either the Norwegian or Soviet side of the line
(see map CIA 11738). This is a distinct advantage to the Norwegians,
since it gives them access to the mouth of the Pasvikely, which lies
in their territory. Until special agreements have been reached on con-
trol of the water level of the Pasvikelv, however, the Norwegians will
probably avoid the risk of having the timber lie dry in the riverbed.
Soviet use of the river below the Kolttakengyas area is not mentioned
in the agreement, probably because the Soviets are not interested in
floating timber beyond that area. Presumably a special agreement
would be necessary to permit them'to use the Norwegian-control:Led
mouth of the river. The boundary administrators are to decide by
1 April of each year when timber may be floated in the area. Fore-
men and crews are allowed to cross the river and work on the opposite
bank by daylight to set up installations essential to the floating
activities. At :Least five days' notice of such a boundary crossing
must be given to authorities of the other country, and the workers
must have special certificates from their boundary commissioner.
Timber floated down the river is not subject to customs or other duties.
- 42 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIAO"QT01018A000100040001-6
Two clauses on the use of waters of the boundary rivers that
deal with the construction of installations and with water flow are
discussed under Potential Disputes.
Agriculture, lumbering, and mining are to be carried on without
violating or damaging territory or property of the other country or
crossing the boundary for any reason. Wild animals and birds are
not to be shot or pursued across the boundary. The other party
must be notified of dangerous forest fires across the boundary, or
of trees that have fallen across the line, which will then be cut
and returned. Mineral deposits may not be explored or exploited in
a manner that might damage territory on the other side of the boundary.
These activities are prohibited within a 20 meter (65.6-foot) s,rip
along the boundary unless the two parties agree to an exception and
make adequate provisions to "insure the preservation of the boundary
line."
Conflicts and incidents resulting from lack of conformance with
the regulations or from such issues as injury of persons living on
the other side of the boundary, unapproved crossings and communica-
tions, animals straying across the boundary, photographing of parts
of the other country, and damaging of markers are to be handled by
the boundary commissioners. Serious issues may be negotiated through
diplomatic channels, but provision is made for returning such issues
to local authorities for discussion. In March 1950 discussions
between the Norwegian and Soviet boundary authorities regarding,
- 13 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RD 1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
disputes and incidents were held at the border box nearStorskog.67/
(See Figure 10.)
The great number of restrictions on the boundary necessitates an
almost constant patrol system, particularly in the settled Pasvikelv
Valley. The Norwegians, as a result of the December 1949 agreement,
planned to expand their frontier police force and, in response to
Soviet protest of Norwegian boundary crossings, to have a permanent
police force in the frontier areas where settlement is comparatively
dense. According to a report of May 1951, the USSR has placed wooden
watchtowers at points averaging one-half kilometer (1,640 feet) apart
along the Pasvikelv portion of the boundary, about 200 yards behind
the line.68/ (See Figure 11.) Although the border is watched closely
by Soviet guards, it is apparently possible to cross undetected during
the summer. The Soviets can "organize a very effective pursuit,"
however, if an illegal crossing is suspected.69/
B. Potential Disputes
Although no serious disagreement over the course of the
Norway-USSR boundary is now apparent, several issues may lead to dis-
putes unless special agreements are concluded. The Soviet projection
of territory on the Norwegian side of the river around Kolttakengyas
might at first seem to be the main cause of difficulty, but actually,
during peacetime, that area has been the source of only relatively
minor issues. The Norwegians are apprehensive about this Soviet
- 44 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
3 CRET
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-FBPR101018A000100040001-6
foothold on their side of the river, which connects directly with
their road system and is only a few miles from vital iron mines, but
they have become resigned to the situation, which has existed since
1826. A minor incident of a type that might recur developed in 1926,
when Norwegians were found to be cultivating Finnish territory inad-
vertently because the boundary was inadequately marked.
A more critical potential difficulty in the area is the problem
of Soviet control of the water level of the Pasvikelv. By the 19+9
regime agreement, Norway was granted the right to float timber to
the mouth of the river, but Soviet regulation has disturbed the
water level in some areas to such a degree that Norwegian log float-
ing has been restricted.
The 19+9 agreement provided for the concluding of special agree-
ments regarding the construction of any installation on the boundary
rivers that might affect the flow or level of water. Before the
regime agreement was drawn up, some Norwegian farm land in the valley
had been flooded during the summer and suffered from drought in the
fall because the USSR had dammed the river and regulated the water
level, probably in connection with the Yaniskoski power plant. The
problem of water flow seems likely to become increasingly significant
since construction of the Yaniskoski dam has been completed and plans
have been made for the construction of a dam at the Rajakoski
(Ragjeguoikka) falls and possibly another on the Pasvikelv near
Kolttakengyas. (See map CIA 11738.) These projects are discussed in
greater detail under Industries and Resources.
-1.5 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RER~ffp1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 1ES
The USSR refused to include in the regime agreement any provision
for the regulation and use of waters of the boundary rivers on the
ground that any such clauses, no matter how general, might hinder nego-
tiations for specific agreements in the future. The two falls near
the southernmost point of the boundary lie entirely on the Soviet side
of the line and installations at both of these points could have a
very serious effect on the water level of the river. In June 1950,in
agreeing to ratify the 1949 agreement, a Norwegian Storting committee
commented "that as soon as conditions permit, the agreement on water-
ways along the border areas should. be concluded."70 Apparently, no
such agreement has been drawn. up, but in view of the final transfer
of the Yaniskosk:L plant and dam by Finland to the USSR in'.. May 1.951
and the initiation of negotiations for the Rajakoski dam in about June
of that year, the Norwegians and. Soviets may have been discussing an
agreement on the watertaays.7l/ In the meantime, Norwegian rights are
protected only by a clause in the 1949 agreement that requires the
regular exchange, "if possible," of information on water level. and
flow and on ice conditions that might result in damage or in danger
to territory of the other country. Flood warnings, issued in accord-
ance with this provision, might reduce flood damage but no correspond-
ing safeguard covers water shortage.
Claims to territorial waters in the Barents Sea may become another
source of dispute. Norway claims territorial seas extending 4 nautical
- 46 -
Approved For Release 1999/09(
,JtAA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- T?101018A000100040001-6
miles offshore and the USSR claims 12 nautical miles offshore.*
Because of this situation, Norwegians might inadvertently fish in
waters claimed by the USSR, especially since fishermen in these
northern waters had been accustomed to sailing about relatively freely.
Finnish and Soviet fishermen had even been allowed to catch bait on
the Norwegian side of the line in the vicinity of the mouth of the
Jakobsely, provided they did not sell the bait or in any way endanger
the livelihood of the Norwegian fishermen. In the past, Norwegians
fished in the fjords of the White Sea, but since the marking of the
international boundary in 1947 the Soviet Union has been enforcing
the 12 mile limit. The result has been the loss of rich fishing
areas to the Norwegians. Although the Soviets have considered the
12 mile limit as applying in the vicinity of the Norway-USSR boundary
72/ the 1947 demarcation protocol makes no specific mention of the
territorial sea in terms of extent of claims or with reference to
the east-west limit of claims if the marked boundary were mathemati-
cally extended beyond marker No. 415. In fact, the Joint Commission,
after preliminary discussions, decided that this problem should be
settled in separate negotiations.
Marker No. 415 lies approximately 2,200 feet in a straight line
north-northwest of what was considered in 1947 to be the mouth of the
Jakobselv (marker No. 412). (Note three separate straight-line
* There is no indication of a special agreement between Norway and
the USSR that would bind the Soviet Union to a claim of less than 12
miles in extent.
- 47 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-R[ Zffg1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 CCC T RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
sectors between markers Nos. 412 and 415 shown on map CIA 12134.)
The demarcation protocol describes the location of the final marker
by relation to the other markers and sight lines, but it'gives no
indication of how the course of the line and the locations of markers
Nos. 413, 414, and 415 were originally determined. Apparently the
delimiting of the line in the sea followed the principle of placing
it equidistant from the Soviet and Norwegian shores, sandbanks, skerries,
and similar features that are not constantly inundated. This approach
is traditional for both Norway and. the Soviet Union and was cited in
the discussions following the 1925 Finnish-Norwegian investigation of
the boundary.
If the territories of two nations meet at a sea the terminus of
the international boundary, in most cases, is at the shoreline. Ideally,
however, the boundary should terminate at the seaward limit of the mar-
ginal, or territorial, sea.73/ According to the 1947 demarcation pro-
tocol and maps, the northern terminus of the Norway-USSR boundary,
marker No. 415, is neither at the shoreline nor at the seaward limit
of the marginal seas. The reason for the extension of the boundary
to marker No. 415 is not clearly indicated in available references,
but the boundary probably was extended to assure to both nations equal
access to the mouth of the Jakobselv. The Joint Commission probably
decided to end the boundary at marker No. 415 and thus avoid the ques-
tion of claims to the territorial sea, which might have delayed the
reestablishment and marking of the land and river boundary.
-48-
Approved For Release 1999/09/A-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- T01018A000100040001-6
The distance to which a mathematical line would have to be
extended to meet the requirements of the Soviet claim of 12 nautical
miles would definitely be unsatisfactory to the Norwegians, who
claim 4+ nautical miles. The difference in the extent of the claims
would have great bearing on the determination of the course of the
mathematical extension of the boundary.
Although the Soviets are applying the 12-mile limit north cf
the mouth of the Jakobselv, details on the exact limit of Soviet
enforcement are lacking. It seems possible that the Norwegians have
cautioned their people to maintain safe distances from any possible
extension that the Soviets may have in mind. Few reports of Nor-
wegian ships apprehended by the Soviets have been received, but this
does not necessarily indicate that no incidents have occurred. The
Norwegians probably have found that such incidents differ littlE from
those that occur along the land and river boundary and that repatria-
tion of the people who violate the boundary is much easier and
quicker if there is no publicity on the issues-74/ Without publicity
the individuals could be returned within two or three days, but if
the cases were publicized it might take up to three or more weeks.
V. Maps Showing the Norway-USSR Boundary
A. Evaluation of Map Coverage
The exact location of the present Norway-USSR boundary is
best shown on the official 19+7 demarcation map. Ranking second. is
- 49 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIAA 01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 -C RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
the Norwegian topographic map series at 1:100,000, which'alsc shows
the Norwegian version of the line. No large-scale Soviet maps pro-
duced since the USSR acquired Pechenga are available.* Consequently,
the present Soviet area is covered only by Finnish map series, which
are very old.
Maps at a scale smaller than 1:100,000 do not show adequately
such detailed features as islands and sandbanks in the boundary
rivers, which have been the main subjects of dispute. For the
Jakobslev area even the scale of 1:100,000 is much too small, and
only the 1947 demarcation map and the Finnish maps at 1:20,000 give
sufficient detail. Usefulness of the Finnish maps is limited because
of the early date (1928-33) of the surveys on which theyare based.
Changes in the thalweg and islands of the rivers since the 1:20,000
surveys were made have altered the position of the boundary considerably.
Furthermore, the map does not show the boundary symbol in the estuary
of the Jakobselv and the waters to the north, and the available sheets
cover the boundary only as far south as approximately 69?20'N.*
# Two sheets of the Soviet map at 1:500,000 (1951) show 'the boundary;
but this is neither an official presentation of the line (the Pechenga
area was still a part of Finland) nor of much value in tracing -the actual
detailed course of the boundary, since the scale is too small. General
Staff of the Red Army Topographic Map7; 1:500,000; General Staff of the
Red Army; 1941; Sheets Ozero Inari and Murmansk (Army Map Service Library
Call No. N-3-30-57049-500, Sheets Nos. R-36-C and D and R-35-C and D),
# Topografinen Kartta (Topographic Map); 1:20,000; Cinnish7
Maanmittaushallitus (General Survey Office); 1941 reprints; Sheets
Vuoremi, Pasaritunturi, Kivitunturi, Vuoremijarvi, Maajarvi, Kuvernoor-
inkoski, Vohtasjarvi, Janiskoski-Kolttakongas, Valasjarvi, Salmijarvi;
Menikka, Pitkajarvi (Army Map Service Library Call No. 21M-23-30-37509-20).
- 5C) -
Approved For Release 1999/09/25'IFS-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- T01018A000100040001-6
Finnish coverage of the boundary area at scales of 1:100,000
and 1:200,000 is spotty, the former covering approximately the same
area as the 1:20,000 series and the latter covering only the southern-
most part of the boundary. Finnish map coverage of the boundary over
a period of years is provided by the 1:400,000 general maps of Finland,
21-1bi xt4I )ftd3cale is too small to show boundary detail.* German maps and
of the border area are based on the Norwe?;ian
and Finnish series, with the boundary line apparently taken from the
Norwegian 1:100,000 series.
B. Evaluation of Individual Map Series
Karta gosu.arstevennoy granitsy mezhdu Soyuzem Sovetskikh
Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik i Norvegiey (Map of the state bou~idary
between the USSR and Norway); 1:25,000; Smeshannaya Soyuza SSR i
Norvegii Komissiya po demarkatsii gosudarstvennoy granitsi mezhdu
SSR i Norvegiey,(Mixed USSR and Norwegian Commission for the demarca-
tion of the state boundary between the USSR and Norway); 1947; 18
ozalid sheets, each in both Norwegian and Russian (CIA Map Library
Call No- 74710).
These sheets may be consolidated with the new Finnish series,
Peruskartta, which has replaced the Topografinen Kartta.
* The most recent date of this series is 1946, but a supplementary
sheet has been issued showing later boundary revision, including the
delineation of the new Finnish-Soviet boundary in the Yaniskosh.a-
Niskakoski area. Suomen Yleiskartta (General Map of Finland);
1:400,000; ffinnish Maanmittaushallitus (General Survey Office);
Sheet A 4, dated 1946 (Army Map Service Library Call No. 21M3 2'_9-37505-
400).
- 51 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDR7fi D1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
The boundary demarcation maps are more useful than the descrip-
tive protocol because they show the exact position of the line, where-
as the protocol. merely supplements the information shown on the map.
The markers are located on the map with an error of not more than 0.2
millimeters, and topographic detail within the boundary strip is
plotted with almost equal precision.
The demarcation map locates the boundary line and i'ts 415
markers and carries topographic detail for strips 0.5 ki',lome-~er
(.1,640 feet) wide on both sides of the line, including the areas
along the banks and shores of boundary rivers and of allbu.t the
largest boundary lakes. Structures (differentiated by type), trans-
portation features, details of drainage (swamps, falls, rapids, and
sand banks), contours at 10-meter intervals, spot heights, vegetation,
and trigonometric points are shown. The task of surveying, mapping,
and marking the boundary was divided into two sections, one supervised
by Norwegians and the other by Russians. As a result, differences
between Soviet and Norwegian methods in choice, classification, and
symbolization of the physical and cultural features are apparent.
Sheets 1 through 9, which cover the southern portion of the boundary
from Krokfjell to Holmfossen, are characteristic of Soviet mapping;
and Sheets 10 through 18, which cover the northern and eastern portion
of the boundary from Holmfossen to the Varangerfjord, arech.aracteris-
tic of Norwegian mapping. These differences, however, do not affect
the usefulness of the map with respect to boundary portrayal. The
Approved For Release 1999/09jp4A-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- ~ f01018A000100040001-6
boundary is shown by the same symbol throughout its length, except
in the narrowest parts of the Jakobselv, where a fine dashed line
was found to be more practical. The boundary markers are indicated
uniformly on all sheets.
Another copy of the demarcation map is available in album #'orm
at the CIA Map Library (Call No. aFl22.la .S6). The materials in
this album are all photostatic copies, and the sheets of the demarca-
tion map are at a reduced scale of approximately 1:50,000. Although
the sheets are at a scale large enough for tracing the boundary; they
are neither as clear nor as easy to use at the 1:25,000 sheets. The
album also includes (1) an index map of the boundary sheets, (2)
another series of 18 sheets showing the geodetic network established.
to provide boundary marker coordinates and serve as the basis for
the topographic surveying of the boundary strip, and (3) four pages
of sketches and working drawings of certain markers and geodetic
points along the boundary. The local triangulation was based on
points determined in the Pulkova system of 1932 on the Bessell
ellipsoid.
Topografisk kart over kongeriget Norge (Topographic map of the
kingdom of Norway); 1:100,000; Norges geografiske opmaling (Norwegian
Geographic Surveying Department); Sheets Z 7 (Krokfjeld), . 7
(Vaggatem), AE 6 (Svanvik), AE 5 (Neiden), 0 6 (Karpelven), and
0 5 (Jarfjorden); originals 1893-95, revised sheets 1939-50 (Army
Map Service Library Call No. 31M/3-30-38000-100).
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RQRTM1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Except for the 1.947 demarcation maps, these six sheets give the
best official representation of the boundary that is available in this
country. The land boundary is still correct, although the position
of the boundary along the rivers is out of date on most sheets. Only
one of the six available sheets has been revised since the 1947 demar-
cation of the boundary. Sheet Z 7, Krokfjeld, dated 1950, covers the
southernmost portion of the boundary and clearly shows the Norwegian
possession of both banks of the Pasvikelv in the Graensefoss area.
The new marker numbers have been substituted at the locations of the
old cairns, new markers Nos. 8 and 11 replacing old markers Nos. 354
and 355, respectively. The detail of the river and the relation of
the boundary to the river are shown much more precisely on the 1950
sheet than on the 1894 original, which gives the erroneous impression
that the thalweg of the Pasvikelv is followed between old markers
Nos. 354 and 355'. The remainder of the boundary is basically the same
on both editions, but it is obvious that the later edition incorporates
the results of the 1947 surveys, since the location of the banks and
islands of the Pasvikelv corresponds, as well as scale permits, with
that on the demarcation maps.
Of the sheets covering the Pasvikelv portion of the boundary, the
Svanvik (,E 7) Sheet, dated 1939, is the most obviously out of date
since it covers the portions of the Pasvikelv in which Norway ceded
islands to the USSR in 1947 on the basis of thalweg measurements made
that year. On the Svanvik sheet the three islands -- Ostrov
-54-
Approved For Release 1999/09/NC 4-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- T01018A000100040001-6
Kiste-kholmen (Kisteholmen), Ostrov Brennkholmen (Brenneholmen), and
an unnamed island near the latter -- are still shown as Norwegian,
in accord with the line as determined or reaffirmed in 1826, 1896,
and 1925. Although neither of the two larger islands is named,
they can be identified from the demarcation map. On the Svanvilz
sheet of the 1:100,000 series, Ostrov Kiste-kholmen can be iden ?i-
fied as the largest island crossed by the parallel of 69?1040"I1,
Ostrov Brennkholmen is crossed by the parallel of 69?18'20"N, and
the small unnamed island lies slightly more than 500 meters to the
southwest of Ostrov Brennkholmen.
Other sheets for the Pasvikelv boundary are correct in showing
the possession of the larger islands, but some of the details on
islands, rivers, and lakes are not in full agreement with the demar-
cation map. These discrepancies are in part a result of differences
in scale and in part of changes in the thalweg and banks of the river.
The 1:100,000 sheets are of little use for the entire Jakcbselv
boundary. South of the estuary the river is so narrow that it appears
as a single line. The 1949 printing of the Jarfjorden sheet omits
the boundary symbol in the estuary of the Jakobselv, and the exten-
sion of the symbol beyond the narrows does not conform to the posi-
tion of the boundary as established in 1947.
On the whole the most recent sheets of the Norwegian 1:100,000
series are fairly accurate for this scale, but it is still desirable
to use the demarcation maps as a supplementary source since they
- 55 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RD ''1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/?S1Eb-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
incorporate the most recent surveying and thalweg measurements and
show the exact course of the boundary. One disadvantage of the
1:100,000 Norwegian map is the lack of detail on the Soviet side of
the boundary. Only main drainage, transportation, and settlement
information is shown outside the limits of Norway, and this is often
in generalized form. Topographic information within the limits of
Norway is quite detailed on these sheets.
_56_
Approved For Release I 999/09/ p jA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 MMA
JUVIOU ?443E
31?aa
/~/1J\Xn~\-oD
V A R A N G E R F J
O R D
POLUOSrROV
RYBA CHIY
omov
i
MYS ZEMLYANOY
LYNGOY
OSTR_
YENI-KHENY-R1
o
Kapell
Jak' s
Of ~
?Va en
d
BASE: Nordeuropa 1:300,000 Sheet V70/W68
Neiden--
P
He'r^
d +
bier^sta
0 rk0
(German) Generalstab des Heeres, 1944.
SOURCE:
1. Topografisk kart over kongeriget Norge
1:100,000 Norges geografiske opm4ling,
By ssen
O oEl n
2a A!5
~
. ,bo~ec
Hag os~p ue
TSrnel
2
yMettivuono
o
o g?
O'
1939-50.
2. Norwegen 1:100,000 (German) General.
stab des He.-, 1940-42.
3. Rusalantl 1:100000 (German) General-
n
a
Sand Aq~ .e
er Ko! PSlorskeg
?
'
6
-- Karpbu\t - C
Lin.. 6~ -
stab des Heeres 1942-43.
4. Suomen Ylelfk 1:400,000
(F nn sh) Maan-ttaushall tus, 1946.
5. Map of the Stet! BO y drt' between
the USSR ntl Norway 1.25 ,000
-
kx
z
rrr...fff~~~ 1
-
DSTRO
Q~ L. f db t RNE t 0 PALOS
Y gl . Y NN
P
Q
e V QV 0
)xV Trifona OP
``~'~]P(
9\ G d
41
~
k
`? q
~ - ! Q
- _
IM xed USSR and Norweg an Comm ss on
for the d--fl f the tate bound
between the USSR and Norway),
4
7.
-
-
_
~
Ar t
Tk g -
,14 &at ( Q
aP L GFNORD
A
O
Lq
? /, - fi Y
ino eohenga 0 n
P
XORI#JE -Park
1{l~~ 4.;`/
ri
NUNDVANN JAXVANN V
`t
-
p
16
-
Ne,
Shan BJORN , ERNE
--
- -
1Tf
0
~ y
q
9
~ a
s
NYheim G' le ki~ u ~{? ~ Mm.
~ - -
Luasteri
~,
-
Sk
.
s I?
8NT
\
L\
REBET PETSgHO NTURr
O ~'-
HBO ~?
p
-
3
1?4a
2a
- LANGVAN
-
d
IfT ^A+o
~~
30
d
~~
~
?. BAE E
U
yy g E
V
Pitkaya
i
U
~
se "
ReR
S
S
~g
osrgov
Skagfv % uOLOf
vwcceremr"
f
.
.
.
.
.
'' vrEO?N NLAN
y
411erknW'
?
y
! R ?KkC.
9 a
9 4'e?E NVA
NYrud
'Mate
NN
C o A
O RNANY
31 00,
U.S.S.R.-NORWAY FRONTIER AREA
M.a k.
?we??
YDEVANN
?t -
Primary route ,--~--~ Railroad
Ra .ko.ki
-'---' Other route International boundary, 1952
a
------- Track ?e3 Boundary marker
NRt
ti
a
-
?Yaniskoski
Jq
~
~
'f~~15(
2'y
t,
o
-
Winter track Falls or rapids
_
~~- State route number ConroMr ltde.v+1 a loo meeers
SCALE 1:400,000
o 0 15 20
Mi
y
.
Vida i ertlt,
~
(
~
" q
,P1
\5
U 5 10
0 15 3U
Kilometer
,
-
o ~~\///111111
N
stirs OTE: Th. a=hk and A. N., -di.. gnds
P "?'? W." Fn, eh. G..nren sees cd.b-.
1 ?
4a 3
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
RESTRICTED
Norway - U S S R Boundary in the Mouth of the Jakobsely
SOURCE:
Map of the State Boundary between the
USER I
and Norway 1:25,000; Boundary demarcati
on shcct
No. 18; 1947
48
B A 2 E N Sj E A
I
C
-~
I
415'p
(i~oYlli
414
to Lille
iden U. S. S.
41411
41
ne--
4
0v
r II Ka
O
aJl
/
sca
p
,
4e
o 73
.79', 407
96 406
6 405
16 /
,e
A, A
1
~
~14=~
N 0 R
W A Y
40
Lyngmo -- V! ea nc r
401
\
.
??
77
,
saw
~
REST
u
t.
-....
I
z
ICTED -,Q2
>> t
46'
Scale 1
:25,000
I `S~
fr
1 `II
5
`
I
00 71100 Ya.ds'\\1111~~~`1`~II(~
to 81050010d
0
ti00 1000 Meters
0?
48' E. 01 Grerrim, ;n 3:1
5,,,
o----e
International Boundary 1947
Boundary Markers
A
. at
Triangulation Station
Elevation (in meters)
------
Sight Markers
Sand
Road
Track
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
 25X1A2g00010004000
JL- 6 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
Next 14 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA- P RE T01018A000100040001-6
APPENDIX C
Gaps in Intelligence
The most serious gap in information on the Norway-USSR boundary
area concerns activities on the Soviet side of the line. Such infor-
mation is available for only a few areas where observations have been
made from the Norwegian side. Although no large-scale Soviet maps of
the territory are available, it is probable that the Soviets base
either mapped the area or revised earlier Finnish maps.
Comprehensive reports including information on the area are
available, but they are old, most of them having been published in
the early 1940's. To some extent these reports have been brought up
to date by more recent spot information on settlements, roads, mines,
and power plants, but the current picture is not complete. Further
information is needed, particularly concerning some of the less-used
roads and recent population changes.
It is not known whether the Norwegians and Soviets have begun
negotiations concerning the use of the waters of the Pasvikelv or of
the extension of the international boundary into the territorial sea.
It seems, however, that negotiations concerning the use of the ?'asvikely
would be imperative in view of the completion of the Yaniskoski hydro-
electric power plant and Soviet plans for the development of ot:ier
power sites along the river. Indications concerning negotiations for
the seaward extension (4f the international boundary north of the mouth
of the Jakobselv are even more vague. It is not known whether IVorwe-
gian ships have been detained by the Soviets or whether Norway ias
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 :CIA-RTr01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
adopted precautionary measures to prevent such incidents'. The fact
that few have been reported could. indicate either that such in.ci-
i
dents are rare or that the Norwegians are observing a po#Licy of
curbing publicity regarding them in order to facilitate the return
of Norwegian nationals.
- 74
-
Approved For Release 1999/09i to
A-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RJ ef01018A000100040001-6
APPENDIX D
Sources and Evaluation of Sources
1. Evaluation of Sources
The 1947 Norway USSR demarcation maps, protocol, and
boundary regime agreement are highly detailed and official and are
the basic sources for the entire report. Official sources available
also give a complete history of the boundary, texts of all trealies,
and details of all major boundary surveys.
Descriptions of the boundary area are drawn from comprehen3ive
reports published in the early 1940's. They have been brought ?ip to
date, insofar as possible, by spot intelligence information, which
is believed to be accurate since 25XIt42 /STM Mort cited was
25Y2r'bdPby at least one other.
n cases where two reports merely
substantiated each other, only one was cited as a source.
A large number of maps were examined. The few listed as sources
were selected because they,yrere official as of the date of publication
and because they served as the basis for all other maps of the boundary
and the boundary area. The most important map sources are discussed
in detail under Maps Showing the Norway-USSR Boundary (see p. 4)).
2. Sources
1. Norway, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Storting Proposal
119 (191+8). Procurement of the consent of the Starting
for Norway's approval of the Norwegian-Soviet boundary
survey of 1947; translated in part as Central Int~lli-
gence Agency, FDD Report U-1524, 24 October 1951.
75 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDPT [O1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
2. B.ertslet, Edward, Map of Europe by Treaty, Vol. I, 1814-
1827, London, 1875, pp. 744-46.
3. League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. III', No. 1, 1921,
p. 6.
4. Department of State Bulletin, 27 April 1940, pia. 453-56,
Peace Treaty of 12 March 1944.
5. Department of State Bulletin, 18 February 1945, pp. 261-
68. September 191+4 Armistice for Finland!
6. Treaty of Peace with Finland, 1947.
7. Norway, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Storting Proposal
No. 119 (1948), Appendix 4.
8. Klingenberg, K. S., "Practical and Legal Questions which
Arose During the Boundary Agreement Between Norway and
Finland in 1925," Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, Vol. IV,
1930, pp. 197-240. In Norwegian; translated as Centra:_
Intelligence Agency, FDD Report U-1325, 34 April 1951.
9. League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. XXX; 1924-25,
p. 49. Treaty No. 758.
10. Haataja, Kyesti, "Questions Juridiques Surbes Lors de
la Revision de la Frontiere Finlandaise eritre le Golfe
de Bothnie et 1'Ocean Glacial," Fennia, Val. 49, No. 1,.
1927, pp. 1-46, maps.
11. Department of State, Despatch No. 53, 0slo,!22 August 1946.
- 76 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 rRDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : pP79T01018A000100040001-6
12. Department of State, Despatch No. 1345, Oslo, 16 Septem-
ber 1947.
13. Department of State, Despatch No. 1554, Oslo, 24 Novemb?3r
1947-
14. Department of State, Airgram No. 1410, Moscow, 29
December 1947-
15. Norway, Overenskometer med Fremmede Stater, No. 4, 10
May 1950, pp. 151-273. Exchange of notes with documents
concerning the Norway-USSR boundary survey of 1947;
translated in part as Central Intelligence Agency, FDD
Report U-1351, 11 June 1951.
16. Military Attache, Oslo, R-527-48, 11 December 1948.
17. Department of State, Airgram No. 764, Oslo, 27 Decem-
ber 1948.
25X1X7
20. Central Intelligence Agency, Joint Army-Navy Intelligence
Study of European U.S.S.R.,. Janis 40, Chapter II -
Military Geography, 1948, p. 4.
21. Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik R. v., "The Petsamo Region,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, July 1944, pp. 405-418.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21: D DP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/220; RDP79T01018A0001000440001-6
22. Folkefordelingskart-1946 (Population Distribution Map-
1946); j T:1,075,000:7; Finnmark, Regionanalyser for B.S.R.,
Oslo, 1948.
23. Jutikkala, Eino, Atlas of Finnish History, Helsinki, 1949,
p. 22.
24
26. Department of State, Despatch No. 277, Oslo 22 August
1949.
27. Department of State, Despatch No. 432, Oslo, 1 September
1950, "Semi-Annual Economic Report -- Norway, 1950."
25X1X7
28. Department of State, Despatch No. 277, Oslo; 22 August
1949.
29. Department of State, Despatch No. 432, Oslo1 September
1950.
30. Department of State, Despatch No. 507, Oslo 28 March
1950, "Annual Economic Report -- Norway, 19,49 .11 25X1A2g
31
32. New York Herald Tribune, 8 October 1950-
- 78 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/2Oa-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 :S P79T01018A000100040001-6
33. Norway: Zone Handbook No. 1 (Fylke Series) -- Finnmark,
pp. 18-19-
34.
35.
36. Canada, Treaty Series, No. 29, 1944.
37. Central Intelligence Agency, FDD Report No. U-38249.
No. 340262, 17 August 1949.
38. Army Attache, Finland, R-297-51, 26 July 1951, "New
Industries and Settlements in Petsamo Area,"
39.
40. Office of Strategic Services, Research and Analysis
Branch, R and A No. 730, Survey of Finland, 25 April
1942, (2d edition, October 1942), p. 30.
41. Office of Economic Warfare, Enemy Branch, Individual
Industrial Plants in German Europe: Janiskoski Power
Plant and Petsamo Nickel Mines. No date.
42. Department of State, Despatch No. 277, Oslo, 22 August
1949.
43.
44. Department of State, Despatch No. 503, Helsinki,
June 1950.
45. Department of State, Despatch No. 1075, Helsinki,
7 February 1947.
- 79 -
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 ~q~DP79T01018A000100040001-6
25X1A2g
25X1A2g
25X1A2g
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
46. Department of State, Despatch No . 188, He,lsinki, 15
47.
48.
September 1950.
25X1A2g
49. FBID, Europe and the Near East, 28 June 1g51, p. YY-2.
50. Army Attache Finland, R-297-51, 26 July 1951.
51. Geographical Handbook Series: Norte, Vol: I, B.R.
501, January 1942.
52. Geographical Handbook Series: Norway, Vol. II, B.R.
501a, January 1943.
53. Kuehnel.-Leddihn, Geographical Review, Vol; 34, 1944,
p. 40;-418.
54. I.S.I.S. Report on Northern Norway and Arctic: Finland,
C.B. 04096Q, Vol. II, pp. 11-12.
55. Department of State, Despatch No. 2, Bergen, .12 July
1950, "Cod-Liver Oil Industry in Norway.
56. I.S.I.S. Report on Northern Norway and Arctic Finland,
C.B. o4o96Q, Vol. II, p. 12.
57. I.S.I.S. Report on Northern Norway and Arctic Finland,
- - - -~----- -
C.B. o4o96Q, Vol. II, p. 52.
58. Norway: Zone Handbook No. 1 (Fylke Series)'- Fi.nnmark
PP- 33 and 69.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 SLC,DP79T01018A000100040001-6
25X1A2g
6o.
61. Department of State, Airgram No. 764, Oslo, 27 Decem-
ber 1948.
62. Naval Attache, Oslo, Series C-35-49, 5 March 1949.
63. I.S.I.S. Report on Northern Norway and Arctic Finland,
29XFI A296Q, Vol. II, pp. 102 -103 .
64.
65. Naval Attache, Oslo, Serial C-35-49, 5 March 1949.
66. Norway, Overenskomster med Frenmiede Stater, No. 1,
20 March 1951. Boundary regime agreement between
Norway and the USSR; translated by Department of State,
Division of Foreign Language Services as TC No. 37871,
T-38/R-XII, Norwegian.
67. Department of State, Despatch No. 287, Oslo, 2 March
1950.
68. Naval Attache, Oslo, 55-C-51, 28 May 1951.
69.Ltrjff?Attache, Finland, R-294-51, 25 July 1951.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
25X1A8a
72. Naval Attache, Stockholm, 19-1+9, 8 February 191+9.
73. U. S. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
Submerged Lands, Hearings on S. J. Res. 20,, U. S.
Senate, 82nd Gong., 1st Sess., February 1951, p. 551.
71+. 25X1A2g
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Security Information
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-I b P01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Security Information
Figure 2. View of marker posts along land boundary.
Figure 3. View of boundary cairn.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP791 'I iA000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Security Information
Figure 4. Norwegian boundary marker No. 120, Skogfoss (1947).
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RD b1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Security Information
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T0170000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Security Information
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RD M018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Security Information
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T0 q b00100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Security Information
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-R 01018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Security Information
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T0'I3C1 D00100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
SECRET
Security Information
Figure 10. Border-crossing point at Storskog; Norwegian
and Soviet. commandants hoist their respective national flag;, on
the tall poles when they wish to confer with each other (19117)-
Figure 11. View across the Pasvikelv from Norwegian guard
post at Skogfoss; Soviet observation tower on summit opposite (191+7).
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP 018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
 ? CIA/RR-G-4
31 .October, 1952
DOCUMENT NO,
NO CHANCE,W CLASS.
0 DECLASSIFIED
CLASS. CHANGED TO:~~~~
NEXT REVIEW DATE:,.~-~--~-+
RUTH: ' HR 0-2
51a
DAT REVIEWER:. 00o086 - _
ENTR_A'L INTELLIG-EN-CE . AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND. REPORTS
REM16"M T9 RE CENTER
E ~19ED 1ELY M1 ER USE
JOBS-tea BUX - ? .
wed For Release 1999/09/21 CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
EOGRAPHIC INTELLIGENCE"' REPOR
E_. BOUNDARY
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
 Approved, For Release 1999/09/21: CIA-RDP79T01018A000100040001-6
WARNING
This material contains information affecting
the National Defense of the United States
within the meaning of the espionage laws,
Title 18, USC, Secs. 793 and 794, the trans-
mission or revelation of which in any manner
to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 : CIA-RDP79TO1018A000100040001-6
 Approved For Release 1999 P79T01018A000100040001-6
Security In
CIA/RR-G-4
Approved For Release 1999/09/21 _^^~'?T^?1018A000100040001-6