Klaipėdos universitetas

The article examines the impact of the identity-making processes on the ideological preparation of the annexation of Klaipeda Region in 1939. As early as in 1919-1920, efforts were made to unite local inhabitants of Klaipeda Region on the basis of their common past, shared traditions, and belonging to the German culture. For that purpose, a new identity concept “Memelländer” was designed. In 1938, its content was partially geared to another concept of “Memeldeutsche”. The paper analyzes and compares the meanings attributed to both of those concepts and supported within the public communication space, as well as the ceremonies and rites which were to unite local inhabitants on the basis of those meanings. It examines which institutions and groups of people made efforts to maintain them and why. By analysing the possibilities of the impact of those meanings, a new interpretation of Memelländer is proposed. It is based on the view that the concept of “Memelländer” (and subsequently, “Memeldeutsche”) should be treated as situational rather than a stable expression of the identity of Klaipeda Region’s local inhabitants.

The article compares historical literature that conveys the Soviet story of ‘liberation’ of Memel/Klaipėda during World War II, and compares them with post-war German publications dealing with the issue of seizure of Klaipėda that emerged in the post-war period. On the basis of this comparison, verification is sought of the story of ‘liberation’, highlighting its major factual and interpretational problems. The analysis corrects some episodes of the story of Klaipėda’s seizure, thoroughly covering the course of World War II events in the approach of the Eastern Front toward Klaipėda during the period from October 1944 till the end of January 1945.

This article analyses commemorations of World War II events in the northern part of former East Prussia, comparing discourses and practices of commemoration in post-war Klaipėda region and Kaliningrad oblast. It reviews the socio-cultural developments in this region and distinguishes between private and public forms of commemoration. Author argues that two main plots were important in the public commemoration of war: the plot of “liberation” and that of the victory achieved in the “struggle against Fascism”. Analyzing the public commemoration of these plots, it distinguishes and exhaustively examines its three functions: legitimation of territorial subordination, founding myth, and payment of homage to the warriors as strategies of regime legitimation and the formation of valuable orientations.