Lithuanian Diaspora in Uruguay During the Beginning of the Cold War

This article studies the problems behind the involvement of the Lithuanian diaspora of Uruguay in the political processes at the beginning of the Cold War (second half of the 1940s – early 1950s). The author considers the history of the formation of the Lithuanian diaspora in the South American country starting from the later period of the Russian Empire and its status in the interwar period in the context of the development of the Lithuanian statehood. Additionally, the article describes the emergence and solution of the problem of refugees and displaced persons after World War II in the international context. It is noted that the refugees and displaced persons were mostly representatives of the Soviet Union (including the Baltic states that became part of the USSR in 1940), Poland, Yugoslavia, and other countries of Eastern Europe. The study proves that in the new historical conditions, there was a change in the social composition of the Lithuanian emigration of Uruguay, which was replenished with political opponents of the Soviet regime, collaborators fleeing retribution, and “Westerners” (defectors). Formed as a result of a global conflict and a new system of international relations, this type of diasporas was called “communities of exiles”, “exiled communities”, or “political diasporas”. The politicised nature of such diasporas, which included post-war Lithuanian emigration to Uruguay, led to its participation in the information confrontation with the USSR in the framework of the Cold War that had begun. In this regard, the author examines the attitude of the Uruguayan authorities to the “emigration governments of the Baltic countries”, and, more particularly, the so-called “Lithuanian government” headed by Mykolas Krupavičius in the USA and his “mission” headed by Kazimiro Grauzhinis in Uruguay. The specifics of the situation with the problems of repatriation in the USSR, which is revealed using materials from the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation and emigration periodicals, showed the reaction of the Soviet leadership to the position of Uruguay in relation to Soviet displaced persons (including within the new borders). The author concludes that in the context of intra-diaspora splits, immediately after the war, the nationalist-minded part of the Lithuanian emigration was an active participant of all anti-Soviet campaigns, using finances and all possible information resources for this (primarily, the United States). Hence, the unconditional orientation towards Washington of this part of the diasporas, including the Lithuanian one, which was called upon to sow anti-Russian sentiments and support the negative image of the USSR in the public opinion of the West, becomes obvious and logical.