The electronic version of the book is created by
http://www.enverhoxha.ru
THE FACTS
ABOUT
SOVIET-ALBANIAN
RELATIONS
THE "NAIM FRASHERI" STATE PUBLISHING ENTERPRISE
TIRANA
1964
CONTENTS
T H E
S T A T E M E N T
O F
T H E
T H E P A R T Y O F L A B O U R
( O c t o b e r 20. 1961)
O N T H E R E L A T I O N S
OF A L B A N I A A N D
S L A N D E R S
F A C T S
1.
1
B E T W E E N T H E PEOPLE'S R E P U B L I C
T H E S O V I E T U N I O N (Documents)
FABRICATIONS
A b o u t the
The
(Zëri
i
C A N N O T
S T A N D
U P
Popullit,
December
Popullit,
Truth
19,
D e c e m b e r 20,
About
the
T O
of the
Specialists
1961)
47
of the P a l a c e of
Culture
1961)
Students'
56
Issue
i Popullit, D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 6 1 )
NIKITA
K H R U S H C
S E T T L E
B U T
T
W I T H
OUR
P A R
(Zëri
i Popullit, M a r c
7
45
Question
T h e T r u t h A b o u t the Question
(Zëri
3.
i
O F
D O C U M E N T S
The Truth
(Zëri
2.
A N D
A N D
C E N T R A L
C O M M I T T E E
O F A L B A N I A
H E V
H A S
M A D E
O
A G G R A V A T E
T Y
A N D
S T A T E
h 25, 1962)
65
EFFORTS
NOT
T O
T H E
DIFFERENCES
77
K H R U S H C H E V A G A I N IN T H E R O L E OF A D E M A G O G U E ,
A
S L A N D E R E R
A N D A S O W E R OF DISSENSION
(Zëri
i Popullit, A p r i l 1 8 , 1 9 6 3 )
111
THE STATEMENT
OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
OF THE PARTY OF LABOUR OF
ALBANIA
October 20, 1961
At the 22nd Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the
Soviet
Union
Khrushchev
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a .
publicly
attacked
the
Party
H i s a n t i - M a r x i s t slanders a n d at-
tacks serve o n l y the enemies of c o m m u n i s m and of the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , i.e.
Y u g o s l a v revisionists.
the imperialists
Khrushchev,
and
l a y i n g bare before
the enemies the dispute long existing between the leadership of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n a n d
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a ,
brutally
violated the
1960 M o s c o w Declaration w h i c h points out that disputes
arising between the fraternal parties should be settled
patiently, in the spirit of proletarian internationalism, on
the basis of the principles of equality and t h r o u g h c o n sultations.
By p u b l i c l y attacking the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a , K h r u s h c h e v in effect began the open attack
on the u n i t y of the international c o m m u n i s t and w o r k e r s '
movement, on the u n i t y of the socialist camp.
He is f u l l y
responsible for this a n t i - M a r x i s t act and for a l l the c o n sequences arising f r o m it.
E v e r since our disputes arose w i t h the Soviet leadership,
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , guided by the interests
of the u n i t y of the w o r l d communist movement and the
socialist camp, has striven w i t h great patience to solve
them in the correct M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t w a y , in the w a y
outlined b y the M o s c o w D e c l a r a t i o n .
chev
chose
the
anti-Marxist
way
of
Instead, K h r u s h aggravating
the
disputes, the w a y of attacks and slanders, of pressure
3
and threats, the w a y of m a k i n g the disputes p u b l i c l y
known.
T h e P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a n i a earnestly w e l c o m e d
the declaration made by C o m r a d e C h o u E n - l a i , leader
of the delegation of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a to the
22nd Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet
U n i o n , i n w h i c h h e pointed out that u n i l a t e r a l c r i t i c i s m
and the l a y i n g open of disputes between the f r a t e r n a l
parties before the enemy, cannot be regarded as a serious,
M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t attitude.
However, e v e n after this
p r i n c i p l e d w a r n i n g had been g i v e n by the representative
of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a f r o m the r o s t r u m of
the 22nd Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet
U n i o n , the most bitter attacks and slander against the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and the People's R e p u b l i c of
A l b a n i a have been made by some members of the Soviet
leadership as w e l l as by some leaders of the c o m m u n i s t
and w o r k e r s ' parties of other countries.
By d o i n g this,
they also take upon themselves a heavy historic respons i b i l i t y as splitters of the u n i t y of the international c o m munist and w o r k e r s ' movement.
U n d e r such conditions, in the face of the organized
a n t i - M a r x i s t attack by K h r u s h c h e v and his followers, in
the face of slanders and fabrications w h i c h are aimed at
discrediting our P a r t y , in the face of a serious danger
to the f u t u r e of the u n i t y of the international c o m m u n i s t
and workers' movement and the socialist camp, the P a r t y
of Labour of A l b a n i a cannot remain silent. By facts and
documents, it w i l l m a k e the t r u t h k n o w n to the entire
communist and w o r k e r s ' movement, as w e l l as to w o r l d
public opinion, about the relations between the P a r t y of
Labour of A l b a n i a and the leadership of the C o m m u n i s t
4
P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n , w i l l s h o w w h i c h side is in the
right, and w i l l expose the a n t i - M a r x i s t and a n t i - A l b a n i a n
actions of K h r u s h c h e v and his group.
T h e u n i t y of the socialist camp and of the international
communist and w o r k e r s ' movement is being seriously
endangered by the a n t i - M a r x i s t actions of K h r u s h c h e v
and his followers. In this situation, in order to defend
the supreme interests of our people and H o m e l a n d and
their socialist victories, to defend the p u r i t y of M a r x i s m L e n i n i s m and the u n i t y of the ranks of the communist
movement and the socialist camp, the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a has taken and w i l l continue to take w i t h a
clear conscience responsibility for every one of its actions before the international communist and w o r k e r s '
movement and before the A l b a n i a n people.
T h e struggle w h i c h i s being imposed u p o n o u r P a r t y
and our people w i l l b e l o n g and d i f f i c u l t . B u t d i f f i c u l ties have never scared our P a r t y and our people. O u r
P a r t y and our people have been tempered in the struggle
against the numerous a n d continuous slanders, attacks
and plots of imperialists and Y u g o s l a v revisionists. O u r
P a r t y and our people w i l l not y i e l d and k n e e l to the
slanderous attacks, b l a c k m a i l and pressure of K h r u s h chev a n d those f o l l o w i n g h i m . T h e P a r t y and people, i n
i r o n u n i t y a s always, w i l l f i r m l y g o ahead and w i l l w i n
on their correct path, on the path towards the t r i u m p h
of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m and of the cause of socialism and
communism.
W e s h a l l w i n , because w e are not alone.
W i t h us, w i t h the great cause of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m , are
the communists and the peoples of the Soviet U n i o n ,
w i t h w h o m we are bound by ties of unbreakable love
and f r i e n d s h i p w h i c h , t h r o u g h every storm and tempest,
5
w e shall always preserve intact i n our hearts; w i t h u s
are the communists and people of C h i n a , a l l the c o m m u nists of the w o r l d and the peoples of the other socialist
countries.
T h e victorious banner of the P a r t y , the u n conquerable banner of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m , w i l l always
p r o u d l y f l y i n n e w socialist A l b a n i a .
THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
OF T H E P A R T Y OF L A B O U R OF A L B A N I A
T i r a n a , October 20th, 1961.
ON THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA
AND THE SOVIET UNION
Documents
Here follow official documents concerning the
decision of the government of the Soviet U n i o n on
the recall of the staff of the Soviet embassy and the
U S S R trade representation f r o m T i r a n a and the
departure of the staff of the embassy and trade
counsellor of the People's Republic of A l b a n i a f r o m
Moscow.
T h e contents of the verbal communication, made on
November 25th, 1961, by the V i c e - M i n i s t e r of Foreign
Affairs of the U S S R , N. F i r y u b i n , to the interim chargé
d'affaires of the P.R. of A l b a n i a to the U S S R , G a c M a z i ,
concerning the recall of the Soviet Ambassador Y. S h i k i n
from A l b a n i a .
The
Ministry
of
Foreign
Affairs
of
the
USSR,
on
instructions f r o m the Soviet Government, is authorized
to make the f o l l o w i n g statement:
T h e A l b a n i a n Government, f o l l o w i n g the course l e a d i n g towards the f u r t h e r aggravation of the relations w i t h
the Soviet U n i o n , especially after the 22nd Congress of
the C P S U , has created an unbearable situation for the
c a r r y i n g out of the n o r m a l activities of the Soviet A m b a s sador i n T i r a n a and the other Soviet diplomats.
The
Soviet Ambassador is placed in such a situation that he
cannot n o r m a l l y carry out the instructions of his G o v ernment.
Indeed, the U S S R Embassy is in a situation
of isolation, the most elementary rules of international
l a w are violated in this regard.
W i t h provocative aims,
the A l b a n i a n authorities slanderously accuse the staff
of the U S S R Embassy of conducting hostile activity
against A l b a n i a . Moreover, the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t
recently made an approach w h i c h is unprecedented in
the m u t u a l relations between the socialist countries, d e manding, w i t h o u t a n y justification, the reduction of the
personnel of the Soviet Embassy to almost a t h i r d .
9
T a k i n g into account the fact that the A l b a n i a n a u thorities have intentionally created such conditions that
the Soviet Ambassador in A l b a n i a is d e p r i v e d of the poss i b i l i t y of c a r r y i n g out his d i p l o m a t i c functions, the U S S R
Government is obliged to decide to r e c a l l the A m b a s s a dor E x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d P l e n i p o t e n t i a r y of the U S S R ,
Comrade Y . V . S h i k i n , f r o m A l b a n i a .
T h e M i n i s t r y o f F o r e i g n A f f a i r s o f the U S S R asks that
this decision of the U S S R G o v e r n m e n t be brought, w i t h out delay, to the k n o w l e d g e of the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n ment.
T h e note of the M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the P.R.
of A l b a n i a addressed to the Embassy of the Soviet U n i o n
in Tirana, December 4th, 1961.
EMBASSY OF THE UNION
SOCIALIST
OF THE
SOVIET
REPUBLICS — TIRANA
T h e M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the P.R. of A l b a n i a ,
u p o n order f r o m its Government, concerning the v e r b a l
communication made on N o v e m b e r 25th to the i n t e r i m
chargé
d'affaires of the P.R.
of A l b a n i a by t h e V i c e -
M i n i s t e r F i r y u b i n , has t h e honour t o present the f o l l o w i n g t o the Embassy o f the U S S R i n T i r a n a , asking that
it be transmitted to the Soviet Government:
I.
The
Government
of
the
P.R.
of
Albania
notes
w i t h surprise and p r o f o u n d regret the Soviet G o v e r n ment's decision to r e c a l l its Ambassador to the P.R. of
A l b a n i a , S h i k i n , o n the groundless and t r u m p e d - u p pretext that conditions have allegedly been created w h e r e 10
by he is d e p r i v e d of a l l possibility of f u l f i l l i n g his d i p l o matic functions.
T h e G o v e r n m e n t of the P.R. of A l b a n i a most resolutely rejects this false charge w h i c h is another slander a d d ed to a l o n g series of calumnies and other u n f r i e n d l y
actions c o n t i n u a l l y and systematically carried out by the
Soviet leaders against the P.R. of A l b a n i a and w h i c h
pursues one single a i m — the f u r t h e r aggravation a n d
worsening of f r a t e r n a l relations between o u r t w o f r i e n d ly peoples a n d our t w o socialist countries.
T h e allegations i n v e n t e d to j u s t i f y the r e c a l l of A m b a s sador S h i k i n a r e e n t i r e l y groundless and tendentious.
T h e Soviet Ambassador has never been impeded in his
w o r k ; on the contrary he has always had a l l the possibilities to f u l f i l his mission as ambassador. T h e t r u t h and
the o n l y motive in this question is to be f o u n d in the
fact that the authors of this grave and u n u s u a l act have
embarked o n the r o a d o f a n u n f r i e n d l y p o l i c y i n regard
to the P.R. of A l b a n i a , a n d p u r s u i n g this road they pass
to ever more condemnatory a n t i - A l b a n i a n and a n t i M a r x i s t actions.
It must be pointed out that, among other things, the
history of the beginning, continuation and termination
of the a c t i v i t y of Ambassador S h i k i n to the P.R. of A l bania, leads one to t h i n k that ever since the Soviet G o v ernment sent h i m to A l b a n i a , it has h a d the intention
of r e c a l l i n g h i m after a short period.
He o n l y stayed
f i v e months i n A l b a n i a and one cannot h e l p recalling the
fact that for the first t i m e in the history of the d i p l o matic relations between t w o countries, and precisely at
a moment w h e n the sphere of the n o r m a l activity of the
Embassy w a s greatly reduced by the f a u l t of the Soviet
11
side,
there was
also sent
with
Ambassador S h i k i n
an
embassy counsellor having the rank of a plenipotentiary
minister — an
act
which
cannot
be
understood
except
as part of the p l a n f o r the ambassador's premeditated
recall.
II.
It is w i t h the most p r o f o u n d astonishment and
indignation that the G o v e r n m e n t of the P.R. of A l b a n i a
learned of the decision of the G o v e r n m e n t of the U S S R ,
w h i c h considered
the further
stay
of the Ambassador
E x t r a o r d i n a r y and P l e n i p o t e n t i a r y of the P.R. of A l b a n i a
in the U S S R , N e s t i Nase, impossible under the entirely
t r u m p e d - u p and u n w o r t h y pretext that the Embassy of
the P.R.
of A l b a n i a in
M o s c o w has allegedly recently
distributed hostile material against the C P S U and the
Soviet U n i o n .
T h e G o v e r n m e n t of the P.R. of A l b a n i a most resolutely rejects this groundless charge and the protest of the
M i n i s t r y o f F o r e i g n A f f a i r s o f the U S S R f o r w a r d e d i n
this connection.
T h e decision of the Soviet leadership
on the departure of Ambassador Nesti Nase is a decision
w h i c h forms a component part of its u n f r i e n d l y policy
towards a socialist state,
a f r i e n d and brother of the
Soviet people, s u c h as the P.R. of A l b a n i a .
T h e Ambassador of the P.R. of A l b a n i a to the Soviet
U n i o n , Comrade N e s t i Nase, has always conscientiously
f u l f i l l e d his tasks as a diplomat, as an A l b a n i a n and
as a communist, strictly observing the laws and rules in
force in the Soviet U n i o n .
energy
to
further
He has w o r k e d w i t h a l l his
strengthen
and
temper
the
lasting
f r i e n d s h i p between our f r a t e r n a l peoples and our t w o
socialist countries.
12
It must be said that in the accomplishment of his
noble mission as a socialist diplomat, not o n l y has he not
had the proper assistance, but he has also been impeded
by the Soviet authorities, by every possible means, i n c l u d i n g impermissible masked and open supervision.
In
fact it is k n o w n that the Embassy of the P.R. of A l b a n i a
in the Soviet U n i o n has for years been subjected to c o n stant supervision t h r o u g h the m e d i u m of a special technical mechanism installed right f r o m its construction,
and even today it is subjected to open police control.
T h r e e m i l i t i a m e n stand permanently i n f r o n t o f the E m bassy c o n t r o l l i n g every person entering it, thereby i m peding its n o r m a l f u n c t i o n i n g and the regular f u l f i l m e n t
of the diplomatic tasks of the mission, and v i o l a t i n g the
most elementary rules w h i c h must be observed w i t h r e gard to a f o r e i g n representation and especially of a
f r i e n d l y and allied country.
T h e G o v e r n m e n t of the P.R. of A l b a n i a most energeti c a l l y protests against this decision of the Soviet G o v ernment, on the basis of w h i c h , and w i t h o u t reason, they
demand the departure of the Ambassador of the P.R. of
A l b a n i a f r o m the Soviet U n i o n , a p r o f o u n d l y unjust and
unjustifiable decision, i n open contrast w i t h the f u n d a m e n t a l principles of international law, w i t h the relations
between socialist countries, and w h i c h charges the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t w i t h a heavy responsibility for a l l the
consequences between the P.R. of A l b a n i a and the Soviet U n i o n .
T i r a n a , December 4th, 1961.
13
T h e contents of the verbal communication made on
November 25th,
1961 by the V i c e - M i n i s t e r of F o r e i g n
Affairs of the U S S R , N. F i r y u b i n , to the interim chargé
d'affaires of the P.R. of A l b a n i a to the U S S R , G a c M a z i ,
concerning the departure of the Ambassador of the P.R.
of A l b a n i a to the U S S R , Nesti Nase.
T h e M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the U S S R has b e come aware that the Embassy of the People's R e p u b l i c
of A l b a n i a in M o s c o w has been t r y i n g of late to spread,
in an intensified manner, a l l sorts of anti-Soviet materials, containing malicious slanders against the C P S U
and the Soviet U n i o n .
A m o n g other things, the texts of
the hostile declaration of the C.C. of the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a of October 20th last, a n d other slanderous
anti-Soviet materials, have been addressed directly to
the Central Committees of the C o m m u n i s t Parties of the
U n i o n Republics, contrary to the u n a n i m o u s l y adopted
rules.
Some time ago, the A l b a n i a n Embassy i n M o s c o w a d dressed to the Embassies of a n u m b e r of countries, the
Embassies of the capitalist states included, the declarat i o n o f the C C o f the P L A o f October 20th, H o x h a ' s r e port of N o v e m b e r 7th last, and other materials c o n t a i n ing m a n y base lies and slanders w i t h regard to our P a r t y ,
to the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t and the decisions of the 22nd
Congress of the C P S U .
T h u s , things reached such a
point that the Embassy handed over these slanderous
materials to the enemies of the socialist camp.
O n e cannot also h e l p d r a w i n g attention to the fact
that A l b a n i a n citizens staying i n the U S S R are b e i n g
largely utilized for purposes hostile to the Soviet U n i o n .
14
A b u s i n g the sincere aspiration of the Soviet U n i o n to
aid i n t r a i n i n g h i g h l y q u a l i f i e d specialists intended for
the people's economy of A l b a n i a , the Embassy is m o b i l i z i n g the A l b a n i a n students
to conduct anti-Soviet
propaganda. T h u s , the candidate of the M o s c o w P o w e r
Institute, J u k n i u , the students of the M o s c o w L i g h t I n dustry T e c h n o l o g i c a l Institute, K u r a k u q i , G j i p a l i , the
students of the M o s c o w State U n i v e r s i t y , M e ç a j , P r i l l o ,
of the C h i m i c o - T e c h n o l o g i c a l Institute, Hajdar, H a x h i m i h a l i , of the M o s c o w P e t r o - C h e m i c a l and Gas Industry
Institute, Reshati, of the L e n i n g r a d Refrigerator I n dustry T e c h n o l o g i c a l Institute, P a ç m a , have attempted
to distribute to Soviet and f o r e i g n students anti-Soviet
documents and have expressed themselves slanderously
on the questions of S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n relations.
A l l these actions against the U S S R arouse justifiable
i n d i g n a t i o n among Soviet m e n and w o m e n , for they
are directed o n l y w i t h one purpose — to f u r t h e r aggravate and w o r s e n the relations between our countries and
our parties w i t h a v i e w to b r e a k i n g the u n i t y and cohesion of the countries of the great socialist camp.
T h e M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s has more t h a n once
d r a w n the attention of the Embassy of the P.R. of A l bania in M o s c o w to the p r o h i b i t i o n of the d i s t r i b u t i o n
in the Soviet U n i o n of anti-Soviet materials and the m o b i l i z a t i o n o f A l b a n i a n citizens staying i n the U S S R for
this job.
T h e A l b a n i a n side, however, d i d not take any
measures to end the d i s t r i b u t i o n of this k i n d of material.
In addition, the A l b a n i a n Embassy, as indicated by the
above-mentioned facts, is seeking of late to activate the
d i s t r i b u t i o n of materials hostile to the C P S U and the
Soviet U n i o n , w h i c h i s incompatible w i t h the f u l f i l m e n t
15
of the n o r m a l functions of every diplomatic representation, and even more so of a country calling itself a m e m ber of the socialist camp.
In this connection, the M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of
the U S S R sharply protests to the A l b a n i a n Embassy in
M o s c o w and does not consider it a n y longer possible for
the Ambassador of the P.R. of A l b a n i a , N e s t i Nase to
stay in the U S S R .
At the same time, the M i n i s t r y of
F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the U S S R is instructed to demand the
immediate suspension of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of anti-Soviet
materials by the A l b a n i a n Embassy in the U S S R , and the
c a r r y i n g out of hostile propaganda against the C P S U and
the Soviet U n i o n .
T h e contents of the verbal communication made on
December 3, 1961, by the V i c e - M i n i s t e r of F o r e i g n Affairs
of the U S S R , N. F i r y u b i n , to the interim chargé d'affaires
of the P.R. of A l b a n i a to the U S S R , G a c M a z i , concerning
the recall of the personnel of the U S S R Embassy and of
the Soviet trade representation in T i r a n a , as w e l l as the
demand for the departure of the personnel of the Embassy
of the P.R. of A l b a n i a and of the A l b a n i a n trade counsellor to the Soviet U n i o n .
T h e M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the U S S R , on the
instructions of the G o v e r n m e n t of the U S S R , declares
the f o l l o w i n g :
T h e A l b a n i a n Government, bent o n the f u r t h e r
aggravation
of
Albanian-Soviet
relations,
especially
since the 22nd Congress of the C P S U ,
has u n leashed in its c o u n t r y a slanderous and hostile campaign
16
against the U S S R .
It is i n t e n t i o n a l l y c a r r y i n g out measures aimed at i m p e d i n g the n o r m a l activity of the E m bassy and the trade representation o f the U S S R i n A l bania.
T h e Soviet diplomats in the P.R. of A l b a n i a are
isolated.
T h e y are even deprived of the possibility of
m a i n t a i n i n g official contacts w i t h the A l b a n i a n i n s t i t u tions a n d organizations.
T h e A l b a n i a n authorities, for
provocative purposes, slanderously accuse the staff of the
Soviet representative institutions of conducting hostile
activity against A l b a n i a .
T h e most elementary rules of
international l a w are being violated in regard to the Soviet Embassy a n d the other Soviet institutions i n A l bania.
T h e Soviet side has more t h a n once d r a w n the attention of the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t to the inadmissible actions of the A l b a n i a n authorities w i t h regard to the
U S S R Embassy i n T i r a n a .
H o w e v e r the A l b a n i a n G o v ernment has not o n l y been u n w i l l i n g to take any measures, but also made the conditions of the sojourn of the
workers of the Soviet institutions in A l b a n i a more and
more complicated.
An unheard-of step in the relations between states,
p a r t i c u l a r l y between socialist states, is the groundless
demand of the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t that the personnel of the Soviet Embassy be reduced almost to a t h i r d .
T h e M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the U S S R has been
authorized to f i r m l y reject the entirely inadmissible demand of the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t to reduce the n u m b e r
of personnel of the U S S R Embassy in T i r a n a .
It is w e l l
k n o w n that international l a w does not recognize the r i g h t
of a country to a r b i t r a r i l y a n d u n i l a t e r a l l y l i m i t the
number of members of f o r e i g n diplomatic missions ac17
credited to it.
In this connection, it must be recalled
that A l b a n i a , at the respective international conferences,
in the not too distant past, went on record against attempts to legalize an erroneous practice, by w h i c h the
state, w h e n accepting a d i p l o m a t i c mission into its c o u n try, determines its n u m e r i c a l composition.
In contrast,
the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t n o w resorts to the methods
used by the capitalist states to impede at a l l costs the
diplomatic a c t i v i t y of the countries of the socialist camp.
T h e Soviet side cannot of course r e m a i n indifferent
towards the unbearable situation created for the staff of
the Embassy and the trade representation of the U S S R
i n T i r a n a b y the A l b a n i a n authorities. T h e G o v e r n m e n t
of the Soviet U n i o n , t a k i n g a l l this i n t o account, and also
the shameless c l a i m by the A l b a n i a n side, according to
w h i c h the Soviet diplomats w o u l d have n o t h i n g more to
do in T i r a n a , adopted the decision to evacuate the e n t i r e
personnel of the Soviet Embassy and its trade representation
from
Albania.
Three
members
of
the
technical
staff w i l l b e left t o guard the b u i l d i n g s and other m a terials belonging to the Embassy a n d trade representat i o n o f the U S S R i n T i r a n a .
A s t o w h i c h state the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t w i l l charge
w i t h attending to the interests of the Soviet U n i o n and
its citizens i n A l b a n i a , the A l b a n i a n side w i l l b e i n f o r m e d
later.
T h e Soviet side considers that under the conditions in
w h i c h the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t is ever more consistentl y aggravating the relations w i t h the Soviet U n i o n , e x ploiting its diplomatic mission in the U S S R for purposes
of anti-Soviet activity, the f u r t h e r stay of the personnel
18
of the Embassy and of the trade counsellor of A l b a n i a
in M o s c o w is e n t i r e l y u n j u s t i f i e d .
In this connection the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t demands
that the entire personnel of the Embassy and the trade
counsellor of A l b a n i a n o w in M o s c o w leave the territory
of the Soviet U n i o n .
T h e note of the M i n i s t r y of Foreign Affairs of the P.R.
of A l b a n i a addressed to the Embassy of the Soviet U n i o n
in T i r a n a on December 9th, 1961.
T H E E M B A S S Y OF T H E UNION OF T H E SOVIET
SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS
Tirana
T h e M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the P.R. of A l b a nia, authorized by the G o v e r n m e n t of the P.R. of A l b a n i a ,
asks the U S S R Embassy i n T i r a n a t o transmit the f o l l o w i n g message to the U S S R G o v e r n m e n t :
T h e P.R. of A l b a n i a , ever since its creation, f o l l o w i n g
the v i c t o r y of the national-liberation struggle over the
nazi-fascist occupants and traitors to the country, and
the t r i u m p h of the people's revolution, has based its f o r eign p o l i c y o n a n unbreakable a n d eternal f r i e n d s h i p
w i t h the Soviet U n i o n .
T h i s f r i e n d s h i p w a s tempered
d u r i n g the Second W o r l d W a r and cemented after liberation by the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a .
It g r e w out
of the blood shed together by the glorious liberator, the
Soviet A r m y , and the brave A l b a n i a n partisans in the
w a r against the common enemy; it is based on the i m 19
mortal principles o f M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m .
The Albanian
people, educated by their P a r t y of Labour, have a l w a y s
regarded the Soviet U n i o n as their liberator, and their
dearest f r i e n d . T h e P L A and the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t
have considered it a p r i m o r d i a l task to preserve and
continually strengthen this friendship, to increase and
ever more consolidate in the hearts of the A l b a n i a n
people, love for and faithfulness to the great homeland
of V.I. L e n i n and to the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet
Union.
In the years since the liberation of A l b a n i a , for a l o n g
period the relations between the People's R e p u b l i c of
A l b a n i a and the Soviet U n i o n have been extended and
developed in every field on the basis of the L e n i n i s t
principles of equality, m u t u a l respect, close cooperation
and m u t u a l fraternal aid.
T h e A l b a n i a n people w i l l a l ways be grateful to the f r a t e r n a l Soviet people f o r the
internationalist aid they have given our c o u n t r y d u r i n g
this period, and w h i c h has been an important factor in
the b u i l d i n g of socialism in A l b a n i a .
D u r i n g the course of these years, at a l l times and in
every situation, the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , a l o y a l
member of the socialist camp and the W a r s a w Treaty,
has strengthened its u n i t y w i t h the Soviet U n i o n ; it has
f i r m l y remained on the side of the Soviet U n i o n , against
a l l and every attack and slander by the enemies of the
land of Soviets; it has resolutely defended the peace
policy of the Soviet U n i o n and has done every t h i n g in
its power to contribute to its t r i u m p h .
T h e close ties of
cooperation i n the economic, political, c u l t u r a l and m i l i tary fields and the f r a t e r n a l friendship between our t w o
countries have created really internationalist and i n 20
destructible l i n k s between our t w o peoples. A n d , as
they have always s h o w n by their attitude and their c o n sistent activity, the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a a n d the
Government of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a have
been and r e m a i n resolute fighters for the defense and
further strengthening of the f r i e n d s h i p and u n i t y between the t w o countries and our t w o parties on the just
and inviolable basis of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , d u r i n g recent times a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y
since the second half of 1960, the relations between the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a and the Soviet U n i o n are
no longer w h a t they were previously; they have been
greatly worsened and aggravated by N. K h r u s h c h e v and
his group, because at the Bucharest m e e t i n g of the r e p resentatives of a n u m b e r of communist and w o r k e r s '
parties, on J u n e 1960 a n d subsequently, the P a r t y of
Labour o f A l b a n i a d i d not reconcile itself w i t h N . K h r u shchev's a n t i - M a r x i s t views, it d i d not s u b m i t to his
dictates on i m p o r t a n t ideological questions, it resolutely
defended and s t i l l defends M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m .
Not tolerating this p r i n c i p l e d stand o f the P L A , N . K h r u s h c h e v
and his group b r u t a l l y violated the principles on w h i c h
are based the relations between the socialist states, as
w e l l as the 1957 and 1960 M o s c o w Declarations, and because of his ideological differences w i t h the P L A , he
passed over to u n i l a t e r a l state measures, each one more
a r b i t r a r y a n d grave t h a n the other, against the People's
R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , f o r the purpose of pressure and
b r i n g i n g about the submission of A l b a n i a .
D u r i n g this period N . K h r u s h c h e v and his group have
consistently exerted e v e r y possible effort to b r i n g t h e
A l b a n i a n people, the P L A and the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t
21
to their knees in order to aggravate S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n r e lations, and in this w a y on the state level, t r a m p l i n g
under foot proletarian internationalism and a l l and every
rule
of international l a w
states.
governing
relations
between
Suffice it to recall that, in an e n t i r e l y u n i l a t e r a l
w a y and w i t h the sole purpose of i m p e d i n g the b u i l d ing of socialism in A l b a n i a , N.
Khrushchev
cancelled
the credits, granted on the basis of regular agreements,
to the P.R. of A l b a n i a by the Soviet U n i o n for the t h i r d
five-year p l a n (1961-1965).
He a r b i t r a r i l y violated and
broke
for
the
trade
agreement
1961;
he
unilaterally
w i t h d r e w the Soviet specialists, he tore up, in fact, the
agreements on c u l t u r a l cooperation, under false pretexts
he expelled a number of A l b a n i a n c i v i l and m i l i t a r y s t u dents f r o m the Soviet U n i o n and cancelled the agreement on stipends for the A l b a n i a n c i v i l and m i l i t a r y s t u dents w h o were studying in the Soviet U n i o n , he violated
the m i l i t a r y agreements, he organized a real economic,
political and m i l i t a r y blockade against the P.R. of A l b a n i a .
By p u b l i c l y denouncing, at the 22nd Congress of the
C P S U , the differences existing between the P L A and the
present leadership, by distorting the t r u t h and slandering in a banal manner a fraternal people and a M a r x i s t L e n i n i s t party such as the A l b a n i a n people and the P a r t y
of Labour of A l b a n i a , N. K h r u s h c h e v has not o n l y i n cited i m p e r i a l i s m and its servitors against A l b a n i a , but
he has also had the audacity to l a u n c h an appeal to the
A l b a n i a n people for a counter-revolution.
T h u s , he has
acted l i k e the rabid enemies of the A l b a n i a n people, of
the P L A , the socialist camp and c o m m u n i s m .
The A l -
banian people responded to this unheard-of provocation
22
by further closing their ranks around the P a r t y of L a bour of A l b a n i a and their Government, by strengthening
their determination to b u i l d socialism and sharpening
their vigilance in defense of their victories and their
socialist homeland.
On November 25th, 1961, under N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s
dictates, the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t recalled its Ambassador
Y . S h i k i n f r o m A l b a n i a w i t h the fallacious excuse that
" h e had been placed in such a situation that he could no
more n o r m a l l y c a r r y out his government's instructions"
and that this situation became " u n b e a r a b l e " "especially
after the 22nd Congress of the C P S U " .
T h i s c l a i m is
absurd and is o n l y made w i t h bad intentions.
In fact
it is w e l l k n o w n that right f r o m the beginning, and right
up to the present, the Embassy of the U S S R in A l b a n i a
and the w h o l e of the staff, f r o m the Ambassador and
right d o w n to the most o r d i n a r y employee, have enjoyed
the most favourable conditions, w h i c h w e r e created for
them.
T h e U S S R representatives i n A l b a n i a have a l ways been treated not o n l y l i k e diplomatic representatives of the f r i e n d l y and allied country, the dearest to
the A l b a n i a n people, as the Soviet U n i o n has been and
still remains, but l i k e comrades and real brothers for
w h o m not o n l y the offices and establishments, but also
the hearts of the A l b a n i a n people, were open.
As to
Ambassador S h i k i n , too, as previously pointed out by the
A l b a n i a n Government, a l l the conditions necessary to
the c a r r y i n g out of his functions had been created; but
Ambassador S h i k i n , in the eleven months since he first
arrived in A l b a n i a , actually o n l y resided here five
months in a l l . S t i l l more astonishing is the c l a i m that
his situation became "unbearable after the 22nd Congress
23
of the C P S U " as it is k n o w n that Ambassador S h i k i n
has been out of A l b a n i a since A u g u s t 19th, 1961, that is,
t w o months before the 22nd Congress of the C P S U began.
T h e real motive, therefore, is not to be f o u n d in t h e
alleged abnormal conditions, but i n N . K h r u s h c h e v ' s i n tention to further worsen the relations between the P.R.
of A l b a n i a and the U S S R .
T h u s , on the same date, it
also demanded the departure f r o m the U S S R of the A m bassador of the P.R. of A l b a n i a , N e s t i Nase, under the
pretext that, according to the Soviet c l a i m , the A l b a n i a n
Embassy was t r y i n g to distribute anti-Soviet material,
and even u t i l i z i n g the A l b a n i a n students s t a y i n g in t h e
U S S R for this purpose, the Soviet leadership considering
such material as the declaration of the CC of the P L A of
October 20th, 1961, as w e l l as the speech delivered by
the F i r s t Secretary o f the P L A , C o m r a d e E n v e r H o x h a ,
in T i r a n a on N o v e m b e r 7th, 1961 as anti-Soviet. W h a t
is more, measures of obstruction and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w e r e
taken against the A l b a n i a n Embassy i n M o s c o w .
The
M i n i s t r y o f F o r e i g n A f f a i r s o f the U S S R o f f i c i a l l y i n f o r m e d the Embassy of the P.R. of A l b a n i a that it was
forbidden f o r i t and the A l b a n i a n diplomats i n the U S S R
to have direct connection or make contact w i t h a l l Soviet
institutions, w i t h the exception of the M i n i s t r y of F o r eign A f f a i r s .
On the other h a n d groups of m i l i t i a m e n
surrounded the A l b a n i a n Embassy in M o s c o w , as if the
two countries w e r e in a state of w a r .
T h e y began to
control every visitor to the Embassy and to prevent a l l
and every Soviet citizen, i n c l u d i n g e v e n the technicians
sent by the Soviet office of diplomatic service, f r o m e n tering the A l b a n i a n Embassy. It is a s u r p r i s i n g fact that,
w h i l e it is precisely the Soviet side itself w h i c h adopted
24
measures of u n e x a m p l e d isolation and restriction towards the A l b a n i a n Embassy and the A l b a n i a n diplomats
in M o s c o w , the V i c e - M i n i s t e r of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the
Soviet U n i o n , N . F i r y u b i n , i n his v e r b a l communication
of December 3, 1961, claimed, w i t h open slander, that
"the Soviet diplomats in the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a nia are isolated and deprived of even the possibility of
m a i n t a i n i n g o f f i c i a l contacts w i t h the institution and
organisations of A l b a n i a . "
T h e Embassy o f the People's R e p u b l i c o f A l b a n i a i n
M o s c o w has always observed the rules of the Soviet
Government concerning the distribution of propaganda
materials in the Soviet U n i o n and has never encroached
o n them.
T h e G o v e r n m e n t o f the People's R e p u b l i c o f
A l b a n i a rejects, as a shameless and provocative offence,
the allegation that the A l b a n i a n Embassy has sometimes
distributed anti-Soviet material.
A l l the materials it has
circulated have been distributed i n compliance w i t h the
rules in force, and always been inspired by the feelings
of A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t lasting friendship, by the principles
of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m , and based on the 1957 and 1960
M o s c o w Declarations.
It is indeed regrettable that, on
such a groundless pretext, they demanded the departure
of the Ambassador of a socialist state f r o m the Soviet
U n i o n , and at a time, w h e n the d i p l o m a t i c representations of the capitalist countries in M o s c o w are f r e e l y
distributing numerous materials.
J u s t as groundless is
also the charge made w i t h regard to the A l b a n i a n s t u dents in the Soviet U n i o n , w h o have been educated, by
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , in the feelings of b o u n d less love towards the Soviet U n i o n , w h o have always
set an example by their behaviour and their observance
25
of the rules and laws of the country.
But, as the facts
show, N. Khrushchev's group needs these t r u m p e d - u p
charges in order to e x p e l the A l b a n i a n students f r o m the
Soviet U n i o n , to break a l l contact between the Soviet
men and women and the A l b a n i a n citizens.
As is evident, N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s group, in defiance of
every internationalist p r i n c i p l e and the usual practice
of international law, u n i l a t e r a l l y violated a n d cancelled
all the agreements in force, and the cooperation between
the Soviet U n i o n and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ,
thereby deliberately and for d e f i n i t e l y hostile purposes
severing a l l relations between the Soviet U n i o n a n d A l bania. I n this situation, i n w h i c h b y N . K h r u s h c h e v ' s
fault the relations between the t w o countries were r e duced to the last extremity, it is clear that it was superfluous f o r the Soviet Embassy in T i r a n a to have a staff
of about 80 members.
T h e r e f o r e the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n ment r i g h t f u l l y and on a reciprocal basis proposed that
the Soviet Embassy in T i r a n a should have the same n u m ber of staff members as the A l b a n i a n Embassy in M o s cow.
P u r s u i n g his a n t i - A l b a n i a n and a n t i - M a r x i s t policy,
N. K h r u s h c h e v w e n t s t i l l f u r t h e r along the road of
worsening relations between the U S S R and the P.R. of
A l b a n i a : On Sunday, December 3, 1961, the V i c e - M i n i s t e r
o f F o r e i g n A f f a i r s o f the U S S R , N . F i r y u b i n , proceeding
f r o m v i l e and provocative slanders c o n c e r n i n g the attitude of the G o v e r n m e n t of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l bania towards the Soviet U n i o n and the Soviet Embassy
in Tirana, i n f o r m e d the Chargé d'Affaires of the People's
R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a to the Soviet U n i o n , G a c M a z i , of
the Soviet Government's decision to recall the entire staff
26
of the Soviet Embassy and trade representation in T i r a na. At the same t i m e he demanded the departure of
the staff of the Embassy and the trade counsellor of the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a in M o s c o w f r o m Soviet territory, simultaneously declaring that the Soviet G o v e r n ment w o u l d later i n f o r m the A l b a n i a n side w h i c h state
w o u l d be entrusted w i t h the care of the interests of the
Soviet U n i o n and its citizens in A l b a n i a .
T h e G o v e r n m e n t of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a
rejects, w i t h contempt and indignation, the shocking and
groundless slanders and inventions adduced i n N . F i r y u bin's v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n as arguments to j u s t i f y this
hostile act w h i c h is unprecedented in the history of the
relations between socialist states.
T h e unilateral decision of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s group to close d o w n the Soviet
Embassy and trade representation in T i r a n a , as w e l l as
the A l b a n i a n Embassy in M o s c o w , not o n l y expresses his
w i l l to break a l l and every relation between the Soviet
U n i o n and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , but also
brutally violates the principles, on w h i c h the relations
between socialist states are based, as w e l l as the glorious
traditions of f r i e n d s h i p w h i c h the Soviet U n i o n has a l ways maintained towards other socialist countries, towards a l l the countries of the w o r l d .
Indeed, this decision is another pressure w h i c h is brought to bear upon
the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a . It is a part and parcel of the a n t i - A l b a n i a n and anti-socialist policy, w h i c h
N. K h r u s h c h e v is p u r s u i n g w i t h unheard-of violence,
against the A l b a n i a n people a n d the People's R e p u b l i c
of A l b a n i a .
It can o n l y gladden the s w o r n enemies of
the A l b a n i a n people and the Soviet people, of socialism
and M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m , the imperialists and their ser27
vants, the Y u g o s l a v revisionists.
T h e r e is no doubt that
neither this n e w hostile action against A l b a n i a , nor the
threats and pressures of a l l k i n d s by N. K h r u s h c h e v w i l l
be able to spoil the A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t friendship.
They
w i l l b e unable t o detach A l b a n i a f r o m her f r i e n d s and
w i l l never scare the r e a l defenders of the u n i t y of the
socialist c a m p a n d o f M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m .
A l l the a n t i M a r x i s t aims and attempts of N. K h r u s h c h e v and his
group w i l l s u f f e r an utter defeat.
We cannot pass over in silence the fact that, N. K h r u s h chev decided to undertake this action f o r the furtherworsening of the relations of the Soviet U n i o n w i t h the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , w h i c h is a socialist a l l i e d
state, a member for l i f e of the socialist camp, a member
o f the W a r s a w T r e a t y a n d the M u t u a l A i d E c o n o m i c
C o u n c i l and w h i c h is led by a M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t p a r t y
such as the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , at a time w h e n
he is m a k i n g every effort to strengthen the relations w i t h
the states of the aggressive N o r t h A t l a n t i c treaty and
w i t h Tito's revisionist group — the s w o r n enemies of
the Soviet U n i o n a n d socialism.
T h e A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t expresses its deep regret
that the time has a r r i v e d w h e n in the leadership of the
Soviet U n i o n , of the f i r s t socialist state in the w o r l d ,
and of the glorious C o m m u n i s t P a r t y f o u n d e d by V . I .
L e n i n , there are m e n l i k e N . K h r u s h c h e v ' s group w h o
attack the best friends of the Soviet U n i o n and are doing
everything in their power to injure the i m m o r t a l cause
of the socialist c a m p and communism.
T h i s n e w hostile
act of N. K h r u s h c h e v w i l l not h e l p h i m to attain his
diabolic aims, but w i l l have an entirely opposite effect.
T h e A l b a n i a n people w i l l s t i l l better understand h o w
28
just a n d w i s e has been, and is, the M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t l i n e
o f the P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a n i a .
T h e y w i l l strengthe n s t i l l more their u n i t y a r o u n d their P a r t y and G o v ernment, and the s y m p a t h y for, and solidarity w i t h , the
A l b a n i a n people and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a
w i l l g r o w among a l l honest m e n a n d w o m e n throughout
the w o r l d .
Despite these successive hostile actions of N. K h r u s h chev and his group, t h e A l b a n i a n people w i l l always
preserve intact their love and f r i e n d s h i p for the fraternal
Soviet people and for L e n i n ' s homeland and P a r t y . T h e y
are convinced that a l l the attempts and the a n t i - A l b a n i a n
and a n t i - M a r x i s t plans of N. K h r u s h c h e v and his group
w i l l completely f a i l , that t r u t h w i l l f i n a l l y w i n , and
Marxism-Leninism w i l l triumph.
T h e People's R e p u b l i c
of A l b a n i a w i l l r e m a i n unshaken on its correct path, and
w i l l successfully b u i l d u p socialism and c o m m u n i s m .
T h e G o v e r n m e n t of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ,
as always in the past, w i l l in the f u t u r e defend the f o r eign p o l i c y of the G o v e r n m e n t of the Soviet U n i o n on a l l
questions w h i c h are in the interest of the defense of
peace and the struggle for the general and complete disarmament; in the efforts f o r the settlement of the G e r man issue t h r o u g h the conclusion of a peace treaty w i t h
G e r m a n y and the transformation of W e s t B e r l i n into a
free and d e m i l i t a r i z e d city. A n d i t w i l l resolutely f i g h t
for the preservation and strengthening of the u n i t y b e tween the countries of the socialist camp on the basis of
the principles of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m and proletarian
internationalism.
T h e G o v e r n m e n t of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ,
w h i l e most s h a r p l y protesting against the Soviet G o v 29
ernment's unilateral decision on the closing of the Soviet
Embassy i n T i r a n a a n d the A l b a n i a n Embassy i n M o s cow, declares that the entire responsibility f o r this grave
and hostile action rests u p o n N. K h r u s h c h e v a n d his
group. It expresses its f u l l c o n v i c t i o n that, sooner or
later, the Soviet people and the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the
Soviet U n i o n w i l l condemn this c r i m i n a l deed and the
entire hostile a c t i v i t y of N. K h r u s h c h e v against a
fraternal f r i e n d l y and allied country such as the People's
R e p u b l i c o f A l b a n i a , w h i c h i s b u i l d i n g u p socialism a n d
resolutely f i g h t i n g i m p e r i a l i s m and m o d e r n revisionism,
always h o l d i n g h i g h the banner of f r i e n d s h i p and u n i t y
w i t h the Soviet U n i o n a n d the other f r a t e r n a l countries
of the socialist camp, the banner of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m .
Tirana, December 9, 1961.
AN UNPRECEDENTED ACT IN THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN
THE
P u b l i s h e d in
Zëri
SOCIALIST
i Popullit,
Dec.
COUNTRIES
10th,
1961
A t the instigation o f N . K h r u s h c h e v the Soviet G o v ernment decided to recall the entire personnel of the
Soviet Embassy f r o m T i r a n a and to demand the departure of the entire personnel of the A l b a n i a n Embassy
f r o m Moscow.
T h i s u n e x a m p l e d hostile act against socialist A l b a n i a and the A l b a n i a n people is an unheard-of
action in the history of the relations between the socialist
countries, a n d a heavy b l o w against the u n i t y of the socialist c a m p and the international communist a n d w o r k ers' movement.
S u c h an act offends the feelings of deep
fraternal f r i e n d s h i p n u r t u r e d b y the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y
of the Soviet U n i o n and the Soviet peoples f o r our P a r t y
and people.
E v e r y A l b a n i a n and every honest m a n i n
the w o r l d i s justifiably shocked b y it. B y u n d e r t a k i n g
this action N. K h r u s h c h e v o n l y gives pleasure to our
common enemies and provides t h e m w i t h weapons to
discredit the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y , the Soviet State and their
traditional p o l i c y of f r i e n d s h i p among the peoples. T h i s
shows the extent of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s hostile feelings t o w a r d s the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , the People's
R e p u b l i c o f A l b a n i a and the A l b a n i a n people w h o have
been, are, and w i l l r e m a i n l o y a l friends for l i f e of the
Soviet U n i o n .
31
T h e t w e n t y years of activity of the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a and the seventeen years of existence of the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a are the most v i v i d testim o n y to the feelings of f r i e n d s h i p and boundless l o v e
for the Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n and for
the peoples of the Soviet U n i o n .
O u r people's f r i e n d ship towards the Soviet U n i o n has been forged by the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , in the crucible of the s t r u g gle for freedom, for national independence, for the b u i l d ing of socialism. It has been cemented w i t h the blood
of the brave sons of the Soviet peoples and the A l b a n i a n
guerrilla fighters w h o f e l l in the common struggle against
common enemies. T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has
educated its members and a l l the w o r k i n g people of the
country in the spirit of boundless love and f i r m l o y a l t y
towards the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n and
the Soviet peoples. T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and
the A l b a n i a n people have considered, and continue to
consider, the f r i e n d s h i p w i t h the Soviet U n i o n , its internationalist support and aid, as the important e x t e r n a l
factor for the country's liberation, for the b u i l d i n g of socialism and for the defense of freedom and national i n dependence.
F o r this they have been and w i l l always
be grateful.
T h e relations of the People's R e p u b l i c of
A l b a n i a w i t h the Soviet U n i o n have always been more
than exemplary and there have never been any dark
clouds over our t w o countries.
F r i e n d s h i p w i t h the
Soviet U n i o n has always been the u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e
of the foreign policy of the G o v e r n m e n t of the People's R e public of A l b a n i a . It has supported, and backed up w i t h
a l l its force, the f o r e i g n p o l i c y of the Soviet U n i o n , its
proposals and actions for the settlement of important i n 32
ternational questions in the interests of peace and security
for the peoples, in the interest of our c o m m o n cause.
A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t f r i e n d s h i p is not a result of some
diplomatic combination, but it is a deep f r i e n d s h i p of
peoples, w h i c h draws its o r i g i n f r o m the common road of
socialism and c o m m u n i s m , f r o m the common essence of
our social and economic order and state power, f r o m the
common interests and aims; the common struggle against
imperialism, the common ideology of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m
and the l o f t y principles of proletarian internationalism.
A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t f r i e n d s h i p w i l l l i v e throughout the
centuries and there is no force in the w o r l d that can
shake it. T h i s f r i e n d s h i p cannot even be spoiled by the
latest hostile action of N. K h r u s h c h e v , the recall of
the personnel of the Soviet Embassy f r o m T i r a n a and the
departure of the personnel of the A l b a n i a n Embassy f r o m
Moscow.
E v e r y honest m a n is surprised and unable to understand h o w N. K h r u s h c h e v could go to such lengths as to
sever relations w i t h a small, fraternal country, l o y a l
to the Soviet peoples, a member of the socialist camp,
f i r m l y struggling, under conditions of capitalist and r e v i sionist geographical encirclement, for o u r c o m m o n cause,
w h i c h holds h i g h the banner of socialism on the A d r i a t i c
coasts, w h i c h at a l l times and under a l l circumstances
has always s h o w n by deeds its boundless l o y a l t y towards
the great homeland of L e n i n .
T h i s stand towards socialist A l b a n i a cannot but cause amazement at a time
w h e n N. K h r u s h c h e v is so n o i s i l y preaching a policy
of rapprochement and cooperation w i t h a l l states, even
w i t h the most reactionary ones, w h i c h are p u r s u i n g a
consistently hostile policy towards the Soviet U n i o n and
33
the other socialist countries; at a time w h e n N. K h r u s h chev is stretching his hand and t r y i n g to establish close
ties w i t h even the most reactionary milliardaires, w i t h
princes and kings, not to mention his rapprochement
w i t h and embracing of the Y u g o s l a v revisionists and
the cordial greetings and the good wishes he also c o n veyed to the P o p e of R o m e . These facts w i l l convince
not only every communist, b u t also make every honest
m a n in the w o r l d recognize h o w hostile N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s
action is against the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , and
w h o m in fact this act serves.
N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s pretext for the recall of the entire
personnel of the Soviet Embassy f r o m T i r a n a , is that the
A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t is conducting a hostile campaign
against the Soviet U n i o n and is aggravating the relations
between the two countries, i m p e d i n g the n o r m a l a c t i v i ties of the Soviet Ambassador in T i r a n a and creating an
unbearable situation for diplomats, etc. A l l these " s e r i o u s "
motives that pushed N. K h r u s h c h e v to such action are
entirely groundless, they are slanders and inventions
w h i c h are not substantiated by the real state of affairs.
Whoever is f a m i l i a r w i t h the press and the real situation
in our country must be aware that in it there is no w o r d ,
no expression, nor the least spirit of hostility against the
Soviet U n i o n and its Government.
On the contrary, it
is N. K h r u s h c h e v and his followers w h o create slanders
and inventions in order to sow e n m i t y and hatred against
our people.
F o l l o w i n g this procedure, a f e w days ago,
an article in the newspaper Pravda of December 2nd,
1961, w r i t t e n by Y. A n d r o p o v , alleges that an editorial
of the newspaper
Zëri i Popullit, published on the
threshold of the 22nd Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y
34
of the Soviet U n i o n , stated that the A l b a n i a n leaders
w o u l d " f r o m n o w o n develop their relations w i t h the
Soviet U n i o n o n l y on the basis of the principles of peacef u l coexistence of states w i t h different social systems".
T h i s is a falsification and distortion of the t r u t h . In no
issue, article, or e d i t o r i a l of the Zëri i Popullit, nor in
any other A l b a n i a n newspaper has such a t h i n g ever been
said. S u c h are the inventions on w h i c h N. K h r u s h c h e v
bases his "arguments". W h a t h y p o c r i s y ! He attacks us
on the trumped-up charge that we stand for relations of
peaceful coexistence w i t h the Soviet U n i o n and he is
shocked by this, w h i l e he himself goes in fact beyond his
o w n i n v e n t i o n and proceeds to such an extent as to close
d o w n the Soviet Embassy in T i r a n a and ask for the d e parture of the personnel of the A l b a n i a n Embassy f r o m
Moscow, a n action w h i c h has n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n w i t h
the internationalist principles governing the relations b e tween the f r a t e r n a l socialist countries, nor even w i t h the
principles of peaceful coexistence about w h i c h he is making so m u c h noise.
As regards the pretext that an unbearable situation
for Soviet diplomats and for the n o r m a l activities of
the Ambassador in A l b a n i a has been created, it is not
even w o r t h w h i l e to reject such slander. It is clear to
N. K h r u s h c h e v and his group, just as it was to the
Soviet diplomats themselves, that, in fact, in A l b a n i a ,
there existed, for the Soviet diplomats, more t h a n n o r m a l
conditions f o r the c a r r y i n g out of their activities; and
that the Soviet Ambassador, w h o allegedly, and especially
of late, they say, has been subjected to great obstacles in
the c a r r y i n g out of his w o r k , has been in M o s c o w since
A u g u s t 19th, 1961, and not in A l b a n i a . It is really sur35
prising that Ambassador S h i k i n has been able to see
f r o m M o s c o w the obstacles that have been raised against
h i m in A l b a n i a of late!
N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s pretext that the G o v e r n m e n t of the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a has violated the rules of
international l a w by demanding the curtailment of the
personnel of the Soviet Embassy in T i r a n a does not bear
v a l i d i t y either.
W h y d i d the G o v e r n m e n t o f the P e o -
ple's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a demand that the personnel of
the two respective embassies should be placed on a r e c i p rocal basis?
It is k n o w n that ever since the Bucharest
meeting, of J u n e 1960, N. K h r u s h c h e v has systematically
and w i t h premeditation pursued the policy of pressure
and blackmail w i t h a v i e w to subduing and b r i n g i n g the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and the A l b a n i a n people to
their knees.
V i o l a t i n g the signed agreements, he sus-
pended
all
the
credits
granted
to
our
country,
which
and
specialists f r o m A l b a n i a .
the
trade
relations
on
the
Soviet
recalled
Union
all
the
had
Soviet
H e almost entirely suspended
mutually
clearing
basis.
He
suspended the stipends to a l l the A l b a n i a n c i v i l and m i l i tary students w h o were studying in the Soviet U n i o n .
He cancelled a l l the plans for c u l t u r a l and technologicalscientific
cooperation
between
the
two
countries.
He
established a strict blockade of silence and p o l i t i c a l isolation around the People's R e p u b l i c o f A l b a n i a and the A l banian people.
of
military
He violated the agreements in the f i e l d
relations.
In
a
word
he
established a
"sanitary c o r d o n " around the People's R e p u b l i c o f A l bania.
Do not these things f u l l y justify the demand of
the Government of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a to
36
place the personnel of b o t h embassies on a reciprocal
basis f r o m the point of v i e w of numbers? W h a t w e r e
80 persons of the Soviet Embassy in T i r a n a to do in these
conditions w h i l e the sphere of their a c t i v i t y h a d been
greatly n a r r o w e d by the unilateral restrictive economic,
c u l t u r a l and p o l i t i c a l measures taken b y N . K h r u s h c h e v
w i t h regard to the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ?
T h e r e a l reason for N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s extreme action
is not the t r u m p e d - u p charges w h i c h he makes his pretext.
T h e real cause must be sought in N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s
revisionist viewpoints by every possible means and in
his a n t i - M a r x i s t attempts to force his v i e w s on to the
other parties. B e g i n n i n g right f r o m the Bucharest meeting, a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y after the M o s c o w meeting of the 81
communist a n d w o r k e r s ' parties, w h e r e t h e P a r t y of
Labour of A l b a n i a o p e n l y expressed its opinions and
criticized in a p r i n c i p l e d m a n n e r and w i t h courage N.
K h r u s h c h e v ' s opportunist v i e w s and a n t i - M a r x i s t actions,
in retaliation for this, a n d in order to silence our P a r t y ,
subdue it, and as a lesson to a n y one that w o u l d dare to
object to N. K h r u s h c h e v , he extended the ideological
differences to the f i e l d of state relations a n d began to
behave towards the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a as he
w o u l d towards an enemy country.
A f t e r systematically
c a r r y i n g out one after another, the economic blockade,
the blockade of silence and p o l i t i c a l isolation, etc., in an
attempt to b r i n g our P a r t y to its knees, at the 22nd C o n gress he w e n t so far as to p u b l i c l y attack, by slanders
and charges of the basest nature, the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a and its leaders, a n d to m a k e open counterrevolutionary appeals f o r the o v e r t h r o w of the leadership of the A l b a n i a n P a r t y of L a b o u r a n d State, thereby
37
b r u t a l l y interfering in the i n t e r n a l affairs of a sovereign
socialist, f r i e n d l y and allied country.
As he failed
in
a l l these attempts and c o u l d not attain his purpose, he
also committed
another
ple's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a .
hostile action against the P e o T h e closing d o w n of the So-
viet Embassy in T i r a n a , and the demand for the departure of the entire personnel of the A l b a n i a n
Embassy
f r o m M o s c o w , is a n a t u r a l result of the a n t i - M a r x i s t and
a n t i - A l b a n i a n road w h i c h N . K h r u s h c h e v has been p u r suing for sometime towards the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a nia, the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a and the A l b a n i a n
people. However, through this unexampled hostile action
N.
K h r u s h c h e v has further exposed
himself,
not
only
before the A l b a n i a n people and the Soviet people, b u t
also before the w h o l e international communist and w o r k ers' movement, before w o r l d public o p i n i o n .
T h i s unprecedented action in regard to the relations
between socialist countries, sheds l i g h t on N. K h r u s h chev's a n t i - M a r x i s t conceptions on the e q u a l i t y and i n dependence of the communist parties and socialist states,
be they s m a l l or big, and on their inalienable right to
have their o w n v i e w s and f r e e l y express them.
The
L e n i n i s t principles of equality, independence a n d n o n interference in the domestic affairs of one another, are
used by N. K h r u s h c h e v as the means of bluff, because, in
fact, the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a h a d o n l y to express
its v i e w p o i n t on some questions of present-day w o r l d
development and the international c o m m u n i s t movement
contrary to N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s revisionist conceptions, to
become the target for a barrage of abuse and a l l the
methods, i n c l u d i n g even those that have been, and are
38
being u t i l i z e d by the imperialists and the other most
reactionary forces, are directed against it.
W h e r e does N. K h r u s h c h e v a i m to get by his latest
hostile action against the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ?
P u r s u i n g the same course and aims as previously, by this
action, too, he w a n t s to scare and subdue the P a r t y of
L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , to alienate it f r o m the r e v o l u t i o n a r y
M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t position, to shake our people's f a i t h in
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and its leadership headed
b y Comrade E n v e r H o x h a , t o disturb the A l b a n i a n people's feelings of f r i e n d s h i p towards the Soviet U n i o n , to
u n d e r m i n e the Soviet people's f r i e n d s h i p and love for the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and the A l b a n i a n people, to
create n e w d i f f i c u l t i e s in the b u i l d i n g of socialism in
A l b a n i a . Doubtless, N. K h r u s h c h e v is m a k i n g further
calculations.
In the i n t e r n a t i o n a l arena, he aims to
threaten and w a r n a n y other p a r t y and c o u n t r y that
w o u l d dare to object to his point of v i e w and actions,
thus greatly i m p a i r i n g the cause of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m
and socialism.
B u t N . K h r u s h c h e v ' s efforts are i n v a i n . H e w i l l never
succeed in a c h i e v i n g these aims.
T h e A l b a n i a n people
are united l i k e f l e s h to bone w i t h their P a r t y , because
the experience of l i f e itself has convinced them of the
wise leadership of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , of its
correct line, of its boundless l o y a l t y to the cause of the
people and socialism, of its policy of f r i e n d s h i p and close
relations w i t h the Soviet U n i o n , w i t h the Soviet C o m munist P a r t y a n d Government.
U n d e r the leadership of
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , the A l b a n i a n people
have w o n historic victories d u r i n g the last t w e n t y years
— they have liberated the c o u n t r y f r o m the fascist i n 39
vaders and established the people's power; they have
reconstructed the w a r - r a v a g e d country; they have overcome the age-old backwardness and achieved great successes in b u i l d i n g up a socialist society; they have
frustrated a l l and every provocation and plot of the i m perialists and other enemies of our people; they have
defended the f r e e d o m and independence of o u r homeland.
T h e u n i t y of o u r people and our P a r t y , tempered
in struggle and in w o r k , is today stronger t h a n ever.
No
intrigue or pressure, plot or b l a c k m a i l c a n i m p a i r this
i r o n u n i t y . In the face of it, a l l the efforts of the i m perialist and m o d e r n revisionist enemies w i l l shamefully
f a i l as they have f a i l e d in the past.
N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s attacks, slanders and hostile actions,
i n c l u d i n g his latest action, w i l l not affect the pure f e e l ings of f r i e n d s h i p that o u r people n o u r i s h for the f r a t e r n a l
Soviet peoples, for the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet
U n i o n and the Soviet Government.
These feelings have
been deeply rooted by our P a r t y in the heart of every
Albanian.
T h e glorious Soviet U n i o n , the Soviet peoples, the great P a r t y of L e n i n have been, are, a n d w i l l
a l w a y s r e m a i n beloved and dear friends of our people.
O u r people and P a r t y have loved and continue to love
them b o t h i n h a p p y a n d d i f f i c u l t days. T h e y have shared
and continue to share w i t h t h e m joys and sorrows. T h e y
have been, are, and w i l l for ever r e m a i n l i n k e d w i t h
them.
T h e A l b a n i a n people and the P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a nia w i l l f i r m l y m a r c h along the correct road of socialist
construction and defense of our socialist homeland. T e m porary difficulties w i l l not stop us on our road.
We are
sure of our future.
T h e tasks of the t h i r d five-year p l a n
40
w i l l be f u l f i l l e d and o v e r f u l f i l l e d , regardless of the
obstacles that N. K h r u s h c h e v and his f o l l o w e r s are t r y i n g
to raise before us. Socialist A l b a n i a w i l l l i v e and f l o u r i s h
continuously w i t h e v e r y passing day.
T h e patriotism
and the r e v o l u t i o n a r y spirit of our people, the correct
leadership of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and the i n ternationalist aid and support of o u r friends, the international solidarity of the w o r k i n g people, are a sure
guarantee of this.
T h e A l b a n i a n people a n d the P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a nia k n o w no fear.
T h e y do not fear the pressure and
b l a c k m a i l of N. K h r u s h c h e v and his friends. A socialist
country and a member of the socialist camp, the People's
R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a w i l l have, as the foundation of its
entire f o r e i g n policy, the strengthening of the friendship
and the f r a t e r n a l cooperation w i t h the countries of the
w o r l d socialist system on the basis of the principles of
M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m and proletarian internationalism as
it had in the past.
Regardless of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s hostile
action in recalling the personnel of the Soviet Embassy
f r o m T i r a n a a n d in d e m a n d i n g the departure of the
personnel of the A l b a n i a n Embassy f r o m M o s c o w , the
G o v e r n m e n t of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a w i l l
march alongside the Soviet U n i o n and the other socialist
countries in the struggle to safeguard and strengthen
peace, w i l l support the proposals and measures of the
Soviet G o v e r n m e n t for settling international questions in the interest of the peoples. In the future, too,
our P a r t y and G o v e r n m e n t w i l l u n s w e r v i n g l y continue
their resolute and p r i n c i p l e d struggle to unmask the w a r mongering and aggressive plans and activities of i m p e rialism headed by the U n i t e d States imperialism, w i l l
41
struggle against m o d e r n r e v i s i o n i s m and w i l l a l w a y s
m a i n t a i n their r e v o l u t i o n a r y vigilance.
O u r P a r t y and
Government w i l l consistently pursue their p o l i c y of
peaceful coexistence among countries w i t h d i f f e r e n t
political and social systems, w i l l struggle to r e l a x tension
in the relations among the states and w i l l make their
contribution to the peaceful settlement of the problems
exercising the minds of the peace-loving peoples. As in
the past, our P a r t y and people w i l l unreservedly support
the sacred struggle of the peoples for their national and
social liberation.
T h e A l b a n i a n P a r t y and people, t h o r o u g h l y disgusted,
protest w i t h deep i n d i g n a t i o n against N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s
latest unprecedented hostile act against the People's R e public of A l b a n i a .
T h e y are deeply convinced that they
are on the correct road and that the Soviet peoples a n d
the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n , w h i c h have
been tempered by pure feelings of proletarian i n t e r n a tionalism, of love and f r i e n d s h i p between the peoples,
are and w i l l be w i t h t h e m in opposing this act, w h i c h is
fatal not for us but for K h r u s h c h e v ' s group themselves.
O u r P a r t y is struggling for a great cause, for the t r u t h of
M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m , to safeguard and strengthen the
sound u n i t y of the socialist c a m p and the international
communist movement against m o d e r n revisionism, and
against Y u g o s l a v revisionism in particular, against the
opportunist and revisionist distortions and the s p l i t t i n g
activities of N. K h r u s h c h e v , for the t r i u m p h of our c o m mon cause, of socialism, of peace and the freedom of peoples. O n this road, m a r c h i n g h a n d i n h a n d w i t h the
fraternal parties and the f r a t e r n a l peoples of the socialist
countries, as w e l l as w i t h a l l the communist and w o r k e r s '
42
parties o f the w o r l d , our P a r t y a n d people w i l l w i n f u l l
victory over the imperialist enemies and the revisionists.
M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m is i n v i n c i b l e . Socialism and c o m munism w i l l triumph.
SLANDERS AND FABRICATIONS
CANNOT STAND UP TO
FACTS AND DOCUMENTS
Recently,
and
especially
since
the
22nd
Congress
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Soviet
propaganda,
with
a
view
to
arguing
the
"hostile
attitude" allegedly taken by the Party of Labour of
Albania,
the
Government
of
the
People's
Republic
of
Albania
and
the
Albanian
people
against
the
Soviet
Union,
has
been
energetically
resorting
to
slanders and fabrications through the press and radio
to distort and falsify the truth about a series of
questions.
Among these we mention here only three:
the question of the Soviet specialists who were working in Albania, the question of the Palace of Culture
and the students' issue.
In order to shed light on
the truth, we publish here some of the facts and
documents
which
clarify
these
three
questions.
1. T H E TRUTH ABOUT T H E QUESTION
OF T H E SPECIALISTS
Article
The
p u b l i s h e d in t h e n e w s p a p e r
D e c e m b e r 19, 1961
anti-Marxist
and
Zëri
anti-Albanian
i
Popullit,
attacks
which
N. K h r u s h c h e v a n d his group directed f r o m the rostrum
of the 22nd Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the
Soviet U n i o n against the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a a n d t h e A l b a n i a n people,
47
included slanders and fabrications concerning the question of the Soviet specialists w h o w e r e w o r k i n g in our
country.
O. K u s i n e n , member of the P r e s i d i u m of the C e n t r a l
Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n ,
slanderously said that "the Soviet specialists in A l b a n i a ,
invited by the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t itself, w e r e expelled
by the latter f r o m A l b a n i a . " P. Pospelov, former alternate member of the P r e s i d i u m of the C e n t r a l Committee
of the Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n , w e n t s t i l l
further. H e fabricated the l i e : " D u r i n g the recent C o n gress of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a we encountered
a series of w h o l l y impermissible instances of open a n t i Soviet attacks by A l b a n i a n personalities, instances of a
derisive and
hostile stand
against
our
specialists,
geologists and Soviet sailors."
H a r p i n g on the same
tune, that the Soviet specialists had been " e x p e l l e d " by
the A l b a n i a n leaders, n o w after the 22nd Congress, N.
Khrushchev's propagandists t h i n k that something w i l l
come out of their slanders.
F o r truth's sake we are
obliged to refer to some facts w h i c h manifest themselves
in the course of events.
On December 21, 1960, the V i c e - C h a i r m a n of the
C o u n c i l of M i n i s t e r s of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ,
Comrade A b d y l K ë l l e z i , sent the f o l l o w i n g letter to the
C h a i r m a n of the State Committee for E c o n o m i c Relations
w i t h F o r e i g n Countries under the U S S R C o u n c i l o f
Ministers, S. A. Skachkov:
" H i g h l y esteemed C o m r a d e C h a i r m a n :
On December 14, 1960, a list of the matters on w h i c h
the Government of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a r e quested the technical aid of the U S S R Government for
48
the year 1961 was handed to the adviser on economic
questions to the Embassy of the U n i o n of Soviet Socialist
Republics i n T i r a n a , C o m r a d e K . V . A r t e m i e v .
W e ask
you to study this request by the Government of the P e o ple's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a so that it m a y be carried out
by the U S S R institutions at the most convenient t i m e . "
T h e list of the matters f o r w h i c h the G o v e r n m e n t of
the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a requested technical aid
from the G o v e r n m e n t of the Soviet U n i o n for the year
1961 includes the sectors of the M i n i s t r y of Industry, t h e
M i n i s t r y o f M i n i n g and Geology, the M i n i s t r y o f C o n struction, etc.
T h e list specifies the kinds of technical
specialities that are needed and the n u m b e r of specialists.
It specifies the period of their stay in our country, and,
for some specialists, an extension of the term of their
stay in A l b a n i a is requested.
However, w h i l e the G o v e r n m e n t o f t h e People's R e public of A l b a n i a was w a i t i n g for a positive r e p l y to its
request, on J a n u a r y 20, 1961, the acting adviser on
economic affairs to the Soviet Embassy in T i r a n a , A.
P i k a l o v , on his o w n request, had an i n t e r v i e w w i t h the
Minister of M i n i n g and Geology of the People's R e p u b l i c
o f A l b a n i a , C o m r a d e A d i l Ç a r ç a n i , and f o r m a l l y i n formed h i m that "the State Committee for E c o n o m i c
Relations w i t h F o r e i g n Countries under the U S S R
C o u n c i l of M i n i s t e r s has decided to recall w i t h i n a period
of 7-10 days the Soviet specialists w o r k i n g on the o i l
system in A l b a n i a , for the reason that the November
22, 1957 agreement has e x p i r e d . "
Of course, the Soviet leadership had the right not to
accept the extension of the t e r m of the Soviet specialists'
stay in A l b a n i a as requested by our Government, but they
49
by no means had or have the r i g h t to distort the facts
in this case, t r y i n g to lay the b l a m e for the departure
of the specialists on the A l b a n i a n Government.
On F e b r u a r y 24, 1961, the
M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s
of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , in relation to the
w i t h d r a w a l of the Soviet specialists f r o m A l b a n i a , sent
the f o l l o w i n g note t o the U S S R G o v e r n m e n t :
" A s the G o v e r n m e n t of the Soviet U n i o n knows, on
December 21, 1960, the V i c e - C h a i r m a n of the C o u n c i l of
Ministers
of
the
People's
Republic
of
Albania,
Abdyl
K ë l l e z i , addressed to the C h a i r m a n of the State C o m mittee for
Economic
Relations
with
F o r e i g n Countries
under the U S S R C o u n c i l of M i n i s t e r s , S. A. Skachkov,
the A l b a n i a n Government's request for technical aid f r o m
the Soviet U n i o n f o r the year 1961 i n c l u d i n g the extension of the period of the sojourn of the Soviet o i l specialists.
"On
January
20,
1961,
w h i l e our
Government
was
w a i t i n g for a positive r e p l y to this request, the acting
adviser on economic questions to the Soviet Embassy in
T i r a n a , A . P i k a l o v , called o n the M i n i s t e r o f M i n i n g and
Geology
of
the
People's
Republic
of
Albania,
Adil
Çarçani, and f o r m a l l y i n f o r m e d h i m that the State C o m mittee for
under
Economic
Relations w i t h F o r e i g n
the U S S R C o u n c i l of M i n i s t e r s
Countries
had decided to
w i t h d r a w w i t h i n a period of 7-10 days the Soviet specialists w o r k i n g o n the o i l system i n A l b a n i a .
A n d i n fact
the Soviet o i l specialists have already left A l b a n i a .
" T h e w i t h d r a w a l of the o i l specialists by the Soviet
Government at a time w h e n the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t
had f o r m a l l y asked for an extension of the t e r m of their
50
stay, damaged such an important sector of the A l b a n i a n
economy as the o i l sector.
" T h e G o v e r n m e n t of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ,
pointing out the above, expresses its p r o f o u n d regret at
this u n i l a t e r a l action of the G o v e r n m e n t of the Soviet
Union."
W i t h a v i e w to deceiving p u b l i c opinion, distorting the
truth and l a y i n g the responsibility for e v e r y t h i n g on the
A l b a n i a n side, the Soviet leaders, t h r o u g h their representatives i n T i r a n a ,
" r e c a l l e d " after t w o months that
the blame for t h e departure of the Soviet o i l specialists
lay not w i t h the Soviet but w i t h the A l b a n i a n a u t h o r i ties!
W i t h regard to this, in its note of A p r i l 24, 1961,
the Soviet Embassy in T i r a n a pointed out:
" T h e assertion contained in the note of the M i n i s t r y
of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a
that the departure of the 26 Soviet o i l specialists f r o m
A l b a n i a to t h e U S S R in F e b r u a r y took place as a result
of the u n i l a t e r a l actions of the Soviet Government, is
entirely a fabrication.
T h e G o v e r n m e n t of the People's
Republic of A l b a n i a was i n f o r m e d in due time that the
Soviet Government, despite the e x p i r y of the terms of
the Soviet o i l specialists' stay in A l b a n i a , had instructed
the Soviet bodies concerned to take i n t o consideration
the request of t h e A l b a n i a n side and leave the Soviet o i l
specialists i n A l b a n i a .
" B u t the A l b a n i a n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the O i l Combine,
on the instructions of the M i n i s t e r of M i n i n g a n d Geology
of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , dismissed the abovementioned Soviet specialists, proposing to t h e m to leave
the C o m b i n e w i t h i n three days."
51
As is evident, e v e r y t h i n g is shamelessly reversed. B u t
the facts mentioned above, such as the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n ment's request for the extension of the t e r m of the Soviet
o i l specialists' stay in A l b a n i a addressed to S. A. S k a c h kov, to w h i c h there was no positive reply, as w e l l as the
official statement b y A . P i k a l o v t o C o m r a d e A . Ç a r ç a n i
on J a n u a r y 20, 1961 concerning t h e w i t h d r a w a l of the
Soviet o i l specialists, refute the " a r g u m e n t s " adduced in
the delayed note of the Soviet Embassy in T i r a n a .
It is clear that the note of the Soviet Embassy pursued
also another a i m . It had to prepare the g r o u n d for the
departure later of a l l the Soviet specialists w h o w e r e in
T i r a n a . Indeed, in the A p r i l 24, 1961 note the issue is
presented as if the A l b a n i a n authorities of the C e n t r a l
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Geology w e r e treating the Soviet
specialists badly and i m p e d i n g them i n their w o r k . A n d
to " p r o v e " this it is said that the offices w h e r e the Soviet
specialists were w o r k i n g w e r e opened and the documents
w h i c h were on the desks or shelves checked; and,
f i n a l l y , that the A l b a n i a n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Geology
had obstructed for a certain time the w o r k of the Soviet
specialists engaged in the compilation of Albania's
general geological map.
These " a r g u m e n t s " are sheer
fabrications.
In reality, according to the rules w h i c h
are k n o w n in our State A d m i n i s t r a t i o n concerning the
preservation of State secrets, just as in every i n s t i t u tion, in the Geology A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , too, there have
been effected the usual controls for the preservation of
the secret documents, whether in the offices of the
A l b a n i a n workers or in those of the Soviet specialists.
T h e commission that carried out this control included,
besides the A l b a n i a n authorities, also three Soviet
52
specialists,
namely
Konstantin
Briantsev,
Semyon
Pogrebinsky a n d V l a d i m i r K u r o c h k i n , w h o displayed i n
this respect a f u l l spirit of cooperation.
As regards the second "argument", that the specialists
engaged in the compilation of the geological map had
been left w i t h o u t w o r k , it is entirely preposterous and
needs no refutation. We need o n l y to point out that the
A l b a n i a n authorities w e r e interested in the earliest
possible completion of the m a p and w e r e p a y i n g salaries
to the Soviet specialists for this purpose.
Therefore
there was no reason for the A l b a n i a n authorities to
raise obstacles, as alleged in the note of the Soviet
Embassy.
T h e real a i m of the Soviet side in fabricating the above
"arguments" is quite clearly s h o w n by the very note
of A p r i l 24, 1961 of the Soviet Embassy, the last p a r a graph of w h i c h reads:
" C o n s i d e r i n g the above, we cannot h e l p reaching the
conclusion that in the aide m e m o i r e and note of the M i n istry of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the People's R e p u b l i c of
A l b a n i a attempts are intentionally made to deny the i n disputable facts about the u n f r i e n d l y attitude towards
the Soviet specialists and there is s h o w n a lack of desire
on the part of the A l b a n i a n authorities to take the necessary measures w i t h a v i e w to creating n o r m a l conditions
for the w o r k of our specialists.
T h i s can be explained
only by the fact that t h e A l b a n i a n side, apparently, not
only has no interest in the aid of the Soviet specialists,
but also, by its u n f r i e n d l y actions towards them, is
directly seeking to b r i n g pressure to bear u p o n the S o viet side in order to oblige us to recall the Soviet specialists to the U S S R .
53
" I n the p r e v a i l i n g conditions, the Soviet side does not
deem it possible to send to A l b a n i a n e w Soviet specialists
or to extend the terms of the stay for the specialists n o w
w o r k i n g there.
" T h e U S S R Embassy to the People's R e p u b l i c of
A l b a n i a is availing itself of this occasion to reiterate its
respect to the M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the People's
Republic of Albania."
N o t even w a i t i n g f o r our Government's reply to this
note, w h i c h was handed to our F o r e i g n M i n i s t r y on A p r i l
25, 1961, some 50 Soviet specialists, on orders of the S o viet Embassy in T i r a n a , q u i t their jobs on that same day
and got instructions to leave A l b a n i a at once. Some of
these specialists could i n f o r m the establishments w h e r e
they w o r k e d o n l y t w o hours before their departure.
Thus, w i t h i n the day almost a l l t h e Soviet specialists,
i n c l u d i n g even those whose contracts of stay in A l b a n i a
had not yet expired, were w i t h d r a w n . A n d after a f e w
days the f e w specialists s t i l l r e m a i n i n g in the People's R e public of A l b a n i a left the country, too.
T h i s is the t r u t h about the departure of the Soviet
specialists f r o m A l b a n i a .
T h e y w e r e w i t h d r a w n b y the
Soviet leadership, calculating to damage our people's
economy on the one h a n d and to u n d e r m i n e A l b a n i a n Soviet friendship on the other.
T h e fabrications about
the "unbearable atmosphere" and that "the A l b a n i a n side
does not l i k e the stay of t h e Soviet specialists in A l b a n i a " , etc., w h i c h a i m at l a y i n g on our G o v e r n m e n t the
responsibility for the u g l y action committed by the S o viet leaders towards our country, are shocking indeed.
T h e y are fabrications and grave offenses against the
feelings of fraternal love, deep respect and cordial
54
attitude of the A l b a n i a n people towards the Soviet men
and w o m e n , and against the Soviet m e n and w o m e n
themselves w h o l i v e d and w o r k e d i n A l b a n i a .
He w h o makes such tendentious fabrications does not
k n o w the reality o f the unbreakable ties u n i t i n g the A l banian people w i t h t h e Soviet people.
Just as in the
struggle for A l b a n i a ' s liberation f r o m fascist occupation
the blood of the A l b a n i a n g u e r r i l l a fighters was shed and
m i x e d together w i t h the blood of the glorious R e d A r m y ,
in the struggle for t h e b u i l d i n g of socialism in A l b a n i a
the sweat of the A l b a n i a n w o r k e r s and specialists was
shed and m i x e d together w i t h the sweat of the Soviet
workers a n d specialists.
W h a t e v e r attempts are made and whatever " a r g u ments" are invented, they cannot justify the unjust
decision of the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t to w i t h d r a w the Soviet specialists f r o m A l b a n i a . T h e best witnesses to the
feelings towards the Soviet m e n and w o m e n , to the stand
towards t h e m and their treatment by the A l b a n i a n people and their P a r t y and Government, t h e best witnesses
to our just thesis are the Soviet citizens themselves,
the Soviet specialists and m i l i t a r y personnel w h o have
been in our country, every Soviet citizen that has been
i n contact, a n y w h e r e i n A l b a n i a , i n the Soviet U n i o n o r
in any other country, w i t h a n y citizen of our People's
Republic.
A l t h o u g h the w i t h d r a w a l of the Soviet specialists f r o m
A l b a n i a was decided u p o n by the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t
itself w i t h definite aims alien to the character of the
relations between socialist countries, h a r m f u l t o A l banian-Soviet f r i e n d s h i p and opposed to the principles
of the 1960 M o s c o w D e c l a r a t i o n of the 81 communist
55
and w o r k e r s ' parties, the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t made a
series of fantastic and groundless fabrications against the
A l b a n i a n Government.
O u r P a r t y has continually and on a l l occasions i m b u e d
our people w i t h a f e e l i n g of love and most p r o f o u n d
respect for the Soviet m e n and w o m e n , w h o m they have
considered as friends and brothers. E v e r y o n e in our
country feels a grave personal offense in learning h o w
the Soviet leadership speculates in slanders such as the
so-called "unbearable atmosphere" for the Soviet m e n
and w o m e n in A l b a n i a .
Documents may be f a l s i f i e d and
speeches may be delivered against our country. We have
seen and heard m a n y times such slanders and charges up
to the present and we often have no t i m e to pay attention to them a l l .
B u t if y o u t e l l the A l b a n i a n that he
does not respect or that he offends the Soviet man, he
w i l l never pardon y o u for this and h e w i l l s i m p l y c o n sider this as one of t h e most vulgar and shameless
provocations.
2. T H E TRUTH ABOUT T H E QUESTION
OF THE PALACE OF CULTURE
Article
published
in t h e n e w s p a p e r
D e c e m b e r 20, 1961
Zëri
i
Popullit,
Recently, some Soviet propagandists, w i t h the a i m of
sowing hostility between o u r t w o f r i e n d l y a n d allied
countries and between our t w o f r a t e r n a l peoples, have
taken up, among numerous slanders, the question of the
Palace of C u l t u r e .
T h e y present the facts dealing w i t h
this question reversely.
T h e y shamelessly make out as
56
i f i t w e r e the A l b a n i a n leadership w h o b y "manoeuvring",
" t r y i n g to discredit the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t , has
one-sidedly rejected this present".
H e r e is w h a t the documents and facts show about the
truth on the P a l a c e of C u l t u r e question.
By a J a n u a r y 1959 decision of the C e n t r a l Committee
of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n , a palace
of culture was to be b u i l t in the city of T i r a n a as a
present f r o m the Soviet U n i o n to the A l b a n i a n people.
T h e construction of the palace was to be carried
d u r i n g the years 1961-1962.
resentatives
of
the
out
In M a r c h - A p r i l 1959, r e p -
Soviet
side
came
to
Albania
to
discuss the p r i n c i p a l conditions of the undertaking of the
construction of the palace by the A l b a n i a n State B u i l d i n g
Enterprise
"December
21".
In
April
1960,
Soviet
designers brought to T i r a n a some designs of the project
of
the
palace.
Together
with
the
designs
in
Tirana
arrived the director of the Mosproject, A. A. Osmer, and
the author of the design V. A. B u t u z o v .
These designs
were broadly discussed by the technical council of the
M i n i s t r y of C o n s t r u c t i o n and at last, the design, on w h i c h
the Soviet designers w e r e also insisting and w h i c h had
been
approved by
Gosstroi
(the
State B u i l d i n g
Com-
mittee under the U S S R C o u n c i l o f Ministers), b y G K E S
and
the
Architectural-Town
Mosproject, was approved.
Planning
Council
of
the
T h e protocol of the approval
of the project was signed by the M i n i s t e r of Construction, J o s i f Pashko, on A p r i l 23, 1960 and handed over to
the director of the Mosproject, A. A. Osmer.
In M a y
1960 the m a i n plans for the c a r r y i n g out of the b u i l d i n g
of the Palace of C u l t u r e w e r e approved by the A l b a n i a n
Government.
In this protocol, the A l b a n i a n side made
57
some remarks and these were considered correct by the
Soviet designers.
These remarks concerned m a i n l y the
architectural execution of the w o r k , suggesting a very
small increase in the size of the project in t w o places:
to add five to six rooms to the club proper and t w o halls
to the theatre.
Besides this, at the e n d of the above
protocol is stated: " A l l the above modifications and
additions should be made on the basis of a more rational
exploitation of the different parts of the Palace of
Culture."
On M a y 29, 1960 the planting of the stakes for the
b u i l d i n g was started. On J u n e 6, 1960 the construction
w o r k got under w a y , and on J u l y 14, 1960 the first c o n crete was poured at the project.
T h e A l b a n i a n side took a l l the steps and d u r i n g the
second quarter of 1960 the w o r k i n g pace was very rapid,
and progress ahead of schedule. T h i s w o r k was carried
out on the basis of the schedule approved by the
representatives of the Soviet side and the "December 2 1 "
State B u i l d i n g Enterprise of T i r a n a .
B e g i n n i n g w i t h December the w o r k was slowed d o w n
and by J a n u a r y 1961 the Soviet side had completely
stopped the supplies for the construction of the palace,
both designs and materials, although even up to that
time a very small part of them had been delivered. T h e
failure to dispatch the designs and materials brought
about the n o n - f u l f i l m e n t of the p l a n for the first f o u r
months of 1961, w h i c h was carried out o n l y by 52 per
cent. T h e rational utilization of manpower and machines
was greatly hampered and this brought to the " D e c e m ber 2 1 " State B u i l d i n g Enterprise a loss of 975,000 leks.
T h e A l b a n i a n side, f r o m the beginning of the w o r k up
58
to the end of A p r i l 1961, had spent a s u m of about 48
m i l l i o n leks for the b u i l d i n g of the palace.
In October 1960, the chief representative of the Soviet
side, Engineer T. M. Shtoll, w e n t to the Soviet U n i o n
on the pretext of fetching a l l the designs of the work,
as w e l l as arranging for the dispatch of the materials and
equipment. In fact S h t o l l d i d not r e t u r n to A l b a n i a and
the designs and materials were not dispatched.
In these conditions, the executing State B u i l d i n g E n terprise "December 2 1 " had m a n y times asked the
deputy chief of the Soviet side, Engineer N. K n i a z e v ,
to intervene in order to ensure the designs and the
materials.
H i s r e p l y was that their a r r i v a l was expected
daily.
In the face of such a situation as regards the w o r k
of b u i l d i n g the Palace of Culture, the Construction M i n ister of the A l b a n i a n Government, Josif Pashko, in a
letter addressed to the Soviet Ambassador in T i r a n a ,
J . V . S h i k i n , o n A p r i l 11, pointed out:
" I n connection w i t h the shortcomings i n the w o r k o f
b u i l d i n g the Palace of C u l t u r e , I have the honour to
b r i n g to y o u r knowledge the f o l l o w i n g :
" F r o m the end of December 1960 onward, the pace of
the b u i l d i n g w o r k at the Palace of Culture, w h i c h is being
built in T i r a n a w i t h the help of the Soviet U n i o n , has
been slowed d o w n and is not being carried out according
to the plans w h i c h had been d r a w n up. T h i s is due
m a i n l y to the lack of designs and of some materials. At
the meetings held time and again at the palace, the A l banian engineers entrusted w i t h the c a r r y i n g out of the
w o r k have raised w i t h the representative of the Soviet
side at the project, Engineer K n i a z e v N i k o l a i Stepano59
vich, the above obstacles and have continually received
f r o m h i m promises for the q u i c k a r r i v a l of the designs
and materials.
T o w a r d s the e n d of J a n u a r y this year,
the A l b a n i a n engineers w h o are c a r r y i n g out the project,
considering that the schedule was being adversely
affected due to the lack of designs and some materials,
and as t h e specialist manpower and the installed
machinery w e r e not p r o d u c i n g the planned productivity,
reported to this M i n i s t r y to intervene so that the Soviet
side should speed up the a r r i v a l of the designs and
materials.
F o r this purpose I personally called on the
representative of the Soviet side, Engineer K n i a z e v
N i k o l a i Stepanovich, at the project on F e b r u a r y 5, 1961
and asked h i m to intervene f o r the speeding up of the
arrival of the designs and some materials, lack of w h i c h
hampered the w o r k .
" D u r i n g the m o n t h of F e b r u a r y , o w i n g to the lack of
designs and some materials, the scope of w o r k was
further n a r r o w e d — t h e necessary designs s t i l l d i d not
arrive. In this situation, on my instruction, the D e p u t y
M i n i s t e r o f Construction, Engineer K i c h o G l i o z h e n i , o n
F e b r u a r y 28, 1961, o f f i c i a l l y summoned to the M i n i s t r y
Comrade T u k h t i n o v , G K E S representative i n T i r a n a ,
w h o was engaged in the construction of the P a l a c e of
Culture, in the presence also of Engineer K n i a z e v , r e p resentative of the Soviet side in the construction of the
palace, asking them once more to intervene for the a r r i v a l
of the designs. As we again failed to receive any r e p l y
after this call, on M a r c h 3, 1961, the representative of
the G K E S , C o m r a d e Bekleshov, was once more o f f i c i a l l y
summoned to the M i n i s t r y , w h e r e the D e p u t y M i n i s t e r
of Construction, C o m r a d e R a h m a n H a n k u , after describ60
ing to h i m t h e serious situation created at the project
due to the lack of the designs a n d of some materials,
asked h i m to intervene for their earliest possible dispatch,
requesting that he s h o u l d receive an answer w i t h i n ten
days.
C o m r a d e Bekleshov, w h o presented himself at this
meeting
as
newly
employed
on
the j o b and
not
yet
acquainted by his men w i t h the situation concerning the
palace, promised C o m r a d e R a h m a n H a n k u that he w o u l d
try to settle the questions put to h i m by responding in
good time.
H o w e v e r , even after this meeting hot only
did the requested designs and materials f a i l to arrive, but
we w e r e not so m u c h as given a reply.
On
M a r c h 23,
1961, by our letter N o . 150 addressed to the G K E S in
T i r a n a on the part of this M i n i s t r y , we repeated once
more our request for intervention for the a r r i v a l of the
designs and materials, but this request, too, has remained
to this day w i t h o u t any response.
" A s I reported above, o w i n g to the fact that t h e designs
and materials failed to arrive, and especially o w i n g to
the lack of a f u l l r e p l y by the Soviet side, the executing
enterprise was kept w a i t i n g for a l o n g t i m e w i t h m a n power and specialists, as w e l l as machinery, that have
been very little utilized.
"In
such
manpower
circumstances,
and
machinery
I
ordered
and,
if
the
a
reduction
arrival
of
of
the
designs should d r a g on further, in order not to entirely
suspend the w o r k , in order not to leave this b i g project
in the center of the C a p i t a l in the present condition, I
shall take measures for its designing to be taken up by
Albanian
engineers,
which,
in
accordance
with
the
agreements approved by the A l b a n i a n Government and
61
by the Soviet Government, should have been carried out
by the Soviet side in due time.
" R e p o r t i n g the above, I request that y o u take i m mediate measures for the earliest possible a r r i v a l of the
designs and materials in order to continue the w o r k according to the schedule for the construction of the P a l a c e
of Culture, and on this occasion a l l o w me, C o m r a d e A m bassador, to express to y o u assurances of my h i g h
esteem."
T h e Soviet side not o n l y d i d not reply to these urgent
requests but, on A p r i l 13, 1961, w h e n the Soviet ship
" V o s t o k " a r r i v e d a t the port o f Durrës, b r i n g i n g t o A l bania, in addition to other commodities, materials i n tended for the Palace of C u l t u r e , w i t h d r e w these
materials under the pretext that they had been loaded
by mistake and were not intended for A l b a n i a . T h e t r u t h
is that these materials w e r e intended for the Palace of
C u l t u r e according to the b i l l of l o a d i n g N o . 180, and in
fact the destination was w r i t t e n on their packing. Besides,
on A p r i l 26-27, 1961, t h e Soviet side u n i l a t e r a l l y w i t h d r e w a l l the Soviet specialists w o r k i n g on the construction of the Palace of C u l t u r e . In the face of such a s i t u a tion, w h e n the construction w o r k was suspended t h r o u g h
the fault of the Soviet side and this b i g project in the
center of the C a p i t a l remained w i t h opened foundations
heavily h u r t i n g the deep feelings of f r i e n d s h i p of the
A l b a n i a n people towards the fraternal peoples of t h e
Soviet U n i o n , the G o v e r n m e n t of the People's R e p u b l i c
of A l b a n i a , on M a y 5, 1961, r i g h t f u l l y took the decision
to finance the construction of the palace and ask our
designing organizations to
prepare the appropriate
designs.
62
O n l y after three months and three days, on J u l y 14,
1961, f o l l o w i n g the letter of the Construction M i n i s t e r
of the G o v e r n m e n t of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ,
there came as a reply the Soviet Government's aide memoire w h i c h gave no concrete facts except the date. It
is not accidental that it does not p r o v i d e any example,
any fact f r o m the development of the construction w o r k
or f r o m the questions raised in the letter of our C o n struction M i n i s t e r concerning the situation at the Palace
of C u l t u r e for the year 1961. T h e Soviet Government's
aide memoire said: " I n the letter of the Construction
Minister of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , J. Pashko,
dated A p r i l 11, 1961, a number of demands were put
forward w h i c h s h o w e d that the A l b a n i a n side d i d not
like to discuss in a sound manner the questions that had
arisen in connection w i t h the construction of the Palace
of C u l t u r e as is customary in the relations between socialist countries".
N o w that y o u have read the letter of the Construction
Minister you can see clearly in w h a t a slanderous manner
the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t raises the question at N. K h r u s h chev's instigation, s a y i n g that our letter of A p r i l 11, 1961
"put f o r w a r d a number of demands w h i c h showed that
the A l b a n i a n side d i d not l i k e to discuss the questions
in a sound manner." T h e letter of our M i n i s t e r expresses
only one desire: to meet the necessary demands in order
to n o r m a l l y continue the w o r k in connection w i t h the
construction of the P a l a c e of C u l t u r e .
T h e actions of the Soviet Government, such as the
failure to send the materials and designs, the w i t h d r a w a l
of. the specialists and the silence of more t h a n three
months towards our answer, testify to the lack of desire
63
and to the violation of the agreement on the construction of the Palace of C u l t u r e on the part of the Soviet
Government.
N. Khrushchev's hostile attitude in b r i n g i n g a l l pressures to bear on the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a and
the A l b a n i a n people is also apparent in this incident.
It
is clearly revealed by the Soviet Government's aide memoire in w h i c h K h r u s h c h e v slanderously lays the blame
on and attributes his malicious aims to others.
T h e aide
memoire says among other things:
" O n M a y 5 of this year the Government of A l b a n i a
took a decision in accordance w i t h w h i c h it has undertaken the completion of a l l the w o r k for the c a r r y i n g out
of
the
designing
and
construction
of
the
Palace
of
Culture.
" N a t u r a l l y , such a step of the A l b a n i a n Government
cannot but cause justified surprise, for it a l l o w e d u n i l a teral action towards the S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n agreement of
J u l y 3, 1959 on the construction of the Palace of C u l t u r e .
" N o w it has become quite clear that on this occasion
the A l b a n i a n Government has pursued entirely definite
aims, w h i c h by no means contribute to the betterment
of the relations between our countries.
It is no secret
that now in A l b a n i a the character of the Soviet Union's
disinterested aid to the A l b a n i a n
people, i n c l u d i n g its
aid in the construction of the Palace of C u l t u r e , is being
distorted in a more irresponsible manner."
These base fabrications do not merit comment.
is the truth.
S u c h are the facts.
tion of the facts w i t h the slanders and fabrications.
the question arises:
64
Such
T h i s was the confrontaNow
W h o in fact utilized the h u m a n i t a r i a n act, the gift,
for "anti-Soviet propaganda?" W h o is seeking to damage
the traditional f r i e n d s h i p between our peoples?
Is it the
Albanian
to
Government,
which
was
obliged
take
measures in order to avert the shame and black stain
w h i c h the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t d r e w on itself by earmarking the funds for the construction of the Palace of C u l ture at a time w h e n these funds were not envisaged by
the plan?
Or is it the Soviet Government w h i c h , at N.
Khrushchev's instigation, broke the promise made to the
A l b a n i a n people,
violated the agreement w h i c h it had
itself signed, l e a v i n g the g r o u n d w o r k of the Palace of
C u l t u r e l i k e an uncovered grave in the center of the
Capital?
O u r people, and especially the people of the C a p i t a l ,
gave a just answer to this question, m o b i l i z i n g a l l their
forces to b u i l d the Palace of C u l t u r e themselves.
3.
T H E T R U T H A B O U T T H E S T U D E N T S ' ISSUE
Article
published
in the n e w s p a p e r
D e c e m b e r 30, 1961
Zëri
i
Popullit,
A. M i k o y a n , in his statement at the 22nd Congress of
the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n , p l a y i n g the
role assigned to h i m , had the task of producing "theoretical arguments"
to back up N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s calls for
counter-revolution i n A l b a n i a .
H i s m a i n argument was
the question of the A l b a n i a n students and other A l b a nian citizens w h o w e r e s t u d y i n g in the Soviet U n i o n .
He presented the case as f o l l o w s :
65
" S o m e time ago, the naval students w h o w e r e s t u d y i n g
in our country returned to A l b a n i a .
In conversations
among themselves they asked themselves w i t h surprise:
W h a t is the cause of this sudden aggravation of the r e l a tions between A l b a n i a and the Soviet U n i o n ?
F o r this
many of them were t h r o w n into prison.
" T h e A l b a n i a n students w h o w e r e s t u d y i n g i n
country returned home to spend their vacations
afterwards m a n y of t h e m w e r e not authorized by
A l b a n i a n authorities to continue their studies in the
viet U n i o n .
N a t u r a l l y , this created dissatisfaction,
many of the discontented suffered reprisals.
our
and
the
Soand
" T h e A l b a n i a n leaders persecute those w i s h i n g to p r e serve the friendship between our parties and peoples,
w h i l e at the same time, in order to deceive the people,
they organize S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n friendship m o n t h .
This
happened in September.
" T h e y may say that these are their internal affairs
and that we should not interfere in them.
B u t we are
here in face of persecutions and reprisals against the
Albanians w h o defend the traditional f r i e n d s h i p w i t h the
Soviet U n i o n . A n d this concerns us directly. We cannot
remain indifferent, and we are obliged to express our
opinion".
Since the 22nd Congress certain Soviet propagandists
and their supporters have continued to slander us on the
question of the A l b a n i a n students w h o w e r e studying
i n the Soviet U n i o n .
*
*
*
As y o u see, A. M i k o y a n was pretending a l a r m at "the
imprisonment" of m a n y naval students; he was pretend66
ing
grief
that
many
Albanian
students
"were
not
a u t h o r i z e d " by the A l b a n i a n authorities to continue their
studies in the Soviet U n i o n ; he w a s pretending horror at
"the reprisals" w h i c h m a n y " d i s c o n t e n t e d " students had
allegedly suffered; he was pretending to revolt at the
"persecutions"
which
the
Soviet
Union's
"friends"
in
A l b a n i a are suffering, w h i c h , according to h i m , w e r e not
an internal affair of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , of
the People's
R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a and of the A l b a n i a n
people, but w h i c h d i r e c t l y concerned (we repeat the w o r d
"directly") N . K h r u s h c h e v ' s group.
W e cannot say that
such an attitude, that such an opinion, is surprising b e cause in the logic of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s followers there is
nothing surprising, n o t h i n g unexpected.
To say that such
an attitude, such a v i e w p o i n t , is loathsome, that it rests
from beginning to end on slanders is saying n o t h i n g new,
for in their activities slander is a u s u a l practice.
fore,
let
us
call
on
facts
and documents
There-
rather than
epithets, to speak, to shed a l l the light on the truth, on
the question of the A l b a n i a n students w h o w e r e s t u d y i n g
in the Soviet U n i o n , to s h o w w h o expelled them, w h o
made
closed
provocations
the
doors
and
of
blackmail
against
the universities
to
them,
them
on
who
the
threshold of the n e w school-year.
D u r i n g the 1961-1962 school-year, in accordance w i t h
the agreement concluded
between the governments of
the Soviet U n i o n and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a
on J u l y 5, 1952, under the terms of w h i c h the Soviet
U n i o n was p a y i n g 60 per cent of the scholarship a n d the
Government of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a 40 per
cent, 1,213 citizens of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a
67
w e r e regularly pursuing their studies in the Soviet U n i o n .
D u r i n g the 1961-1962 school-year, in accordance w i t h
the c u l t u r a l cooperation programme signed in M o s c o w on
F e b r u a r y 8, 1961 between the t w o countries, another 100
y o u n g students were assigned and preparing to study in
institutions of higher l e a r n i n g in the Soviet U n i o n .
In A u g u s t 1961, after h a v i n g spent the summer vacation in A l b a n i a , the o l d students returned to the Soviet
U n i o n to continue their studies, w h i l e the n e w students
were ready to leave for the U S S R .
On A u g u s t 26, however, only 4-5 days before the beg i n n i n g of the courses for the 1961-1962 school-year, the
Soviet Government, at N. Khrushchev's instigation, i m plementing the policy of pressure and b l a c k m a i l towards
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , the People's R e p u b l i c of
A l b a n i a and the A l b a n i a n people, the policy of blockade
and isolation in many directions, w e n t so far as to deprive
the A l b a n i a n citizens of the right to pursue their studies
at the universities and institutions of higher learning of
the Soviet U n i o n .
T h r o u g h a note f r o m the M i n i s t r y of
F o r e i g n A f f a i r s , the Soviet Government served notice on
the Government of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a that
"as of September 1, 1961 there extends to A l b a n i a the
rule common to a l l the European socialist countries c o n cerning the expense for education in the Soviet U n i o n of
the students and post-graduates under w h i c h
the s t u -
dents' stipends are paid by the country that sends its o w n
citizens to the Soviet U n i o n to pursue their studies there".
T h i s unilateral cancellation of the inter-governmental
agreement of J u l y 5, 1952 was aimed at m a k i n g more
d i f f i c u l t the t r a i n i n g of cadres of the People's R e p u b l i c
68
of A l b a n i a and, consequently, i m p a i r i n g the b u i l d i n g of
socialism in A l b a n i a .
It was an unjust decision adopted
by N. K h r u s h c h e v to w r e a k his revenge on the P a r t y of
Labour of A l b a n i a for h a v i n g expressed, through interparty channels, correct, M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t viewpoints on
a w h o l e n u m b e r of ideological and political questions of
the present-day w o r l d development and in particular of
the
international
communist
and
workers'
movement,
viewpoints w h i c h d i d not fit i n w i t h his a n t i - M a r x i s t and
opportunist theses.
In the face of such a situation, w h e n the Soviet G o v ernment a r b i t r a r i l y changed the study conditions of the
A l b a n i a n citizens in the Soviet U n i o n , creating great difficulties to our country,
suddenly, as we pointed out,
only 4 to 5 days before the beginning of classes, the A l banian students w e r e obliged to return to A l b a n i a .
F o r w h a t reasons, or rather under w h a t pretexts, d i d
the Soviet Government, under N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s dictate,
no longer a l l o w the A l b a n i a n students to pursue their
studies in the schools of the Soviet U n i o n ?
It is k n o w n that between the t w o governments of the
Soviet U n i o n and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a there
was concluded in J u l y 1952 an agreement on the education of the citizens of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a
at the higher c i v i l institutes of the Soviet U n i o n , stipulati n g (Article 5):
" T h e G o v e r n m e n t of the Soviet U n i o n covers the
expenses for the maintenance a n d study of the citizens
of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a at the institutions
of higher l e a r n i n g of the Soviet U n i o n " ;
and ( A r t i c l e 6):
69
" T h e Government of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a reimburses the Government of the Soviet U n i o n
40 per cent of the expenses mentioned in A r t i c l e 5 of
the present agreement".
T h i s agreement was an expression of the f r a t e r n a l i n ternationalist aid w h i c h the Soviet U n i o n was g i v i n g the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a for the t r a i n i n g of cadres
needed for the development of our national economy a n d
culture.
Later,
on
March
16,
1960,
the
Soviet
Government
demanded a modification of the agreement and the c o n clusion of a n e w one, on a basis and conditions different
f r o m those of the 1952 agreement.
T h e Government of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ,
taking into account the fraternal relations and close cooperation between the two countries, the specific c o n d i tions
of the People's
R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ,
the urgent
needs for the t r a i n i n g of cadres and the f i n a n c i a l b u r d e n
w h i c h w o u l d be i n c u r r e d as a result of the change in
the study conditions, instructed the Ambassador of the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a in M o s c o w , N e s t i Nase, to
request, t h r o u g h the M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of t h e
U S S R , not to change the study conditions of the A l b a nian citizens in the Soviet U n i o n .
A n d on J u n e 6, 1960,
in response to the A l b a n i a n Government's request, the
D e p u t y M i n i s t e r of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the Soviet U n i o n ,
N. P. F i r y u b i n , verbally i n f o r m e d our Ambassador:
" T h e Soviet Government re-examined its proposal
concerning the modification of the agreement on the
conditions of the m u t u a l t r a i n i n g of students and postgraduates at the c i v i l institutes of higher l e a r n i n g and
70
at the scientific research institutes, took into consideration the request of the A l b a n i a n side and decided that
the conditions of the 1952 agreement remain in force."
T h u s the p r o b l e m was considered as settled and the
question closed.
T h e A l b a n i a n Government, as always, appraised this
just decision of the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t as a f r i e n d l y act
and precisely for this reason, as usual, d u r i n g the 19601961 academic year there were sent to the institutions of
higher l e a r n i n g of the Soviet U n i o n a considerable n u m ber of A l b a n i a n students and post-graduates, w h o by
August 1961 had completed their studies according to the
above-mentioned conditions.
T h e Soviet Government, however, at N. Khrushchev's
instigation, c o n t i n u i n g the repressive measures against
the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a and w i t h a v i e w
to creating for our country d i f f i c u l t i e s also in the t r a i n i n g
of cadres, w e n t back on the o f f i c i a l promise it had given
to our G o v e r n m e n t on J u n e 6, 1960. T h i s is evident f r o m
the A u g u s t 26, 1961 Soviet note w h i c h , r a i s i n g again
the question of the study conditions of the A l b a n i a n s t u dents at the schools of the Soviet U n i o n and completely
ignoring the J u n e 6, 1960 o f f i c i a l communication, says:
" A s a result of the talks w h i c h took place between
the governments of the U S S R and other E u r o p e a n socialist countries, w i t h the exception of A l b a n i a , n e w
agreements have been concluded on the basis set f o r t h
in the M a r c h 16, 1960 note of the M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n
A f f a i r s of the U S S R . A l t h o u g h almost one and a half
years have elapsed f r o m the time of the h a n d i n g over
of the note of the M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the
71
U S S R t o the A l b a n i a n Embassy i n M o s c o w , the A l b a n i a n Government has not thus far sent any w r i t t e n
reply to the Soviet note".
Carefully
note:
The
whole
"fault"
of
the
Albanian
Government is that " i t has not replied in a w r i t t e n f o r m
to the Soviet note".
W h e n d i d the verbal c o m m u n i c a -
tion of our Ambassador to the Soviet F o r e i g n M i n i s t r y
and the J u n e 6, 1960 verbal communication of the Soviet
Deputy F o r e i g n M i n i s t e r cease to be considered as o f f i c i a l
acts?
N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s conception of the o f f i c i a l value
of the w r i t t e n and verbal communications is r e a l l y i n teresting! He insisted on a " r e p l y in w r i t t e n f o r m " f r o m
our Government to his M a r c h 16, 1960 note, whereas he
verbally
i n f o r m e d our G o v e r n m e n t of an affair whose
importance has no need to be emphasized, namely the
closing by the Soviet Government of the Soviet Embassy
in T i r a n a and the demand for the closing of the Embassy
of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a in M o s c o w .
When
the Chargé d'Affaires of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a nia in M o s c o w asked N. P. F i r y u b i n to give h i m in w r i t ten f o r m his communication for the w i t h d r a w a l of the
staff of the Soviet Embassy in T i r a n a and the departure
of the staff of the A l b a n i a n Embassy in M o s c o w , N. P.
F i r y u b i n , on behalf of the Soviet Government, replied to
h i m that any verbal
or w r i t t e n
communication
of an
official representative is considered as an o f f i c i a l act.
Therefore, it is not necessary that we s h o u l d give it to y o u
in w r i t t e n f o r m .
In other words, this is to say:
"Don't
do w h a t I do but do w h a t I say".
Therefore, one can easily see the entire falseness of
the
pretext
under
w h i c h the
72
Soviet
Government
has
violated the 1952 inter-governmental agreement on the
education of the citizens of the People's R e p u b l i c of
A l b a n i a i n the Soviet U n i o n .
V e r y significant also is the fact that on A u g u s t 26,
1961, the same day w h e n the Soviet Government a n nounced its decision to cut off the stipends to the A l b a nian students s t u d y i n g in the Soviet U n i o n (at issue is
the 60 per cent of the stipend), the M i n i s t r y of Foreign
A f f a i r s of the Soviet U n i o n sent to the Embassy of the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a in M o s c o w a note w h i c h
alleges :
" T h e M i n i s t r y o f F o r e i g n A f f a i r s o f the U S S R c o n tinues to receive i n f o r m a t i o n that some A l b a n i a n
students and auditors w h o are pursuing their studies
at the institutions of higher learning of the Soviet
U n i o n are spreading various fabrications and slanders
concerning S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n relations, and are also
seeking to d r a w the Soviet and f o r e i g n students into
provocative conversations".
It further continues:
" R e p o r t i n g on the instances of t h e u n w o r t h y b e haviour of A l b a n i a n students s t u d y i n g in the Soviet
U n i o n , the M i n i s t r y o f F o r e i g n A f f a i r s o f the U S S R
draws attention to the fact that their anti-Soviet v i e w s
are, undoubtedly, of a premeditated n a t u r e " .
T h e note concludes:
" T h e M i n i s t r y has been authorized to declare that,
in case of anti-Soviet attacks on the part of the A l b a nian students, the latter w i l l be asked to leave the
Soviet U n i o n " .
73
T h e authors of the note, N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s group, need
these slanders and trumped-up instances to attain their
vicious aim, to deprive our country of the possibility to
t r a i n cadres in the schools of the Soviet U n i o n . H o w l o w
those w h o slander the A l b a n i a n students in such a w a y
have f a l l e n ! F o r i t i s w e l l k n o w n that the A l b a n i a n
students' love and respect for the Soviet U n i o n and the
Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n have become one
of the loftiest qualities of the character of the citizens
of n e w A l b a n i a , and the Soviet teachers and students
have witnessed the noble feelings of their A l b a n i a n c o m rades and students. Therefore, the c l a i m that there have
been anti-Soviet expressions on the part of the A l b a n i a n
students is a slander and an offense intentionally c o m mitted by the Soviet side to discredit the A l b a n i a n
students and to back up its unjust measures towards
them.
If we consider the Soviet note, the question arises:
W h i c h one is l y i n g , the note of the M i n i s t r y of F o r e i g n
A f f a i r s that presents the A l b a n i a n students as " a n t i Soviet", or A. M i k o y a n , w h o at the 22nd Congress called
the A l b a n i a n students "the f r i e n d s " of the Soviet U n i o n ,
w h o "suffered reprisals in A l b a n i a " ?
It is clear that in
both cases we have to deal w i t h fabrications aimed at
j u s t i f y i n g t w o e v i l aims against the People's R e p u b l i c of
A l b a n i a and the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a . In the first
case, t h r o u g h the note of the F o r e i g n M i n i s t e r of the
Soviet U n i o n , the slander was needed to j u s t i f y the departure of the A l b a n i a n students f r o m the Soviet schools.
In the second case, through M i k o y a n ' s declaration, the
slander was needed to " a r g u e " the situation of "terror
and u n c e r t a i n t y " allegedly e x i s t i n g in A l b a n i a , w i t h a
74
view to i m p l e m e n t i n g N. Khrushchev's c a l l for counterrevolution and, on the other hand, to deceiving w o r l d
public o p i n i o n about the real situation in our country.
A c c o r d i n g to A. M i k o y a n and some other Soviet p r o p agandists, "terror", "imprisonments", " m u r d e r s and assassinations" reign in A l b a n i a ; sailors, students, and " a l l
the honest m e n and w o m e n w h o stand for friendship w i t h
the Soviet U n i o n " have allegedly been imprisoned.
word, the w h o l e people have been imprisoned!
In a
These
monstrous calumnies, w h i c h r i g h t f u l l y arouse a feeling of
revolt and justified hatred against their authors, have
disgusted our people before whose eyes the slanderers
have become ridiculous and appeared l i k e enemies in the
same dock w i t h the imperialists and the Y u g o s l a v r e v i sionists, f o r they do not cause less e v i l , and they do not
pose less danger w i t h their calls for counter-revolution.
T h e i r intention to create d i f f i c u l t situations, to create
troubles, cannot be disguised by the v e i l of their " c r e a tive M a r x i s m " w h i c h reeks of rank revisionism.
The
A l b a n i a n people, led by their P a r t y , have gone through
numerous tempests and have foiled m a n y plots and i n trigues; they are tempered and stronger than ever to
frustrate
the schemes
of
their
enemies
whatever
the
slogan under w h i c h they present themselves.
The
Central
Committee
of
A l b a n i a , the Government of
the
Party
of
the People's
Labour
of
Republic
of
A l b a n i a , and the entire A l b a n i a n people have appreciated
and continue to appreciate the great internationalist aid
w h i c h the Soviet U n i o n , the C P S U and the Soviet G o v ernment have rendered to the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a nia
in
the t r a i n i n g
of
Albanian
75
cadres
in
the
Soviet
U n i o n . O u r sons and daughters w h o have studied at the
institutions of higher learning of the Soviet U n i o n , w h o
have familiarized themselves w i t h Soviet science and
culture, w h i c h are the most advanced in the w o r l d , have
brought to their country knowledge and the very p r e cious experience of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet
U n i o n , of the builders of c o m m u n i s m in the Soviet U n i o n .
Educated by the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , they have
made and are m a k i n g a great contribution to the strengthening of A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t friendship.
As to the question of the "imprisonment of many
students" w h i c h has so m u c h troubled N. K h r u s h c h e v
and his followers that they have lost sleep over the issue,
we can say that these students are in good health a n d
are studying at the State U n i v e r s i t y of T i r a n a and other
institutes of higher l e a r n i n g at home or in the universities of fraternal socialist countries.
NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV
HAS MADE EFFORTS NOT TO SETTLE
BUT TO AGGRAVATE
THE DIFFERENCES
WITH OUR PARTY AND STATE
Article published in the newspaper
Zëri i Popullit
March 25, 1962
N e a r l y six months have passed since N i k i t a K h r u s h chev p u b l i c l y assaulted the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a .
It has already become clear that this attack was actually
directed against M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m a n d against the u n i t y
of the socialist c a m p and of the international communist
and labour movement.
T h i s was precisely the reason
why, after the 22nd Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of
the Soviet U n i o n , the C o m m u n i s t s and peoples of various
countries as w e l l as the Soviet people posed the questions:
" W h y was the P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a n i a attacked; w h y w e r e the disputes existing w i t h i n the international C o m m u n i s t and labour movement revealed; w h y
were these disputes not patiently settled in the M a r x i s t L e n i n i s t w a y , a n d i n whose interest was i t ? " Despite the
resolutions taken, the speeches m a d e and the m a n y a r t i cles that have been and are being w r i t t e n to j u s t i f y the
attitude of the Soviet leadership towards the P a r t y of
L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , neither at the 22nd Congress of the
Communist P a r t y o f the Soviet U n i o n nor f o l l o w i n g i t
did the N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v group succeed i n e x c u l p a t i n g
themselves and g i v i n g an answer to these legitimate
questions w h i c h are b e i n g asked by the people f r o m a l l
corners of the earth even today.
N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v and his f o l l o w e r s
have endeavoured to f i n d a w a y out in order to j u s t i f y
their a n t i - M a r x i s t attitude towards the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a . To this e n d they i n v e n t e d the story that the
Soviet leaders w e r e compelled to do this (namely, to
79
p u b l i c l y attack the P a r t y of L a b o u r of Albania*), their
reason being that a l l the efforts to normalize the r e l a tions w i t h the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a had f a i l e d to
y i e l d any results, and this being the case, open struggle
against it was the only possible course to pursue.
So
then, "every effort had been made w i t h o u t y i e l d i n g a n y
results", and, " i t was necessary to go over to open s t r u g gle, since it was the o n l y w a y l e f t " .
These are the t w o
"arguments" that the N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v group and their
followers w e r e able to advance and it is by such " a r g u ments" w h i c h as we shall see f u r t h e r on are utterly false
and w i t h o u t foundation, that they w a n t " t o f u l l y j u s t i f y "
the u n p r i n c i p l e d struggle based on the vilest calumnies,
blockades of a l l kinds and fierce acts of pressure by the
leaders of a b i g state against the M a r x i s t P a r t y of a
numerically s m a l l people.
It is by fabricated " a r g u ments" of this k i n d that they are t r y i n g to j u s t i f y such
acts as their appeals for counter-revolution or the r u p t u r e
o f diplomatic relations w i t h the People's R e p u b l i c o f A l bania, a socialist country.
By acting in such a savage w a y against the P a r t y of
L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and by advancing such " a r g u m e n t s "
to j u s t i f y their action, N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v and his group,
no doubt, reckon that people w i l l believe t h e m because
the rights of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a w o u l d fade
into insignificance in the face of the indisputable
authority of the glorious Soviet U n i o n and of their great
P a r t y of L e n i n . S u c h a concept is a n t i - M a r x i s t , of course,
but one cannot expect a n y t h i n g else f r o m a revisionist
of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m .
Nikita
K h r u s h c h e v makes a
____________________________
* T h e annotation is ours — E d .
80
mockery of and speculates w i t h the prestige and
authority of the Soviet U n i o n .
T h e peoples and c o m munists of the w o r l d are recognizing better and better
the true features of N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v and of his group
and they are becoming more and more convinced that
N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v ' s attack on the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a , his appeals for a counter-revolution in A l b a n i a
and the r u p t u r e of diplomatic relations w i t h the People's
Republic of A l b a n i a are acts that cannot be justified w i t h
any fabricated " a r g u m e n t " , not even w i t h the authority
enjoyed by the Soviet U n i o n and its C o m m u n i s t P a r t y .
Such a n t i - M a r x i s t actions befit o n l y those w h o have betrayed the cause of socialism and of communism.
The
peoples and communists of the w o r l d by this time are
beginning to understand and w i l l understand more clearly
that N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v and his group are acting as s p l i t ters of the international c o m m u n i s t and labour m o v e ment, as incorrigible opportunists and revisionists and by
their actions are h e l p i n g o n l y the foes of socialism and
of c o m m u n i s m .
PRIOR T O T H E B U C H A R E S T MEETING, OUR
DIFFERENCES
ON
SOME
IDEOLOGICAL
QUESTIONS
NEVER TARNISHED THE
FRATERNAL RELATIONS BETWEEN
OUR
TWO PARTIES
Because the N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v group are speculating
w i t h the so-called " e f f o r t s " w h i c h have allegedly been
made by them towards n o r m a l i z i n g relations w i t h the
Party of Labour of Albania, we would like to dwell
81
on the f o l l o w i n g question: T h e " e f f o r t s " on the part of
N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v towards n o r m a l i z i n g relations w i t h
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a or, to state it more clearly,
the methods chosen by h i m of settling the ideological
disputes that arose between the P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l bania and the Soviet leaders, the method of e x t e n d i n g
these disputes also to the f i e l d of state relations by acts
of economic, political and m i l i t a r y pressure, by threats
and blockades, by i m p o s i n g his o w n v i e w s on the P a r t y
of Labour of A l b a n i a and on the A l b a n i a n State, l e d to
the aggravation of relations and their sharpening, r e a c h ing the apex w i t h the p u b l i c attacks l e v e l l e d against the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a f r o m the f o r u m of the 22nd
Congress a n d to the actual r u p t u r e of the diplomatic r e lations w i t h the People's R e p u b l i c o f A l b a n i a b y the S o viet U n i o n .
T h e starting point i n the attitude o f the N i k i t a K h r u s h chev group towards the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and
the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a that l e d to the aggravation of S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n relations was the meeting h e l d
in Bucharest in J u n e , 1960. P r i o r to the Bucharest C o n ference, between o u r t w o parties a n d countries there
existed c o r d i a l fraternal relations w h i c h may r i g h t l y be
characterized as e x e m p l a r y in relationships of proletarian
internationalism. Up to that time the leadership of the
Communist P a r t y o f the Soviet U n i o n and the G o v e r n ment of the Soviet U n i o n had assumed a f r i e n d l y and i n ternationalist attitude towards our c o u n t r y and extended
to A l b a n i a great assistance in a l l the f i e l d s of socialist
construction, f o r w h i c h h e l p the P a r t y of L a b o u r and the
entire A l b a n i a n people have been a n d w i l l eternally be
grateful to the glorious C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet
82
U n i o n and to the brotherly Soviet people. T h e P a r t y of
L a b o u r has a l w a y s appreciated and r i g h t l y assessed the
importance of that internationalist assistance.
"The experience of socialist construction in the Soviet U n i o n as
w e l l as its extraordinary assistance,"
Comrade E n v e r
H o x h a said in his speech of N o v e m b e r 28, 1959, at the
solemn gathering held on the occasion of the 15th A n niversary of L i b e r a t i o n D a y , "have been and are for us
t w o important sources w h i c h to this day have helped us
to c a r r y out the tasks of great transformation in the
fields of economy and of c u l t u r e . " T h a t is w h y our people have always strengthened and w i l l continue to
strengthen their affection and their great and sincere
friendship for the great fatherland of the October R e v olution and for the country o f the S o v i e t s . . . O u r f r i e n d ship is a f r i e n d s h i p of peoples, a f r i e n d s h i p based on the
i m m o r t a l teachings of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m and on p r o l e tarian internationalism, on the l o f t y and noble ideals of
the t r i u m p h of socialism and of the defense of w o r l d
peace and that is w h y this f r i e n d s h i p w i l l l i v e on
throughout the centuries.
A n d it should be emphasized that o u r fraternal ties
had at no time been weakened despite the fact that between o u r P a r t y and the Soviet leadership, headed by
N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v , differences on certain important issues had existed f o r a l o n g time. It is a k n o w n fact, for
example, that our P a r t y does not agree w i t h the c r i t i c i s m
against Joseph V i s s a r i o n o v i c h Stalin, nor w i t h the manner
i n w h i c h i t was made, nor w i t h the aims w h i c h N i k i t a
K h r u s h c h e v and his group pursued at the 20th Congress
of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n a n d later;
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a was not in agreement
83
w i t h the attitude of appeasement
and
of o p p o r t u n i s m
that was being assumed by N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v and by
his group towards the revisionist T i t o clique; our P a r t y
d i d not reconcile itself to the course he introduced and
to the opportunist aims w h i c h he pursued in regard to
the questions of peace and war; it d i d not reconcile itself
to
his
revisionist
conception
in
connection
with
the
peaceful and non-peaceful transition to socialism and in
regard to other issues.
On the other hand, it is k n o w n
that N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v , more than once and on different
occasions,
against
has
the
directly or i n d i r e c t l y
line
of
our
Party
on
expressed
account
himself
of
its at-
titude of p r i n c i p l e towards the Y u g o s l a v revisionists and
on other issues.
He has tried to exert pressure on our
P a r t y so that it might stop its just criticisms of p r i n c i p l e
against the Belgrade revisionists and
rehabilitate such
traitors and enemies of the P a r t y and of the A l b a n i a n
people as
them.
Koçi
Xoxe,
Panajot
Plaku
and
others
like
A l l these facts are borne out by documentary
evidence.
N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g this, the P a r t y of L a b o u r has
constantly striven for the settlement of these disputes
in the just M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t w a y , by means of comradely
discussions and criticism,
by
repudiating
at the
same
time N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v ' s proposals in regard to the question of the Y u g o s l a v revisionists and the rehabilitation of
the A l b a n i a n traitors in the service of the T i t o clique.
It
is a fact that despite the existence of the aforementioned
differences, up to the m i d d l e of the year 1960 the r e l a tions of the P a r t y of L a b o u r w i t h the Soviet leadership
and,
especially,
state
relationships
between
our
two
countries, had not been rendered acute, but on the c o n 84
trary they were proceeding in the n o r m a l course
friendly, f r a t e r n a l and internationalist cooperation
of
B u t d u r i n g that period N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v found
out that the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a stood strongly
by its positions of p r i n c i p l e and w o u l d not make any
concessions; he ascertained that our P a r t y was u n w i l l i n g
to proceed in his revisionist course. He became s t i l l more
convinced about this at the meeting in Bucharest in w h i c h
our P a r t y strongly opposed the a n t i - M a r x i s t methods e m ployed by h i m of s t r i k i n g suddenly at the M a r x i s t Leninist parties. T h a t i s w h y i n Bucharest N i k i t a K h r u shchev made up his m i n d and struck the first b l o w at
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and its leadership.
It is w e l l k n o w n that at the Bucharest meeting in June,
1960, and later at the M o s c o w Conference of the 81 C o m munist and W o r k e r s ' Parties in November 1960, the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a expressed its o w n views on certain
problems of present-day w o r l d development and of the
tactics and strategy of the international communist and
workers' movement, and it criticized certain opportunist
views on the part of N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v as w e l l as some
of his a n t i - M a r x i s t positions regarding the relations between the f r a t e r n a l C o m m u n i s t and W o r k e r s ' parties, in
order to u p h o l d the relations of equality and reach
u n a n i m i t y of v i e w s and actions through comradely
criticism and consultations between t h e m in a M a r x i s t Leninist w a y and in the spirit of proletarian internationalism. W h i l e the P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a n i a displayed
calmness and spoke about the r i g h t course that should
have been pursued for the settling of disputes, w h i c h ,
as it was revealed at the Bucharest Conference, existed
not o n l y w i t h the A l b a n i a n P a r t y of Labour, but also
85
w i t h other parties, N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v , on the contrary,
since
that
time,
M a r x i s t path.
proceeded
along
the
erroneous
anti-
T o w a r d s the just c r i t i c i s m of the P a r t y of
Labour of A l b a n i a he adopted the method w h i c h is alien
to Communists and to M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t parties, namely,
the method of reprisal, by r e p l a c i n g comradely c r i t i c i s m
w i t h brutal interference in the domestic affairs of other
countries, by openly and b r u t a l l y v i o l a t i n g the p r i n c i p l e of
consultation, of equality and of proletarian internationalism that should govern relationships between the C o m munist parties of the socialist countries.
Immediately after the meeting at Bucharest, p a r t i c u larly
following
the
Moscow
Conference
of
November
1960, the so-called " e f f o r t s " on the part of N i k i t a K h r u s h chev to normalize the relations w i t h the P a r t y of L a bour of A l b a n i a became s t i l l clearer; the credits that had
been granted to the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a for its
five-year plan were suspended, the Soviet specialists w h o
were w o r k i n g i n A l b a n i a were recalled and a l l the A l banian students attending schools in the Soviet U n i o n
were chased out.
Nikita Khrushchev's "efforts" w h i c h
are being so w i d e l y popularized by his propaganda agents
bear resemblance to actions of that " h o s t "
w h o , after
having tightly locked the door of his house, unleashes
his dogs and tells the guest:
"Come right in.
Welcome."
T h i s " e f f o r t " and "sincere d e s i r e " is made clear in the
article published by the editorial board of the newspaper
Pravda on F e b r u a r y 21, 1962, under the heading " T h e
Banner of O u r E p o c h " in w h i c h among other things one
reads: " T h i s c r i t i c i s m (reference is here made to N i k i t a
Khrushchev's attack o n the P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a n i a
86
from the f o r u m of the 22nd Congress)* appealed to the
good sense of the A l b a n i a n leaders and was intended to
b r i n g them back to the positions of proletarian i n t e r n a tionalism." H o w h y p o c r i t i c a l this i s ! A c c o r d i n g t o the
editorial board of Pravda, N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v ' s attack
was comradely " c r i t i c i s m " w h i c h appealed to the good
sense of the A l b a n i a n leaders!
T h e appeals f o r counterrevolution, f o r t h e o v e r t h r o w of the leaders of a M a r x i s t
party of a socialist c o u n t r y had as their object the
restoration of the A l b a n i a n leaders to positions of
proletarian internationalism (!) (This is w h a t K h r u s h chev said at the 22nd Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y
of the Soviet U n i o n :
"Nevertheless we are convinced
that the time w i l l come w h e n the A l b a n i a n C o m m u n i s t s
and the A l b a n i a n people w i l l have their o w n say and the
A l b a n i a n leaders w i l l be brought to account for the d a m age they have caused to t h e i r country, to their people
and t o the cause o f the construction o f socialism i n A l bania.") T h i s shows the degree of c y n i c i s m of the N i k i t a
K h r u s h c h e v group w h o , by shedding crocodile tears over
the "destinies" of the A l b a n i a n people, r e m i n d one of the
man w h o k i l l s y o u in the darkness of night and weeps
for y o u the next day.
In order to dispel a n y i l l u s i o n about the " e f f o r t s " w h i c h
N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v has allegedly made to normalize
the relations w i t h the P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a n i a w e
refer y o u to the correspondence exchanged between o u r
t w o Parties a n d to the chief events f o l l o w i n g the B u c h a rest meeting. T h e numerous facts a n d documents in the
possession of our P a r t y , some of w h i c h we are going to
_________________________
* T h e annotation is ours — E d .
87
u t i l i z e in this article, most c o n v i n c i n g l y demonstrate that
N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v , in his efforts at allegedly settling
the disputes w i t h the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , has
always aimed at
our P a r t y to its knees, to
à priori, unacceptable a n t i - M a r x i s t
terms and to place it in positions of i n e q u a l i t y and of
discrimination.
It is k n o w n that at the meeting in Bucharest N i k i t a
Khrushchev, i n a n unexpected b u t premeditated w a y ,
attacked the u n i t y of the international communist a n d
labour movement.
V i o l a t i n g the L e n i n i s t principles of
consultation, of equality and of proletarian i n t e r n a t i o n a l ism in the relations between f r a t e r n a l parties, and using
arrogant methods f r o m a p a t r i a r c h a l position, he t r i e d to
compel other parties to s u b m i t to his erroneous a n t i M a r x i s t v i e w s and actions. N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v tried b y
every means to get the Delegation of the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a at the Bucharest meeting also to endorse his
actions and his opportunist and splitting views. T h e P a r t y
of Labour, however, assumed an u n w a v e r i n g attitude of
principle.
It condemned the a n t i - M a r x i s t declarations
and attitude of N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v and made k n o w n its
o w n views on the right course that should have been
pursued for settling the disputes that had arisen w i t h i n
the socialist camp and the international communist
movement.
At that meeting the head of the Delegation
of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , Comrade H y s n i K a p o ,
said among other things:
dictate
to
it
"...This
bringing
from
most important
question,
which
Comrade
N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v has suddenly brought u p w i t h o u t
preliminary
study,
must
be
88
thoroughly
studied
and
discussed most carefully, c a l m l y and in a comradely
spirit, according to L e n i n i s t rules and in the M a r x i s t Leninist way, as is the practice of our Parties."
T h i s was the attitude of the delegation of the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a at Bucharest.
The Central Com-
mittee, t h r o u g h its representative, condemned the putschist method of N i k i t a K h r u s h c h e v and u p h e l d the v i e w
of settling disputes according
meeting of November,
to L e n i n i s t rules at the
1960.
Nikita
K h r u s h c h e v was
displeased at the attitude of p r i n c i p l e of the delegation
of our P a r t y , w h i c h was contrary to his
anti-Marxist
views and course of u n d e r m i n i n g the u n i t y of the socialist camp.
He was so greatly irritated by the correct c r i t i -
cism t h r o u g h P a r t y channels made by a s m a l l P a r t y that
he d i d not hesitate to characterize it as " a n i n s u l t " to the
leadership of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n ,
for w h i c h " i n s u l t " he started a campaign of acts of vengeance
against
our
Party
and
country
which
had
with
M a r x i s t courage dared to bar the w a y of s p l i t t i n g the socialist
camp,
undertaken
most
consciously
by
Nikita
Khrushchev.
P R E S S U R E A N D E F F O R T S T O D R A W T H E P L A INTO
N. KHRUSHCHEV'S PLOT AGAINST THE UNITY
OF
THE
SOCIALIST
COMMUNIST
CAMP
AND
THE
MOVEMENT
A r a d i c a l change was noted in the attitude of the Soviet leaders headed by N. K h r u s h c h e v towards the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and our c o u n t r y immediately after
89
the Bucharest M e e t i n g .
T h e i r stand and p o l i c y towards
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a proceeded not f r o m their
desire to settle the dispute that had arisen but f r o m their
desire to subdue it by a l l methods and means and to take
revenge upon its leaders for their persistent stand.
From
words he w e n t on to actions. N. K h r u s h c h e v responded
negatively and even delayed his negative r e p l y to the
urgent request of the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t to b u y f r o m
the Soviet U n i o n a quantity of w h e a t at a time w h e n our
country was hard up f o r bread on account of the drought
of 1960.
T h i s compelled our P a r t y and G o v e r n m e n t to
secure the required g r a i n f r o m other socialist countries.
T h i s constituted open pressure against the P L A .
On the
other
hand,
the functionaries
of the
Soviet
Embassy in T i r a n a , c a r r y i n g out N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s instructions w i t h regard to their radical change of policy towards A l b a n i a , launched a feverish attack on the M a r x i s t L e n i n i s t line of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , t r i e d to
split our P a r t y and create panic and confusion a m o n g its
ranks, to separate the leaders f r o m the P a r t y and to i n cite against them the a r m y cadres and other cadres w h o
had studied in the Soviet U n i o n .
A l l these " e f f o r t s " , this
pressure, these b r u t a l interventions aimed at m a k i n g the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a back d o w n f r o m the stand of
p r i n c i p l e w h i c h it maintained at the Bucharest M e e t i n g
and compel it to support N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s opportunist
and s p l i t t i n g v i e w s i n the N o v e m b e r meeting and j o i n
h i m in his assaults against the u n i t y of the socialist camp
and
the international
communist
and
workers'
move-
ment, against the revolutionary teachings of M a r x i s m Leninism.
90
In pursuance of this a i m N. K h r u s h c h e v sent on August
13, 1960, a letter to the C e n t r a l Committee of the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a w h i c h demanded that talks be h e l d ,
not f o r the purpose of settling the existing differences
between the P L A and the Soviet leaders, but f o r the
purpose of a l i g n i n g the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a w i t h
N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s group against a t h i r d party, in order to
split the socialist camp. T h e letter suggested:
" W e consider it i m p o r t a n t that the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a and the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet
U n i o n s h o u l d g o t o the c o m i n g November M e e t i n g
w i t h complete u n i t y of viewpoints.
T h e C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of
the Soviet U n i o n is of the o p i n i o n that it is advisable
that a meeting should be called of the representatives
of our Parties f o r this purpose p r i o r to the November
Meeting."
A n d in a sort of casual w a y a threatening w a r n i n g is
issued :
" S o that the spark of misunderstanding w h i c h has
arisen may be extinguished in such a manner that it
may not f l a r e up a g a i n . "
T h i s meant that the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a s h o u l d
go to the 1960 N o v e m b e r M e e t i n g in M o s c o w " a t o n e "
w i t h N . K h r u s h c h e v ' s a n t i - M a r x i s t views, that the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a s h o u l d renounce its correct stand
of p r i n c i p l e w h i c h it had maintained at the Bucharest
M e e t i n g but w h i c h d i d not please N . K h r u s h c h e v .
The
proposed meeting s h o u l d serve this end. T h i s was, so to
speak, N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s " f i r s t earnest 'effort' " to settle
91
the existing differences, to place the relations w i t h the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a on a n o r m a l basis.
A n d if
the P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a n i a d i d not c o m p l y w i t h
this solution (that is, if it refused to submit), then the
" s p a r k " lit i n Bucharest w o u l d " f l a r e u p i n t o a f i r e " .
Is it not clear, therefore, that the " f i r e " w h i c h f l a r e d
up at the 22nd Congress had been foreseen and deliberately prepared as far back as A u g u s t 1960? Does it not
f o l l o w that w h a t N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s group meant by the
w o r d " e f f o r t s " t o settle the dispute w i t h the P L A w a s :
either submit or be subjected to the " f i r e " ?
In its letter dated A u g u s t 27, 1960 the C e n t r a l C o m mittee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a gave the a p propriate r e p l y to this i l l - b o d i n g attempt. A f t e r p o i n t i n g
out that the misunderstandings w h i c h arose at the B u c h a rest M e e t i n g w e r e a result of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s u n w a r ranted attacks against a t h i r d party and, as a consequence
"to go to the coming M e e t i n g in f u l l u n i t y of v i e w p o i n t s "
means that our t w o Parties coordinate their attitudes t o wards a t h i r d M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t P a r t y , the letter e m p h a sizes:
" M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m teaches us, likewise, that it
w o u l d be a gross violation of the r u d i m e n t a r y M a r x i s t L e n i n i s t norms w h i c h govern the relations between
Communist a n d W o r k e r s ' Parties if it came about that
t w o parties carried on talks whose object w o u l d be to
criticise the general l i n e o f another M a r x i s t P a r t y . . .
It goes w i t h o u t saying that an act of this k i n d w o u l d
be unjust, w o u l d not help the cause but h a r m i t . "
It was natural f o r the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a to
refuse to take part in a meeting of the k i n d w h i c h was
92
contrary to the most elementary rules of M a r x i s m L e n i n i s m and w h i c h w o u l d y i e l d n o results despite N .
Khrushchev's threats.
L e t us d w e l l a little longer on N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s "efforts" to talk w i t h the leaders of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a f o r the purpose of settling the dispute, of restoring S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n relations to their n o r m a l state: On
November 9, 1960, at the time of the M o s c o w M e e t i n g of
the 81 Parties, the Soviet leaders proposed that Comrade
E n v e r H o x h a , F i r s t Secretary of the C e n t r a l Committee
of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a heading the D e l e g a tion of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a at the M e e t i n g of
the 81 Parties in M o s c o w , meet the F i r s t Secretary of
the C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the
Soviet U n i o n , N. K h r u s h c h e v , for bilateral talks concerning the relations between our t w o Parties. Comrade E n v e r
H o x h a accepted this i n v i t a t i o n w i t h pleasure and was
getting ready to meet N. K h r u s h c h e v . B u t just as C o m rade H o x h a was about to set out f o r this appointment our
delegation was handed an important o f f i c i a l document
f r o m the C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of
the Soviet U n i o n w h i c h was being distributed to a l l the
Parties p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the M o s c o w M e e t i n g , i n w h i c h
the existence of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a as a
socialist c o u n t r y was totally ignored, the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a was slandered, the a n t i - P a r t y elements in
our c o u n t r y w e r e taken under patronage and the leaders
of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a w e r e accused of solving party problems contrary to the rules of democratic
centralism and of c a r r y i n g on anti-Soviet policies and activities.
T h e Soviet leaders publicized these slanderous
statements against the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a to the
93
entire w o r l d communist movement w i t h o u t first t e l l i n g
t h e m to our P a r t y .
It is evident that the Soviet leaders,
on the one hand, invited the F i r s t Secretary of the C e n t r a l
Committee of the P L A for discussions and on the other,
they distributed at the same time material f i l l e d w i t h
slanders against our P a r t y f o r the obvious purpose of
discrediting it.
U n d e r such circumstances, can it be said
that the Soviet leaders are "eager" to settle the dispute?
Can it be said that N. K h r u s h c h e v is "eager" to c a r r y on
discussions? N. K h r u s h c h e v pretends he wants discussions
but in reality he forestalls them and l i m i t s them w i t h à
priori conditions. " A d m i t the slanders that I have made
public to the entire communist movement and then let
us come to terms!": such are indeed N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s and
his group's earnest " e f f o r t s " to come to terms w i t h the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a . Is this not an insidious, arrogant, derogatory and d i s c r i m i n a t i n g stand?
Is this
anything short of an u l t i m a t u m : either s u b m i t or face
the " f i r e " ? A stand of this k i n d has nothing in common
w i t h M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t methods of approach to discussions,
w i t h relations of equality, of brotherhood, of i n t e r n a tionalist solidarity w h i c h should exist between f r a t e r n a l
parties. It is the f o o l h a r d y attitude of a boss, of a c h a u v i n ist of a big state b u l l y i n g a small P a r t y .
It is l o g i c a l
that under these h u m i l i a t i n g conditions we should r i g h t f u l l y reject w i t h disdain this proposition for a meeting.
Y e t , despite a l l that, proceeding as always f r o m the
desire to settle the dispute and harmonize the relations
between our two Parties and our t w o countries, a n d in
the interests of the socialist camp and the international
communist movement, o n receiving n e w proposals f r o m
94
the Soviet leaders, the Delegation of the P L A participating in the M o s c o w M e e t i n g , agreed to h o l d discussions
w i t h leaders of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n
on November 10 and 11, 1960, and on November 12, 1960
the entire Delegation headed by C o m r a d e E n v e r H o x h a
met N. K h r u s h c h e v and a g r o u p of Soviet leaders. F r o m
the beginning to the e n d of these meetings it was clear
that the a i m of the Soviet leaders was not to f i n d means
and methods of settling our differences but to s u b j u gate the P L A , to c o m p e l it by force to adopt the v i e w s
of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s group, to make it give up its M a r x i s t Leninist principles.
T h e Soviet leaders d i d not retract
the slanders contained in the o f f i c i a l document they
distributed to the representatives of the 81 Parties, they
considered the pressure towards our P a r t y and the subversive activity of the officials of the Soviet Embassy in
T i r a n a as t r i v i a l , and f i n a l l y N. K h r u s h c h e v w e n t so far
as to declare that he could come to terms w i t h M a c m i l l a n
more easily t h a n w i t h the leaders of the P L A . T h a t he
can come to terms w i t h M a c m i l l a n , Eisenhower, K e n n e d y
and their lackey, T i t o , by m a k i n g compromises; concessions and f l a t t e r y is a personal credit to h i m w h i c h no
one envies.
B u t to compel the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a to adopt his revisionist ways — that has never
happened and can never happen.
T h e r e f o r e nothing
came of the " t a l k s " and N. K h r u s h c h e v and his c o m panions are to blame for that. T h i s was N. Khrushchev's
"second earnest 'effort' " to settle the dispute and harmonize the relations between our Parties, but in reality
it was his second earnest effort to alienate c u r P a r t y
f r o m M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m and to subject it to his c h a u vinist dictates.
95
N . K h r u s h c h e v f o l l o w e d this f a i l u r e w i t h threats.
was, of course, to be expected.
This
He stated c y n i c a l l y that
f r o m then o n h e w o u l d b u i l d his relations w i t h A l b a n i a
on another basis.
No sooner said than done.
his words w i t h deeds.
He f o l l o w e d
Ideological differences w e r e h u r -
r i e d l y extended i n t o the f i e l d of relations between states.
A l l credits w e r e suspended, a l l Soviet experts w o r k i n g i n
A l b a n i a w e r e unexpectedly and unilaterally w i t h d r a w n ,
commercial and m i l i t a r y agreements w e r e declared n u l l
and void.
T h e C e n t r a l Committee o f the P L A t r i e d its best t o
preserve the good state relations between our t w o c o u n tries, but N. K h r u s h c h e v and his group t r i e d their utmost
to u n d e r m i n e e v e r y t h i n g .
l a c k i n g to prove this.
Facts and documents are not
T h u s our E c o n o m i c Delegation
headed by X h a f e r Spahiu, the M i n i s t e r of Industry, w h i c h
had been sent to M o s c o w to conclude a clearing agreement for the 1961-1965 period a n d to s i g n the agreement
on the credits w h i c h the Soviet U n i o n had granted to
A l b a n i a to mechanize agriculture, was obliged to e x t e n d
its sojourn there in v a i n for 64 days.
At the t i m e w h e n
the meeting of the 81 Parties w a s h o l d i n g its sessions
and our t w o Parties w e r e h o l d i n g meetings, the Soviet
organs of the M i n i s t r y for
F o r e i g n T r a d e and
of the
G K E S (State Committee for Economic Relations), f o l l o w ing N.
Khrushchev's e x a m p l e and
instigation, l a i d a l l
kinds of obstacles in the w a y of our Economic D e l e g a tion,
delayed their meetings,
f r o m a b o v e " etc. t i l l
for
Foreign
Trade
of
" w a i t i n g for instructions
I. Semichastny,
the
USSR,
in
Deputy Minister
conference
members of our Delegation f i n a l l y declared:
96
with
" T h e M i n i s t r y o f F o r e i g n T r a d e i s authorized t o
state to the A l b a n i a n Delegation that it is advisable
to r e t u r n later to the question of s i g n i n g the long-term
1961-1965 T r a d e A g r e e m e n t and the Agreement of
credits accorded to A l b a n i a since it is necessary to discuss these matters on a higher l e v e l . "
A n d w h e n the People's R e p u b l i c o f A l b a n i a was about
to send
to M o s c o w Comrade K o ç o Theodhosi,
C h a i r m a n of the C o u n c i l
Deputy
of M i n i s t e r s of the People's
R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a and Candidate M e m b e r of the P o l i t ical B u r e a u o f the C e n t r a l Committee o f the P a r t y o f L a bour of A l b a n i a , to head the E c o n o m i c Delegation and
to
conclude
the
Agreements,
the
Soviet
Government
notified u s t h r o u g h the Soviet Embassy i n T i r a n a o n
J a n u a r y 6, 1961 that it d i d not concur w i t h the proposal
of the A l b a n i a n G o v e r n m e n t and stated that economic
questions
ferences
"could
between
Practically,
this
be
our
discussed
two
meant
only
Parties
that
the
at
and
top-level
con-
Governments".
Soviet
Government
directly connected the discussion of economic questions
and the s i g n i n g of agreements w i t h its attempts to i m pose on our P a r t y the v i e w s of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s group.
This
becomes
even clearer
if
we
take
into
account
the fact that these matters had been already discussed
in M o s c o w in December 1958 between the representatives
of the Parties and Governments of both o u r countries and
at top-level talks and the agreements had been signed
on A p r i l 3 a n d J u l y 3, 1959 respectively.
T h u s , it is
clear that the Soviet leaders w e r e m a k i n g use of the question of economic assistance as a means of p u t t i n g pressure on the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a on the eve of its
97
f o u r t h Congress w h i c h was held in F e b r u a r y
1961, to
c o m p e l it to give up its M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t views.
This
apparently was N. Khrushchev's " t h i r d earnest 'effort' "
to settle differences and to restore the relations w i t h the
P a r t y of Labour of A l b a n i a and w i t h the People's R e public of A l b a n i a to their n o r m a l state.
In its letter dated J a n u a r y 14, 1961, the C e n t r a l C o m mittee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a e x p l a i n e d once
again, in a reasonable and patient manner, h o w things
stood in reality and expressed its readiness to solve the
misunderstandings in a just, M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t w a y .
The
Central Committee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a
stressed, among other things:
" W e cannot but express our surprise at the recent
decisions taken by the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t on these
matters and we cannot understand on w h a t grounds
it can one-sidedly request a re-examination the abovementioned matters, discussed and settled a n d d u l y
concluded at top-level conferences of the P a r t i e s
and Governments of the t w o countries . . . T h e
P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a n i a and the A l b a n i a n G o v ernment have considered and w i l l always consider
it a pleasure that top-level or any-other-level d e l egations of our t w o Parties and our t w o G o v e r n ments should meet, for our P a r t y , our people and
our country are bound by ties of eternal f r i e n d ship w i t h the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n ,
w i t h the Soviet people and w i t h the Soviet U n i o n ;
but, under the conditions set f o r t h by the Soviet
Government, the Central Committee of the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a does not deem it advisable and
98
proper to send a top-level delegation: firstly, because
as stated above, the matters in question have been
discussed and settled d e f i n i t i v e l y by both parties in
complete agreement and on the highest l e v e l ; a n d
secondly, because the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t raises these
questions in a w r o n g manner, contrary to the spirit of
relations between socialist countries, therefore inacceptable to u s . "
It eventually became clear that the C e n t r a l Committee
of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a had made a correct
assessment of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s aims, of his plans to s u b jugate our P a r t y through economic pressure, to m a k e
economic assistance depend on approval of N. K h r u shchev's opportunist line.
It w a s clear that the Soviet
leading group had no i n t e n t i o n of c a r r y i n g on talks to
settle the economic problems under discussion but i n tended to dictate to our P a r t y the conditions of surrender.
T h i s is w e l l understood f r o m the letter of the Soviet
Government dated A p r i l 26, 1961 and signed by F i r s t
Deputy C h a i r m a n of the C o u n c i l of M i n i s t e r s of the
Soviet U n i o n , A. K o s i g i n , addressed to the A l b a n i a n
Government, w h i c h states among other things:
" H a v i n g w e i g h e d a l l the circumstances, the Soviet
G o v e r n m e n t is compelled to re-examine the question of
f u t u r e relations w i t h the People's R e p u b l i c o f A l bania.
T h e Soviet people as w e l l as the peoples of
the other socialist countries w o u l d not understand us
if, by d e p r i v i n g our c o u n t r y of its material resources,
w e w o u l d continue t o f u l f i l the requests o f the A l banian leaders w h o , contrary to the interests of the
A l b a n i a n people, trample u p o n elementary norms i n
99
their relations w i t h the Soviet U n i o n and its G o v e r n ment
. . . I t i s evident that the A l b a n i a n leaders c a n -
not hope any further that the Soviet U n i o n w i l l assist
them on the former basis, w i t h aid w h i c h o n l y real
friends and brothers are entitled to.
H e n c e f o r t h the
Soviet U n i o n considers it necessary to b u i l d its r e l a tions w i t h
A l b a n i a on a n e w basis, considering the
u n f r i e n d l y policy w h i c h its leaders pursue towards the
Soviet U n i o n and the other socialist countries
. . . As
f a r as the f u t u r e relations between our t w o countries
and the aid of the Soviet U n i o n to A l b a n i a are c o n cerned, they w i l l f u l l y depend o n w h a t attitude the
A l b a n i a n side w i l l m a i n t a i n
. . ."
THE PARTY OF LABOUR OF ALBANIA HAS MADE
EARNEST
EFFORTS
TO
SETTLE
THE
DIFFERENCES WITH T H E SOVIET
L E A D E R S IN A M A R X I S T LENINIST W A Y
Whoever has f o l l o w e d w i t h interest the development
of A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t relations, even t h r o u g h the f r a g m e n tary quotations of the correspondence exchanged between
our t w o parties published here, w i l l note that since the
J u n e 1960 Bucharest M e e t i n g ,
N.
Khrushchev's group
have merely tried to subjugate the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a and to impose their ideas u p o n it.
T h e Soviet
leaders have l a i d à priori conditions, have made threats
to o u r P a r t y in every letter and in every "earnest eff o r t " t o improve their relations w i t h the P L A .
100
This is
clearly seen in the quotation w h i c h we have just cited
f r o m their letter dated A p r i l 26, 1961.
T h e C e n t r a l Committee o f the P L A and the A l banian G o v e r n m e n t have, on the contrary, s h o w n p a tience and coolness in order to forestall any premeditated
measures w h i c h N. K h r u s h c h e v and his f o l l o w e r s may
initiate.
T h i s is also evident in the letter of r e p l y w h i c h
the C e n t r a l Committee o f the P L A sent t o the C e n t r a l
Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n
and the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t on J u l y 6, 1961. In this letter
the C e n t r a l Committee of our P a r t y states its views on
the ways to be pursued in order to settle the differences
existing between our t w o parties i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h the
actual objective situation that had been created at the
time.
" O f course," the letter of r e p l y of the C e n t r a l C o m mittee of the P L A says, " w e k n o w that the settlement of
these misunderstandings requires time, m u t u a l patience
and great efforts, so that necessary conditions may be
created in order to do a w a y w i t h the negative phenomena
w h i c h have appeared i n the f r i e n d l y , fraternal and, w e
can most u n d o u b t e d l y say, more t h a n e x e m p l a r y r e l a tions w h i c h f o r m e r l y existed between our t w o Parties,
our t w o countries and our t w o fraternal peoples.
The
first t h i n g to do in this d i r e c t i o n is to discontinue the
practice of e x t e n d i n g the ideological misunderstandings
existing between our t w o Parties i n t o the f i e l d of state
relations, economic, political and m i l i t a r y .
" O u r P a r t y and our G o v e r n m e n t have never refused
to carry on bilateral talks on any questions. B u t we have
insisted and continue to insist that the necessary c o n d i tions, conditions of e q u a l i t y f o r both parties, s h o u l d be
101
created for such talks." T h e Soviet leaders, however, w i t h
N. K h r u s h c h e v at the head, pursued the dangerous practice of p l a c i n g the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a in a position of inequality, of h u m i l i a t i o n a n d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ;
they f i n a l l y closed a l l paths for talks and settlement of
differences by their letter of A u g u s t 24, 1961, to the C e n t r a l Committee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a . In this
letter N. K h r u s h c h e v and his group embarked on the
road t o mean provocations a n d subversion.
N. K h r u shchev and his group diverted the issue of the differences
between our t w o Parties onto another level, to that of
police-agency, going so far as to c a l l the leaders of the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a "agents of f o r e i g n i n t e l l i gence".
T h i s letter is in fact a p r e l u d e to w h a t took
place at the 22nd Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of
the Soviet U n i o n w h e n N . K h r u s h c h e v made p u b l i c t o
all our common foes the divergences in the socialist camp
and i n the international c o m m u n i s t and w o r k e r s ' m o v e ment.
T h i s was N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s " f o u r t h earnest e f f o r t " to
settle the differences w i t h the P L A , efforts w h i c h w e r e
later substantiated at the 22nd Congress by his c a l l f o r
a counter-revolution in A l b a n i a .
T h u s , N. K h r u s h c h e v
deliberately aggravated the relations to the utmost,
leaving no leeway for discussions. Despite that, the
Central Committee o f the P L A , i g n o r i n g N . K h r u s h c h e v ' s
provocations
and
monstrous slanders,
conscious of
the great damage w h i c h N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s doings w e r e
causing to the communist movement in general and
to the socialist c a m p and
to the f r i e n d s h i p b e tween the A l b a n i a n and Soviet peoples in particular,
appealed to the C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m m u n i s t
102
Party of the Soviet U n i o n again to " e x a m i n e the situation
created w i t h coolness".
In the letter of r e p l y approved
on October 12, 1961 by the P l e n u m of the C e n t r a l C o m mittee of the P a r t y of
Labour
of
Albania
which
was
addressed to the C P S U ' s C e n t r a l Committee to be elected
at its 22nd Congress (the letter was handed to the Soviet
Embassy in T i r a n a on N o v e m b e r 11, 1961) we w r o t e :
"Greatly
disturbed
by
the
undesirable
and
very
critical situation of the present A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t r e l a tions o r i g i n a t i n g in the b r u t a l a n t i - M a r x i s t acts of N.
Khrushchev and
his group, the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a appeals to the C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m munist P a r t y
situation
of
created
the
Soviet
with
Union
coolness
measures to restore it to normalcy
the
Central
Albania
is
Committee
of
the
to
and
examine
take
the
necessary
. . . T h e P l e n u m of
Party
of
Labour
of
of the o p i n i o n that the r e m e d y i n g of this
dangerous disease requires the urgent intervention of
the C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the
Soviet U n i o n i n w h i c h the P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a n i a
has had and continues to have abiding confidence."
In his speech on November 7, 1961 C o m r a d e E n v e r
Hoxha emphasized in the same spirit:
" W i t h f u l l serenity a n d w i t h a clear conscience the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a appeals to the C o m m u n i s t
P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n , appeals to its newly-elected
C e n t r a l Committee, to consider w i t h L e n i n i s t justice,
objectively and serenely and pass unbiased judgment
on the situation created between our t w o Parties and
103
our two countries.
F o r the sake of the u n i t y of the
communist movement and the socialist camp, for t h e
sake of the interests of our countries, our P a r t y has
always been w i l l i n g to settle the existing differences.
B u t it has always h e l d and continues to h o l d t h e v i e w
that these matters s h o u l d be settled correctly, o n l y in a
M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t w a y under conditions o f e q u a l i t y a n d
not those of imposition and dictation.
We place our
hope and trust in the justice of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y
of the Soviet U n i o n . "
If the cause of the u n i t y of the international c o m m u n i s t
movement and of the socialist camp w e r e dear to N.
K h r u s h c h e v and his group, if they w e r e guided by the
desire to settle these differences and not to aggravate
relations beyond repair, if logic and not the u n b r i d l e d
w h i m of one w h o insists on h a v i n g his w a y existed, t h e n
reason w o u l d prevail.
T h e y say that the dumbest deaf-
m u t e i s the one w h o i s u n w i l l i n g t o listen.
A n d so it ac-
t u a l l y happened: they not o n l y ignored the w i s e and
earnest appeal w h i c h the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a
made regardless of w h a t was said at the 22nd Congress
of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n , but they
w e n t further
and
very
far
indeed
in
committing
the
unparalleled act of breaking diplomatic relations, an act
only b e f i t t i n g one w h o says:
"I am the boss, I do w h a t
I please, I care for nobody else's o p i n i o n . "
The unfor-
tunate t h i n g about this is that this " I " is today at the
head of the Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n and
at the head
of the Soviet Government,
revisionist views
and acts
that
his
cause great damage to
the
104
and
communist movement as a w h o l e , to the socialist camp
and to h u m a n i t y at large.
T h e numerous facts of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s a n t i - M a r x i s t
attitude towards our P a r t y and our c o u n t r y show clearly
that his acts are deliberately directed against the P L A
and the A l b a n i a n people, against A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t amity.
B u t despite their relentless assaults and a n t i - M a r x i s t acts
N. K h r u s h c h e v and his g r o u p have been u n a b l e to shake
the solid basis of the sacred f r i e n d s h i p of our c o u n t r y
w i t h the glorious Soviet U n i o n . In spite of his u n b r i d l e d
assaults, our P a r t y has always maintained a just stand
of p r i n c i p l e towards our f r i e n d s h i p w i t h the Soviet
Union.
Whereas f o r m e r l y the columns of the Soviet
press maintained complete silence about the achievements of o u r people in socialist construction — as if t h e
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a and the A l b a n i a n people
ceased to exist on the face of the globe, n o w they are
f i l l e d w i t h assaults and commonplace slanders against
our P a r t y a n d our c o u n t r y (about 150 d i f f e r e n t articles
assailing the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a have been
published in the p r i n c i p a l organs of Soviet propaganda
since the 22nd Congress), the P L A press writes c o n t i n u ously about the achievements of the f r a t e r n a l Soviet
people in their construction of c o m m u n i s m . T h e 4th
Congress of the P L A was another clear proof that the
line of our P a r t y towards A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t f r i e n d s h i p has
been kept unaltered and has been based always on p r i n ciple. " F r i e n d s h i p w i t h the Soviet U n i o n , " the Resolution
of the 4th Congress of the P L A stresses, "has been, is and
w i l l always be the corner-stone of our f o r e i g n policy.
It has been forged by our heroic P a r t y in the thick of
the struggle f o r freedom, socialism and peace; it is based
105
on the M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t principles of proletarian i n t e r n a tionalism.
T h e friendship w i t h the Soviet U n i o n w i l l
g r o w ever stronger. T h e r e is no f o r c e in the w o r l d able
to h a r m it. Just as our people have in the Soviet people
and in the Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n their
staunchest f r i e n d , so can the Soviet people count on the
P a r t y of L a b o u r and the people of A l b a n i a as their l o y a l
f r i e n d . " In the days to come, too, our P a r t y w i l l safeguard
the f r i e n d s h i p of our people w i t h the f r a t e r n a l Soviet
people as a precious treasure and w i l l do its utmost to
strengthen it. It is our honest conviction that A l b a n i a n Soviet friendship w i l l always t r i u m p h over t h e a n t i A l b a n i a n activity of N. K h r u s h c h e v and his m e n .
N.
KHRUSHCHEV'S ANTI-MARXIST ATTITUDE
TOWARDS
THE
PLA
IS
A
DIRECT
C O N S E Q U E N C E O F HIS D E P A R T U R E
FROM MARXIST-LENINIST THEORY
Facts point out that a l l of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s " e f f o r t s "
w i t h regard t o the P L A have been and continue t o b e
directed not towards settling the differences but towards
aggravating A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t relations. Since the B u c h a rest M e e t i n g N. K h r u s h c h e v and his g r o u p have made
systematic and increasingly persistent efforts at first to
make our P a r t y toe his opportunist line, to agree
w i t h his a n t i - M a r x i s t stand and w i t h his attempts to split
the socialist camp; then to reduce it to silence concerning
N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s a n t i - M a r x i s t v i e w s and doings; and later,
to compel the P L A , t h r o u g h pressures of a l l kinds, to y i e l d
and finally, to eliminate and, if that is impossible, at
106
least to isolate it.
E a c h phase has its o w n means and
method of approach and N. K h r u s h c h e v and his group
have lots of t h e m in store f o r use in order to force their
o w n w i l l o n others. T h e methods w h i c h N . K h r u s h chev used and continues to use against the P a r t y of L a bour of A l b a n i a are an i n e v i t a b l e consequence of his
departure f r o m M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t theory; they are the
other side of the coin w h i c h illustrates his true opportunist and a n t i - M a r x i s t features.
N . K h r u s h c h e v ' s a n t i - M a r x i s t stand towards the P L A
is not at a l l something fortuitous and isolated. It c o n stitutes o n l y one of the links in the c h a i n of his acts
against the socialist c a m p and the international c o m munist and w o r k e r s ' movement, w h i c h he tries to d r a w
on to his road of out-and-out o p p o r t u n i s m and r e v i s i o n ism, of u n p r i n c i p l e d concessions to i m p e r i a l i s m , on to the
perilous road of bourgeois pacifism. T h r o u g h his v i e w s
and acts he has created great c o n f u s i o n in the ranks of
some C o m m u n i s t and W o r k e r s ' Parties, a t h i n g that c a n not but weaken their positions, that discredits and c o m promises them. In order to attain his a n t i - M a r x i s t ends N.
K h r u s h c h e v takes no account of consequences but d e l i b erately goes on c o m m i t t i n g grave crimes that i n c u r
colossal losses to the entire communist movement of the
w o r l d , to the great cause of socialism a n d c o m m u n i s m .
He is in fact s p l i t t i n g the socialist camp and the i n t e r n a tional c o m m u n i s t movement.
A r e N. Khrushchev's u n paralleled acts against the P a r t y of L a b o u r and the P e o ple's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a not a clear enough proof of
this? O n e must be deprived of a l l reason to say that
such acts of N. K h r u s h c h e v and his g r o u p as their pressures and economic and political blockades against a so107
cialist country l i k e A l b a n i a , w h i c h acts w e n t so far as to
result in actual rupture of diplomatic relations w i t h the
People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , serve to "consolidate the
u n i t y of the socialist camp and the communist m o v e ment"!
But, i s i t o n l y against the P L A that K h r u s h c h e v
adopts such an a n t i - M a r x i s t attitude?
N o t at a l l .
Khrushchev's anti-Marxist group has indeed committed n u m e r ous acts of b l a c k m a i l against the P L A .
B u t is it o n l y
against our P a r t y that he commits these acts and carries
on his blackmail in the lobbies and b e h i n d the scenes?
N. K h r u s h c h e v and his a n t i - M a r x i s t g r o u p are every
day going farther and farther d o w n the dangerous
road.
T h e y are preparing n e w and more serious crimes
against the socialist camp and the communist movement.
O u r P a r t y , as w e l l as M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t s throughout the
w o r l d , is f u l l y aware of and deeply concerned about the
serious p e r i l w h i c h , brought about by the a n t i - M a r x i s t
views and activities of N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s revisionist group,
is threatening the cause of socialism and c o m m u n i s m .
M a i n t a i n i n g f u l l responsibility before the A l b a n i a n people
and international communism, the P L A deems i t its l o f t y
duty to carry on by a l l the means and possibilities w i t h i n
its reach, a relentless w a r of p r i n c i p l e to safeguard the
p u r i t y of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m , the solidarity of the socialist
camp b y M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t methods, and b y M a r x i s t L e n i n i s t methods alone. It is o n l y t h r o u g h a d e t e r m i n e d
w a r of p r i n c i p l e that M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m c a n be safeguarded and protected f r o m N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s r e v i s i o n ist attacks, only in this manner c a n the M o s c o w D e c l a ration of the 81 C o m m u n i s t and W o r k e r s ' Parties be
defended, w h i c h N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s adherents are n o w
scornfully c a l l i n g a document "of l i m i t e d clauses" w h i c h
108
"cannot
have
the
desired
universal
validity"
(in
other w o r d s : "a document of compromise of no v a l u e "
as N. K h r u s h c h e v labelled it in its draft f o r m in October,
1960), o n l y in this w a y can the u n i t y of the socialist
camp, w h i c h N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s a n t i - M a r x i s t group is
t r a m p l i n g under foot and seriously damaging, be m a i n tained.
N. K h r u s h c h e v and his propagandists are t r y i n g in
vain to reproach our P a r t y in a slanderous w a y w i t h
anti-Soviet tendencies.
O u r P a r t y does not confuse N.
K h r u s h c h e v ' s a n t i - M a r x i s t group w i t h the glorious
Soviet U n i o n and w i t h the f r a t e r n a l Soviet people.
To
be f r i e n d l y towards the Soviet U n i o n and l o y a l to
it does not mean to shut y o u r eyes and f o l l o w b l i n d l y
in the a n t i - M a r x i s t footsteps of N. K h r u s h c h e v even w h e n
those footsteps lead to perdition and cause great damage
to the communist movement, to the socialist camp and
to the interests and prestige of the Soviet U n i o n itself.
B y combating N . K h r u s h c h e v ' s a n t i - M a r x i s t v i e w s and
doings, the P L A fights t o safeguard A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t
friendship.
"A f r i e n d in need is a f r i e n d i n d e e d , " as a
popular A l b a n i a n saying goes. O u r P a r t y and our people
have g i v e n tangible proof, not o n l y in w o r d s but in deeds
as w e l l , that they are staunch friends of the Soviet U n i o n
and of the f r a t e r n a l Soviet people, that they have stood
and w i l l continue to stand f i r m l y by the Soviet U n i o n
at every moment and under a l l circumstances, in days of
joy and of sorrow.
T h i s has been, is and w i l l always be
our u n w a v e r i n g stand.
N.
K h r u s h c h e v ' s propagandists are n o w t r y i n g to
justify the attacks made at the 22nd Congress of the
C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n and a l l the subse109
quent acts of the present Soviet leaders against the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a .
B u t that is useless, f o r it is not
a question of justifications but one of response; f o r people and communists throughout the w o r l d w a n t to see
justice done, want t o k n o w : " W h y i s the P L A s o r u t h lessly attacked, w h y does K h r u s h c h e v cause dissension
in the socialist camp and to whose advantage is a l l t h i s ? "
Instead of empty words of justification, N. K h r u s h c h e v ' s
group should muster enough communist courage and
bravery, w h i c h o n l y M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t s possess, to f u l l y
admit and p u b l i c l y condemn the a n t i - M a r x i s t acts against
the P L A , against the international c o m m u n i s t and w o r k e r s '
movement, against the socialist camp, against t h e great
cause of socialism and c o m m u n i s m .
KHRUSHCHEV AGAIN
IN THE ROLE OF A DEMAGOGUE,
A SLANDERER
AND A SOWER OF DISSENSION
Article published in the newspaper
Zëri i Popullit
April 18, 1963
On M a r c h 30 of the current year the C e n t r a l Committee
of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n dispatched a
letter to the C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y
of C h i n a , w h i c h was published in the newspaper Zëri i
Popullit on A p r i l 17, 1963.
T h i s letter treats, among other questions, the organization of bilateral talks between representatives of the
C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n and of the C o m munist P a r t y of C h i n a concerning the relations between
the two P a r t i e s and the p r e l i m i n a r y arrangements for
an international meeting of the communist and w o r k e r s '
parties.
T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has a l w a y s expressed
itself in favor of meetings, talks and comradely consultations on conditions of parity for the purpose of settling
misunderstandings that arise among communist and
workers' parties of different countries and in the ranks
of the international communist movement as a w h o l e .
O u r P a r t y is of the o p i n i o n that m u t u a l exchange of
views and the organization of bilateral meetings and talks
is an i n t e r n a l affair of the parties concerned.
B u t since in this letter K h r u s h c h e v , persisting in carryi n g on his open polemics w i t h the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a ( w h i c h goes to f u r t h e r prove that his statements
at the 6th Congress of t h e G e r m a n Socialist U n i t y P a r t y
about p u t t i n g an end to disputes and so f o r t h are sheer
b l u f f and hypocrisy), launches attacks against our P a r t y
by c a l u m n i a t i n g it in a biased w a y , t r y i n g at the same
113
time to demagogically present himself and his attitude as
being i n l i n e w i t h the teachings o f M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m
and w i t h the M o s c o w Declaration and Statement, w e
have to make a reply.
T h e letter of the C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m m u n i s t
P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n to the C e n t r a l Committee of
the Communist P a r t y of C h i n a contains among other
things the f o l l o w i n g :
"In your letter y o u touch upon the A l b a n i a n and
Yugoslav problems.
As we have written, we are of
the opinion that though they are matters of principle,
they cannot and should not eclipse the m a i n issues of
our times w h i c h demand discussion at our meeting.
O u r Party, condemning the splitting activities of the
A l b a n i a n leaders, has at the same time ceaselessly u n dertaken the necessary steps to normalize the relations
between the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and the C o m munist Party of the Soviet U n i o n and other fraternal
parties.
A l t h o u g h the leaders of the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a have recently launched slanderous attacks
against our P a r t y and the Soviet people, we, prompted
by the highest interests, do not renounce the idea that
the relations between the Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n and the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a m a y be
improved.
Towards the end of F e b r u a r y this
year,
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet U n i o n took another initiative and proposed to
the Central Committee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a nia to hold a bilateral meeting of the representatives of
both our parties.
T h e leaders of the Party of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a did not consider it necessary even to accept
114
our letter containing the proposal of the Central C o m mittee of the Soviet U n i o n
for
a bilateral meeting.
Later on, apparently after t h i n k i n g it over, the A l b a nian leaders sent a letter in w h i c h they speak of such
a meeting under a number of reservations and conditions.
If the desire is t r u l y expressed we are ready
to come to such a meeting."
As can be seen, K h r u s h c h e v ' s group have combined
their resentment, slander and attacks against the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a w i t h p e r j u r y and demagogy in these
paragraphs, too.
T h e y t r y in every w a y to shift the r e -
sponsibility for their o w n faults on to others, to make the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a responsible for the undesirable
situation
in
Albanian-Soviet
relations.
They
try
once
again to mislead the w h o l e communist movement and the
international p u b l i c o p i n i o n .
THE
SO-CALLED
CASUAL
"ALBANIAN
AND
ISSUE"
ISOLATED
IS
NOT
A
INCIDENT
T h e above-mentioned letter of the C e n t r a l Committee
of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n to the C e n tral Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a alludes
to the so-called
"Albanian
issue"
which
"cannot
should not eclipse the m a i n issues of our t i m e s " .
and
But
what is this so-called " A l b a n i a n issue" and does it really
exist?
T h e r e exists no " A l b a n i a n i s s u e " per se, it is o n l y
a t r u m p e d - u p affair of K h r u s h c h e v ' s w h o wants to c o n ceal his o w n hostile acts and attitude towards the P a r t y
of L a b o u r and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a and to
115
j u s t i f y his further attacks and slanders against them. It
is an attempt to present this "issue" as one of secondary
importance, isolated f r o m the " m a i n issues" of our times
a n d f r o m the deep differences of principle w h i c h have
arisen w i t h i n the ranks of the international communist
movement and w h i c h , according to h i m , seem to have
been brought about by the " e r r o n e o u s " and " i n c o r r e c t "
views and stand of the A l b a n i a n leaders.
In sizing up this p r o b l e m we do not proceed from narr o w premises, we do not proceed o n l y f r o m the fact of
our being directly interested in the matter, but we t h i n k
that this is an essential issue of principle.
T h e so-called " A l b a n i a n i s s u e " is by no means a casual
and isolated incident ; it is not even confined to the n a r r o w
f r a m e w o r k of mere A l b a n i a n - S o v i e t relations, but is one
of the most emphatic and t y p i c a l manifestations of the
great struggle being waged today between M a r x i s m L e n i n i s m on the one hand and m o d e r n revisionism represented by the T i t o i t e c l i q u e and K h r u s h c h e v ' s group on
the other. It is part and parcel of this struggle, because
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a resolutely upholds the
line of revolutionary M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m and wages an
irreconcilable struggle against modern revisionism. T h e
question of S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n relations, the question of the
relations between our t w o parties and our t w o countries
is closely connected w i t h this great issue of principle.
H o w d i d the so-called " A l b a n i a n issue" arise? B e f o r e
Khrushchev's group came out in the open w i t h t h e i r
outspoken a n t i - M a r x i s t , opportunist, revisionist line, that
is, w h e n they w e r e c a r r y i n g on their activities in forms
more or less camouflaged and under zig-zag subterfuges
imposed by the circumstances of the time, the P a r t y of
116
Labour of A l b a n i a , m a i n t a i n i n g a correct M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t
attitude, was s i l e n t l y at variance w i t h t h e m on a number
of important issues, such as the stand towards J. V. S t a l i n
and his w o r k , towards the Y u g o s l a v revisionists a n d so
on. A l t h o u g h the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a opposed in
silence K h r u s h c h e v ' s activities in a number of matters,
it w a g e d an open resolute fight against the Y u g o s l a v
revisionists and m a i n t a i n e d a clear-cut attitude towards
them as renegades f r o m M a r x i s m and enemies of socialism, thus c o m i n g into open conflict w i t h K h r u s h c h e v ' s
attempts to rehabilitate the T i t o i t e clique, to reconcile
and get close to t h e m .
K h r u s h c h e v has ever since seen
clearly enough that the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a was
a stumbling-block in his w a y to realizing his a n t i - M a r x i s t
ends.
T h i s determined also his disguised hostile attitude
towards the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a for its correct l i n e
of action in general and especially f o r its resolute clearcut stand towards the Titoite clique, K h r u s h c h e v ' s
f u t u r e allies. Nevertheless the so-called " A l b a n i a n issue"
had not yet come to the fore.
T h e " A l b a n i a n issue"
came up w h e n K h r u s h c h e v openly set out to split the
u n i t y of the socialist camp and of the international c o m munist movement, w h e n he strove to force his revisionist
line on t h e m by u s i n g rude and a n t i - M a r x i s t methods.
T h i s came about at the J u n e 1960 Bucharest meeting and
at the meeting of the 81 communist and w o r k e r s ' parties
in M o s c o w in N o v e m b e r of the same year w h e r e the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a together w i t h other fraternal
parties persistently opposed the s p l i t t i n g attempts of
K h r u s h c h e v , criticized his hazardous a n t i - M a r x i s t views,
attitude and acts, courageously u p h e l d the M a r x i s t - L e n i n ist l i n e of the international communist movement and its
117
unity.
It was f r o m here on that K h r u s h c h e v aired in
public the ideological differences between the P a r t y of
L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and his group, that K h r u s h c h e v ' s
group and their followers started the open and u n p r i n c i pled fight against the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , a
fight w h i c h became more and more bitter, reaching its
culmination w i t h the p u b l i c attacks f r o m the r o s t r u m of
the 22nd Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet
U n i o n and in the press and subsequent congresses of
certain other parties.
Thus, the so-called " A l b a n i a n issue" came into being
as an aspect of the struggle between M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m
and revisionism, between the Parties w h i c h f o l l o w the
revolutionary line and the revisionists, K h r u s h c h e v ' s
group and their followers. In reality, therefore, this is
an issue concerning the general l i n e of the international
communist movement w i t h w h i c h K h r u s h c h e v , openly o r
in disguise, has always been at variance; it is connected
w i t h the question whether this movement w i l l develop
along the l i n e of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m or that of r e v i s i o n ism.
THE
PARTY
OF
LABOUR
OF
ALBANIA
HAS
L O Y A L L Y PURSUED THE COMMON LINE OF T H E
INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNIST
MOVEMENT
T h e l i n e of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has always
been i n f u l l agreement w i t h the general l i n e o f the i n ternational communist movement; it has been a correct,
consistent l i n e in all problems of present w o r l d development.
The
Party
of
Labour
118
of
Albania
has
strictly
observed the basic teachings of M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m , the
principles of proletarian internationalism, the p r o g r a m matic documents of the international communist movement, the 1957 and 1960 M o s c o w Declarations.
Its
correct l i n e has been clearly expressed in a l l the w r i t i n g s
and documents of the P a r t y as w e l l as in a l l the practical
acts of our P a r t y and Government.
T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has continuously stood
in positions of irreconcilable combat against imperialism,
has never n u r t u r e d a n y illusions about the change of its
aggressive nature, has resolutely exposed the aggressive
and w a r m o n g e r i n g policy of imperialism, especially of
A m e r i c a n imperialism, considering it as the center of
w o r l d reaction and international gendarme, as the b i t terest enemy of m a n k i n d .
B e i n g f u l l y aware of the
change in the balance of forces in favor of the forces of
socialism, peace and the national l i b e r a t i o n movement,
our P a r t y has never overestimated or underestimated the
strength of the imperialists and it has never committed
the error of a d v e n t u r i s m or capitulationism.
T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a considers the establishment of the w o r l d socialist system as the highest historical
achievement of the international w o r k i n g class.
T h e socialist camp is the p o w e r f u l base supporting the w o r l d
revolutionary and liberation movement; it is the m a i n spring of power in the struggle against i m p e r i a l i s m , and is
the b u l w a r k of peace and social progress for a l l m a n k i n d .
T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has resolutely pursued
the policy of friendship, fraternity, co-operation and m u tual assistance w i t h a l l the socialist countries. It has
loyally applied and strictly observed the norms of r e l a tionship among socialist countries and communist parties.
119
It has always considered the h e l p and support of other
socialist countries as a v e r y important factor in b u i l d i n g
socialism in A l b a n i a . On its part it has rendered its o w n
contribution to strengthening the socialist camp and its
unity.
In their relations w i t h the capitalist countries the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and the G o v e r n m e n t of the People's
R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a have consistently pursued the p o l i c y
of peaceful coexistence based on the principles of equality,
non-interference in each other's i n t e r n a l affairs and
m u t u a l respect, a p o l i c y w h i c h they have always v i e w e d
as a f o r m of class struggle in the international arena
being continually w a g e d in a l l ideological, political and
economic fronts, between the t w o systems, the capitalist
and the socialist.
T h i s they have considered and continue
to consider as the o n l y correct p o l i c y between countries
w i t h different social systems but they have never applied
it in the relations between the opposing classes in the
capitalist countries or in the relations between the o p pressed and enslaved peoples and the imperialist c o l o n i a l ists.
T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has v i e w e d the struggle
for peaceful coexistence between countries w i t h d i f f e r e n t
social systems as an important w a y to safeguard and c o n solidate peace in the w o r l d .
In v i e w of present c o n d i tions it has not considered nor does it consider today a
w o r l d w a r or other aggressive wars of the imperialists
as fatally inevitable, but at the same t i m e it holds the
v i e w that, as l o n g as i m p e r i a l i s m exists, the basis f o r
aggressive wars remains.
It has always made a distinction between just and unjust w a r s ; it has unreservedly
supported the just wars and exposed and condemned the
120
international aggressors. T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a
has v i e w e d the struggle f o r peace as a f i g h t against the
imperialists, headed by the U n i t e d States, because they
are opponents of peace and it is precisely f r o m t h e m that
the danger of w a r comes. T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a
has been of the opinion, and continues to believe that
peace and peaceful coexistence cannot be expected to
be offered as a gift by the imperialists. Peace and
peaceful coexistence cannot be attained by flattery and
concessions, but o n l y by determined struggle of a l l the
peace-loving forces of the w o r l d f o r c i n g this on the i m perialists.
T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has been and continues
to be in f a v o r of easing international tension and of
solving outstanding problems that are faced today, such
as disarmament, nuclear test ban, conclusion of the
peace treaty w i t h G e r m a n y and the t u r n i n g of West
B e r l i n into a free and demilitarized city, etc. T h e s o l u tion of these problems requires that meetings and talks
be held a m o n g the representatives of the various states,
but these should be combined w i t h the struggle of the
peoples as the m a i n force to oblige the imperialists to
go to these meetings and talks, so that they m a y y i e l d
concrete results.
T h e P a r t y o f L a b o u r o f A l b a n i a has v i e w e d the n a tional l i b e r a t i o n movement of the peoples against i m perialist oppression and for f r e e d o m and national independence as one of the major movements of our times
that undermines the positions of the imperialists, weakens
and narrows d o w n their sphere of action.
B u t our P a r t y
is of the o p i n i o n that the colonial system of the i m p e r i a l ists has not yet been done a w a y w i t h , that m i l l i o n s u p o n
121
m i l l i o n s of people of entire continents still languish under
their sway and that the imperialists headed by the U n i t e d
States are doing their utmost, resorting even to wars and
open aggression, to maintain their positions and to reestablish their colonial oppression and exploitation in
newer forms. T h e struggle of these peoples against the
imperialists is, at the same time, a struggle for the t r i u m p h
of peace and peaceful coexistence, a potent a l l y and
p o w e r f u l support for the revolutionary struggle of the
international workers' movement and of a l l the socialist
countries. It is precisely on this account that the P a r t y
of L a b o u r and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a have
supported w i t h o u t reserve this just w a r of the peoples
for national liberation against the imperialists and have
given it every assistance. We have considered this s u p port and assistance a h i g h internationalist duty.
T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has l i k e w i s e u p h e l d and
supported w i t h o u t reserve the revolutionary movement
of the w o r k i n g class and of the w o r k i n g masses in the
capitalist countries against capitalist oppression and e x ploitation and f o r their social e m a n c i p a t i o n . It has a l w a y s
maintained the L e n i n i s t v i e w p o i n t that revolutions cannot be exported and it has at the same time expressed
itself against the exportation of counter-revolution by the
imperialists.
O u r P a r t y has maintained and continues to
maintain the v i e w that the p a t h to the t r i u m p h of r e v o l u tion does not necessarily have to pass t h r o u g h wars among
states, that such wars are neither the cause nor the essential condition for the t r i u m p h of the revolution.
As
to the forms of development of revolutions, it has m a i n tained the v i e w that they depend on the concrete historical
conditions in each country and on t h e international
122
situation. It has admitted and still admits the peaceful
way as a possibility for transition to socialism, but it has
expressed itself against m a k i n g this the absolute w a y
and against the reformist and opportunist interpretation
denying the need of b r e a k i n g up the old apparatus of the
bourgeois state and establishing the dictatorship of the
proletariat. O u r P a r t y has maintained that it is necessary
for the communist parties to be prepared at the same time
for both possibilities — the peaceful and the non-peaceful
ways, and is of the o p i n i o n that a good preparation f o r
the non-peaceful w a y increases the chances for the
t r i u m p h of socialism in the peaceful w a y .
T h i s has been in general the line of the P a r t y of L a b o u r
and of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a in its m a i n aspects l o n g before K h r u s h c h e v broached his " A l b a n i a n
question".
T h i s consistent line remained unaltered and
did not c o m p l y w i t h K h r u s h c h e v ' s opportunist and r e v i sionist l i n e even after he came out in the open w i t h his
a n t i - M a r x i s t course of action in opposition to the general
line of the international communist and w o r k e r s ' m o v e ment. T h e correct line and p r i n c i p l e d stand of the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has never been to K h r u s h c h e v ' s
l i k i n g and this is the source of the contradictions and the
disagreements w i t h h i m , the source of his bitter attacks
against the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a . It is precisely on
this account that he has called the l i n e of our P a r t y a
"sectarian", "dogmatic", " a d v e n t u r i s t " line, and the
leaders of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a "partisans of
the cult of t h e i n d i v i d u a l , of terror, of the violation of
socialist l e g a l i t y " etc., w i t h a v i e w to discrediting the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and i n t i m i d a t i n g others so
as to force on t h e m his a n t i - M a r x i s t line of action.
123
D E S P I T E HIS D E M A G O G Y , K H R U S H C H E V I S
U N A B L E T O C A M O U F L A G E HIS O U T - A N D OUT REVISIONIST LINE
B u t w h a t is this l i n e w h i c h K h r u s h c h e v has striven
to force on the
international
communist
and
workers'
movement and w h i c h he l o u d l y proclaims as a creative
M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t line?
In reality, despite his demagogy,
it is an entirely revisionist and opportunist l i n e that has
caused and is causing great damage to the socialist camp,
to the international communist movement, to the r e v o l u tionary and liberation struggles of the peoples against
imperialism, to the cause of peace, freedom, democracy
and socialism.
I n their propaganda, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n recent times, K h r u shchev's
group
continue
to
spread
their
anti-Marxist
thesis and t r y to prove by a play upon w o r d s that their
views and acts are in line w i t h the M o s c o w Declarations,
w i t h the L e n i n i s t teachings and the interests of the socialist camp and the international communist movement.
T h u s , for instance, K h r u s h c h e v ' s group c l a i m that they
are guided by "the L e n i n i s t spirit of irreconcilable s t r u g gle against the i m p e r i a l i s t s " and they reiterate some c o n clusions
of
popular
and
the
Moscow
predatory
Declarations
nature of
that
"the
imperialism
has
antinot
changed", that "the A m e r i c a n imperialists are n o w e x ercising the functions of an international gendarme", that
"because of their predatory nature the imperialists cannot
free themselves f r o m the tendency to settle contradictions
in the international arena t h r o u g h w a r s " and so on and
so forth.
124
B u t h o w can these b e reconciled w i t h K h r u s h c h e v ' s
former statements and acts? Is it not K h r u s h c h e v w h o
has a l l along t r i e d to spread illusions about the change
of the nature of the imperialists and their leaders, and on
this hypothesis based his entire attitude and activity? It
is precisely he w h o , disregarding "the predatory nature
of i m p e r i a l i s m " , has m o r e t h a n once declared that "a
w o r l d free of arms, free of armies and free of w a r s " can
be realized right away, that " t h e year 1960 w i l l go d o w n
in history as the year m a r k i n g the b e g i n n i n g of the r e a l i zation of this age-long dream of m a n k i n d " (Khrushchev's
conversation w i t h the director of the A r g e n t i n e newspaper Klarin on December 30, 1959), that " t h e real possib i l i t y of f i n a l l y e l i m i n a t i n g w a r f r o m the l i f e of society
for a l l time is b e i n g brought about d u r i n g our v e r y o w n
t i m e " (Khrushchev's speech in Indonesia on F e b r u a r y 21,
1960).
It is none other t h a n K h r u s h c h e v w h o has stated
that " t h e imperialists have taken our challenge for peacef u l competition in economic development to heart . . .
we are c o n t i n u a l l y d r a w i n g the capitalist countries t o wards the road of peaceful competition between the t w o
systems", that " n o w the question i s w h i c h system w i l l
show greater vitality, that is, w h i c h system w i l l give the
people m o r e m a t e r i a l and c u l t u r a l values in a shorter
period of t i m e " (Khrushchev's article in the j o u r n a l Communist, N o . 12, A u g u s t 1962).
In arrant contradiction to w h a t is said in the M o s c o w
Declarations on A m e r i c a n i m p e r i a l i s m and its leaders,
K h r u s h c h e v declared on his r e t u r n f r o m a visit to the
U S A before Moscovites, before a l l the people, before the G o v e r n m e n t and the P a r t y , that the President
of the U S A , Eisenhower, "is seriously eager to put an
125
e n d to the cold w a r " and that " h e enjoys the absolute
confidence of his p e o p l e " (Khrushchev's speech at the
r a l l y of the M o s c o w workers on September 28, 1959).
In
praising Eisenhower, M a c m i l l a n and d e G a u l l e , K h r u s h chev has said: " A l l of t h e m are a w a r e of the necessity
of serving to f u r t h e r ease international tension and to
settle international problems t h r o u g h discussions and not
through w a r " (Khrushchev's speech i n A z e r b a y d j a n o n
A p r i l 25, 1960).
K h r u s h c h e v has lavished praises on Eisenhower's successor, President K e n n e d y , as w e l l . E v e n d u r i n g the
critical days of the Caribbean crisis, w h e n K e n n e d y and
his government l a i d bare their features as w a r m o n g e r s
and aggressors, K h r u s h c h e v in his message of October 27,
1962, w r o t e to K e n n e d y : " Y o u r concern f o r the security
of y o u r country is understandable to me, M r . President,
for this is the p r i m e d u t y of a President . . . Y o u desire
to secure y o u r country and this is understandable".
In
his message sent one day later on October 28, 1962, he
wrote t o K e n n e d y : " I express m y satisfaction f o r y o u r
appreciation of the responsibility d e v o l v i n g n o w u p o n
y o u to preserve peace in the e n t i r e w o r l d " .
A c c o r d i n g to K h r u s h c h e v ' s statements, w a r is not an
offspring of i m p e r i a l i s m and its aggressive p o l i c y , but the
risk of w a r comes f r o m certain " m a d m e n " , f r o m certain
"lunatics", w h o "prefer to d i e in capitalism rather t h a n
l i v e i n c o m m u n i s m " . A n d according t o h i m , i t i s e x a c t l y
these persons w h o exert "a strong pressure" on " p e a c e f u l
P r e s i d e n t s " (who seem to desire to l i v e in communism!)
and o n the governments o f the U S A and other i m p e r i a l i s t
countries and w h o urge t h e m to pursue "at t i m e s " a n o n peaceful f o r e i g n p o l i c y . K h r u s h c h e v w e n t even s o f a r
126
as to slanderously allege that the danger of w a r comes
today also f r o m "people w h o pose as M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t s
but w h o , in reality, are dogmatic, w h o do not believe in
the possibility of achieving socialism and c o m m u n i s m
under conditions of peaceful coexistence w i t h c a p i t a l i s m "
(Khrushchev's speech at the Supreme Soviet of the U S S R
on December 12, 1962).
T h i s list of K h r u s h c h e v ' s statements and talks e m b e l lishing i m p e r i a l i s m and describing imperialist chieftains
as "peace-loving", is not at a l l exhausted. B u t we t h i n k
it is sufficient.
A n d w h e r e is to be f o u n d " t h e L e n i n i s t
spirit of irreconcilable struggle against the imperialists"
w h i c h K h r u s h c h e v uses to t r y to deceive the people?
Persisting in his demagogy, K h r u s h c h e v alleges that
he takes into account the change in the balance of forces
in the international arena and says that in order to p r e serve peace and forestall a w o r l d w a r " i t is necessary to
continuously strengthen the socialist system, the u n i t y of
all the forces of the international w o r k i n g class, the n a tional liberation movement and a l l the democratic forces".
B u t does K h r u s h c h e v really depend on these forces
to safeguard peace and forestall a w o r l d w a r and other
aggressive w a r s w h i c h the imperialists undertake? J u d g ing f r o m a l l the v i e w s and acts of K h r u s h c h e v ' s group
in the f i e l d of international politics, it w o u l d seem that
the destiny of peace and of the peoples depends on " s u perior i n d i v i d u a l s " , o n their " w i s d o m " and " r a t i o n a l i t y " ,
on the outcome of K h r u s h c h e v ' s talks w i t h the representatives of the imperialists, especially of the A m e r i c a n
imperialists. In a speech delivered as early as October
31, 1959 to the Supreme Soviet of the U S S R , K h r u s h c h e v
stated: " W e have said it m o r e t h a n once that the most
127
Complicated international issues can be settled o n l y by
the heads
of governments
vested
with
competent
authority. It is o n l y they w h o can clear up the p i l e of
anomalies in international relations accumulated d u r i n g
m a n y years of cold w a r " .
It was precisely in this spirit
that he and his followers called the K h r u s h c h e v - E i s e n hower meeting at C a m p D a v i d as the beginning of a " n e w
stage", of a " n e w e r a " , as "a t u r n i n g point in the history
o f m a n k i n d " . A . G r o m y k o , member o f the C e n t r a l C o m mittee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n and
M i n i s t e r for F o r e i g n A f f a i r s of the U S S R , stated in his
speech to the Supreme Soviet in December 1962 that "if
there is h a r m o n y between the C h a i r m a n of the Soviet
Government, K h r u s h c h e v , and the President of the U S A ,
K e n n e d y , there w i l l be also a settlement of the i n t e r n a tional issues".
In order to better realize this " h a r m o n y "
it was even decided recently to establish direct telephonic
communications between K h r u s h c h e v and K e n n e d y , b e tween these t w o statesmen w h o seem to have the destiny
o f m a n k i n d i n their o w n hands.
This is Khrushchev's
real concern!
Therefore, it is becoming more and more evident that
w h a t the m o d e r n revisionists say about the strength of
the peoples, about the role of the masses in the struggle
f o r peace, etc., is nothing but demagogy and deceit.
K h r u s h c h e v himself, in a speech on December 12, 1962,
went so far as to c a l l the struggle of the peoples against
the imperialists "hot air", "bombastic assertions" that
cause no damage to the imperialists. Moreover, K h r u s h chev has not hesitated to stigmatize a l l those w h o have
the courage to expose the imperialists and w h o call u p o n
the people to rise against the imperialists in defense of
128
peace and of their national l i b e r a t i o n and social e m a n cipation, as warmongers w h o " a r e eager to h u r l the w o r l d
into a nuclear catastrophe", w h o w i s h to score victory
over the imperialists " t h r o u g h w a r s among states, t h r o u g h
ravage and destruction, t h r o u g h bloodshed and the death
of millions of people".
In order to make people give up their just struggle
against the imperialists, in order to paralyze the r e v o l u tionary movement and the national l i b e r a t i o n w a r of the
peoples, K h r u s h c h e v has become a v o l u n t a r y propagandist
for the p o l i c y of atomic b l a c k m a i l w h i c h the A m e r i c a n
imperialists pursue, a t h i n g w h i c h goes to show that he
is scared to death, that he has slid i n t o the m i r e of d e featism, that he has lost a l l f a i t h in the t r i u m p h of socialism and c o m m u n i s m in the w o r l d at large. Is this not
borne out by K h r u s h c h e v ' s speech to the A u s t r i a n Soviet Society on J u l y 2, 1960, w h e r e he is recorded as
saying: "If i n this w o r l d w e cannot l i v e a s the l i v i n g
beings c o u l d l i v e in Noah's A r k but begin to settle
differences among states by means of w a r — w h o dislikes
socialism
and
who
dislikes
capitalism — then
w e w i l l w r e c k our Noah's A r k , our terrestrial globe."
He reiterated the same ideas in 1963 w h e n speaking
at the 6th Congress of the G e r m a n Socialist U n i t y
Party.
He stated:
" A c c o r d i n g to the accounts of the
scientists, 700 to 800 m i l l i o n persons w o u l d be k i l l e d
as a result of the first attack alone.
A l l the large cities,
not o n l y of the t w o superior atomic powers — the U n i t e d
States and the Soviet U n i o n — but also of France, E n g land, G e r m a n y , Italy, C h i n a , J a p a n and of m a n y other
countries of the w o r l d , w o u l d be destroyed and razed to
the ground.
T h e consequences of atomic and hydrogen
129
w a r w o u l d be felt throughout the l i f e of m a n y generations of men, causing diseases, deaths and l e a d i n g to the
ugliest development of m a n . " Statements of this k i n d
abound in Khrushchev's speeches as w e l l as in the p r o p aganda materials of his group.
A n d what do a l l of these show? S u c h pessimistic and
capitulationist stands serve o n l y the imperialists and cause
great damage to the struggle of the peoples in defense of
peace. A n d t r u l y enough, w h a t good comes f r o m the
propaganda of atomic b l a c k m a i l w h i c h K h r u s h c h e v also
joins w h e n the imperialists threaten the peoples w i t h
w a r and aggression? A r e the people of the socialist
countries and the other peace-loving people to be trained
and cultivated in this spirit of defeatism, so that in case
the imperialists l a u n c h a war, they should surrender u n conditionally and hoist the w h i t e flag?
W h a t does this
have in common w i t h the M o s c o w Declarations? Is it not
demagogical for K h r u s h c h e v , therefore, to state that " w e
w i l l constrain the imperialists not to forget that if they
l a u n c h a w a r to settle by f o r c e of arms the issue of w h i c h
path m a n k i n d w i l l f o l l o w — the capitalist or the socialist
— this w i l l be the f i n a l w a r in w h i c h i m p e r i a l i s m w i l l be
crushed"? T h e r e is no doubt that K h r u s h c h e v ' s demagogy
and sophistry w i l l f a i l to intimidate and deceive the
M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t s and the peoples.
K h r u s h c h e v speaks a great deal about peaceful coexistence, its L e n i n i s t meaning and its practical application
in conformity w i t h the terms of the M o s c o w Declarations.
A n d , to give the d e v i l "his due", he has even stressed
recently that coexistence "presupposes u n i n t e r r u p t e d
ideological, political and economic struggle between the
two social systems, the class struggle w i t h i n the countries
130
of the capitalist system i n c l u d i n g the armed struggle
w h e n the people consider it essential, the f u r t h e r development of the national liberation movement of the colonial
and dependent countries".
B u t h o w far is K h r u s h c h e v
f r o m these theses! If he conceives peaceful coexistence in
this w a y , then w h y does he accuse the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a and other f r a t e r n a l parties w h i c h consistently
abide by the terms of the M o s c o w Declarations as regards
this matter, of being opposed to peaceful coexistence?
As a matter of fact, here too, K h r u s h c h e v is demagogically p l a y i n g w i t h words, for although he admits in words
that "peaceful coexistence does not mean socialist and
bourgeois ideological reconciliation", he actually believes
that the ideological contradictions between the t w o
systems w i l l be settled not t h r o u g h revolutions for the
t r i u m p h of socialism in various countries, but t h r o u g h
peaceful economic competition between the t w o systems.
Thus, in an i n t e r v i e w granted on November 21, 1957 to
B r a z i l i a n journalists, K h r u s h c h e v stated: "If a l l the p e n d ing issues are settled through discussions and the ideological contradiction between the socialist and the capitalist
systems t h r o u g h peaceful competition in economic and
cultural development and i n f u l f i l l i n g the material and
c u l t u r a l demands of the people, we can say w i t h certainty
that a long period of peace w i l l be secured for h u m a n i t y " .
A l t h o u g h he admits in w o r d s that peaceful coexistence
presupposes the political struggle between the t w o
systems, K h r u s h c h e v in fact has renounced this s t r u g gle and, instead of e x p o s i n g the w a r m o n g e r i n g and a g gressive p o l i c y of the imperialists headed by the U n i t e d
States, he spreads, as we stressed above, all kinds of p a c i fist illusions about the imperialists and sings the praises
131
of their leaders.
K h r u s h c h e v has said,
" W e must ensure
that the inevitable struggle between the t w o systems is
channelled w i t h o u t exception into the struggle between
ideologies and into the peaceful competition or r i v a l r y ,
if we speak in terms more understandable for the c a p i t a l ists" (Khrushchev's speech to the Supreme Soviet of the
U S S R in J a n u a r y 1960). It is exactly the peaceful coexistence in this w a y that the present Secretary of the C e n t r a l
Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n ,
B. Ponomaryov, has dubbed as "the highest f o r m of class
struggle between t w o opposing systems — socialism and
capitalism"
(Pravda,
August
12,
1960).
A l t h o u g h they admit in words that peaceful coexistence
does not exclude but assumes the class struggle and n a tional
liberation
wars,
Khrushchev
and
his
group
in
reality m a i n t a i n the point of v i e w that peaceful coexistence and economic competition between the t w o systems
are the m a i n and more effective means for a c h i e v i n g n a tional liberation and social emancipation of the peoples.
A. R u m y a n c h e v , member of the C e n t r a l Committee of the
Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n , has said, " P e a c e f u l coexistence and that alone is the best and o n l y acceptable w a y to settle the problems of v i t a l importance
that
society
faces"
(Problems
of
Peace
and
Socialism,
N o . 1, 1962).
W i t h such a n t i - M a r x i s t views, K h r u s h c h e v has distorted the M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t conception of peaceful coexistence, on the one hand by p r o c l a i m i n g it as " t h e general
l i n e " of the f o r e i g n policy of the socialist countries, w h i l e
on the other hand, by attempting to force it "as a general
l i n e " o n the w o r l d revolutionary and l i b e r a t i o n m o v e 132
ment, w i t h the a i m of c o m p e l l i n g people to renounce their
revolutionary and liberation struggles.
K h r u s h c h e v sets t h e struggle f o r peace and for peacef u l coexistence against the w o r l d revolutionary and l i b eration movement. He proclaims far and w i d e that "the
struggle for peace has become the most important c o n d i tion of the struggle for socialism", that " n o p r o b l e m of
the r e v o l u t i o n a r y movement of the w o r k i n g class and of
the liberation movement can n o w be e x a m i n e d apart
f r o m the struggle for peace, f r o m the prevention of n u clear w a r " (Khrushchev's speech on J a n u a r y 16, 1963,
at the 6th Congress of the G e r m a n Socialist U n i t y Party).
His propaganda agents have even gone so far as to d e scribe disarmament as "the most important factor f o r the
liberation of colonial peoples", that disarmament is "the
main goal of the peoples w h o f i g h t for national l i b e r a t i o n " . W h a t do K h r u s h c h e v ' s statements, such as " e v e r y
local w a r today m i g h t t u r n into a w o r l d w a r " and " e v e r y
spark m i g h t k i n d l e a w o r l d conflagration", mean if not
that the peoples should renounce their r e v o l u t i o n a r y and
liberation struggle and accept the struggle for peace and
peaceful coexistence as the highest goal of their effort?
K h r u s h c h e v has said in the same v e i n that "general and
total disarmament w o u l d create n e w opportunities to give
assistance to states whose economies are n o w w e a k and
need aid f r o m the advanced states", that an " a i d " of this
k i n d (given by the imperialist powers) " c o u l d inaugurate
a n e w epoch in economic development in A s i a , A f r i c a and
L a t i n A m e r i c a " (Khrushchev's address to the G e n e r a l
A s s e m b l y of the U n i t e d Nations Organization on September 18, 1959), that " d u r a b l e peace under conditions of
general and total disarmament w o u l d make it possible
133
to place a l l the resources that exist in the w o r l d at the
service of the peoples in order to f u l f i l their material and
c u l t u r a l needs".
Khrushchev's group not o n l y spread the i l l u s i o n that
the national liberation and social emancipation of the peoples comes automatically as a result of the realization of
disarmament, of economic competition and of peaceful
coexistence between the t w o systems, thus l u l l i n g the
people into a state of inertia, expecting liberation and
progress to come as a boon f r o m abroad, but they f a i l to
stress that the revolutionary and l i b e r a t i o n struggle
against the imperialists is a p o w e r f u l force w h i c h plays
a very important role in preserving peace and a c h i e v i n g
peaceful coexistence and disarmament, that this struggle
is of great assistance to the strengthening of the positions
of the w o r l d socialist system and of a l l the forces that
strive for the t r i u m p h of socialism in the w o r l d .
ILLUSIONS A N D OPPORTUNIST A T T I T U D E S H A V E
HAMPERED THE ACHIEVING OF GREATER RESULTS
IN THE CAUSE OF THE PEOPLES, OF PEACE A N D
OF SOCIALISM
T h e demagogy of K h r u s h c h e v ' s group, their revisionist
views and activities regarding the above issues extend
into all the other cardinal issues of the time w h i c h p r e occupy the international communist movement and the
w h o l e of m a n k i n d .
T h e y a l l prove eloquently but one
t h i n g — that by openly d e f y i n g the M o s c o w Declarations,
they have caused great damage to the w h o l e international
revolutionary and liberation movement of the w o r l d .
134
T h i s damage stands out l i k e a dark spot against the
background of the great achievements that have been
attained, thanks to the peaceful p o l i c y of the Soviet
U n i o n and the other socialist countries, to the struggle
of the international proletariat, of the oppressed peoples,
the other peace-loving forces against i m p e r i a l i s m and for
peace, freedom, democracy and socialism. T h e P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has always stood by and supported
the just policy of the Soviet State and of the other socialist states regarding the major problems of the day, such
as the p r e v e n t i o n of w o r l d war, disarmament and b a n ning nuclear arms, the G e r m a n problem, the West B e r l i n
problem, and so on.
N o t o n l y this, but our P a r t y has
always and consistently striven and continues to strive
for the precise implementation of the joint policy of the
socialist countries in settling these problems.
T h e r e is no doubt that the achievements of the socialist
camp and of a l l the people w o u l d have been far greater
if subjective opinions and idle illusions proceeding f r o m
a n t i - M a r x i s t conceptions of the nature and aims of i m perialism had not been spread and had not taken root.
T h e favorable situation brought about by the struggle
of the people and the aggravation of the contradictions
w i t h i n the ranks of i m p e r i a l i s m w o u l d have been t u r n e d
to better advantage if the opportunist views and attitudes
had been ceased, if the line and joint decisions had been
consistently carried out.
" T h e w o r l d free of arms, free of wars and free of arm i e s " w h i c h , it was pretended, w o u l d have been offered
to m a n k i n d as early as 1960, brought nothing good to
them except v a i n illusions and damage to the struggle
of the peoples.
A n d it c o u l d not have been otherwise.
135
T h i s slogan is impossible of being realized so l o n g as i m perialism exists.
As a matter of fact, regardless of the
bouquets s t r e w n before "peace-loving presidents", the
imperialists have recently continued w i t h the same zeal
and violence as before a c h a i n of belligerent acts in v a rious regions of the w o r l d — the Congo, south V i e t n a m ,
Laos, A n g o l a and elsewhere — p l u n g i n g w h o l e peoples
into bloodbaths in order to m a i n t a i n their colonial r u l e
or to re-establish the s w a y of neo-colonialism, the r u l e of
ruthless exploitation, terror and murder.
The revisionists have not considered i m p e r i a l i s m as i m p e r i a l i s m —
the b u l w a r k of w o r l d reaction — because they have
always thought and still t h i n k that they can please " t h e
international g e n d a r m e " w i t h their flattery and concessions and persuade h i m to establish "a w o r l d free of w a r s "
by "sound reasoning".
On the problem of general and total disarmament, h o w
injurious it was to these talks to spread illusions about
the chieftains of A m e r i c a n i m p e r i a l i s m going to these
talks to settle this issue " w i t h f r a n k n e s s " ! In reality the
imperialists have used and continue to use these endless
talks as a smokescreen to hide their preparations for w a r .
T h e imperialists, far f r o m being disarmed, have speeded
up their armaments race, and are a r m i n g themselves to
the teeth w i t h m o d e r n weapons, i n v e s t i n g for this p u r pose tens of billions of dollars.
T h e y are a r m i n g the
B o n n revanchists w i t h atomic weapons; they are s u p p l y ing their allies w i t h " P o l a r i s " missiles and so on and
so f o r t h . T h e same is true of the nuclear test ban. T h e
A m e r i c a n imperialists, after completing their recent p r o gram of explosions, continue to prepare for other detonations. On this question they are not " b e c o m i n g reason136
a b l e " even though K h r u s h c h e v has made concessions.
K h r u s h c h e v , w h o f o r m e r l y maintained that "on-the-spot
inspections" were acts of espionage — w h i c h they really
are — has accepted three such inspections a year w i t h i n
the territory of the Soviet U n i o n .
The American imperialists, w h o are in fact opposed to the ban on nuclear
tests, are not pleased even w i t h this concession.
They
demand n e w concessions; they demand that the portals
of the Soviet U n i o n be opened to them, at least for eight
or ten inspections a year.
It is a k n o w n fact that the Soviet U n i o n and the other
socialist countries have l o n g since correctly d r a w n up and
coordinated their policy also w i t h regard to the G e r m a n
question and that of West B e r l i n .
B u t w h a t do K h r u s h chev's loud promises, repeated waverings and "elastic"
w i t h d r a w a l s have i n c o m m o n w i t h this policy? H i s f r i v olous and u n p r i n c i p l e d stand is clearly indicated, if by
nothing else, by the f o l l o w i n g statements:
In his press conference at the K r e m l i n on November
27, 1958, K h r u s h c h e v , arguing the need of c o n c l u d i n g a
peace treaty w i t h G e r m a n y and of settling the West
B e r l i n p r o b l e m w i t h i n a period of six months, that is,
by M a y 27, 1959, stated: " A s a consequence of the policy
of the Western powers West B e r l i n has been turned into
a k i n d of cancerous tumor.
A n d if it is not done a w a y
w i t h , a t h i n g of this k i n d threatens to become a risk that
may have very undesirable consequences.
F o r this
reason we make up our minds to p e r f o r m a surgical operation, that is to do a w a y w i t h the status of occupation of
Berlin".
In his speech at L e i p z i g on M a r c h 5, 1959, referring to
the time l i m i t for s i g n i n g the peace treaty w i t h G e r 137
many, K h r u s h c h e v stated: "I have been t e l l i n g the
leaders of the Western countries: 'If y o u , gentlemen,
desire to discuss w i t h us on reasonable grounds, we may
postpone this time l i m i t f r o m M a y 27 to J u n e 27.
If
you so desire, to J u l y also, but the B e r l i n p r o b l e m and
the problem of the peace treaty w i t h G e r m a n y must be
settled' ".
T h e year 1959 ended.
No other time l i m i t was set,
but at his press conference in P a r i s on M a y 18, 1960,
K h r u s h c h e v stated that for signing the peace treaty w i t h
the G e r m a n Democratic R e p u b l i c "the projects are a l ready at h a n d " , and stressed that there was n o t h i n g else
to do but " p u l l out our f o u n t a i n pens and sign and p r o claim i t " .
T h e year 1960, too, came to an end. On J u n e 15, 1961,
in a speech broadcast by radio and television, K h r u s h c h e v
stated: " W e ask everyone to understand us correctly: the
conclusion of the peace treaty w i t h G e r m a n y cannot be
further postponed, a peaceful settlement of the issues in
E u r o p e must be arrived at this year", and on J u n e 21,
1961 he declared: "Together w i t h the other peace-loving
states we shall sign the peace treaty w i t h the G e r m a n
Democratic R e p u b l i c at the end of this year".
In his speech broadcast by radio and television on
A u g u s t 7, 1961, arguing the need of c o n c l u d i n g this treaty
immediately, K h r u s h c h e v stressed: " W h a t w o u l d be
the outcome of c o n t i n u i n g to postpone the conclusion of
the peace treaty w i t h G e r m a n y for several years more?
T h i s w o u l d mean we w o u l d show tolerance towards the
forces of aggression, we w o u l d retreat before their pressure.
A situation of this k i n d w o u l d encourage N A T O
and the B o n n G o v e r n m e n t to set up more and more
138
divisions in Western G e r m a n y , to e q u i p them w i t h atomic
and thermonuclear weapons, to t u r n Western G e r m a n y
into the m a i n force to l a u n c h a n e w w o r l d w a r " . K h r u s h chev reiterated this idea in the i n t e r v i e w granted to the
A m e r i c a n journalist D. Pearson on A u g u s t 26 w h e n he
said: " E v e r y delay w o u l d be interpreted by the revengeseeking circles of Western G e r m a n y as an encouragement
for aggression and for the l a u n c h i n g of a n e w w a r " .
Less than two months after these declarations w e r e
made K h r u s h c h e v proclaimed in his report to the 22nd
Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n
on October 17, 1961: " I f the Western powers show r e a d i ness in settling the G e r m a n problem, the question of the
time f o r s i g n i n g the peace treaty w i t h G e r m a n y w i l l not
be so important, and we w i l l not insist on signing it by
all means before December 31, 1961".
Thus
ended
1961.
Towards
the
end
of
1962 — on
November 7, to be exact — K h r u s h c h e v , in reply to a
question by journalists as to w h e n the peace treaty w i t h
G e r m a n y m i g h t be signed, said: " T h e question here is
like the b i r t h of a c h i l d .
W h e n the proper time comes,
it is b o r n .
Therefore, w a i t for the time to come!" A n d
f i n a l l y , in his speech to the 6th Congress of the G e r m a n
Socialist U n i t y P a r t y , considering the b u i l d i n g of the
w a l l between the two parts of B e r l i n as the object of
what we wanted, he stated:
" N o w , if we look at the
matter in the l i g h t of the direct interest of the socialist
countries, the question of the conclusion of the peace
treaty does not in reality stand as it stood prior to the
taking of protective measures on the border between the
G e r m a n Democratic R e p u b l i c and West B e r l i n " . Immediately after this, certain followers of K h r u s h c h e v i n 139
dicated that whoever raised the question of the peace
treaty w i t h G e r m a n y or of B e r l i n n o w " w o u l d be d o i n g
the w o r k of the e n e m y " and " w o u l d be t a k i n g the side
of the warmongers".
A l l this h u m b u g o n l y proves that the u n p r i n c i p l e d
stand of K h r u s h c h e v slurs and jeopardizes the policy of
the Soviet State and of the socialist camp.
K h r u s h c h e v pretends that he is w e l l acquainted w i t h
the w o r l d and its grave and complicated problems and
that he has faced them.
B u t the fact is that he is little
acquainted w i t h these problems and has turned his back
on them.
T h e ugliest aspect of K h r u s h c h e v ' s erroneous and
hazardous activities, of his revisionist v i e w s and u n p r i n cipled concessions, is, no doubt, his attitude towards the
C u b a n crisis and the Sino-Indian border conflict.
In the
C u b a n events K h r u s h c h e v acted both as an adventurist
and as a capitulationist.
It is a k n o w n fact that d u r i n g
the Caribbean crisis he not only made unilateral concessions to the A m e r i c a n imperialists by w i t h d r a w i n g
rockets, airplanes and m i l i t a r y experts f r o m C u b a , but
he exerted m u c h pressure on a sovereign state to accept
the international control of the A m e r i c a n imperialists
w i t h i n its territory so that he could make good the p r o m ises he had given to President K e n n e d y .
Whereas in
the Sino-Indian border conflict he not only proclaimed
his quasi " n e u t r a l i t y " , but w e n t so far as to give m i l i t a r y
aid to the Indian reactionary clique w h o had launched
aggressive acts against a socialist country.
T h e r e is no gainsaying the fact that because of his revisionist policy, K h r u s h c h e v w i l l have to render account
somewhere for the harm he has caused and is causing
140
the international communist and w o r k e r s ' movement.
He w i l l have to render accounts both to his party and
his people as w e l l as to the entire communist movement
in f u t u r e international forums.
It may come about that, in their struggle, Parties and
true communists may have to meet w i t h not only
triumphs but also defeats w h i c h may be partly due to
subjective mistakes.
B u t the C o m m u n i s t Parties and
devoted revolutionaries are not afraid of criticising and
admitting their mistakes.
Whereas w i t h K h r u s h c h e v it
is different.
He is afraid of admitting his mistakes and
failures.
He even tries his best to cover them up w i t h
demagogy, to distort the t r u t h and present it in false
colors, and to expect others to chime in w i t h h i m , to r e f r a i n f r o m censuring h i m and to hide the truth. K h r u s h chev practises demagogy w h e n , parallel w i t h his r e v i sionist views and deeds, parallel w i t h his opportunist
concessions combined w i t h "a storm in a tea-cup",
w h i c h have led h i m to such grave errors, he claims that
he has never n u r t u r e d any illusions about the i m p e r i a l ists.
He indulges in demagogy w h e n , parallel w i t h his
overestimation of talks and of the role of individuals,
he proclaims that he upholds the actions of the masses,
the revolutionary and liberation movements of the peoples and their relation to the settlement of the major
problems, such as the preservation of peace, d i s a r m a ment, the b a n n i n g of atomic weapons and so on.
To say the least, he practises demagogy w h e n he disregards and violates the M o s c o w Declarations and at the
same time swears loyalty to them. Of course, in all
these and similar cases, w h e n it is a matter of settling
acute international problems, he tries to hide his hand
141
and to strengthen his demagogy by attacking the " w a r mongering dogmatists" of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a
and others, by posing the pathetic question: " B u t w h y ,
do you w i s h us to settle matters by resorting to w a r ? "
It is futile for K h r u s h c h e v to slander the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a and the other M a r x i s t parties.
T h e P a r t y of
Labour of A l b a n i a has never n u r t u r e d the idea that i n t e r national issues should be settled by war.
It has thought
and continues to t h i n k that there is o n l y one w a y to settle
them, namely by c a r r y i n g out to the letter the joint d e c i sions of the M o s c o w Declarations both as regards specific
cases such as that of the peace treaty w i t h G e r m a n y as
w e l l as a l l the problems that face m a n k i n d today.
This
is w h a t our P a r t y has demanded and continues to d e mand.
K h r u s h c h e v ' s demagogy and t r i c k e r y w i l l never attain
their goal, for if they d i d they w o u l d greatly jeopardize
the w h o l e international communist movement.
Therefore it is essential to point out the sore spot, to p u t
things in order, to lay bare the t r u t h w i t h courage, so
that our movement may forge ahead more p o w e r f u l l y in
order to f u l f i l l its mission in history.
T h i s is precisely
what the M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t parties and true r e v o l u t i o n aries w i l l do.
T h e l i n e of K h r u s h c h e v ' s group is f a c i n g a grave risk,
the risk of being f u l l y unmasked.
A n d it could not h a p pen otherwise.
T h e revisionist trumpeters w i l l one day
b l o w themselves hoarse and the opportunist " h e r o e s " w i l l
clash w i t h the M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t s w i t h i n the ranks of their
o w n parties and w i t h the international communist movement.
T h e i r revisionist l i n e of action, f o l l o w e d w i t h so
m u c h zeal, has brought a n u m b e r of d i f f i c u l t i e s to the r e v i 142
sionist groups themselves not o n l y in f o r e i g n p o l i c y but
also in i n t e r n a l policy, economic, c u l t u r a l and so on,
which
cannot
be
covered
up
for
long
by
demagogy
and bombastic speeches, nor by the so-called " e c h o e s "
w h i c h sound l i k e the peal of bells w i t h o u t festivity.
K h r u s h c h e v feels obliged to m a k e numerous r e o r g a n izations in a l l fields of activity, w h i c h have brought about
nothing b u t chaos and detriment to his o w n group.
His
heart broke w h e n he felt obliged to t h r o w overboard his
cherished c h i l d , Y e v t u s h e n k o , w h o m h e had brought u p
and fondled, w h o m he had raised to a place of honor in
Pravda, as the trumpeter of anti-Stalinism. B u t K h r u s h demagogical manoeuvres do not easily and for
long deceive the B o l s h e v i k s and the Soviet people, nor
the communists and peoples of other countries.
chev's
K h r u s h c h e v ' s allies, w h o m he l e d i n t o a b l i n d alley,
w h o m he compromised, w h o m he hitched to his w a g o n
and is n o w dragging i n t o the abyss, are also f a c i n g serious
difficulties.
Nevertheless
there
are
people
who
can
think, and this is positive, there are those w h o react, and
this
is even m o r e positive;
there
are
also those w h o
waver, w h o fear and lack courage, but w h o have doubts
about these so-called
line.
"good t h i n g s " of this revisionist
These people are
in conflict w i t h
their Parties,
w i t h their comrades, w i t h their o w n conscience.
are i n c o n f l i c t w i t h K h r u s h c h e v and T i t o .
They
The sworn
revisionists have unsheathed their daggers and are shamelessly p l a c i n g these people in a d i l e m m a : either to f o l l o w
a course of complete betrayal or to be removed f r o m
the scene as
Stalinists,
anti-Marxists,
tionalists!
143
dogmatists,
na-
F i n d i n g themselves face to face w i t h the displeasure
of the o v e r w h e l m i n g rank and f i l e of communists and
the masses of the people, due especially to the d i f f i c u l t i e s
w h i c h their policy has created in a l l the phases of l i f e ,
Khrushchev's loyal allies, too, resort to demagogy, copy
their "master" in e v e r y t h i n g and at the same time strive
to carry de-Stalinization to the end, to totally r e h a b i l itate traitors, to purge the ranks of the party and the
organs of the state not o n l y of the Stalinists, but also of
the " l u k e w a r m s " , of the " w a v e r e r s " . These revisionists
see their o n l y salvation in posing as better catholics than
the Pope.
B u t their assaults resemble D o n Quixote's
charge on the w i n d m i l l s .
U n d e r the pressure of M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t s , K h r u s h c h e v ' s
group strive to defend themselves by appropriating the
arguments of the M a r x i s t s , and pretending they are their
o w n . At times, they go so f a r in their attempts to
deceive the people as even to sing Stalin's praises.
The
revisionists are w e l l acquainted w i t h the threads w i t h
w h i c h they have i n t e r w o v e n the great plot against the
Soviet U n i o n and the international communist movement
b y assailing J . V . Stalin's person and w o r k .
B u t the
M a r x i s t s have detected these threads and are busy cutting them one after another u n t i l the black spider w i l l
one day be left w i t h o u t a w e b .
K h r u s h c h e v knows very
w e l l the colossal significance of the S t a l i n question not
only for the Soviet U n i o n , but for a l l the international
communists, for M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m itself.
He thought
he had w o u n d up this matter successfully; he thought he
had created such a terrible "scarecrow" in the w o r l d that
nobody w o u l d dare to stand in defense of Stalin, nor
w o u l d his name be mentioned again. H o w e v e r , the con144
trary happened. T h e M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t s , true revolutionaries and the people are daily realizing more and more
that since the question of Stalin is inseparable f r o m the
safeguarding of L e n i n i s m it is a matter of p r i m a r y i m portance and p r i n c i p l e in the fight between M a r x i s t s
and revisionists.
F o r w i t h o u t reinstating Stalin and his
work, our revolutionary movement and the cause of
M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m can make no headway.
T h e truth
cannot be obscured, for it is a g l o w i n g light; lies, slanders
and demagogy are the weapons of plotters, the weapons
of darkness.
K H R U S H C H E V ON A COMMON FRONT WITH
THE
YUGOSLAV
REVISIONISTS
In the letter of the Central Committee of the C o m munist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n to the Central C o m mittee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a , a so-called
" A l b a n i a n q u e s t i o n " is not o n l y mentioned but placed
on the same l e v e l w i t h the Y u g o s l a v question. In other
words, the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a is equated w i t h
Titoite Y u g o s l a v i a and the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a
w i t h the renegade clique of Belgrade.
It is a k n o w n fact that K h r u s h c h e v has persistently
pursued the l i n e of approach, of a f f i l i a t i o n and complete
union,
of
all-round
collaboration
towards
Yugoslavia,
establishing a common f r o n t w i t h the T i t o clique under
the pretext that " Y u g o s l a v i a is a socialist c o u n t r y " and
the League of Y u g o s l a v Communists "a fraternal p a r t y " .
A n d he tries to impose on the entire international c o m munist movement this line of his, w h i c h is in arrant
145
contradiction w i t h the 1960 M o s c o w Declaration, in w h i c h
the Y u g o s l a v revisionists are unanimously condemned as
renegades by a l l the communist and workers' parties.
He does this by launching bitter attacks on a l l those w h o
l o y a l l y abide by the Declaration and oppose a f f i n i t y w i t h
the T i t o clique, as w e l l as Khrushchev's attempts to
include Y u g o s l a v i a in the f a m i l y of socialist countries
and the League of Y u g o s l a v Communists in the ranks of
the international communist movement.
In order to deceive p u b l i c opinion, and justify his
views and acts, K h r u s h c h e v trumpets abroad that
"changes are being e f f e c t e d " in Y u g o s l a v i a , that "the
foreign policy of Y u g o s l a v i a is in line w i t h the policy of
the socialist states", that, after all, "certain serious d i v e r gences are noticed in some ideological matters and the
Y u g o s l a v comrades w i l l be f r a n k l y told about t h e m " .
Khrushchev's demagogy can deceive no one.
F o r it is
p l a i n to a l l that " n o changes" have been effected nor are
being effected in Y u g o s l a v i a by the T i t o i t e c l i q u e to
show that mistakes are being corrected there, but, on
the contrary, they are proceeding directly towards
betrayal. T h e T i t o clique have themselves more than
once declared that no changes have been effected or w i l l
be effected contrary to the program of the League of
Y u g o s l a v Communists approved at their 7th Congress.
W h y does K h r u s h c h e v not tell the communist movement
w h e r e are the changes of w h i c h he speaks? W h y does he
not b r i n g f o r t h concrete facts instead of glittering generalities?
It is clear that there are no concrete facts nor
w i l l there ever be.
One of K h r u s h c h e v ' s " s o u n d " arguments is the socalled "sameness" or " i d e n t i t y " of the position of Titoite
146
Y u g o s l a v i a w i t h that of the socialist countries in a n u m ber of questions of foreign policy.
again bluffs.
A g a i n e m p t y words,
E v e r y one w h o f o l l o w s c a r e f u l l y the de-
velopment of events and the attitude of T i t o i t e Y u g o slavia towards various international issues has noticed
that the attitude of the Y u g o s l a v revisionists has had in
each and every instance nothing in c o m m o n w i t h the attitude of the socialist countries.
T h i s is borne out by
their attitude d u r i n g the crisis in the Caribbean sea and
towards
the
Sino-Indian border conflict
in w h i c h
the
T i t o i t e c l i q u e sided w i t h the aggressors and condemned
both F i d e l Castro's C u b a and People's C h i n a .
In w h a t
matters does the policy of the Y u g o s l a v revisionist r e n egade c l i q u e " c o i n c i d e " w i t h the foreign policy of the
socialist countries?
Is it in the stand towards the n a -
tional liberation wars of the oppressed and the n e w l y
liberated peoples, w h i c h the Titoite clique do their best
to w r e c k ?
Or is it in their conduct towards the socialist
countries, against w h o m the Titoite clique have hatched
and continue to hatch counter-revolutionary plots, as in
the case of the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a and of the
People's
R e p u b l i c of
Hungary?
Or are the Y u g o s l a v
revisionists possibly of the same m i n d w i t h the socialist
countries on such major issues as, for instance, the question of the peace treaty w i t h G e r m a n y and of t u r n i n g
West B e r l i n into a free demilitarized city?
W h e n the
situation calls f o r serious action in these matters, it w i l l
be seen w h i c h side the Titoite clique w i l l take, whether
they w i l l line u p w i t h the socialist countries, whether
they w i l l i d e n t i f y w i t h the Soviet U n i o n o r w i l l side w i t h
the imperialists.
147
E m p t y words for demagogical purposes are not used
by K h r u s h c h e v alone.
T h e T i t o clique are also w e l l
versed in them. T h e y too can express themselves in
favor of peaceful coexistence and disarmament, in favor
of the independence of the peoples and so on and so
forth.
B u t it is not o n l y the Belgrade renegade clique
w h o so express themselves. T h e most aggressive i m p e rialists, K e n n e d y and Adenauer, also w a v e the olive
branch, speak of coexistence and disarmament, deliver
speeches and dispatch messages u p h o l d i n g the i n d e p e n d ence of the peoples, but this by no means hinders them
f r o m actually pursuing the policy of w a r and armaments,
the policy of oppression and enslavement of the peoples.
K h r u s h c h e v is w e l l aware that a minaret cannot be
put into a sack, that the communists w h o abide by the
M o s c o w Declarations cannot be made to subscribe to the
idea that Y u g o s l a v i a is a socialist country.
Therefore,
posing as a man of principle, he stresses that in certain
ideological matters he is not at one w i t h "the Y u g o s l a v
comrades" and that he w i l l tell them so.
B u t w h a t are
these ideological matters and h o w w i l l they be disclosed
p u b l i c l y or confidentially? T h e M o s c o w Declaration e m phasizes that it behooves the communist parties to cont i n u a l l y expose the Y u g o s l a v revisionists.
Khrushchev
and his group have not o n l y disregarded this correct c o n clusion of the Declaration but, on the contrary, have
more than once attacked those parties w h i c h abide by
the Declaration and expose the views and activities of
the Titoite renegades.
Isn't the scandalous conduct towards the delegate of the Communist P a r t y of C h i n a to
the 6th Congress of the G e r m a n Socialist U n i t y P a r t y
a best proof of this?
148
All facts show that by t r a m p l i n g underfoot the M o s cow Declarations K h r u s h c h e v ' s group have not only
given up exposing the Y u g o s l a v revisionists but have
long since pursued the l i n e of complete understanding,
f o r m i n g in this w a y a joint revisionist front w i t h them.
A n d this has come about not because the T i t o clique has
" c h a n g e d " but because the attitude of K h r u s h c h e v and
his group has changed to positions of revisionism, of a n t i M a r x i s m . T h i s is clearly borne out by their stand towards
another thesis of the M o s c o w Declarations, namely, towards the thesis that specifies revisionism as the p r i n cipal menace to the international communist and w o r k ers' movement.
W i t h regard to this, too, K h r u s h c h e v claims that he
abides by the M o s c o w Declarations and that he even
wages a struggle on two fronts, against revisionism and
against dogmatism. B u t w h a t are the facts? It is w e l l
k n o w n that in addition to the Y u g o s l a v renegade r e v i sionist clique, the leaders of the Italian C o m m u n i s t Party,
headed by T o g l i a t t i , have also embraced revisionist views
that have f o u n d expression in numerous o f f i c i a l d o c u ments and w r i t i n g s of theirs. K h r u s h c h e v and his group
have not uttered a single w o r d of reproach for these
opportunist views; on the contrary, they have smiled
upon and lost no opportunity to praise the revisionist
line of T o g l i a t t i and his companions, describing it as an
example of "creative M a r x i s m " .
A n o t h e r of the ugliest
manifestations of m o d e r n revisionism is Dange's group
in India, w h o have become obedient servitors of the most
reactionary circles of the Indian bourgeoisie and have
crossed over to open betrayal and social chauvinism.
K h r u s h c h e v and his group have not uttered a single w o r d
149
of reproach to this group of traitors nor condemned their
views; on the contrary, they conduct "hearty meetings"
w i t h Dange, thus encouraging h i m to proceed further
along the path of betrayal.
Where then is Khrushchev's and his group's "determined struggle" against revisionism? T h e y have r e nounced this struggle, and since they themselves stand
in the position of revisionism they even try their utmost
to compel others to renounce such a struggle. In fact,
K h r u s h c h e v and his group have turned the sharp edge
of their daggers against the so-called "dogmatists", by
w h i c h they really mean the M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t s .
K H R U S H C H E V IS LOOKING IN VAIN FOR AN
"ORIGINAL" W A Y TO RE-ESTABLISH "UNITY"
B u t after a l l is said and done, w h y does K h r u s h c h e v
need to place, even formally, the so-called " A l b a n i a n
question" on the same level w i t h the Y u g o s l a v question?
To us it is very clear that he needs this stratagem in
order to l i n k the t w o things and to make one serve the
other, so that he may oblige the M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t parties
to admit Y u g o s l a v i a as a socialist state, the League of
Y u g o s l a v Communists as a f r a t e r n a l party, "compensati n g " this w i t h the recognition of A l b a n i a as a socialist
country.
In other words: either y o u , M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t
parties, recognize Y u g o s l a v i a as a socialist country and
the League of Y u g o s l a v Communists as a fraternal C o m munist P a r t y and consequently give up your attempts
to expose the Titoite clique, w h i l e we (i. e. K h r u s h c h e v ' s
group) agree, " i n compensation", to call A l b a n i a a social150
ist country and to give up our public assaults on the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and its leaders; or, in case
you continue to expose the Y u g o s l a v revisionists, we w i l l
continue our attacks on the P a r t y of L a b o u r and the P e o ple's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a and w i l l demand their e x p u l sion f r o m the communist movement and the socialist
camp. Or, let us, as a last resort, shove aside both the
Y u g o s l a v question and the " A l b a n i a n question", and let
time take care of them.
(But K h r u s h c h e v forgets one
" l i t t l e d e t a i l " : Tito's revisionist clique have been u n a n i mously condemned by the international communist and
workers' movement as traitors to M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m ,
whereas the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a is a M a r x i s t L e n i n i s t party and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , a
member of the socialist camp. Therefore they can n e i ther be compared to the League of Y u g o s l a v Communists
and Tito's Y u g o s l a v i a nor be shoved aside w h e n the
settlement of problems pertaining to the international
communist and workers' movement is under discussion.)
E v i d e n t l y K h r u s h c h e v has discovered an " o r i g i n a l "
w a y out of the grave situation into w h i c h the socialist
camp and the communist movement have been hurled by
his a n t i - M a r x i s t attitude and activities, and, in defiance
of the M o s c o w Declarations, he proposes some sort of
"reasonable compromise". He proposes a compromise to
the detriment of a M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t party and a socialist
country — the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and the P e o ple's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a . K h r u s h c h e v is accustomed to
bargaining the sovereignty of others, notwithstanding the
fact that he has not met nor w i l l ever meet w i t h success
as far as M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t parties and free and sovereign
peoples are concerned.
151
T h e arbitrary stand of Khrushchev's group towards the
P a r t y of L a b o u r and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a
shows beyond a l l doubt that they do not intend to effect
a change, that they have not the least desire to settle the
differences, but that they are bent on treading the path
of dissension and betrayal and of w r e c k i n g the u n i t y of
the socialist camp and of the international communist
movement.
T h e above trend of Khrushchev's activities goes to
show that he w o u l d desire to put into effect his unrealizable dream of settling the affairs of others and those of
the international communist movement by a n t i - M a r x i s t
methods in the days to come, too. B u t , to his i l l luck,
he w i l l f a i l to f i n d such partners.
T h e affairs of others
and those of the international communist movement can
be solved and settled o n l y at the appointed place, by
those interested and by a l l the fraternal parties, and not
at his b i d d i n g .
T h i s is the o n l y L e n i n i s t w a y of settling
matters.
K h r u s h c h e v looks in v a i n for other ways.
On the other hand, it is obvious that the settlement of
differences w i t h i n the ranks of the international c o m m u nist and workers' movement is of v i t a l interest to the
movement towards w h i c h a l l the M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t parties
and a l l the communists of the w o r l d w i t h o u t exception
bear their share of responsibility. K h r u s h c h e v , however,
does not l i k e the idea of taking into account the necessity of discussing and w e i g h i n g the arguments of the
various disputants w i t h i n the ranks of each party as a
p r e l i m i n a r y phase for an international meeting so that
the f o r u m of international communism m a y reflect the
true opinion of the millions of communists of the w h o l e
world.
T h i s i s the line V . I . L e n i n and J . V . Stalin
152
pursued d u r i n g their l i f e t i m e and this is the l i n e they
have taught other communists to pursue.
As a matter of fact a broad discussion is going on in
the w o r l d today concerning the struggle between M a r x i s m - L e n i n i s m and revisionism.
T h e v i e w s of b o t h sides
have been c l e a r l y expressed.
B u t the leaders of certain
fraternal parties have not o n l y put the w r i t i n g s that express M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t v i e w s " u n d e r q u a r a n t i n e " but
have also distorted them.
T h e masses of the communists
of these Parties demand that they be s h o w n the w r i t i n g s
w h i c h express these views, but they are refused this
privilege.
T h e communists demand that this matter be
taken up for discussion, but their demand has met w i t h
disapproval.
U n d e r these conditions the communists are
obliged to look for w a y s to express their opinions in one
manner or another.
L e t it, therefore, be brought home
to those w h o set up such " q u a r a n t i n e s " that if they ban
discussions and take no notice of the o p i n i o n of the
masses of communists — a t h i n g w h i c h is contrary to
M a r x i s m and democracy — the latter w i l l devise w a y s of
expressing their o p i n i o n in the most varied forms and,
w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g any L e n i n i s t rule, in a meeting of international c o m m u n i s m , too.
No Marxist-Leninist unity
can be achieved in the international communist m o v e ment without, or contrary to, the w i l l of the communists.
KHRUSHCHEV MAINTAINS AN OPENLY HOSTILE
ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE PARTY OF LABOUR AND
T H E PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA
In their letter of M a r c h 30 to the C e n t r a l Committee of
the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a , K h r u s h c h e v ' s group, as
153
we said at the beginning of this article, launched a series
of slanders and reproaches against the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a , l a y i n g bare once more their intentions to cause a
split.
We are not at a l l taken aback by this. K h r u s h c h e v
persists in his hostile attitude towards the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a because the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a is an
"undesirable" l i v i n g example on w h i c h have been tried,
but w i t h o u t success, a l l the " n o r m s " of K h r u s h c h e v as
regards relations w i t h f r a t e r n a l parties and countries of
the socialist c a m p — f r o m cajolery and promises to b r u t a l
interventions, pressures, blockades, slanders and calls for
counter-revolution. H o w c y n i c a l and false sound the
statements so often made, especially in recent times, by
K h r u s h c h e v ' s g r o u p that the Soviet leaders abide by the
principle of n o n - i n t e r v e n t i o n in each other's i n t e r n a l
affairs, of respect for a l l parties, b i g or small, of m u t u a l
aid and support, that a i r i n g differences between and
l a u n c h i n g attacks on fraternal parties in p u b l i c can o n l y
aggravate matters, that extending ideological differences
to the f i e l d of state relations among socialist countries is
not permissible and very h a r m f u l and so on and so f o r t h .
In his last letter to the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a ,
K h r u s h c h e v uses his old tactics of attacks on the one
hand, and of deceiving p u b l i c o p i n i o n on the other.
He reiterates his w i d e l y k n o w n pretext that he has done
and continues to do his utmost to settle the differences
between our t w o parties and our t w o countries, but that
a l l these efforts have f a i l e d to f i n d the "necessary r e sponse" on the part of the A l b a n i a n leaders.
We have maintained for a l o n g time and reiterate it
n o w that these claims are completely groundless.
The
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has more than once made it
154
clear t h r o u g h numerous facts and documents that the
present leaders of the Soviet U n i o n , w i t h K h r u s h c h e v at
the head, far f r o m t a k i n g steps to i m p r o v e S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n
relations, have persisted in aggravating and deepening
these differences by c a r r y i n g cut hostile acts, each more
grave than the other, against our P a r t y and our country.
In its article of F e b r u a r y 7, 1963, the C e n t r a l Committee
of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a proposed to the C e n t r a l
Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n
that a joint publication be made of the w r i t t e n material
of our t w o parties and governments and the correspondence exchanged between us on these differences, so as
to l a y bare the t r u t h before p u b l i c o p i n i o n .
B u t this
proposal of ours met w i t h deadly silence on the part of
K h r u s h c h e v ' s group.
It is clear that K h r u s h c h e v dreads
the t r u t h and does not w i s h the facts as revealed
by documents to become p u b l i c knowledge nor to d i s close w h a t he was actually a i m i n g at w h e n he hastened
to aggravate the S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n divergences.
T h a t is
w h y he prefers to pursue the path of demagogy.
He tries to pursue the same path w h e n he writes in the
M a r c h 30 letter to the C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m munist P a r t y of C h i n a that: " t h e C e n t r a l Committee of
the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y o f the Soviet U n i o n again took i n i tiative and advanced another proposal to the C e n t r a l
Committee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a to h o l d a
bilateral meeting of the representatives of our t w o parties".
It w o u l d have been m u c h better if the C e n t r a l
Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n
had quoted in f u l l the letter addressed to the C e n t r a l
Committee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a on this
matter, especially since it was o n l y a very f e w lines, so
155
that the communists of the w o r l d could be convinced of
the "comradely step and the practical application of the
principles of respect, equality and independence of the
fraternal parties"(!?) by the Soviet leaders w i t h K h r u s h chev at the head.
We urge the C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e of
the Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n to do a t h i n g
of this k i n d .
We, on our part, considering the fact that
K h r u s h c h e v strives to use the exchange of letters between
our t w o parties at the beginning of M a r c h 1963, for n e w
slanders against the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , are herew i t h quoting the f u l l text of our r e p l y to the C e n t r a l
Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n
dated M a r c h 13, 1963:
" O n M a r c h 11, 1963 the Central Committee of the
Party of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a received the Charge d'Affaires of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in T i r a n a ,
Miroslav H o l l u b , at his own request*.
On instructions from the Central Committee of the C o m m u n i s t
Party of the Soviet U n i o n , the Charge d'Affaires of the
Czechoslovak Socialist Republic handed to the C e n tral Committee of the Party of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , for
its information, a copy of the letter w h i c h the Central
Committee of the C o m m u n i s t Party of the Soviet U n i o n
had sent to the Central Committee of the C o m m u n i s t
Party of C h i n a .
It was accompanied by another letter
addressed to the Central Committee of the P a r t y of
L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , consisting of a few lines, through
w h i c h the Central Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y
________________________________
* Editor's note: Ever since the Soviet Union's rupture of
diplomatic relations w i t h the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a , the
Czechoslovak Embassy in T i r a n a protects the interests of the
USSR in Albania.
156
of the Soviet U n i o n , claiming that its letter addressed
to a third party should serve as a basis for harmonizing
S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n relations, proposed,
in passing,
that
(bilateral talks be conducted between the Communist
P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n and the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
Albania). T h e Central Committee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a thinks that a step of this k i n d by the Central
Committee of the C o m m u n i s t Party of the Soviet U n i o n ,
made in this manner, utilizing the opportunity of a
letter f r o m the Central Committee of the Communist
P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n to the Central Committee of
the Communist P a r t y of C h i n a , w h i c h contains arguments and considerations
pertaining to the relations
and need for talks between the C o m m u n i s t Party of
the Soviet U n i o n and the Communist P a r t y of C h i n a ,
projects the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a as dependent
on another party, a thing w h i c h can only be interpreted
as humiliation, disparagement and
contempt for the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , as a violation of the p r i n ciple of equality and mutual respect, an elementary
principle in contacts and relations among communist
and
workers'
parties.
Therefore the
above
letter
of
the Central Committee of the C o m m u n i s t Party of the
Soviet U n i o n was
rejected as unacceptable.
T h e Central Committee of the Party of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a cannot help t h i n k i n g that the Central C o m mittee of the Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n is
again evidencing its lack of sincere desire to improve
relations between our two parties and is apparently
t r y i n g to establish a pretext that the P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a is 'opposed to bilateral talks'.
157
T h e Central Committee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a , which abide by the Leninist principle of
m u t u a l respect in its relations w i t h fraternal parties,
has been and continues to be ready to welcome and
give due attention to every letter and every proposal
which the Central Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y
of the Soviet U n i o n may f o r w a r d to our P a r t y , but
it w i l l reject any attempt to discredit the Party of
L a b o u r of A l b a n i a or to violate its independence and its
equal rights in the international communist and w o r k ers' movement.
T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a has
been and is always ready for bilateral talks with the
Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n provided the
Central Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the
Soviet U n i o n establishes all conditions of complete
equality."
As can be clearly seen f r o m the above letter of t h e
C e n t r a l Committee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a to
the C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the
Soviet U n i o n , the so-called " i n i t i a t i v e " of the Soviet l e a d ers for bilateral talks was in reality a pursuance of m a l i cious ends and constituted an attempt to discredit the
P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , to trample u p o n its i n d e p e n d ence.
T h i s conclusion is evident to anyone w h o does not w i l f u l l y close his eyes in the face of the t r u t h .
It is f u r t h e r
corroborated by K h r u s h c h e v ' s every act and attitude as
regards relations w i t h the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a in
recent years.
He has continuously maintained an attitude
of disdain and of disregard towards our P a r t y , considering it not as an equal and independent party, but as an
158
appendage or a tool in the hands of others.
As early as
N o v e m b e r 6, 1960, at the time of the M o s c o w meeti n g of the 81 parties, proceeding f r o m his chauvinist
ideas of a bourgeois business m a n he said to the delegates of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a : " W e have lost an
A l b a n i a w h i l e y o u , the Chinese, have gained a n A l b a n i a " .
In his closing speech at the 22nd Congress of the C o m munist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n in October 1961, w h e r e
he vented a l l his anger and resentment against the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , K h r u s h c h e v made open insinuations
that our P a r t y is a dependent one, c a l l i n g u p o n the C h i nese comrades that " i f they w a n t S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n r e l a tions improved, none better than they can help in this
matter".
He repeated these absurd accusations more
openly and in the vilest of terms in his speech to the
Supreme Soviet on December 12, 1962, w h e r e he alleged
that the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a is p r i m e d and urged
by certain " f o u l - m o u t h e d ones" to " i n s u l t the mother
C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n " and that they
had paid the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a three kopeks
for this service.
W e are f u l l y convinced that K h r u s h c h e v k n e w o n l y too
w e l l that the proposal for bilateral talks w i t h the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a made in the particular f o r m , c o n sidering our P a r t y as an appendage of a t h i r d party, was
unacceptable to the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , as it
w o u l d be to a n y self-respecting independent party. B u t he
needed this for demagogical purposes to deceive others,
to lay the blame on the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a and
to j u s t i f y in this w a y his course of action against the
P a r t y of L a b o u r and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a ,
his attempt to oust them f r o m the ranks of the c o m m u 159
nist movement and of the socialist camp. He needed this
as a pretext to t r y to show that he has done his utmost
to improve S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n relations and restore t h e m
to n o r m a l and that it was the A l b a n i a n leaders w h o
opposed a l l meetings and talks.
T h i s foresight of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a was
f u l l y substantiated not l o n g after.
T h i s is clearly d e m onstrated by the letter of the C e n t r a l Committee of the
Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n addressed to the
Central Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a on
M a r c h 30, 1963.
It must be said that K h r u s h c h e v persists in p l a y i n g
his game. Significant is the fact that in their letter to the
C e n t r a l Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a the
Soviet leaders stress: " I f the desire is t r u l y expressed
we are ready to come to such a m e e t i n g " .
H e r e again
the same tactics are employed, as if to say, " w e have e x pressed our desire", " w e have taken our stand", " w e have
had our say through the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a " ,
" n o w it is up to the A l b a n i a n leaders to have their say".
We say to the Soviet leaders: Address yourselves to the
Central Committee of the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a , but
observe the usual norms of respect and of m u t u a l r e l a tions between parties. Establish conditions of f u l l
equality w h i c h y o u have so far t r a m p l e d u p o n in y o u r
relations w i t h the P a r t y of L a b o u r and the People's R e public of A l b a n i a , if y o u are really in favor of h a r m o n i z i n g y o u r relations.
T a k e off y o u r diplomatic gloves, stop
a l l v a i n talk about prestige and demagogical phrases. Do
not forget that y o u are very g u i l t y towards the P a r t y of
L a b o u r and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a .
If y o u
t h i n k your a n t i - M a r x i s t and a n t i - A l b a n i a n acts towards
160
the P a r t y of L a b o u r and the People's R e p u b l i c of A l bania can pass so easily, y o u are gravely m i s t a k e n !
B u t K h r u s h c h e v and his group are not sincerely i n terested in talks and in the settlement of differences w i t h
the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a . T h i s is evident also f r o m
the fact that even w h e n speaking of talks and the settlement of differences, the Soviet leaders continue their
attacks and calumnies against the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
Albania.
T h e y accuse the A l b a n i a n leaders of c o n t i n u i n g " t h e i r s p l i t t i n g activities" and " l a u n c h i n g slanderous
attacks" against the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y and the people of
the Soviet U n i o n .
By accusing the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a as splitters,
K h r u s h c h e v ' s g r o u p are t r y i n g to cover up the tracks of
their o w n s p l i t t i n g activities.
W h a t does K h r u s h c h e v
mean by the " s p l i t t i n g a c t i v i t i e s " of the A l b a n i a n leaders?
C a n the fact that the P a r t y of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a refused
to submit to K h r u s h c h e v ' s dictates at the Bucharest and
the M o s c o w meetings, that it had the courage to express
its o w n v i e w s and to criticize K h r u s h c h e v ' s a n t i - M a r x i s t
v i e w s and acts at a meeting of the international c o m munists, be called splitting activities, w h i l e Khrushchev's
plots against fraternal M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t parties behind
their backs and the endeavors to inveigle other Parties
into these plots through threats and pressures are to be
called M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t acts f a v o r i n g u n i t y ?
W h y are
we to praise as " M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t elasticity" K h r u s h c h e v ' s
outright violation of the M o s c o w Declarations, w h i l e the
observance of these documents by the P a r t y of L a b o u r of
A l b a n i a and by other M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t parties should be
called splitting activities?
No, n o ! it is not the P a r t y of
L a b o u r of A l b a n i a but K h r u s h c h e v ' s g r o u p that have
161
caused and are causing a lot of h a r m to the u n i t y of the
socialist camp and of the international communist m o v e ment by their v i e w s and acts; it is they w h o have sowed
and are sowing dissension among our ranks. A n d if
K h r u s h c h e v raises a hue and c r y about u n i t y , facts show
that he is not in favor of true M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t u n i t y
based on the M o s c o w Declarations, but of false, a n t i M a r x i s t u n i t y on a revisionist basis.
In the M a r c h 30 letter of the C e n t r a l Committee of the
Communist P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n to the C e n t r a l
Committee of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of C h i n a it is w r i t t e n
that "the A l b a n i a n leaders have launched and continue
to l a u n c h slanderous attacks" against the C o m m u n i s t
P a r t y and the people of the Soviet U n i o n .
W h e r e and on
w h a t occasion have we slandered the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y
and the people of the Soviet U n i o n ?
Let Khrushchev
cite but one single example.
O u r P a r t y and our people
have always cherished and cherish great affection and
respect for the glorious B o l s h e v i k P a r t y founded by L e n i n
and for the f r a t e r n a l Soviet people.
We have always
considered and continue to consider them as our heartiest friends, n u r t u r e for them most brotherly i n t e r n a tionalist feelings.
We have been and w i l l always be
grateful to t h e m f o r e v e r y t h i n g they have done f o r the
good of our people and of our P a r t y . T h e P a r t y of L a b o u r
of A l b a n i a continuously cultivates the feeling of love for
the Soviet U n i o n among communists and the masses of
the people. T h i s is manifested in a l l its acts and p r o p a ganda; it is manifested also in its press w h i c h keep t h e m
w e l l i n f o r m e d about the l i f e and the achievements of the
Soviet workers regardless of the fact that the Soviet press
has these last three years w r i t t e n not a single w o r d about
162
the endeavors and struggle of the A l b a n i a n people for
socialism.
T h e p r i n c i p l e d struggle w h i c h the P a r t y o f
L a b o u r of A l b a n i a is w a g i n g against revisionism is at the
same t i m e a struggle in defense of the Soviet U n i o n .
T i m e w i l l v e r i f y this.
N o r have we ever launched any slanders against
K h r u s h c h e v ' s group itself.
We have always told the
truth, r e f e r r i n g to the real facts, to K h r u s h c h e v ' s attitude
and deeds.
We have said that K h r u s h c h e v was the first
to air our differences in public.
He d i d this at the 22nd
Congress of the C o m m u n i s t P a r t y of the Soviet U n i o n ,
g i v i n g our enemies an advantage and creating in this w a y
a h a r m f u l precedent in the international communist
movement, w h e r e b y the congress of a party is used as
a p l a t f o r m f r o m w h i c h to l a u n c h a r b i t r a r y attacks on
other parties.
We have said and do say that K h r u s h chev's g r o u p suspended a l l credits, w i t h d r e w all Soviet
experts, expelled A l b a n i a n students f r o m the schools of
the Soviet U n i o n , a n n u l l e d trade, c u l t u r a l and m i l i t a r y
agreements and r u p t u r e d even its diplomatic relations,
setting up a total blockade against the People's R e p u b l i c
of A l b a n i a .
We have said and do say that K h r u s h c h e v ' s
group has slanderously described the leaders of the P a r t y
of L a b o u r of A l b a n i a as agents of imperialism, sold to it
for t h i r t y pieces of silver.
We have said and do say that
K h r u s h c h e v and his group have openly taken under their
protection the enemies of our people's power w h o have
been condemned as traitors to the F a t h e r l a n d and as
agents of f o r e i g n espionage, as w e l l as various a n t i - P a r t y
elements, and at the same time have called for an overt h r o w of the leadership of the P a r t y and of the state in
A l b a n i a , thereby interfering in the crudest manner in the
163
i n t e r n a l affairs of our P a r t y and of our country.
These
have a l l been documented. We could m e n t i o n here a
number of other facts as, for instance, the hostile and arbitrary conduct of K h r u s h c h e v ' s group towards the P e o ple's R e p u b l i c of A l b a n i a in connection w i t h the W a r s a w
T r e a t y and the C o u n c i l o f M u t u a l E c o n o m i c A i d .
But
we do not deem it necessary to go into m o r e detail on
this and other matters at this time.
Such are some of the facts to w h i c h we have referred
in our polemics w i t h K h r u s h c h e v ' s group.
If these are
slanders as K h r u s h c h e v claims, then let h i m take courage
to deny in p u b l i c these acts w i t h w h i c h the w o r l d is
already acquainted, acts w h i c h in international practice
resemble in their entirety steps w h i c h one country undertakes against another on the verge of the declaration of
war.
In fact it is not we but K h r u s h c h e v w h o shamelessly
slanders our P a r t y and our country. W h a t is K h r u s h c h e v
after?
Does he intend that we should shut our m o u t h
and keep silent w h i l e he continues to discredit, to slander and to act against the P a r t y of L a b o u r and the P e o ple's Republic of A l b a n i a ? T h i s is unacceptable. L e t it be
clear once and for a l l that this is not the w a y that leads
to the settlement of differences and the improvement of
S o v i e t - A l b a n i a n relations.
If K h r u s h c h e v is eager to f i n d a solution of the differences and to strengthen u n i t y , he must show this by
deeds, undertake real — not fictitious — steps, to remove
a l l obstacles he has laid in the relations between our t w o
parties. J u s t as he took the courage to l a u n c h slanderous
attacks, to interfere in the i n t e r n a l affairs of, and to carry
on hostile acts against, our P a r t y and our country, so
164
should he n o w take the courage to p u b l i c l y condemn these
a n t i - M a r x i s t attitudes and acts and to b e g i n the strict
observance of the international norms in relations between
c o m m u n i s t and w o r k e r s ' parties and between socialist
countries.
W e w i l l welcome a n y honest step i n this
direction.