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. 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 time168.
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 notional169. 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 destroyed170.
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. 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 structures172. 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 Kaliningrad173.
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. 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
Ibid.
Szcherbakov, Viktor: Stalinskaja programma hoziajstvennogo i kulturnogo stroitelstva Kaliningradskoj oblasti (V pomosz agitatoru). Kaliningrad 1947.
Kaganskij, Vladimir (ed.): Kulturrnyj landshaft i sovetskoje obitaemoe prostranstvo: sbornik statej. Moscow 2001.
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.
GAKO. The state archive of the Kaliningrad region. Box 522, folder 1, file 14.
Sologubov, Alexander: Pereselenez, kak HomoScientist: epistemologicheskij aspect osvojenija Kaliningradskoj oblasti, In: Vestnik Baltijskogo federalnogo universiteta im. I. Kanta, №6, 2012, p. 41.
Navalichin, Dmitry: K voprosu rekonstrukcii cetra Kaliningrada. Moscow 1955, Vol. 1, p. 33.
Kostjashov, Juri: Vostochnaja Prussia glazami sovjetskih pereselencev. Pervye gody Kaliningradskoj oblasti v vospominanijah i dokumentah. St-Petersburg 2002, p. 76.
