Dashnor Kaloçi
Memorie.al publishes an unknown document extracted from the fund of the former Central Committee of the ALP that talks about the conversation of the first secretary of the Central Committee, Enver Hoxha, with Koço Tashko, held on August 3, 1960, after a letter that Tashko had sent to Enver, in which, among other things, he demanded that a strict attitude be taken towards the members of the Central Committee and the Politburo who had spoken against Khrushchev at the Plenum meeting and that they are punished after Khrushchev had not erred. Enver’s outburst against Tashko at the beginning of their meeting, holding him accountable for why he had refused to meet with Hysni Kapo, but only with the first secretary of the Central Committee of the ALP and why he had erupted insulting the officers and the service they were assigned to meet and accompany him ?! Enver’s harsh accusations regarding Koço Tashko’s attitude towards the senior leadership of the ALP and personally Enver Hoxha, whom he did not trust, but met with two Russian diplomats of the Soviet Embassy in Tirana, Kozlov and Bespallov, who had been asked to intervene with the chairman of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Italy, Moris Torez, who had just arrived in Albania on holiday, to mediate the normalization of relations and the settlement of disputes that had begun between the leadership of top of the ALP and the Soviet one headed by Khrushchev!
“You asked me to grab branches by branch, telling us what was said in the Plenum of the Central Committee of our Party, as if I were not in a meeting. Why don’t you talk to us about other issues? You didn’t tell us what you showed Hysni. I say you have to judge better. Many things you raise are the offspring of your imagination. You are wrong when you say that the criticism we made of Khrushchev was not fair. In your opinion, in what things did Khrushchev err? Or was he wrong? As you yourself said, your opinion is that “Khrushchev was unjustly hit by the debaters in the Plenum and no action was taken against them”! This is weird. Instead of condemning Khrushchev’s stances, he wants to condemn the members of the Plenum, who spoke out against him. When you spoke a little while ago, you said, “Perhaps Khrushchev, walking so much in capitalist countries, can come up with other ideas.” I mean, there are some circumstances that can influence him. “Yes, if Khrushchev is wrong, Stalin is wrong.” Not so, Koço Tashko, don’t confuse Khrushchev with Stalin. Don’t talk to us in general, but tell us specifically, was Khrushchev wrong or not? ” Thus, at the beginning of his meeting, Enver Hoxha addressed, among others, Koço Tashko, the former chairman of the Communist Group of Korça and one of the founders of the Communist Party of Albania, in a meeting held between them on August 3. of 1960, a meeting which was held at Tashko’s request, not accepting that those problems which he had submitted in a letter to Enver Hoxha, he should consume with Hysni Kapo, the secretary of the Central Committee of the ALP- that Enver had authorized to wait for him. Not only that, but Tashko had insulted the service officers who had gone to communicate to him the meeting schedule and the place where “Comrade Hysni” would be waiting for him, insulting them with a banal vocabulary. But what else was said in that meeting between Enver Hoxha and Koço Tashko and why Tashko did not admit any of his mistakes and did not make self-criticism in writing as Enver asked ?! Which would then bring about the final blow that Enver would inflict on his former friend (the man who took him to the founding meeting of the SNP on November 8, 1941), not only by excluding him? from the Party and all state functions, but by imprisoning him for more than 20 years in Burrel prison and then in exile as a family in the Adriatic village of Kurbin, where he also died in 1984. And all this, Tashko i came from the attitude he held towards Enver in that meeting of August 3, 1960, which Memorie.al brought for the first time and in full to the readers.
Enver Hoxha’s fierce debates with Koço Tashko
From the conversation with Koço Tashko
August 3, 1960
COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I received the letter you sent me, requesting a meeting with me. I authorized Comrade Hysni Kapo to talk to you if you were upset because it would have filled your mind to talk to me or not. Of course, even an ordinary person can ask to speak with the First Secretary of the Central Committee, but it can happen that the First Secretary is very busy with some work, or is not in Tirana at all. In these cases, another person is authorized, as I did. As soon as I received your letter in the evening, I immediately sent it to Hysni through an officer. The officer was instructed to notify you to come to the meeting of the Central Committee. You did not like such a thing and you expressed yourself badly about our officers. When a secretary of the Central Committee calls you to a meeting, you should go without one without two, at the time he appoints you, and not when you are fired, otherwise, how can a man call himself a communist if you are not correct and disciplined when summoned by a comrade whom the Party has chosen to lead ?!
Besides, you know that our officers are our comrades, they are communists, they are not like you say. It is not right to talk like that because you are a party member. The Party has charged them with important tasks. Today we invite you to talk about the issues you wrote on paper and what you talked about with Hysni. So speak openly, clearly, in detail, as a party member. We have the time and patience to listen to you to the end. Talk to us about the issues you have. If there is a contradiction between you and the Central Committee and where did it come from? Tell us about the conversations you had with the officials of the Soviet embassy, what they said to you, what you said.
Koço Tashko: began to speak irresponsibly and with a pronounced arrogance. Comrade Enver Hoxha, from time to time, even intervening and asking, tried to help him patiently.
COMRADE ENVER: You asked me to grab branches by branch telling us what was said in the Plenum of the Central Committee of our Party as if I were not at the meeting. Why don’t you talk to us about other issues? You didn’t tell us what you showed Hysni. I say you have to judge better. Many things you raise are the offspring of your imagination. You are wrong when you say that the criticism we made of Khrushchev was not fair. In your opinion, in what things did Khrushchev err? Or was he wrong? As you yourself said, your opinion is that “Khrushchev was unjustly hit by the debaters in the Plenum and no action was taken against them”! This is weird. Instead of condemning Khrushchev’s stances, he wants to condemn the members of the Plenum, who spoke out against him. When you spoke a little while ago, you said, “Perhaps Khrushchev, walking so much in capitalist countries, can come up with other ideas.” I mean, there are some circumstances that can influence him. “Yes, if Khrushchev is wrong, Stalin is wrong.” Not so, Koço Tashko, don’t confuse Khrushchev with Stalin. Don’t talk to us in general, but tell us specifically, did Khrushchev make a mistake, didn’t he?
KOÇO TASHKO: I say that he was not wrong.
COMRADE ENVER: Did you say that Khrushchev could be wrong, just like Stalin ?!
KOÇO TASHKO: Even if he makes a mistake, I am confident that he will be corrected.
COMRADE ENVER: You said that you did not agree that I did not go to the Bucharest Meeting, that I did not respond to the invitation of the Soviets. It’s not like you say. I had no such invitation. You invent non-existent things. The norms of Marxist-Leninist parties are known to all. If you do not know these norms, then here is what I am saying: it has not happened and it does not happen that the Central Committee of our Party, to say to the First Secretary, do not go, when invited to a party meeting communist and worker of the socialist camp, or of the world. Even at the last Plenum, it was decided that at the next meeting to be held in November in Moscow, the First Secretary of the Central Committee will head the delegation of our Party. In Bucharest, we were only invited by the Romanian Labor Party to attend its congress, and we sent our delegation there. As for the meeting of the representatives of the communist and workers ‘parties that took place in Bucharest, it, according to the agreement reached earlier, aimed only to set the date and place of the next meeting of the communist and workers’ party of the world, therefore Our Central Committee did not consider it necessary to send me to Bucharest, authorizing Comrade Hysni Kapo to attend that meeting. We do not understand where you derive these things, which you say differently from what they are in reality and where you start from, so explain them to us yourself. As a member of the party, how do you explain that you manage to judge that all the issues that were said in the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party were not raised correctly and do not stand? But which ones stand then? What are you telling us?
KOÇO TASHKO: You need to have more faith in Khrushchev!
COMRADE ENVER: When, based on Marxist-Leninist organizational norms and the rules of proletarian internationalism, one party criticizes another party, or when a leader criticizes another party leader for making mistakes, this is a fair attitude. You are of the opinion that the Moscow Meeting should not take place in November, but as soon as possible. But this is a proposal made by you. The bottom line is that we will come to the Moscow Summit and there we will express our views. What can you tell us?
KOÇO TASHKO: I do not agree with the details.
COMRADE ENVER: Why do you agree, without telling us?
KOÇO TASHKO: I spoke, I don’t have to prolong, I am also a sick person.
COMRADE ENVER: No, Koço Tashko, you are not so sick that you are removed from the body, you are sick of the head. But the Party is sound. And the sick of the head, love you, Healthy Party. It has a duty to help people to have their say, to be corrected, to walk in the right path, yes, to get that help, they have to be open-hearted in front of the Party. Do you know these principles?
KOÇO TASHKO: I know, so I asked to talk to you because, in the Plenum, I couldn’t talk like here, who lets you talk like that there? There they would throw me in the throat.
COMRADE ENVER: What are you saying? Explain to us a little bit about who doesn’t let you speak at the Central Committee Plenum? In your opinion, when you can’t speak in the Plenum, does that mean there’s a sick situation there ?! You yourself told us that you have great faith in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, then why don’t you have the same faith in our Party, of which you are a member?
KOÇO TASHKO: I said this because if they intervened when I spoke, I am a nervous person and then, an intervention, a remark to me, throw me in the air.
COMRADE ENVER: I don’t know how you feel. I only know the Leninist norms of our Party. The Central Committee is the Party leadership that always judges right, wise, calm, but, when necessary, also harshly. So how do you talk about the Central Committee, the leadership of the Party? The members of the Central Committee are not Kalman’s who, as you say, would not judge you well, would throw you in the throat !? What do you mean you are nervous?
KOÇO TASHKO: I can’t speak there, it’s a physical issue.
COMRADE ENVER: But can such a position before the Central Committee of our Party be called Marxist? You told Hysni last night that if you had spoken in the Plenum, you would have caused a rift, and here you are telling me that if you had spoken, “they would have thrown you in the throat.” Which of these stands? If you explain this with “health reasons”, it does not fill our minds. You have a duty to give the explanations required by the Central Committee, that you are a member of the Party. So tell us, why do you think the members of the Plenum would not judge fairly? The Communist speaks openly at Party meetings. When he sees that he is expressing the right opinion, it is in the interest of the party, so he defends his opinion to the end, as if everyone is against his opinion, so Lenin teaches us. Above all, the interest of the Party should be seen, not personal interest. The Communists can even die, he can even faint in the meeting, but the Party must know its point of view, now or after 50 years, so it must say that point of view, as it is. This is the opinion of the Party members and not as you think, that you are afraid to speak in the Plenum and tell us here “don’t stop my heart if I speak”! I ask you to tell us again, what is the opinion that you expressed to Hysni that your word would cause discord ?!
KOÇO TASHKO: I said that the comrades of the Central Committee did not think that I was criticizing you.
COMRADE ENVER: You think so and not the friends of the Plenum, who understand criticism correctly. Then why not criticize me too? Tell us, what is the Central Committee, and what am I? I am a party member, a Party soldier. Above me is the Politburo, above the Politburo, is the Central Committee, over which is the Party Congress. So why do you prefer to talk only to me and not to the Central Committee, which is the leading party forum, while I am a member of the Central Committee? Tomorrow you will again go to the Central Committee to give explanations for these views.
KOÇO TASHKO: There are also things that one should talk about a little more closed.
COMRADE ENVER: Apparently, you don’t have the right meaning for the Central Committee. Here to discuss in a closed way? Why close these things, for what reason? How do you explain that you want to say no to these issues in the Central Committee? Why do you worry that speaking at the Central Committee Plenum will cause dissension in his ranks? You did not explain this to us. You claimed here that if you spoke at the Plenum, one might think that “Koço received and said these things in a meeting, where there was a mess” !. How do you talk more about the Central Committee ?! Are you or are you not on your own? What is the Central Committee, a “scumbag”, a bunch of random people? If you had said these things in the Plenum, there would have been no division, only the authority given to you by the Party would have been reduced. Think, talk as you should in the Party, take the door! What are these things? You have kept them for 20 days without telling us these thoughts. You have said that you only agree on the issue of coming to Moscow and, “if we have an opinion on Khrushchev, let’s tell him.” But you know very well because you were on the Central Committee and you heard that we, the Khrushchevs, kept saying our thoughts. So what we can say about Khrushchev is not new, we have said it in our eyes, we have not kept it to ourselves. Did you hear them in the Plenum or not? As the facts show, you do not agree with the decisions of the Plenum, except for one thing that we can do in Moscow. These are neither family matters nor friendly matters. You come up with opposing views with the Central Committee. Why then do you raise these preoccupying issues today and not in time, for which the Central Committee has decided what attitude should be taken? For such party issues, why wait and think about “meeting Comrade Enver when he goes on vacation”? For all these things that you have and that is contrary to the Party, you have to come to us the next day. Why then leave this issue for 20 days? These are not party positions. How would you explain this attitude to the grassroots organization?
KOÇO TASHKO: I didn’t come because I thought you were busy with Torez.
COMRADE ENVER: Yes, I stayed with Torez for two hours. You should have asked for a meeting, it was your duty to tell the Party everything and not to think that “Comrade Enver is now with Torez”, that “I will meet him myself when he goes to Korça on vacation”, etc. What if I didn’t go to Korça, how would you do it, would you still keep them without saying these things? Especially since you did not want to say these things to any of the other secretaries of the Central Committee.
KOÇO TASHKO: I had hope, as I told my Soviet comrades, that with Torez you would talk about these issues and he would mediate to give them a solution.
COMRADE ENVER: That’s your view. And that apparently prompted you not to meet with me right away. Why do you have hope in Torezi and yourself and not in Enver, who has a First Secretary? But is your opinion correct that now that Torezi has arrived, things will be fixed? Which jobs will be fixed, tell us, have you thought right or not? You thought that now that Torezi had arrived, attempts would be made to improve relations with Khrushchev. What are these attempts? What kind of mediation would we, according to you, require from Torez? Explain!
KOÇO TASHKO: This is quite simple: Torez is the general secretary of a glorious party, and I thought that Comrade Enver would talk to him so that the Moscow Meeting could take place before November.
COMRADE ENVER: It occurred to you that the November Meeting should take place first. I told you it doesn’t depend on us. We have wanted and want this meeting to take place and we have stated this in front of the representatives of more than 50 parties. In Bucharest, it has been decided that the meeting will take place in Moscow, on the occasion of the celebration of the great October Socialist Revolution. Prior to the meeting, it was also decided that the work of the commission consisting of representatives of 12 parties of socialist countries and representatives of 14 other parties of capitalist countries would take place. These issues will be discussed beforehand in the commission and then the materials will be sent to each party, including our Party. When they come to us, we will study these materials very carefully and will act as it was decided in the Plenum of the Central Committee and as you are aware. So you don’t have to ask our party to convene as soon as possible. If the meeting is held in advance, we are ready to come. You want the meeting to take place very quickly if you come according to the rules of the Party and tell the First Secretary, the worry that bothers you, it does not. Then what are the reasons that you think that “now that Torezi has come, the issues will be put on the right track and will be fixed-? What issues are you talking about?
KOÇO TASHKO: For the issues that are known, Janem! All that has been said in the Plenum and we are saying it here as well.
COMRADE ENVER: That means we would tell the whole Torez and he would put it where you think it would be! But how was it decided in the Central Committee? At the Plenum, we decided to raise these issues at the Moscow Meeting. If we were to resolve these issues through Torres, it would mean acting outside the decision of the Central Committee. How do you manage to think that way?
KOÇO TASHKO: I think it is right for Torezi to be used for any disagreements you have with Brezhnev, Kozllovin, and others.
COMRADE ENVER: What is this Brezhnev, why are you scaring us with these? We are not dealing with the President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. Don’t provoke us here. I have told Kozlov and I will tell him what he has on his face. Now tell us about the meetings you had with the Soviets. We want to know what you talked about. Tell us what matters.
KOÇO TASHKO: On July 29, Bespallov called me and invited me to talk. I met him at the Soviet club, we saw the movie and then we went out and went to the Dajti Hotel. Bespallov told me that relations between us have cooled.
COMRADE ENVER: Didn’t they tell you why they got cold?
KOÇO TASHKO: He neither told me nor asked me. We talked about a lot of things. I told him that the Plenum of the Central Committee of our Party in resolving the issues had charged Comrade Enver. I told him that maybe something could be done through the talks that will take place with Torez.
COMRADE ENVER: What was your opinion?
KOÇO TASHKO: My opinion was that these issues should be resolved at the November meeting or at any other meeting that can take place. I do not rule out another meeting, other than that of November.
COMRADE ENVER: So you don’t rule out another meeting. Go.
KOÇO TASHKO: I told Bespallov that with the arrival of Torez in our country, there will be something positive because that day I had read in the newspaper “Zeri i Popullit”, Torezi’s speech held in Korça and I was impressed that he spoke very well for our Party, for the Central Committee, and for Comrade Enver.
COMRADE ENVER: I mean, you came to the conclusion that we had talked, we had raised these issues, and we were in a better mind. Thus, you judge from the outside, formulate opinions with your imagination that Torezi did not come to us for vacation, but to talk. And that’s what you tell Bespallov. Having thought that the comrades of the Bureau may have come to an agreement with Torezi and, based on the assessment that Torezi made to our Party, in the speech he gave in Korça, you judged that the leadership of our Party has also issued. So, in your opinion, it turns out that all that the Plenum decided was rejected, and Enver has come up with those thoughts that Koço has. Have you met Novikov?
KOÇO TASHKO: I met. Bespallov told me to come to Novikov’s house for dinner, where Ivanov would also be. After dinner, we spent some time talking. In the end, I don’t remember how the conversation went and we talked about Torez.
COMRADE ENVER: Try to remember, how did this conversation come about?
KOÇO TASHKO: Here, we talked about Torez.
COMRADE ENVER: You did all the talk about Torez?
KOÇO TASHKO: Yes, that Torezi would be the savior.
COMRADE ENVER: What did Ivanov say to you?
KOÇO TASHKO: I don’t know, he spoke in general.
COMRADE ENVER: We know Ivanov very well, he is not one who speaks in general.
KOÇO TASHKO: Ivanov has never talked to me about the issues we are talking about, neither Zollotov nor Bespallov, I have many friends.
COMRADE ENVER: I am surprised that they did not talk to you, that you have close friends, and they are addressing cadres who do not know them well, and they say “let’s talk”.
KOÇO TASHKO: They did not talk to me not only now, but also in 1957 when I was in the Soviet Union. From all that they did then for me, I understood something. They gave me all those great honors, they told me “if you want, you can stay in the villa where Comrade Enver stays with the government delegation”, they also invited me to the reception given in the Kremlin. To me, then, they have respect and behave well. But recently, when Ivanov shakes my hand, he immediately removes it, so as not to compromise in front of anyone who does not love me.
COMRADE ENVER: But why can it compromise you? Who doesn’t love you and is that true?
KOÇO TASHKO: I don’t know, I can’t explain it.
COMRADE ENVER: But later, why did Ivanov approach you again?
KOÇO TASHKO: This is one of the questions I have in my head.
COMRADE ENVER: You said that “the whole conversation with the Soviets was about Torres, which was a very important issue.” But when you consider the issue of Torez important, why does he talk to Novikov and Ivanov and not come to me? All the conversations with them, you did before sending me the letter.
KOÇO TASHKO: I went to them by chance.
COMRADE ENVER: Party comrades will laugh with you when this issue is discussed. While accepting the thesis that: Comrade Enver may have discussed this with Torez, then why are you discussing the issues with the Soviets?
KOÇO TASHKO: I don’t see anything wrong here.
COMRADE ENVER: Here we are in the offices of the Central Committee, so speak properly. I am not a prosecutor, but the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party, so he discussed the issues as discussed in the Party. What you tell us does not go at all. On the one hand, you say that I can only talk to Comrade Enver, because he is the First Secretary of the Central Committee, on the other hand, the opinion you have about our Party, you do not say to him, but to Bespallov himself, who considers him, as he himself said, a close friend. What are these things you are telling us? Bespallov has his seat, and the First Secretary of the Central Committee of our Party has his seat. Why didn’t you follow the party’s organizational rules and talk to me? If you have disagreements with the Central Committee and want to tell them to the First Secretary, you should have done so in a timely manner, even immediately after the Plenum. Then whether you go to the Soviets or not, that’s something else. For me, there was no need to go, and you, not only went and talked to them, but went without talking to us at all, and had three meetings with the Soviets.
KOÇO TASHKO: No, I did two.
COMRADE ENVER: These are written in your letter. Even if you don’t meet them at all, the only idea is to have them go to talks with them before they come to your Party, this is impermissible and contrary to the organizational rules of the Party. I do not agree that you wrote the letter to me before you talked to the Soviets, its very content refuting such a claim. According to you, it turns out that Torezi came from Paris to talk to us about these issues and then come to Moscow. When Ivanov told you that in addition to Torez, on August 8, there would be others in Moscow, did you become a little curious to ask who the others were? Then who charged you to tell Ivanov to invite his friend Enver for this meeting? Who authorized you to speak on behalf of the First Secretary of the Central Committee? You now come to me and tell me that your opinion is that the issues should not remain to be discussed in November “because then they get fat”. We know this, but we also know the other one that our Party does not thicken the issues, the issues thicken the actions that you do, so do not accuse our Party. We have 4-5 years that we have not uttered a word about the unjust actions of some Soviet leaders. Some Soviet leaders are hitting us, but we have been patient, and you are now telling us that we should not let these things get in the way. Isn’t that an accusation? I said it and I repeat that it is not up to our Party to decide on the time of the meeting. Why did it occur to you that this meeting should take place as soon as possible? You have to invite Ivanov to Comrade Enver, then he comes here and tells me to talk to Ivanov himself. What path do you reflect on? Why do you do that? What harm has our Party done to you? She has raised you, helped you, helped you, and will help you, but what you have done is very difficult. You say you love the Party, but then why don’t you tell the Party what worries you so much?
KOÇO TASHKO: I told you that I am a phlegmatic type, so you should also consider the human side and the type of people. Then, after meeting the Soviets, they put both my feet in one shoe.
COMRADE ENVER: How did they put their feet in one shoe? Explain yourself!
KOÇO TASHKO: I intended to meet with you, but I postponed this meeting day by day. As I talked to Bespallov, I realized that there was no way this issue could be postponed.
COMRADE ENVER: You’re explaining to us a little bit why you went and talked to him since you condemn this conversation.
KOÇO TASHKO: No, I do not condemn it, but I had to tell you something.
COMRADE ENVER: You tell them everything, and you only say “something” to the First Secretary of your party’s Central Committee. But who is to blame for what you have done? If you understand the guilt, then make a self-critical thread. The Soviets did not ask you who you met, how did the Plenum go?
KOÇO TASHKO (hesitates to speak), then says: I may have been asked…
COMRADE ENVER: Speak openly, what about the Plenum? Didn’t Ivanov ask you how these issues were discussed in the Plenum? Again, if I ask you, Ivanov asked you how these issues were discussed in the Plenum? Ask him such a question? What they told Hysni and that they take away from us seems to know the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, when it puts our leadership in the position of Mensheviks and Trotskyists and says that something happened to us “as in the time of Kronstadt” in the Soviet Union. Do you think these things about your Party? But why are we bachelors? Do you know the history of our Party? The great love of our people for the peoples of the Soviet Union was not molded by you, but by our Party in war, blood and sweat, and you now come and make such accusations against us. These things that you say have their roots elsewhere, so think and reflect only on the path of the Party, otherwise, you will not be corrected. Sit a little on the ground. The party has respected you more than you deserved. Your imagination is sick and this image is not sick now, you have had this disease before. To be honest, from no one in my life have I heard such a discussion and discussion of the issue without a head, without a tail, without a connection, like the one I heard from you. Many friends came and opened their hearts to me when they were wrong, but they came out of the conversation warm. And now you’re talking to me about “humanism” for the phlegmatic type! I have been humanitarian to people, to friends. Now, what do you want when you say to me, “Let me look at the human side,” don’t you want me to defend the Party line, its interests? Please, I put the interests of the Party and the people above everything else and I will protect them as long as I live. If there are any facts to criticize me and the Central Committee, we will openly expect the right criticism and we have always waited for them. But if anyone criticizes us for our attitude towards the Yugoslav revisionists, we say “stop” to anyone, even Khrushchev, that we do not call the uncle pig. He himself has said of the Yugoslav leadership that it is an agency of imperialism. So why hit our Party for its rightful stance against the Yugoslav revisionists? Why? How can we shut up about these? When we say that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is the mother party, it does not mean that we are silent before the mistakes of any of its leaders. After the talks in Moscow in 1957, we, out of respect for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, did not write for a time in the press against Yugoslav revisionism. However, it did not take long for the Yugoslav revisionists to hold their infamous VII Congress, in connection with which the justice of our Party line again appeared. By staying in a revolutionary position, we are defending the Soviet Union and its Communist Party itself, and those who violate, in one way or another, the principles of Marxism-Leninism, whoever they are, we will criticize in the Marxist way. Leninist. Don’t we have the right to criticize someone when he fills the cup? When mistakes are made, we cannot remain silent, we will criticize, the Marxist-Leninist path, that this protects the freedom and independence of our homeland and the Soviet Union itself, that a lot of blood was shed for them. This is how proletarian Marxism-Leninism and internationalism are defended, and not, as you think, Koço Tashko. You grind things in your imagination. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has the right to act as it pleases, but for the remarks made to our Party, we also have the right to have our say. Our party fights to the end to protect the interests of the people and Marxism-Leninism from enemies, but your sick imagination says otherwise. Criticism is critical, so when you are in front of mistakes, it is opportunism not to criticize. But you have suffered from this disease. I have carefully followed the life of the Party from the beginning. There are times when we need to talk a little bit, but there are also times when we need to grit our teeth and, when it comes to principles, they need to be protected, we can’t step on them. Have you seen our writings when we criticize Yugoslav revisionists? In them, we have constantly talked about the experience of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. So what about the articles published by the Soviets? I know them, but there are also changes in attitudes, which are not just tactical changes. We also made our remarks to Khrushchev, we did not tell him secretly, we told him before our eyes, and he also told us in his eyes. But these have not led us to dissension. You know the view of our Party that the disputes that have arisen are between the two parties, between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China, and we have said at the right time that the consideration of these issues in Bucharest is premature, i hastened, that they should be carefully resolved and rigorously enforced the Leninist organizational rules of party relations. So what motivates you to take this stand against the Central Committee? Therefore, as a friend, reflect on these issues. It is possible that in these 2-3 days, according to the rules of the Party, you will write to the Central Committee on all these issues.
KOÇO TASHKO: I have nothing more to say.
COMRADE ENVER: That is, you will not act like any party member whose Party gives a hand to go deeper into mistakes. Then don’t say tomorrow that Comrade Enver did not give me the opportunity to reflect on my mistakes.
KOÇO TASHKO: I have nothing to say. What I had I said here.
COMRADE ENVER: In short, these are your attitudes. Won’t you review your position? I once again advise you to reflect today, tomorrow and until the day after tomorrow, and submit your thoughts to us in writing, then we will judge your case in the Central Committee because it is an important issue for which it should discuss and decide the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party.
KOÇO TASHKO: To write, I will not write, what I had I told him.
Memorie.al
