Kaliningrad – an ambivalent transnational region within a European-Russian scope

Twenty years after the war the city looked as if hostilities ended a few months ago. The central part of the city was an available ground for architectural experimentation that began only in the 1970s (with the exception of the limited urban development by «Khrushchevki»). Worry about it showed not only the residents of the area, but also authorities. The reasons for the city standing in ruins for a long time and being not fully built were not only economic. First, the bricks of the destroyed houses were sent to the Baltic republics for the restoration of towns. Besides, there was not enough money for the first full implementation of urban plans, which were developed in the mid-1950s, because the area was funded by the Union’s budget as a residual. Reasons of a political nature remained relevant for a long time. Assurance of Nikita Chrushchev in 1956 – during a visit to the Kaliningrad Oblast on the way to the Great Britain – that the region «will be forever a socialistic» was the culmination of formal encouragement of Kaliningrad by the top leadership of the country188. This statement was reflected in many publications of the time. Only then were published first guidebooks dedicated to the Kaliningrad region; was weakened border control in the Oblast, and it has become more attractive for Soviet tourist. In particular, the guide of Kaliningrad of the end of 1950s said, «Kaliningradians will always remember the words of the first secretary».

The political background has changed gradually. In 1957, was signed the border agreement between Poland and the Soviet Union. However, fundamental changes occurred only at the turn of 1960—70s. They were associated with the results of the policy of «Détente» and «Ostpolitik» of Willy Brandt.

The highlight of the «Ostpolitik» was the conclusion on 12 August 1970 on the agreement between the Soviet Union and the BRD. The states agreed not to use force to resolve disputes and, therefore, recognized the inviolability of existing borders. In addition, the agreement contained a commitment of Germany to recognize Poland’s western border along the Oder and Neisse.

Later, in 1975, the Declaration of Helsinki was adopted, which once again strengthened the territorial results of World War II and the principle of the inviolability of borders in Europe. The essence of the Final Act, signed by all the members at the meeting on 1 August 1975, was the «Declaration of principles which will be considered by the states in their mutual relations». Out of the 10 principles, the principle of the inviolability of borders was promoted. In the chapter «inviolability of borders» stated: «The participating states are considering as inviolable border of each other and the boundaries of all states in Europe and, therefore, they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting on these boundaries»189.

These global political decisions immediately reflected in the image of the city and the character of its development. Kaliningrad was able to breathe easily, and it was an indirect confirmation of the fact that official attempts to make the identity politics as «Herstellung von Selbstverständlichkeit» practically failed over the past 25 years190. Only now, at the turn of 1960—70s began to change the relation of Kaliningradians to the territory they inhabited.

Nation states seek to produce isomorphism between people, cultures, and places, and they do this by means of history: «In Kaliningrad, the expansion of space and the making of a „new“ place proceeded in a different direction of the three elements in which time usually conceived – past, present, and future. Only two were associated in Soviet Kaliningrad with place and the people through the state’s work of representation and categorization. Strong futuristic orientation has been characteristic for state work»191.

The younger second-generation Kaliningradians who were born in Kaliningrad already considered themselves as indigenous inhabitants and treated the region as a place of permanent residence. Accordingly, the cultural and historical landscape did not seem as alien as before, but it was perceived as native. The borders between the German (Prussian) and Soviet (Russian) is gradually beginning to flatten in the perception of Kaliningradians. The population has realized that presence on this land becomes a permanent and inalienable. People began to feel themselves masters of this land. This feeling has led to «thrifty attitude» to the tangibles. This set of those causes and effects has led to the formation among Kaliningradians of the first signs of «regional ethno-cultural identity». Then began the first attempts to find self-identification with the region, and arose considerable interest to the pre-war culture, history, traditions and to people who inhabited this land.

The second-generation Kaliningradians claimed to have been socialized and affected by the Prusso – German elements in the city’s milieu192: It was a first step towards changing the cultural paradigm. Residents began to relate to the heritage as to their own. Newly created and introduced tangible assets have been seen as a continuation of the pre-war artefacts, as a new layer that is based on the past «fund of values». This approach is largely inconsistent, not fit into the ideological paradigm of the Soviet era. However, this approach proved to be much more constructive and promising than the one that took place in the 1940s and 1950s. Perception of the pre-war and post-war culture as a single organism has become a priority for young Kaliningradians who were born in the region. Nevertheless, do not say that this perception comes only to the young generation of Kaliningradians. This consciousness penetrates the minds of many residents: it was the basis and the foundation for a new phase – the phase of preservation and maintenance of historical and cultural heritage. It becomes the base and motor for younger generation, which was born in the region and entered into adulthood in the early 1970s.

An important impulse for the beginning of this phase was the public movement for the preservation of the Royal Castle (Königsberger Schloss) in the mid-1960s. In this regard, the public of Kaliningrad dared to express publicly their point of view. The purpose of this step was to preserve the remnants of the Royal Castle and restore it later. It was the first example of self-organization of social circles, intellectuals, and students around the problem, which they regarded as common.

It makes sense to remember the letter of four hundred students from the Kaliningrad region, which was published in the «Literary newspaper» («Literaturnaja gazeta») in 1965. The letter insisted the preservation of the ruins as a reminder to future generations about the consequences of the war. First time a public opinion was initiated from the ’bottom’ and announced on the pages of national newspaper: «Since five years the public of Kaliningrad stands up for the preservation of the architectural and historical monument – former Royal Castle…»193 In this regard it could be remembered Keiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtnis-Kirche in Berlin, which was conserved as a symbol for edification of future generations.

As if spied the example of Berlin, the new chief-architect of Kaliningrad, Vladimir Khodakovsky expressed his vision on the pages of newspaper: «It would make sense with simple resources to transform the ruins to the monument against the destructive war… a giant silhouette against the background of the ruins of the castle could create expressive architectural and artistic image»194.

Besides defenders of the castle, who were presented by academic community of Kaliningrad, veterans’ organizations and political authorities were in favour of the demolition of ruins. Already in the mid-1960s, it means 20 years after the war, there is a polarization of views on the architectural heritage of the city195. The remains of the castle were eventually torn down, and the chief-architect of Kaliningrad, Vladimir Khodakovsky resigned in protest to this decision, but the authorities for the first time experienced the collective «voice» of intellectuals who openly called for respect of the memory of the past, regardless of whether is it the Soviet past or not196.

The next phase is inheritance and recovery, as well as studying. This fundamentally new phase was based on the comprehension of 1970s, when took place the first preservation of old buildings and timid restoration work. Inhabitants of the region began to try on the role of the successors of culture of the past. This happened already meaningfully and purposefully. The process was followed by the overcoming of alienation and formation the relationship of belonging, then followed by the theoretical inclusion of heritage into universal cultural wealth. The inclusion of heritage into universal cultural wealth was a decisive step on the path to comprehension by residents their place in the history and culture of this area.

According to historian Eckhard Matthes, «communication with the region has acquired existential significance for the individual»197.

The theoretical basis for active perception was needed and quickly came into conflict with the official ideology. The process of rethinking the place and role of Soviet residents in Kaliningrad totally did not fit into ideological frames. Official propaganda does not take into account the changes in the perception and continued to be based on the «classical» approaches of 1940—50s. Authorities have been faced with the question how to ’submit’ the interpretation of Kaliningrad to the younger generation: myths need to be updated198.

The «new consciousness» has penetrated even in the milieu of the official Soviet authorities and party elite («nomenklatura»). At first, this process was latent and invisible, but slowly being translated into real actions. A prime example of this trend is the activities of Viktor Denisov, one of the Soviet leaders, who on his «own risk» and under his own responsibility «lobbied» in the party organizations the restoration of monuments, and the allocation of financial resources to do so. Viktor Denisov was elected to the chair of the city executive committee (mayor) of Kaliningrad in August 1972. During his office, a lot of attention was paid to housing, development of social and transport infrastructure, planning and organization of public services199. Thanks to his efforts, more social infrastructure was constructed in Kaliningrad than during the previous post-war period. Nevertheless, most importantly, firstly in post-war time from the «top» began the restoration and preservation of historical and architectural monuments. His name is associated with preservation or restoration of a number of historical monuments, which are now «visit cards» of the city and attract many tourists200.

Measures of official propaganda for objective reasons have operated more efficiently on elder people, those who fought at war itself or remember its consequences. Younger generation with the passage of time became less susceptible to the official Soviet interpretation of history of the Kaliningrad region.

Nevertheless, the nature of propaganda was changed, despite the invariance of the official ideology. The propaganda becomes less aggressive and had ’inertial’ character. It was understood by ideologues themselves. It is important to note that even before the ’perestroika’ took place a ’liberalization’ of mass consciousness: firstly, among a limited range of people.

In the first half of the 1980s even before the beginning of «perestroika», were taken first attempts of professional historians to look into the pre-war history of the region. As a result, were published first scientific and publicist editions. Certain changes occur in the minds of the youth subculture that existed in parallel to the official one.

The process of formation of the youth «underground» is proceeds in different parts of the country, as a protest against the official ideology and culture. However, this protest in Kaliningrad is closely linked with the history of the region, and it manifests itself in the lexicon. Increasingly it was possible to hear in everyday speech, «Koenig» instead of «Kaliningrad», «Shpandin»201, and «Dvoryanskoe gnezdo»202. Gradually, these local place names become public to use in Kaliningrad among different social groups. In the late 80’s newspaper «Kaliningradskij Komsomolets» even published an informal map of Kaliningrad, which contained these names203.

Today it is not especially controversial to recognize the multicultural past of the Kaliningrad region. Actually, an informal group of intellectuals was formed already in the early 1980s, calling itself the «Prussian Club». They aimed to recall the memory of Prussia by referring to the old names of the streets in the city, adopt Prussian names and perform sketches dressed in Prussian clothes204. It has become fashionable to be interested in the history of the region. This fashion has reached its peak after the «perestroika».

Time passed, and Kaliningradians felt themselves as an integral part of the territory where they live. This is what is written by those who came to Kaliningrad in the distant 1940—50s, who by their own eyes saw the area changed.

Nadezhda Makushina: «I consider this land as my homeland. I have never been to those places where I came from. I love Kaliningrad, because I have built this city».

Anna Boyko: «At first, the attitude to this territory was like to a foreign land. However, people get used to anything. We built similar houses unlike dissimilar German buildings. We have brought our culture here and destroyed the culture of the true masters. We have lived our Soviet life. It is difficult to talk about mistakes now – times were different. In any case, what is the use of talking about mistakes now? We must try to save what is still the best we have. Especially because I live in the Kaliningrad region almost during all my life, I cannot treat this area other than my homeland»205.

Territories passed from hands to hands at all times with or without inhabitants. In the latter case, the world of knowledge that has been accumulated by centuries almost vanished. In this sense, settlers started with a blank space. New land was for them in all respects as a «terra incognita». However, to live on the land without knowledge about it is impossible. However, mastering of the land was not only meant as a mechanical recovery of material structures, but also as the cognition as an everyday practice. New residents of the Kaliningrad region created their own «world of presence» instead of alien; was create a new and comprehensive knowledge of the world.

Settler was the «learning person» (homo scientis), who has extracted knowledge and shared it. The history of the development of a new cultural space is a history of its cognition. Kaliningrad was established not only politically and technologically, but was opened mentally. This is the basis for the emotional vision206.

Texts, images, rituals, and monuments generate shared memory and general knowledge, as «anything can be a sign to encode the community». Everyday experiences, traditions, and memories of communities can be described as the «core of collective identity207». They form a «formative Text», which give answers to the question: «Who are we?»

2.4. The Kaliningrad region as enclave: Theoretical and historical background

The Enclave is a territory, which controlled from outside by a «motherland», an international organization or a transnational enterprise, which is lying outside the enclave. According to this definition, the Oblast may be an enclave: It is important that this Oblast is an integrated component of another state and controlled by this state. In this case, from the perspective of the administrative centre (Moscow) such area is an exclave

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

Примечания

1

Special Economic Zone has been established in 1996.

2

Matthes, Eckard: Regionales Bewusstsein der Bevölkerung im Gebiet Kaliningrad. Stufen seiner Entwicklung seit 1945. In: Matthes, Eckard (Hrsg.): Region. Internationales Forum für lokale, regionale und globale Entwicklung. S.87— 100.

3

Hoppe, Bert: Auf den Trümmern von Königsberg. Kaliningrad 1946 – 1970. München 2000.

4

Brodersen, Par: Die Stadt im Westen. Wie Königsberg Kaliningrad wurde. Göttingen 2008.

5

Andreychyk, Natalja; Gavrilina, Ludmila: Fenomen kaliningradskoj regionalnoj subkultury (sozialno-filosofskij i kulturologicheskij analiz). Kaliningrad 2011; Kostjashov, Juri: O nacionalnoj strukture, etnograficheskich osobennostyach i socio-kulturnoj adaptacii sovietskich pereselencev v Kaliningradskoj oblasti (1945—1950), In: Nacionalnye otnochenija v novoe i novejsheevremia: teorija i praktika, Kaliningrad 2000; Kretinin, Gennady: Ocherki istorii Vostochnoj Prussia, Kaliningrad 2004.

6

Nies Susanne. Kaliningrad – ne edinstvennij anklav, In: Pro et Contra, Vol. 8. №1, 2003; Vinokurov, Еvgenij: Teorija anklavov, Kaliningrad 2007.

7

The Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated by January 10, 2006 has a validity of ten years till 2016. Its termination and the loss of the benefits that it gives the Kaliningrad region, causes an anxiety among regional politicians and businessmen; http://www.rg.ru/2006/01/19/kaliningrad-dok.htm, accessed on 12. 10. 2014

8

Keating, Michael: Is there a regional level of government in Europe? In: Le Gales/Lequesne 1998.

9

Aronsson, Peter: The old cultural regionalism – and the new. In: Lancaster et al. (2007).

10

Neumann I. B.: European Identity, EU Expansion, and the Integration/Exclusion Nexus. In: Cederman, L.-E. (ed.): Constructing Europe’s Identity: The External Dimension. Boulder 2001, p. 141—164.

11

Browning, Christopher; Pertti, Joenniemi: The Identity of Kaliningrad: Russian, European or a Third Space? In: Tassinari, Fabrizio (ed.): The Baltic Sea Region in the European Union: Reflections on Identity, Soft-Security and Marginality. Berlin-Gdansk 2003.

12

Paasi, Anssi: Region and place: regional identity in question. In: Progress in human geography, 27/4 (2003).

13

Kostjashov, Yuri (ed.): Vostochhaja Prussija glazami sovetskih pereselencev: Pervije gody Kaliningradskoj oblasti v vospominanijach i dokumentah. Sankt-Peterburg 2002.

14

Matthes, Eckard: Problema obrazovanija Kaliningradskoj Oblasti v nemezkojistoriografii: obzor. In: Baltijskij region v mezhdynarodnych otnochenijach v novoe i novejshee vremia: materialy mezhdynarodnoy nauchnoy konferenzii, 10—11 Oktober 2003. Kaliningrad 2003. S.195—206.

15

Matthes, Eckard: Regionales Bewusstsein der Bevölkerung im Gebiet Kaliningrad. Stufen seiner Entwicklung seit 1945. In: Matthes, Eckhard (Hrsg.): Region. Internationales Forum für lokale, regionale und globale Entwicklung. S.87— 100; Matthes, Eckhard: Verbotene Erinnerung: die Wiederentdeckung der ostpreußischen Geschichte und regionales Bewusstsein der russischen Bevölkerung in Gebiet Kaliningrad 1945—2001. Bietigheim-Bissingen 2002.

16

Hoppe, Bert: Auf den Trümmern von Königsberg. Kaliningrad 1946 – 1970. München 2000.

17

Brodersen, Par: Die Stadt im Westen. Wie Königsberg Kaliningrad wurde. Göttingen 2008.

18

Sezneva, Olga: «We have never been German’: The Economy of Digging in Russian Kaliningrad. In: Calhoun, C.; Sennet, R. (eds.): Practising Culture. London, New York 2006; Sezneva, Olga: The dual history: politics of the past in Kaliningrad, former Koenigsberg. In: Czaplicka, J.; Ruble, B.:Composing urban histories and the construction of civic identities. Washington 2003; Sezneva, Olga: Modalities of Self-understanding, Identification and Representation in the Post-1991 Kaliningrad. A Critical View, In: Kaliningrad in Europe: Perspectives from inside and outside, Lüneburg 2010.

19

Browning, Christopher; Pertti, Joenniemi: The Identity of Kaliningrad: Russian, European or a Third Space? In: Tassinari, Fabrizio (ed.): The Baltic Sea Region in the European Union: Reflections on Identity, Soft-Security and Marginality. Berlin – Gdansk 2003.

20

Vinokurov, Еvgeny: Teorija anklavov. Kaliningrad 2007; Vinokurov, Evgeny: Ekonomicheskaja specializcija Kaliningradskoj oblasti. Kaliningrad 2007.

21

Nies Susanne. Kaliningrad – ne edinstvennij anklav. In: Pro et Contra, Vol. 8. №1, 2003.

22

Ibid, p. 91.

23

Holtom, Paul: Kaliningrad in 2001: from Periphery to Pilot region. In: Holtom, Paul; Tassinari, Fabrizio (ed.): Russian participation in Baltic Sea region-building: a case study of Kaliningrad. Gdansk-Berlin 2002; Theisen, Heinz: Die Grenzen Europas. Die Europäische Union zwischen Erweiterung und Überdehnung. Opladen 2006.

24

Smorodinskaja, Natalja: Kaliningradskij eksklav: perspektiva transformacii v pilotnij region. Moscow 2001; Wellmann, Christian: Kaliningrad als Konfliktsyndrom. In: Die Friedens-Warte. Berlin 2000, №3 – 4; Major, Viktor: Kaliningrad/Königsberg: Auf dem schweren Weg zurück nach Europa: Bestandsaufnahme und Zukunftsvisionen aus einer europäischen Krisenregion. Münster 2001; Smorodinskaja, Natalja: Kaliningradskij eksklav: perspektivy transformazii v pilotnij region. Moscow 2001; Kiel international ad-hoc group of experts on Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad in Focus. Policy recommendations in the perspective of problem-solving. Schleswig-Holstein Institute for Peace Research. SСHIFF-Texte Nr.67. 2002.

25

Berger, Stefan: Kaliningrader Identität nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges: einige einleitende Bemerkungen. In: Berger, Stefan (Hg.): Kaliningrad in Europa. Nachbarschaftliche Perspektiven nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges. Wiesbaden 2010.

26

Kostjashov, Juri: «Obratnichestvo» v processe zaselenija Kaliningradskoj oblasti v poslevojennye gody, In: Baltijckij region v istorii Rossija i Europy, Kaliningrad 2005, p. 211—219.

27

Sezneva, Olga: Modalities of Self-understanding, Identification and Representation in the Post-1991 Kaliningrad. A Critical View. In: Berger, Stefan (Hg.): Kaliningrad in Europa. Nachbarschaftliche Perspektiven nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges. Wiesbaden, p. 42.

28

Brodersen, Par: Die Stadt im Westen. Wie Königsberg Kaliningrad wurde. Göttingen 2008. S. 240.

29

Donnan, Hastings; Wilson, Thomas (ed.): Borders: frontiers of identity, nation and state. Oxford 1999, p. 53.

30

Ibid, p. 44.

31

Prescott, John: Political frontiers and boundaries. London 1987.

32

«Trójmiasto» is urban agglomeration consisting of three Polish cities of Gdansk, Gdynia and Sopot.

33

Buchowski, Michał: Hierarchien des Wissens in der ostmitteleuropäischen Anthropologie, in: Poehls, Kerstin; Vonderau, Asta (Hrsg.): Turn to Europe. Kulturanthropologische Europaforschungen, Berliner Blätter: Ethnographische und ethnologische Beiträge, Heft 41, Münster 2006.

34

Buchowski, Michał: Hierarchien des Wissens in der ostmitteleuropäischen Anthropologie, in: Poehls, Kerstin; Vonderau, Asta (Hrsg.): Turn to Europe. Kulturanthropologische Europaforschungen, Berliner Blätter: Ethnographische und ethnologische Beiträge, Heft 41, Münster/Hamburg/Berlin/London 2006. S. 37—38.

35

Baumbach, Sibylle: Conceptualising «Region», «Identity» and «Culture», and mapping approaches to regions of culture and regions of identity. In: Baumbach, Sibylle (ed.): Regions of culture – regions of identity. Trier 2010, p. 1.