ABSTRACT
The most serious form of interference, military attack or pressures threatening the use of force, was expected only from the Soviet Union. Lessons of history, relearned from generation to generation, tend to affect a people’s views on the utility of national armed forces as political instruments, not just of foreign policy, but even to ensure national survival. Neutrality was effective only when the neutral nation had large armed forces and leaders strong enough to present a credible major obstacle to military intervention. The introduction of Western-oriented collective security, which in 1920 became the guiding principle of the League of Nations, and in 1949 of NATO, disposed of impartial neutrality. Threats are often perceived in a context of fears and expectations, depending on how a given nation defines its national security. If national security is defined in terms of noninterference, the threat becomes a much more comprehensive matter than just an attack by armed forces across national land or sea frontiers.
