From Mërgim Korça
Part Six
Memorie.al / The impetus that drives us to view the historical period spanning the years 1939–1945 with a broad, fundamental, generalising and fully scientific perspective, requires that we shed light on, and then also rely upon, historical facts that have not only been left in oblivion but also deliberately distorted by the historians of the dictatorship period. Therefore, we are obliged to begin our analysis by first defining the basic, genuine scientific criteria regarding the use of linguistic terms, without deforming their meaning, without later allowing erroneous interpretations (inclined by the impetus of political ideology), which in turn inevitably lead to completely wrong conclusions.
Continued from the previous issue
We continue further. Stalin unexpectedly dismisses Maxim Litvinov (of Jewish origin) as Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union – a post he had held since 1930 – and on 3 May 1939, places Vyacheslav Molotov in his position. On 23 August 1939, Molotov, together with Joachim von Ribbentrop (on the German side), signs the non-aggression pact as well as the agreement on spheres of influence. On this occasion as well, a far from rhetorical question arises: How did Germany’s ally, Italy, and on the other hand, its enemy, England, receive this agreement? Mussolini called it: a knife stuck in his back by Hitler, while Chamberlain called it, on the part of the Soviet Union, a stab in England’s back.
During World War II, whoever killed even a single German soldier was considered a patriot and a hero by the Anglo–Americans as well as the Soviets. Thus, the partisans of the Albanian National Liberation Army were considered heroes and, consequently, the commanders of that war as well, by the allies. After the war ended, not at all out of altruism, but again for purely one-sided interests, those same Anglo–Americans began to support anti-communist forces in Albania. Thus, former allies became targets of mutual attack.
Naturally and quite logically, a generalising question arises concerning the comparative facts presented as examples: Should the judgments given by Russia or Austro–Hungary regarding the decisions of the London Conference of Ambassadors be considered absolute truth? Which historical right applies: Mussolini’s judgment of Hitler, Chamberlain’s judgment of Stalin, or how should the mutually exchanged positionings is judged?
Which of the allies’ positionings towards the leaders of the National Liberation Front is the right one: that before 29 November 1944 or that during 1945 and beyond? How did the former allies confront each other in judgment, starting from 1945 and onwards?
ALONG THIS PATH, FINALLY FOCUSING OUR POINT OF VIEW, WE STOP AT THE SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND WELL-BALANCED AND SCIENTIFIC ANSWERS, AND WITH THEM WE CONCLUDE OUR ANALYSIS REGARDING COLLABORATIONISM AS WELL AS COLLABORATIONISTS:
Is it right that, starting from considerations derived from completely one-sided facts (viewed during the communist dictatorship), or later, in accordance with its ideology, by historians who cannot possibly deny what they have written over decades, those same historians continue to pass judgments on history even today?
Without entering into or judging the character or moral side of the historians who, for 47 years, wrote history as the party dictated to them, even though they had access to THE FORBIDDEN ARCHIVAL FUNDS, and thus knew the historical truths, the question arises: Is it right that even today, in school textbooks, the history of our country continues to be reflected on the same tracks by the same authors?
How it possible is that regarding the linguistic terms “COLLABORATIONISM” and “TREASON”, as well as the qualifiers “COLLABORATIONIST” and “TRAITOR”, an official position is taken, citing as an example the assertion that both these actions have been condemned by the whole world? As soon as politics gets mixed up with history, we come to the great but diabolical saying of Andrey Vyshinsky, who, referring to a maxim of Mark Twain frequently cited it with pride as a success of Soviet policy:
“…First we must gather the facts, and then we present them and distort them as we wish!” And I take pleasure in letting the reader, who does not have this information, know that Vyshinsky was the Prosecutor General of the Soviet Union during the years of the great Stalinist crimes of 1936–1938, and later also Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union. Based on his statement regarding the distortion of facts and reality, we see whether there is a parallelism between his teachings, applied in the conditions of Albania.
Let us accept for a moment that the selection of the entire galaxy of patriots who jeopardised their deeply patriotic past, as well as their personality, thinking that their collaborationism served national interests, was to the detriment of the country – and thus from Mustafa Kruja and Hasan Dosti, Ernest Koliqi and Tahir Kolgjini and their comrades, who were sentenced to death in absentia, continuing with Father Anton Harapi and Lef Nosi, as well as Kol Tromara, Bahri Omari, Terenc Toçi, Fejzi Alizoti, Maliq Bushati, General Aqif Përmeti, Beqir Valteri, Shyqyri Borshi, Ismail Golemi, Daut Çarçani and Javer Hurshiti and their comrades, who were sentenced and executed – paid for the wrong choice with their heads!
I emphasise this moment because not only back then, in the first years after taking power, but even today, the historians of the communist dictatorship period continue to call them collaborationists in the bad sense of the word. Here we take the opportunity to remind readers of these lines of two exchanges during the Special Trial of April 1945, which can still be found in the protocol of that trial. Prosecutor Bedri Spahiu: “Defendants, your activity during these years has constituted treason against the fate of the people and the homeland, staining your name with that of a traitor.”
The defendant Kol Tromara replies in kind: “Who is a traitor, the people will learn sooner or later.” In fact, the chairman of that judicial body, Koçi Xoxe, was sentenced to death and shot as a traitor, and Prosecutor Bedri Spahiu was also condemned as a traitor and rotted in prisons). The question is completely natural: Who gave the qualifier “traitor” to these two personalities of Albanian communist justice? The answer is as clear as sunlight: Enver Hoxha himself, the very one who had placed them in those high positions from which they sentenced to execution and hundreds and thousands of years of imprisonment, in total, precisely the cream of Albanian patriotism and intellectualism!
However, there also existed another side which, considering itself fortunate in its choice of alliance against the fascist powers became head over heels in anti-fascist ideas. Their number is endless, starting from the ideologues of that positioning; Zaj Fundua along with Zef Mala and Sejfulla Malëshova, followed, in accordance with their communist ideology, by those who went to the mountains to fight fascism, such as Koço Tashku and his comrades, Islam Radovicka, Riza Dani, Shefqet Beja, Sheh Karbunara, Professor Gjergj Kokoshi, Dr. Enver Fazani, Kole Kuqali and Irfan Majuni and their comrades. What were they called by Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labour of Albania? That whole endless string of them was also called “TRAITORS OF THE PARTY AND THE PEOPLE”!
One cannot forget the moment when, in the courtroom, accused as a conspirator, the Vice-Chairman of the Democratic Front of Albania, as well as the deputy of Durrës, Shefqet Beja, tore his shirt and showed in front of the judicial body and those present in the hall, the burns made with iron reddened in fire on his chest by the investigators, so that he would admit that they had created an anti-party group! (???). (We remind the reader that the Chairman of the Democratic Front was Enver Hoxha himself).
Thus, consequently, the attitude towards those who guided the people body and soul into the opposing camp of the fascist powers, and who for the most part were shot or rotted in prisons as traitors, as well as the so-called genuine collaborationists – does not this constitute a not only murderous but also paradoxical stance of Enver Hoxha and his party, totally subjugated to his personal interests? Both the collaborationists were called traitors, and also the anti-fascists, the supporters of the National Liberation War, were called traitors.
(We recall the exchanges between Bedri Spahiu in the role of prosecutor and Kol Tromara as the defendant). Thus, with the simplest mathematical logic, between two diametrically opposing sides, not only is an equal sign supposedly placed, but this diabolical political direction of Enver Hoxha is still kept alive and, in somewhat masked forms, continues to be supported by the still-active historians of that time, as well as by their disciples who still follow Vyshinsky’s postulate!
Without prolonging further, but also without wanting to disregard the voice of history from the years of communist dictatorship in Albania, which tells us how, after hundreds of traitors – starting with the founding of the Party of Labour of Albania, continuing with the deputies and their imaginary group, followed by army generals, traitorous economic leaders, and finally the prime minister of 27 consecutive years, as well as several deputy prime ministers and also ministers of internal affairs – it must be accepted that Enver Hoxha led the country along a righteous, principled, and very patriotic path for forty consecutive years, merely surrounded by traitors to the homeland!
This is the logic that the historians of the dictator, those who for forty years trembled and only thought and acted according to the teachings of the party and the dictator, writing their works and dissertations, wish to bequeath to the generations. Whereas today, emboldened because there is no longer a dictatorial state, but free to say and write as much and as they wish since arrest and torture no longer await them, as their own state-power used to do, they continue and want to keep history distorted as before… because their scientific works, written and published during the communist dictatorship, do not allow them to speak otherwise!
And consequently, precisely starting from questions raised that not only await answers but also demand fundamental and timely measures, and also concretely how much we should rely on the judgments of the world, we have presented the living and howling examples of history on how actions should be judged: those of Sir Edward Grey, the Ribbentrop–Molotov pact, the attitudes towards the fighters of the National Liberation Army, as well as towards the fighters of the anti-communist armed units, treated throughout the dictatorial period with contempt as “Saboteurs”!
And also the entire activity, at times collaborationist and later antagonistic, of Enver Hoxha towards his friend-enemies, whether they were states and systems or specific individuals, I have great hope that future researchers, who are also honestly inclined towards discovering historical truths based on archival materials, will not find it impossible to rectify the historical distortions made with certain malicious intentions, whether during the years of the communist dictatorship or afterwards.
On the other hand, I am filled with hope that this same category of researchers will know how to analyse the sounds of both bell towers, i.e., both the victors of World War II (the USA and England were allies of momentary interests with the Soviet Union, and after the war ended they became mortal enemies again, as they had been before the war), and also to properly interpret the archival documents!
Only an analysis of this nature, carried out with the good and honest will of impartial scientists, will set the dots on the “i” regarding Collaborationism for the good of the Homeland, under conditions of foreign occupation, as well as that supplementary form driven by personal ego and to the detriment of the Homeland, under the conditions of liberated Albania, these being evidenced by the economic condition of the country after the collapse of the communist dictatorship. / Memorie.al
