Klaipėdos universitetas

Like many other towns in East Prussia, Klaipėda lost almost all its former population during World War II and was inhabited by newcomers after 1945. After an example of Klaipėda, the article analyzes the process of comprehension of a newly inhabited area and making it one’s own. Klaipėda became a former East Prussian city having returned to Lithuania and simultaneously incorporated into the Soviet Union. That caused the clash of interests, the development of which also changed the systems of meanings that provided a framework for the appropriation process. The city was gradually comprehended in the process of formation of unique interrelationships of the meanings of Soviet ideology, all-Union patriotism, Lithuanian national culture, and East Prussian cultural heritage. In the article, the author identifies the processes that affected different configurations of the said interrelationships in different post-war periods.

The key topics discussed in the article are related to the dating of the commencement of construction of Kriegsmarine coastal defence and antiaircraft (Flak) artillery batteries in Memel (Klaipeda). The author argues that the most important goal of Kriegsmarine was to protect the port entrance channel from attacks or blocking from the sea. Therefore, the period of March 1939 to the early 1940 discussed in the article could have been used to build fortifications for coastal defence batteries. Stationary fortifications for Flak batteries around the city could have been built in a later period. Until then, temporary emplacements for Flak guns could have been constructed in the surrounding areas. Field research data on Tauralaukis Flak battery gave more credibility to the presumptions presented in the article. Some shell remains revealed ammunition marks stating that this ammo was made in 1941.

On the basis of archival documents, the interwar Lithuanian press, and historical literature, the article analyzes the policy of Lithuania’s Government in Klaipėda Region occupied by Nazi Germany in 1939. The author argues that Lithuanian authorities were not merely passive spectators of the events; they actively responded to the Nazi policy in Klaipėda Region, tried to defend the national and private economic interests and the rights of their citizens, made an effort to stop Lithuanians’ deportation from the region, as well as mediated in releasing Lithuanians from the places of imprisonment and recreated the abolished educational and cultural institutions. The efforts of Lithuanian authorities to change the situation in Klaipeda Region to its advantage were thwarted by the Soviet occupation in June, 1940.

The article argues that the Soviet Union, like other powerful states, supported Lithuania’s decision to give up the idea of fighting for Klaipėda Region and obeying Nazi Germany’s demand for its occupation. Such a position was not openly and vividly demonstrated by Moscow politicians for the purpose of sustaining a two-decade-lasting image of being Lithuania’s protectors and supporters in the international arena. During the interwar period, the Soviets acknowledged Germany’s rising interest in Klaipėda, and since 1938, they were sure that Lithuania would have never managed to safeguard Klaipėda’s territory. Despite the fact that the Soviets did not intervene in the Nazi expansion, they indirectly responded by spreading their influence on the Baltic region. That was done by demanding territorial extensions from Finland and thus limiting the political sovereignty of Lithuania and Estonia. Hence, in the spring of 1939, more clearly pronounced zones of influence were drawn onto the Baltic States by Germany and the USSR.

The concept of contemporary identity guides to exclusiveness of culture’s role and history as well. Queen Luisa is not only an attractive symbol while talking about fatal period for Europe and Prussia in the years 1806–1815, but also interesting is her personality while looking for parallels between identities of Memel (Klaipėda), the small province town of the German empire, and Klaipėda, the largest contemporary Western Lithuanian city. Present inhabitants of Klaipėda pay a lot of attention to Queen Luisa’s merits for development of education and culture in the city and in the region. The fact that in newest discussions about Klaipėda’s vision of cultural politics, the need to integrate cultural heritage into consciousness of citizens and formation of identity is highlighted, testifies about signs of new quality in region’s identity structure of Western Lithuania. Research is based on historical sources and literature.

The attitude of Klaipėda Jewish community towards survival, alternation and continuity of community is being analyzed in the present article. Klaipėda Jewish community is regenerated in independent Lithuania, and it unifies few members. As a rule, they are Russian speaking elderly people, having little knowledge in its nation history and customs. It was expected, that Klaipėda Jewish community will naturally vanish, and young people will emigrate. In a fact we see at present, that this community is still lively, active and integrated one. A short excursion to the history of Klaipėda Jewish community, regarding the issues of its survival, alternation and continuity is presented hereby, and attention towards Klaipėda, as cross-border region, is pointed out.

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.

The author of the article aims to distinguish and characterize the major stages in the development of the diplomacy centre in Klaipėda in 1920–1939; the author elucidates the circumstances of the pro-German and pro-Lithuanian consul group formation; discusses the cases of the Danish honorary consul Gerhard Schmaeling and the Swedish honorary consul Karl Wiese; the author also discloses the means by which Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Governor endeavored to restore the balance between pro-German and pro-Lithuanian forces in the consulate corps of foreign countries in Klaipėda. To clarify the above-mentioned issues, the author used the following sources: the materials from the Lithuanian Central State Archive, the periodicals of interwar Lithuanian as well as the latest historical researches.

The article analyses the relation to the past of Lithuanian identity orientation in the interwar Klaipėda with reference to cultural memory theory. It defines the semantics used in Lithuanian identity ideology, highlights the differences in the concepts of “Lithuanianicity” between local (Prussian) Lithuanians and the state of Lithuania, analyses the possibilities of introduction of Lithuanian identity orientation into public communication, as well as plots and motifs of the past, which were used for such introduction. It also researches formation and structure of the Prussian Lithuanian’s self-image of the past, and the methods used in interwar Klaipėda of consolidating this self-image into public culture of commemoration.