Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis

This article addresses intersections of migration and economic development as one of the most topical contemporary challenges inthe Baltic states. It uses empirical approach to compare governmental responses to recent economic crisis starting in 2008. Articleanalyses, how these responses were reflected in statistics revealing socio economic dynamics within years of crisis and beyond.Methods of comparing statistical and analysing secondary data are applied. All three states have similar future challenges of agingand declining population and see return migration as one of possible solutions to address this challenge. However, the processesin Estonia provide a better ground for its government to claim that the country makes effort to ensure more stable development.Also, the results demonstrate that Estonia displays more different trends, while Lithuania and Latvia are closer to each other in outmigrationtrends.

The study has been conducted within the ERASMUS+ KA2 partnership project “Improving the initial education of adult immigrants”. Research is based on the anonymous survey in which took part 1127 legal adult immigrants from outside the European Union. The study was performed in 2017 in the six European Union countries: Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and Belgium. The purpose of this article is to investigate how information about the host country before immigration is related to immigrants’ basic sociodemographic characteristics, i.e.: age, gender and education. Statistical data analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the information, which immigrants knew before their arrival in the host country, and education as well as age groups. However, there were no statistically significant differences found between the information, which immigrants knew before their arrival in the host country, and immigrants’ gender. Moreover, information that immigrants lack most prior to their arrival is related with health care and the employment system as well as the ability to learn the hosting country’s official language.

The paper discusses different appropriation strategies applied to the same historical region of East Prussia. By dating the beginning of the symbolic appropriation to the early 19th century, the author reviews the strategies, first applied by Germans and Poles, and later also by Lithuanians and Russians, to make East Prussia or their respective part (Warmia and Masuria, Lithuania Minor, and the Kaliningrad Oblast) their own. This is demonstrated by several periods, starting with the situation before 1914, the First World War, the interwar period, and the Second World War, when East Prussia still existed; and finishing with the postwar period and the changes after 1989. A distinction is made between national and regional East Prussia appropriation strategies, as well as different levels of the process, i.e. publicistic (literary) and practical.

The article focuses on the state of the old cemeteries in Klaipėda Region and their place in the system of the local culture heritage. All that shall be revealed by actualizing the issue as an outcome of World War 2, when the Region lost almost all local population who were substituted for by settlers with the culture and religion alien to the land. The historical-confessional characteristics of legal evolution of the old cemeteries of the region are discussed by disclosing the transfer of their legal-administrative subordination from church to municipal jurisdiction. General characteristics and problems of the relationship of the new settlers with the old heritage are discussed. The value of the cemeteries in terms of heritage protection is emphasized.

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.