Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis

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 analyzes the aspiration of the interwar political and cultural elite of Lithuania to turn Klaipėda Region acquired in 1923 into integral part of the state of Lithuania by construing collective memory that would unify Lithuania Minor and Major. The attention is focussed exclusively on the initiatives whose authors were the political and cultural elite of Lithuania that identified itself with the tradition of Lithuania Major.

The article deals with the settling down process of the newcomers to post-war Olsztyn, i. e. their efforts to develop their own relationship with the environment of the place of residence they arrived in from other territories. The author believes that the “national” (Polish) version of reading of the past of the city that took root in the Soviet years and that neglected the regional specificities of Warmia and Masuria served as one of the major stimuli accounting for the settlers’ formation of meaningful relationships with Olsztyn. By comparing the meanings used in the formation of relationships in the periods before and after 1989, the author demonstrates that the said “national” version of reading the past of the city presently co-exists with the efforts to popularize regional history and the multiculturalism of the past of Warmia and Masuria.

The article analyzes the competition between the official and alternative discourses of the region’s past that formed in Kaliningrad over the 70s to the 80s of the 20th c. The author notes that, next to the efforts of the government to form a respective image of the past of the pre-war Kaliningrad Oblast, different behaviour strategies formed which enabled the preparation of the ground for the rehabilitation of the prewar cultural heritage even under the conditions of ideological dictate. The process of the formation of a mechanism of continuous interest in the past of the region is examined, and formal and informal groups that undertook to meet the interest in the years of Perestroika are characterized.

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.