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

The city did not exist in a typical Soviet sense of this word. By the end of the 1950s, the delay of recovery of the Kaliningrad was so obvious that became the theme for the local press[153 - Hoppe, Bert: Op. cit., p. 150.]. On the pages of the official newspaper of the regional committee of the Communist Party «Kaliningradskaja Pravda»: «There are beautiful, well-lighted main street in every Soviet city: in Moscow, the avenue of Gorky; in Leningrad, Nevsky Prospect; and in Kiev, Khreschatyk. The workers love these streets, they are proud of them; these streets are their favourite places of recreation. There are no so far such streets in Kaliningrad. Many streets poorly equipped with lighting. We have some beautiful houses, but we have no streets that are one-piece architectural ensemble, architectural and artistic unity»[154 - Zastroit i blagoystroit, Kaliningradskaja Pravda, 6 February 1954.]. It is obvious that this view expressed the anxiety of both ordinary citizens and party leadership of the city; otherwise, this article could not appear in the newspaper.

Together to build the entire city was the central point of identification of people with new place[155 - 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, p. 42.]: «We are the builders of this city». Not for nothing, in post-Soviet time was established a medal «For participation in the reconstruction of the Kaliningrad Oblast», as recognition for those people who were involved in the recovery of the regional economy and infrastructure. However, in Soviet time, nobody talked about ’restoration»; it was only about the «construction» of a new one. «The German architectural standard should be completely buried in oblivion, as it leads to discouragement of Russian people,» argued the largest regional newspaper «Kaliningradskaja Pravda» on behalf of Kaliningrad builders[156 - Stroiteli, Kaliningradskaja Pravda, 1 May 1948.]. It means that new Soviet society must build a new city of future; this city needs a new art of architecture.

However, the division of the city in the prestigious and non-prestigious areas began to form in the Soviet time early. These areas largely kept pre-war urban planning, as well as historic architecture, parks, and gardens. In addition, there remained elements of the exterior of the old city, such as cobbled roads.

In general, Kaliningrad is a typical example of the division of s urban habitat in the Soviet Union, but it retained a number of local features such as the pre-war urban planning with clear local demarcation. During the war, the central part of the city was largely destroyed, so there was no integrity of the urban centre.

The city of Kaliningrad had to play a role of extension of the entire Soviet Union. That psychological and physical experience had to be associated with macro-national Soviet identity. The process of the reconstruction of the city was dominated by the construction of standardized Soviet-style modernist structures, new street layouts, and insertion of public spaces that are typical of many other cities of the Soviet Union. City planners viewed the wartime destruction of the city as an opportunity to disregard historical «layer» of urban space: This approach was related to the ideological concept of complete historical discontinuity between Königsberg and Kaliningrad[157 - Sezneva, Olga: Op. cit., p. 43.]. Newcomers after the war did not feel a sense of belonging to the place and they had no sense of belonging together[158 - Ibid., p. 41.].

The establishment of the «Soviet man» has required a feeling of belonging to a certain group of people, and this feeling was weak in Kaliningrad. The authorities knew it. Therefore, the city of Kaliningrad was chosen as the centre to establish a new society, which itself would create its place from scratch. The city of Kaliningrad became the centre of attraction of the population. From 1959 (first Soviet census) to 1989 (last Soviet census), the number of residents increased gradually, and it eventually doubled from 200,000 to 400,000[159 - Data of the USSR census of 1959 and 1989.]. It should be emphasized that up to the present time the growth of Kaliningrad population never has a negative dynamics.

2. 3. Generational change and perception of cultural and historical heritage: Change in cultural paradigm

2. 3.1. Primary perception of a new territory

The frame of perception of East Prussia as a territory with its own history and unique features was determined during the war. «Public opinion» of the Soviet people, mentioned in 1943[160 - Sovetskij Sojuz na mezhdynarodnych konferencijach perioda Velikoj Otechestvennoj voiny 1941—1945. Мoscow 1978. Vol. 1, p. 183.], was formed gradually as it evidenced by the rhetoric of official propaganda. The main medium of «public opinion» had to come from soldiers and officers of the Red Army, as they were the first who physically confronted with a new cultural and historical landscape. These people had to be important reporters of the official discourse.

Crossing the border of East Prussia, the Red Army were able visually to perceive negative information, which had accompanied them all the way to Königsberg. There were posters with similar content near the border pillars: «Warriors of the Red Army! You stand in front of the lair of the fascist beast!» Apart from Königsberg, no other German city was perceived as the concentration of aggressive and revanchist spirit. The first published literature explained in simple language the image of East Prussia[161 - Glebov, V.: Vostochnaja Prussia: Kratkij spravochnik. Moscow 1944.].

The newspaper «Pravda», as official media of the Communist Party, almost immediately after the assault on Königsberg voiced an official point of view in the article «The Fall of Königsberg»: «The history of Königsberg is a history of crime of Germany. Entire history of the city was full of plunder, and another life was unknown»[162 - Padenie Königsberga, Pravda, 13 April 1945.]. This ideological axiom was supposed to be some sort of code for the perception of history and culture of the province.

The war was the auspicious background for the perception of such propaganda. Therefore, it was relative easy task to establish the corresponding mood among participants of hostilities, who have seen the enemy face to face.

A special «semi-closed» status of the Kaliningrad Oblast played role of positive background for official propaganda. On 29 June 1946, almost simultaneously with the decision to establish the Kaliningrad Oblast, a secret decree of the Soviet government was issued. This decree classified the entire territory of the Oblast as «closed border zone». The access to the area was allowed only with permission issued by the militia[163 - Kostjashov, Juri: Sekretnye dokumenty otdela spezposelenij MVD USSR o zaselenii Kaliningradskoj oblasti v 1946. In: Problemy istochnikovedenija i istoriografii. Kaliningrad 1999, p. 64—67.].

Conservation of negative perception of the area among newly arrived migrants was a more complicated task. It required the establishing of direct and consistent association between the «enemy» and the space, which was inhabited, built, and developed by migrants. Therefore, stereotypes that arose under military conflict should save their strength and actuality even after the war. First flows of migrants were relatively convenient material and a springboard for the training of such sentiments. It was a relatively easy task, as most of them did not have any insight into the territory to which they migrated.

The Kaliningrad Oblast is an unusual social and historical phenomenon. On the one hand, the previous population completely left the region, on the other hand, new residents who have never been there, arrived to the region. As a result, in a short span of time the population was completely replaced.

Migrants from the Soviet Union found themselves under new conditions of life. People felt themselves «abroad»; they knew only that before here lived «strangers». Settlers frankly said that they «come to Germany», «in Prussia». Such expectations raised a feeling of great interest to the new place. Conducting of meaningful social activities required comprehension of this land, its traditions, centuries-old ways of economic management, and social infrastructure[164 - Kostjashov, Juri: O nacionalnoj strukture, etnograficheskich osobennostyach i socio-kulturnoj adaptacii sovietskich pereselencev v Kaliningradskoj oblasti (1945—1950). In: Nacionalnye otnochenija v novoe i novejshee vremia: teorija i praktika. Kaliningrad 2000, p. 66—79.].

According to Hoppe, shortly after the end of the war the city was in a state of stagnation – «Kaliningrad is not a German city, but has not yet become a Soviet»[165 - Hoppe, Bert: Op. cit, p. 29.]. First settlers arrived in this vacuum.

2.3.2. Process of cognition: «Complex of temporality» or «outpost in the West»?

Feeling of «other landscape» and depressive emotions led to the perception of residence in the area as temporary. Many settlers claimed that they did not think to stay here for a long time. As a result, many people obtained complex of ’temporary worker’ («vremenshchik»), which was based on the absence of ties to the new ground.

Psychological emptiness in addition to economic reasons has led to a significant flow of return migration to other more familiar parts of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, among the specialists, who worked in Oblast, was popular ’rotational’ («vahtovij») approach to professional career. Systematic and significant financial investment in social infrastructure substantially solved this problem until the end of 1960.

Settlers remember: «The relatives scolded us – why are you leaving your home? We did not expect to live here for a long time – we wanted back to Russia… We did not know what would go on»[166 - Obrussenije Prussii; http://www.vremya.ru/2010/2/13/245113.html, accessed 12. 04. 2013]. It was a common emotional mood accompanying many settlers. Party authorities understood the need to reverse migrant’s sentiments in a sense that they live at home, but not on a hostile foreign land. Therefore, the cognition of reality was required, but in the particular framework: regional authorities stayed faithful to ideological orientation of total negation of region’s history. Frameworks of knowledge had specific physical boundaries. On 5 September 1946, a secret order was issued that required «improving border security in order to include the entire territory of the Kaliningrad region in the restricted border zone». In practice, this decision meant that the access to the area was permitted only at presence of the passes issued by the relevant authorities. Consequently, the freedom of movement was restricted. Mobility of residents within the area was allowed with a special stamp in passports only. Local authorities acted in a fair way. The Kaliningrad Regional Committee of the Communist Party on 15 August 1947 addressed the Central Committee with a request to «make Kaliningrad a fortress of the Soviet Union in the West’ and, therefore, to tighten control to prevent the infiltration of ’undesirable elements»[167 - Ibid.]. On the other hand, Kaliningrad was to be the «socialist sample, an example for democratic Europe», as claimed by the agitation programme of Stalin’s time[168 - Szcherbakov, Viktor: Stalinskaja programma hoziajstvennogo i kulturnogo stroitelstva Kaliningradskoj oblasti (V pomosz agitatoru). Kaliningrad 1947.].

Therefore, in a short period the population of the entire region changed completely. However, not only people but also the commonality of people as the subject of cultural and creative activities, medium of traditions, and customs left the area of their habitat.

Meanwhile, the meaning of a cultural context includes not only the world of «cultivated» individuals and ordered groups of people, but «cultivated» habitat – cultural landscape and natural space, which has been utilized semantically and symbolically by people, where a pragmatic is inseparable from notional[169 - Kaganskij, Vladimir (ed.): Kulturrnyj landshaft i sovetskoje obitaemoe prostranstvo: sbornik statej. Moscow 2001.]. However, artefacts of the former culture are not just a background, against which occurs the development of «Russian culture», but even one of the conditions for development of «Russia culture’ in the region. Artefacts are intermediaries in cross-cultural interaction, translation and generation of new cultural meanings. Nonetheless, the set of cultural values did not have a receiver in the face of new residents. The landscape of the historical and cultural values has been violated, or even ceased to exist, not having found a new owner.

The history of East Prussia and the experience of the people were denied, no matter whether it was a constructive and practical applicable for development of Soviet economy. The centuries-old local traditions were described as unsuitable for implementation in Soviet reality. Aside from the obvious political and ideological frameworks, which did not allow perceiving the cultural landscape of Eastern Prussia, existed quite natural and social preconditions. The immigrants who arrived in Kaliningrad shortly after the war found the cultural and historical landscape quite confusing. People tried ascribe most of strange and unclear things to alien and unnecessary.

The circumstances of everyday life made it impossible to grasp the essence of reality entirely. It was not enough time to adapt you to local cultural heritage. At the new place of residence, much was destroyed. They could only clear the site of the remnants of the past and commit to build a bright future. However, in practice the new territory harboured many unknowns, so finding of unexpected discoveries became commonplace.

The first victims of adjusting to a ’new life’ were objects of infrastructure. Their characteristic feature was that they complement and enhance the favourable side of the natural landscape. This feature minimizes conflict with the natural landscape. The irrigation and drainage system can serve as a notable example that has an important function to ensure the fertility of soil and to protect communities. These systems were quickly lost because they were not exploited.

Here is how it happened: «The plough pulled out of soil some clay pipes of different diameters. They were collected and buried in the paved ditches along the borders, which had been mistakenly taken for military trenches: Due to ignorance, the progressive melioration network was destroyed[170 - Kostjashov, Juri: Istoriko-kulturnoe nasledie Vostochnoj Prussii i formirovanie istoricheskogo soznanija naselenija Kaliningradskoj oblasti; http://www.gako.name/index.php?publ=300&razd=228, accessed 28. 02. 2013.].

It was almost a comic fact, but it actually took place. In post-war Kaliningrad, roofs of many buildings were destroyed and had to be rebuilt. According to Soviet construction norms, slope angle could be in the range of 30—45°. Considering the specific problem, the chief architect of the city, Dmitry Navalikhin, said: «We must not restore Königsberg, but Kaliningrad and we, therefore, should reconsider the slope of the roof»[171 - GAKO. The state archive of the Kaliningrad region. Box 522, folder 1, file 14.]. In fact, it was not only a technical as well as a political issue. Large tiled roofs slope of 45° for Königsberg houses were required due to the climatic conditions of the Kaliningrad region. This requires the construction of the roof slope and gives the buildings a distinctive look. Small slope, as it turned out, leading to leakage of roofs and rotting of wooden structures[172 - Sologubov, Alexander: Pereselenez, kak HomoScientist: epistemologicheskij aspect osvojenija Kaliningradskoj oblasti, In: Vestnik Baltijskogo federalnogo universiteta im. I. Kanta, №6, 2012, p. 41.]. Finally, a compromise was reached between ideology and pragmatism: The slope of roofs was brought into conformity with building norms, but closer to the pre-war standards.

Pre-war architecture played a role of «witness» and medium of history; therefore, it was a source of difficulties in the process of ’cultural education’ of Kaliningradians. «The Russian—Soviet city cannot be restored according to the original pre-war image,» insisted the chief architect of the city of Kaliningrad[173 - Navalichin, Dmitry: K voprosu rekonstrukcii cetra Kaliningrada. Moscow 1955, Vol. 1, p. 33.].

New residents constantly «faced» with many manifestations of the past, which were embodied in material values: buildings, monuments, tools, household items. Those people who not only wanted to «face», but also ’perceive’ these manifestations did not have that opportunity. It was not too interested in the meaning and origin of those material values.

The feeling of foreignness led to the suspicious and cautious attitude to these artefacts along with the activities of Soviet propaganda, even to the denial of the so-called «bourgeois remnants». The list of «bourgeois remnants» contained many achievements of urban infrastructure and agricultural practices. Therefore, in the early post-war years the attitude of the population to destroying of remnants of architectural heritage and infrastructure was mostly indifferent. The position of the Kaliningrad region as ’an outpost of the Soviet Union in the far west’ imposed certain restrictions on the cognition, and on ways of obtaining knowledge. The state authorities have seen Kaliningradians, who has knowledge of the region, as «find for spies» («nachodka dlya shpiona»). Figuratively speaking, the state monopolized the «alien» cultural space and guarded it as a top secret. The lack of knowledge led to the emergence and spread of all sorts of rumours and speculation among the inhabitants, even establishing mystical local folklore.

2.3.3. Attempts to control perception

However, the desire to ignore the architectural and cultural heritage was associated not only with the desire to destroy the alien past, but also to deprive the first settlers of the possibility to compare the standards of living. It may be aligned to the contemporary situation: Kaliningradians compare the standard of living and way of life not with the rest of Russia, but with neighbouring Eastern and Central Europe. Such memories were typical of many who arrived in Kaliningrad in the late 1940s: «When approaching the city, I was struck by houses with a slate roof: It was beautiful. I immediately felt that there lived other people. Neat brick or stone village houses, asphalted roads lined with trees»[174 - Kostjashov, Juri: Vostochnaja Prussia glazami sovjetskih pereselencev. Pervye gody Kaliningradskoj oblasti v vospominanijah i dokumentah. St-Petersburg 2002, p. 76.]. It is noteworthy that districts of the city that were prestigious and attractive in Königsberg remained attractive for life now.

In contradiction with above-mentioned perception, the authorities cared about making their «mythology» of region. In the second half of the 1940s was designed a short course on the history of East Prussia, which was used for lectures at enterprises and educational institutions of the region. The history begins with a description of prosperity of ancestors of Slavs. For a description of their way of life used such expressions: «bountiful land», «cultivated fields», and «hard-working people». With the arrival of the Crusaders is a radical change of scenery and expressions took place: «The trouble came from the west – invaders, German knights». They «turned the country into a desert», «looted assets», and «massacred or enslaved the population». Then some information about Königsberg: «The knights choose providently a place for their nest of robbery. Connection to the sea by the channel made it possible to get necessary manpower and weapons and send the loot to German states»[175 - Kostjashov Juri: Istoriko-kultyrnoje nasledije Vostochnoj Prussii i formirovanije istoricheskogo soznanija naselenija Kaliningradskoj oblasti, http://www.gako.name/index.php?publ=300&razd=228, accessed 28.2. 2013.]. One can see that there is a dichotomy within the West, and Königsberg is represented as the hotbed of most negative features.

However, negative information about the history of the region has been available for a short time. Shortly after the beginning of the Kaliningrad resettlement, any mentions about East Prussia and people who inhabited it were erased from the printed historical materials. All mentions about Germany were removed from print media and publications. Phrases such as «on land reclaimed from the Germans» or «restore factory» were undesirable, because it is impossible to restore something that does not exist. It seems to be created anew, which means that the first Kaliningradians became «pioneers» of the new region.

Another important aspect of perception has been associated with the war. Immigrants is often seen a region as a trophy. On the one hand, the trophy can be seen as a gift that is easy to obtain and thus easy to lose. On the other, if take in account material and human losses incurred by the Soviet Union during World War II, the trophy has acquired a symbolic value. These two features led to perception of new habitat as an area filled with the symbolism of the official ideology. However, it was the interim habitat. Nobody knew how long would continue this interim phase: neither ordinary people, nor regional party authorities.

Under these circumstances, the construction of the collective memory of new residents becomes an important part of the official Soviet propaganda. The core element of the official discourse – which was the basis of this propaganda – is World War II as an initial point of reference to the history of the region. The long history of this area was deliberately suppressed. Artefacts of the past were destroyed, or simply not recovered.

It should be noted that this ideological politics was only partly successful. New residents – who found themselves surrounded by an alien cultural landscape – were forced to interact with material manifestations (artefacts): it was simply inevitable. Ideologues and representatives of the party apparatus themselves interacted with these material manifestations. Their interaction was understandably even closer than interaction of ordinary Soviet citizens.

Interest to the cultural and historical heritage of the past existed among professional historians and researchers, as well as among a range of local history enthusiasts who have always been. Their interest was permissible, but only within certain limits: for example, the study of ethnic or historical ties between East Prussia and Russia; search of lost Amber Room; but it is obvious that they have acquired knowledge extended far beyond that limits. In archives of party’s authorities were accumulated a lot of rare sources, which were analysed by party officials. Information about sources by word-of-mouth mechanism was passed to ordinary people.

Relation to the heritage of the past was inconsistent. On the one hand, dislike and nihilism that based on fabrications of propaganda; on the other, thrill and interest to something incomprehensible and unknown. It feels like you experience the mystery that you want, but at the same time, you are afraid to know. Therefore, the person has lost him/herself how better to proceed.

2.3.4. «Suitcase mood’

There was unequivocal official position of the Soviet authorities, which was based on the post-war agreements reached in Potsdam in August 1945, that the Kaliningrad region is an integral part of the Soviet Union. However, there were concerns among circles of the regional authorities and population, that their presence on this territory has a temporary nature. «Suitcase mood»[176 - The definition «suitcase mood» was voiced by the Secretary of the party committee of Leningradskij district of Kaliningrad at the Third party conference of Kaliningrad in 1950. The reproach was made in address of party and government employees who had intention to leave the Oblast’ forever.] was in the air, and particularly felt in the urban environment.

It is interesting to remember a phrase of Stalin, who, in conversation with Churchill at the Tehran Conference about the reasons for the transfer of part of East Prussia to the Soviet Union, noted that «historically this is native Slavic land»[177 - Sovetskij Sojuz na mezhdynarodnych konferencijach perioda Velikoj Otechestvennoj voiny 1941—1945.Teheranskaja konferencija. Мoscow 1984. Vol. 2, p. 167.]. Churchill was not confused by this argument. Nevertheless, the ordinary Soviet citizens who were in the Kaliningrad region after the war could notice the striking difference between unfamiliar territory and the places where they had lived before. Therefore, there was a need to explain somehow the thesis of Stalin, whose statements were usually considered as axiomatic.

Professional scholars of the metropolitan universities and the Academy of Sciences of the USSR have been busy with scientific substantiation of this statement. Firstly, in July 1945, a group of archivists from the Main Archival Office was sent to Königsberg to survey the surviving archival collections. The people of Kaliningrad were regularly informed about the results of the excavation. «Many of these antiquities», wrote the regional newspaper, «convict German scientists in the falsification of history, utterly smash their pseudoscientific assertions that ancient population of East Prussia is not Slavs, but Goths»[178 - Kaliningradskaja Pravda, 26 July 1950.]. Propaganda literature was met with frankly ludicrous assertion: «In hoary antiquity lived on these lands ancestors of the Soviet people»[179 - «Brief course» of history was drawn up on the texts of regional radio broadcasts of 1947—1948: GAKO. The state archive of the Kaliningrad region. Box 19, folder 1.].

This statement was repeated in the «Large Soviet Encyclopaedia» in the article concerning Kaliningrad Oblast: «…on the ancient ancestral lands of the Baltic Slavs…»[180 - Bolshaja Sovetskaja Enciklopedija. Moscow 1953. Vol. 19, p. 426.]

Therefore, the present of Kaliningrad was to be firmly embedded in the general Soviet context, not least in order to allay the fears of a possible return of territory to Germany. The urgent need to improve the living conditions was formally encoded in the pathos of altruistic work for the benefit of the Soviet Union[181 - Brodersen, Per: Op. cit., p. 170.]. Daily life in Kaliningrad should be based on the recovery of the region and its function as part of the Soviet Union.

Despite the active ideological rhetoric in the early years of post-war time seemed clear that «Soviet government had not concept of development of the city, because authorities were not sure which role the region will play in the future»[182 - Hoppe, Bert: Op. cit., p. 42.].

Given the lack of interest to Kaliningrad by the central authorities, «the regional authorities with their identity politics have gone further – the enemy was supposed to be a verifier of this policy. Constant assurances of authorities that the region would be Soviet „forever“ were reflected in relation to the pre-war history. Kaliningrad was the westernmost territory of the Soviet Union, the geographical edge of the Cold War, and regional authorities fully tried to use this fact in their propaganda»[183 - Brodersen, Per: Op. cit., p. 223—224.].

The territory had an unusual landscape, architecture, and environment in eyes of first immigrants. In order to «make the region closer to the immigrants, authorities have started to use the idea of the relationship of this land to Slavic culture, history; they presented its accession to the USSR as a return to basics»[184 - Ibid. p, 239.].

The development of Kaliningrad was the subject of identity politics. Forbidden history could not perform an instrumental role. The importance of Kaliningrad for the Soviet Union had to explain multivariate. However, in core was the idea that «Kaliningrad plays the role of the western Soviet outpost populated by «homo sovieticus kaliningradensis»[185 - Ibid, p. 240.].