Archival file of the marathon meetings of the Politburo, which were held to review and analyze the self-criticism of former Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu in December 1981 

 

Memorie.al / publishes documents from the Central State Archive (the fund of the former Central Committee of the ALP), with archival materials bearing the motto ‘Top Secret’, from the period of 1981-1982, with reports, relations, testimonies , information, minutes of the meetings of the Political Bureau and the secretariat of the Central Committee of the ALP, etc., starting from the one held to review and analyze the self-criticism of former Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu in December 1981, for because he had allowed the engagement of his son, Skender, the marathon meeting of the Political Bureau on the afternoon of December 17 of that year, which continued until the late hours, where that problem was examined with the debates and discussions of all the members who “crossed “former Prime Minister Shehu, the meeting on the morning of December 18, after the news that Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu had killed himself, the marathon meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the ALP on September 20, 1982, with the theme: “Analysis of mistakes of Kadri Hazbiu, carried out during the period when he was deputy minister and minister of internal affairs”, where Enver Hoxha first started the accusations against Kadri Hazbiu, luring him as a “party loyalist”, (so that he “to open his heart to the Party”, speaking against the former Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu), where at the beginning of his speech, Enveri said: “After the putschists in the army, we discovered the traitorous group in the economy of Abdyl Këllez, Koço Theodhos and Kiço Ngjela with friends. We also discovered this group here, the State Security did not. In the same way, we can also say about the discovery of the group of Fadil Paçrami, Todi Lubonja and a number of other people connected to them, such as Ismail Kadareja and his friends, that Safety did not discover, but that hostile work was discovered by the Committee Central”, etc.! All these and other documents with the motto ‘Top Secret’ will be published in several issues in a row, exclusively by Memorie.al

                                                                                                                    Top secret

                                                               MEETING

OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE PPS CENTRAL COMMITTEE DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1982

This meeting was called by comrade Enver, where comrades Adil Çarçani and Hekuran Isai were also invited to analyze the serious mistakes of the member of the Political Bureau, Kadri Hazbiu, committed during the period he was in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as deputy minister of then minister.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I called this meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Committee to examine a problem as delicate and important as it is dangerous for the destiny of the homeland. I do not wish to dwell on the matter of which we are now aware, that the enemy and traitor Mehmet Shehu, for 40 years in a row, has been working in our country, organizing conspiracies to overthrow the popular power and liquidate the Party. We know these conspiracies, because we discovered them ourselves. Today I want to emphasize the fact that all conspiracies were discovered by the Political Bureau and not by the State Security.

The hostile work, disguised as “friendly”, first by the Yugoslavs, then by the Soviets, under this mask had spread its roots, almost throughout the country, especially in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of People’s Defense, two the finer points of our dictatorship of the proletariat.

We also discovered a few years ago the conspiracy of Beqir Balluk and the group of officers, which was also very dangerous, and in this case, we took a series of measures, brought to court, tried and then shot the main culprits, the leaders, except one, the most the main one of all, Mehmet Shehu, whom we could not discover.

As you know, we also took measures on this occasion for a number of other military cadres that we imagined, but for whom we had no facts, that they were in the waters of this coup and we released them, as were a number of major officers. Personally, I am convinced that the release of this number of major officers, some of whom we may have sent to exile, were connected to the Soviet agency in the first place. But we had no facts and as we all know, the Party has never acted without facts. And not only did he not act, but he also tried to correct people, he worked to rehabilitate the wrongdoers.

After the putschists in the army, we discovered the traitorous group in the economy of Abdyl Këllez, Koço Theodhosi and Kiço Ngjela and their friends. We also discovered this group here, the State Security did not. The State Security then acted to investigate, so that something could be brought to light.

The same can be said about the discovery of the group of Fadil Paçram, Todi Lubonja and a number of other people connected to them, such as Ismail Kadareja and friends who came around this group. Even this work was done by the Central Committee, not by the State Security.

All these constitute a big minus for the State Security.

Finally we discovered the enemy Mehmet Shehu with his main associates, who are now in prison and testifying.

But it is a fact that Mehmet Shehu was the chief agent, the one who set all these hostile groups in motion. Mehmet Shehu was the main resident of the American CIA; he was also an agent of the English (Intelligent Service), an agent of the Gestapo, an agent of the Italian SIM, an agent of the Yugoslav Titists, of the Russians, maybe even of the Chinese. For the agent of the Chinese, I said maybe, that so far we don’t have facts about this, but we have about the others. All these connections of his that I mentioned are proven.

We analyzed the hostile and agential activity of Mehmet Shehu, but this is still superficial. We are tasked to go deep into this issue, because here is not only the work of a chief agent like him, but also of the agent network that this enemy has prepared in time.

As it turns out, the preparation of the foreign agency in Albania was not done by Mehmet Shehu, personally. He contacted the agents of Yugoslavia, of the Russians, of Italy, of the Germans (for himself it was of the Americans). Of course, it is the Anglo-Americans who gave him all these agents. Mehmet Shehu himself was not a simple recruiter of agents; he was the leader of a wide agency within our country, with internal enemies, who were recruited by different agencies.

And Mehmet Shehu had put all these into action. His aim was to overthrow popular power, seize power by force, either through a military coup or through a Ministry of Internal Affairs coup accompanied by a military coup, liquidate key comrades in the leadership, and implement the draft program that we found in his safe, after the suicide.

It is therefore a very serious job for us to get into the depth of this matter. This is begged by the great interest of the homeland, of socialism in Albania and of the Party, against whom all these enemies have rushed, who were everywhere, but those who acted in the most dangerous way, it turns out that they were gathered in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and in the Ministry of National Defense.

You, Kadri, worked in the Ministry of Internal Affairs for 30 years. In the same way, you also worked in the Security, in the counterintelligence of the army. When I point this out, I don’t mean to say that you were an associate of Mehmet Shehu. No, but the fact is that for a long time, you were in charge of this department as deputy minister, later also minister of internal affairs, where you headed the State Security bodies. So you were surrounded there, by a strong and very dangerous agency working under the direction of Mehmet Shehu.

The State Security, or better to say the Ministry of Internal Affairs, after the discovery of each conspiracy, as much as it could or was allowed to get into the problem, continued processes, but not to the end. However, the leaders of these conspiracies, starting with Koçi Xoxja, Tuk Jakova, Bedri Spahiu, as well as a number of other, not small, enemies, we have unmasked, tried and punished them. Koçi Xoxe, the main one, we shot, others we gave graduated sentences, some who were less guilty, we gave them administrative measures, in other words, we exiled them. But it is a fact that the hostile work has been continued by those who can be called “tails”, but who in reality were not such, but were “trunks”. And these “trunks” released “shoots” again.

Likewise, when you were in the State Security, the Koçi Xoxi agency was operating. At that time, being a loyal friend of the Party, there were Koçi Xoxes agents around you, acting according to the directives given by Belgrade. We’ve kind of delved into the old files of that time. I say somehow, why very little, or how to say, how much we put the tip of our finger in them.

By this I mean that you have a great responsibility for what happened there, despite the fact that you were not conscious, despite the mistakes that were made there, which you took lightly. The fact is that, with all the cadres who worked in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and State Security, you had an excessive formality, which I have tried to point out and fight against constantly, all my life.

But, despite all the advice I gave him, unfortunately, I find that there was no healthy party spirit in the department of internal affairs. Instead of this spirit, which should have reigned there, there has been sick familiarity. This, in my opinion, has helped Mehmet Shehu’s agents to act under your nose, without noticing almost any negative element, let alone bad, that you could see.

We have rightly considered and whenever we consider the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as a sharp weapon in the hands of the Party, we knew that we had in the State Security and in all the subordinate bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, cadres from good people of the Party, cool-headed, alert and loyal people.

This has consistently been our orientation on this issue. But, in these big issues, I find that the sound spirit, or the sound orientation that the Party has given in these sectors, has been in two parts. There were cadres of this sector who understood this situation, but there were also those who did not understand and did the opposite, which created a dangerous situation for the Party in the opinion, as if there is immunity for State Security employees.

There has been a well-deserved respect for them, but also an undeserved respect. In a word, a certain cult has been created for State Security employees. And the cult is created by both familiarity and fear, why should we not forget that the State Security and our military, two oppressive weapons that are directed against the enemy element, internal and external.

In the Ministry of Internal Affairs, it depends a lot on how this or that functionary understands a Party directive. If he understands it well, then the people will also love and respect him. If you do not understand and do not apply it well, of course fear will be created in the masses.

After this preamble, I would also like to emphasize that, with the friends of the Secretariat of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, including of course Kadri, we have talked about these issues, but I have also talked especially with Kadri, with Hekuran and with Ramiz about these problems. We worked continuously after the death of Mehmet Shehu, in order to fix the situation a little, to put this on the road, that’s why we held frequent meetings with each other, we also exchanged more thoughts and information, after which we made decisions, as you know, we have arrested a number of Mehmet Shehu’s main collaborators, however we have not yet gotten to the core of the problem.

Now here are two things to get us where we need to be. The point is that through the investigation, it is imperative that we bring out the activity of all the enemy elements, very dangerous, but the result will depend both on their availability and also on the skill of our investigators. So the matter, for us, is not complete. Until now, we are before the discovery of a hostile, very dangerous activity against the Party and the government, but this is limited in time and in people. What we have achieved, we should not consider as the only means of discovering this activity.

Then there is the other main issue, which we must clarify, to know well where these enemies have been operating, how they have been organized, how they have communicated with each other, what they have used, legally and illegally, in an open and transparent manner secret, which agency they used, how true the agency’s data was, the forms and methods of discovering these truths, and all of this should accompany the personal investigation that is and will be done to the arrested .

In addition to others, I talked several times with comrade Kadri, I told him and he himself also told me that he made mistakes when he worked in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. You made mistakes, I told him, but these were not made on purpose on his part. I made mistakes from lack of vigilance, from familiarity, or from kindness, he explained to me.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, Comrade Enver, that’s how we talked.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Thus, with kindness, he believed, received information or performed an act, relying on the trust he had in him that he presented and passed without thinking about the danger her. I have always accompanied this to Kadri with the advice that he should be free, that he is an old communist and a member of the Political Bureau and he knows well how to fight the enemy, how the Party fights, etc.

I also asked Kadri to help Comrade Hekuran, after he became the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, because he does not have Kadri’s experience and needs help, especially in these complicated and dangerous situations that were created by our enemies. Now, how much Kadriu has helped friend Hekuar and what friend Hekuran has asked of him, I don’t know, they can talk about that themselves. But I also had a purpose, that I commissioned Kadri to help Hekurani and not only with assumptions, but especially by making him aware of the main actions that have been carried out in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which I did not know about.

It is impossible that you have worked for 40 years in a department, such as the Ministry of Internal Affairs, that acts have not come out there and good, but also wrong, bad decisions have not been made, especially when now we are discovering that a strong group of enemies has been operating there. Whether Kadriu understood this or not, I don’t know, but I think he should have understood and entered into a deep analysis of the work he has done in the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

It seems to me that he somehow understood this, why he came to me one day and said: “Comrade Enver, I have prepared a self-criticism”.

To be honest, I immediately answered that there was no need for this self-criticism, that we know you, you have worked there for a long time and you may have made mistakes.

Yes, I made little mistakes, he told me. Please, he asked me then, let me sing the self-criticism and listen to it.

As he stood still, I answered: Well, then, I’m listening to you. And I listened to his self-criticism. Then, when he asked me to take delivery of his written self-criticism, I refused. I don’t hold this self-criticism, I told him.

And why didn’t I keep Kadri’s self-criticism, until I have the duty to accept such a thing, which comes from a friend, especially when it comes from a member of the Political Bureau? To tell you the truth, and I did not express this to Kadri in that meeting, because I did not want to disturb him, because we had a lot of work ahead of us in the Army Sector, so I just informed him that I would not keep it, even that it was not necessary hold on, I told him.

However, I must tell you, comrades, that the self-criticism written by Kadri was very general, its content did not have anything important, he there, if I am not mistaken, only stated that: “in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, mistakes have been made, so there is no way to get rid of them, because he himself has flaws, etc.

In his self-criticism, Kadriu also hit Mehmet Shehu and all the other agents in turn, but, to be honest, this self-criticism specifically did not warm me very much. My general opinion was this, and I said this to me, that Comrade Kadri has not gone deep enough in the analysis of his work, in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, this was also conspired and complicated with the hostile activity of Mehmet Shehu and of the agents that he had placed around him.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This situation passed, Kadriu then continued working in the Army, where I would like to point out that he worked and continues to work with great interest and will. And as far as I can judge, within these two or three years he has entered the problems of the army. We have often talked about this together, I have given him tasks to perform and he has always been quite busy.

But now there are documents in the archives that appear one after the other. These cannot remain closed to collect dust, especially after all these great events that we have lived through, so we must ask him for some explanations about them, comrade Kadri, because he is the only good friend who is alive and able to clarify for us what we are discovering.

Looking for the characteristics of a cadre in the Cadre Sector in the Central Committee with comrade Ramiz, I don’t remember exactly who, Mihal Bisha, based on memory, tells Ramiz that this man is on that “list”.

Ramizi asked: “What is this list”?!

The list of officers who were in the Soviet Union and which our Ministry of Internal Affairs has made available to the KGB and the GRY.

Comrade Ramiz received these documents, immediately informed me, and he had to inform me, then he said: Look what we have here? And he showed me. Let’s ask Kadri about this once, because he knows the situation, I told him.

But before we ask you to explain this matter to us, we dug a little deeper into this information. We told Comrade Hekuran to look for that time at some files that come around this issue. The goal was to have this work clear, to present it to you today.

Now we want to know, how does this work stand? Here we have two problems, let’s look at the first one first, let’s not get to the second one yet. How does the question of placing our residents under the direction of the Soviet residence and the taking over from the Soviet residence of our operative collaborators, some of whom were kept by our residents and some of whom were completely unknown to our residence? Is that so?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, that’s right, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Those that were kept by us were known by the Soviets.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: So those who were kept by us were known by the Soviets. These were a number of residents, whose number is more limited, while the number of collaborators is greater. The number of officers or students who were followed both by our Security and by the Soviet Security, with which we cooperated, is still greater, but with question marks. In addition, the same has been done with the Insurance of the countries of the former People’s Democracies. There we had civilian students, who were put in the hands of the agencies of these countries.

Now, how was this work done, friend Kadri?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: These are not the only ones, there may be others.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: And others, if you have, Kadri, tell us.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Now, as far as my responsibility is concerned, I have not even been able to elaborate on this, but I have said with conscience, as in the 6th Plenum of the Central Committee, even later, that in terms of all this hostile activity, that was confirmed in the Army, I had no reservations in the assessment that the Party made of the responsibility of the Internal Affairs bodies, specifically the State Security, for these issues, which worried me a lot, but as I realized for myself, I am unable to determine it.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What do you think, did the Party act correctly?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, he acted completely correctly.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What about the State Security?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, he did not act correctly and I say this in terms of evaluating the work that was done. At the beginning, in the materials we made and in the conclusions drawn there, I expressed that the Security has its responsibility, even a very big one; I always talk about the activity of the putschists. However, I am convinced that the State Security has not done its duty due to the fact that; all these hostile activities have been discovered by the Party in the process of its efforts to advance the development of our country. This is my opinion and I have no reservations about it.

Regarding my work, Comrade Enver, I am convinced of one thing and I can say this here in front of you, that I have done what I knew. Any reserve or trick, if we can call it that, I didn’t have, don’t have and won’t have towards the Party. How much have I achieved this…?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Here is the question of how much you should have known, what you knew, we can accept that you did not keep anything from the Party, the question is, should you know more, or should you not know?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This is how I judge it, Comrade Enver, I have been in front of people who cheated on me, but for my part, I have not cheated anything, I have looked at the issues always from the point of view of the Party man, that if I had cast a shadow of doubt on these people, I would have taken a different position. Was there any evidence that I could see signs of doubt? It can.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, why don’t you have doubts? What are those reasons that made you not to doubt?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Once, all these people were in leadership. I, even if I had an opinion against, on a certain issue, I always thought that this one, I mean Mehmet Shehu, was a member of the Central Committee, a member of the Political Bureau and prime minister. Even those I have had around, I have not looked at them with the eye of doubt. For those thoughts and actions of theirs, which I found to be contrary to the norms of the Party, there are documents, let them be seen and it will come out that, when I could, I corrected them.

So, the thoughts I had, about one or the other, even as I had them, Comrade Enver, I never held back, I went and told the Central Committee, when I thought otherwise. How can I say now, the responsibility falls on me that I had to be vigilant, but in these circumstances, more than that, I have not managed to discover or identify as negative the activity of these people, so as not to speak of them as traitors and as enemy?

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI: Well, what has prevented you in this direction? This is not the work of skill, that you have not missed it. Then why did you fail to suspect these people? Zoi Themeli was in the Ministry that you led and the enemy turned out, Mihallaq Ziçishti also, so many bad things happened to Feçor Shehu, Halim Xheloja was in the Army Intelligence and it turned out that the enemy was also behind, yes so Panayot the Elder.

Here we are talking about a lack of vigilance towards these elements that were close to you, then why did this loss of vigilance happen on your part? Was it just because they were frames, or did you have any other thoughts about them? Didn’t familiarity affect these soft attitudes of yours, which could be one of the causes that led you there, in the weakening of vigilance? Or the view that this is a friend of the War, State Security Worker, etc.?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What can I say, that’s what I said and that’s how I judge, maybe this is a wrong position on my part, but I’ve never had anything to do with them. Regarding Zoi Themelin, there are documents in the Ministry, where it turns out that I always thought of him as a close person, that’s what he thinks. When his case was handled by the Central Committee apparatus, I gave my opinion on it. As for Mihallaq Ziçishti, I have never doubted. Why? It could also be the familiarity that prevented me from looking at these issues, it could also be the common struggle we fought, and however, I have pointed out some flaws that I have found in their work.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I have asked you several times, it seems to me, that I have never understood the removal of Mihallaq Zicishti from the post of Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, I have told you that whenever we, with or without fault, we expelled a communist or a cadre, even with low functions from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, or from its subordinate bodies, he came and cried in front of me. Regarding Mihallaq Ziçishti, you told me that you sent him away to go and work in the field.

FRIEND KADRI HAZBIU: I…?!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, yes, you told me to go work in the field, to make his circulation.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, I didn’t tell you that…?!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Didn’t you tell me that this movement is suspicious?!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This is how I presented his case.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How? Tell us a little bit!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Once again, when was the gossip for the last time…!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: When was the last time?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t remember what time it was.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Now the matter is dead, tell us ahead.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I have not understood why Mihallaq Ziçishti fled from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, that’s what I told you.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, then why didn’t you go to the end of this issue, even if we assume that you didn’t understand?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: If we assume that you did not understand, then how did you explain this movement? Why didn’t you go to the end of this matter?

KADRI HAZBIU: Dale, comrade Ramiz, the disaster is now here, which is not comrade Hysni. My friend Hysni called me here, when he had a conflict with Zoi Themeli. His notes may exist on this matter. Zoi was put in conflict with subordinates, she claimed to act contrary to the powers that belonged to her and for all this, I intervened to clarify these issues. He then came to the Central Committee, he complained, for this reason, Comrade Hysni ordered me to deal with his case calmly.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: Did Hysniu tell you verbally, or did he also give his opinion in writing, how to act with Zoi?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: He spoke to me orally, Comrade Enver, but in writing…!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I mean, were these things done only by word of mouth? Yes, we have to look at these issues now.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Let them see, Comrade Enver, I have no objection.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, the point is that we have to prove all this now.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I’m done with what I had to say, Comrade Enver. We have to prove what we can prove, what I can say now, I couldn’t work with notebooks. With my close collaborators, I worked quietly, carefully, and I did the same with Zoi Themel. For myself, I was of the opinion that this should be removed from the State Security bodies and as a person, incapable, but also that he had created a sick situation there, all those things. At the same time, in 1966, when measures were being taken to rotate the staff, Comrade Hysni told me that, if Mihallaq Ziçishti was also removed from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who could we put in his place?

I asked him, why remove it?

Yes, you are a plenum member in the Ministry, he answered.

I gave my opinion and discussed this issue. I also gave him my opinion about Rexhep Kolli, don’t I remember who else, who could move. Yes, he told me. The next time, when I heard here that Mihallaqi himself had asked to leave the Ministry, I was surprised, but he didn’t tell me that himself. After the meeting with friend Hysni, Mihallaqi told me that he was going to leave the Ministry for Korça, he also told me that Zoi Themeli should also go to Peshkopi.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: Didn’t Mihallaqi himself ask to go to Korce?!

FRIEND KADRI HAZBIU: Mihallaqi…?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Mehmet Shehu had appointed him there.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t know anything about that.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You don’t know anything, I agree, but now it turns out that he was appointed by Mehmet Shehu. “I’ll wear you in Korça”, he said later.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I did not know anything about this, Comrade Enver. I tell you this with pure communist honesty.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: Well, man?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I tell you this, that I did not know anything. As a project, friend Hysni asked me with whom Mihallaqi can be replaced, that he will leave there. I did not know about other things that Mihallaqi might have had.

Comrade ENVER HOXHA: For my part, I said that I have had this doubt since Mihallaqi left the Ministry, while Hysniu has never told me as you say that we will remove Mihallaqi, that it was done many plenum members in the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: That’s what Comrade Enver told me.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Good. It could be as you say.

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI: And when he told you like that, why didn’t you ask him for clarification?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What clarifications should I ask for, you think, he told me?

SHUKO ADIL CHARCANI: You should have discussed this issue with each other.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: Why did Mihallaq Ziçishti work well?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: In my opinion, he has worked well in the ministry.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: At that time, you should have easily told Hysni, so that he could continue working in the ministry, that he led a very important sector.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Now, Comrade Enver, I told him these things. Well, he told me, let me go, but in this case, who else can we put in his place? Ok, let me go, I told him too. When he asked me who else we can put, I remember that I also gave him the candidacy.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Which candidacy did you give him?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Jep Kollin.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: But who replaced Mihallaq?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Djep Kolli replaced him.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Pocket and Feçori.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Feçori has come later. He came to the ministry as a director in the beginning. That’s how it works, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, good, Kadri. Now we know what Mihallaq Ziçishti is and what he has done. We also know what Zoi Themeli was and what he did, we know what Feçor Shehu was and what he did, and Mehmet Shehu is well known. Now all these jobs are out….!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: There are also directors in the Ministry of Internal Affairs who have been put in prison.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: As it is, the director of the Directorate of Investigation, etc., and especially those with more responsibility, such as Mihallaqi, Feçori, etc., are the main ones, who we are looking at have done a very hostile plotting work against the Party, that they aimed to destroy our entire socialist system, to destroy Albania in a word.

Now, seeing that these have acted in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, that is, around you, how do you judge your responsibility? Where do you see this responsibility? Where do you see the weaknesses of your work in this whole matter, that you were a leader there?

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: O Kadri, this is how Comrade Enver asked the question and it is clear to all of us that this matter cannot be closed with what you said that, since these were high cadres there, there were in these matters familiarity, all sorts of concessions have been made.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I think he had familiarity. Here we are dealing with a kind of blind faith on my part, without deepening. I accept that there is familiarity in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but such familiarity that I have risked or sacrificed the interests of the Party, I have not gone this far.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, this is what you are saying now, what does it mean?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This shows my incompetence.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: This cannot be explained by incompetence, Kadri.

SHUKO HEKURAN ISAI: How can we accept that you were incompetent until you headed the Ministry of Internal Affairs for a long time?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Regarding the residency, Comrade Enver, we had an agreement with them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: With whom?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: With the Russians…

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: When Mehmeti was in the Ministry, in 1950 or 1951, this agreement must have been made. There should be documentation for that, I think. The Russians have raised the problem that for the students we sent there, for the sake of their protection, we had to send a person to the embassy to know the agency we had among our students and through him, to coordinate things with the Russians.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why should we coordinate our affairs with the Russians?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What if they told us that they had to protect themselves that our students were fighting each other in their schools and they told us that they could not set up an agency between them, that’s why they wanted to have a representative of our Security. This is what they asked us.

And that’s what we did, we sent one or two, I don’t remember exactly who they were, and they went one after the other. One of them was Ismail Qineti, the other can be found whoever he was. These are some comrades who kept our agency in touch and coordinated actions with the Soviets, they told them about various issues that arose and I don’t know!

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: And the Soviets set up their agency in the ranks of our people, out of our control?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, come on; let’s talk about what is in the agreement.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How was this agreement made? Writing?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It was done in writing, or it was not done in writing, I don’t know anything about that.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What about you, when you took over this job, did you find it right?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Who?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This is what we are discussing now.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I found this practice and so I continued, I considered it right to cooperate with the Soviet Security bodies.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Well with the Soviets, it was like that, as you say, but with the others, with the Czechs, with the Poles?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t know how it was with the Czechs and others, I don’t remember. It must be verified if we had representatives of our Insurance in this country or not.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: There were a lot of them, starting with Skënder Konica.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, we had, the same was applied to the agency we had among our students in these countries.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Have we given them the agency?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, we carried it. Keep it as long as you want, that’s how we did it. Slowly, I will explain how the matter was.

Comrade ENVER HOXHA: Explain, explain, and explain!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This has been the case, the agency was held by us, then, when the Russian advisers arrived, the practice was changed.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: When did they come?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t remember. In 1956, or in ’57, they must have arrived. At that time, the problem was posed that our collaborators, who had recruited us, could hold them directly.

We have also given these to them. For other recruitments that they did on their own we did not know anything, but if I had a collaborator, for example, here we agreed with them, that this should be carried out by their liaison officer, Security of the Academy, or the school, where our students were.

For these are the evidences here and it can be found who were these collaborators of ours that the Russians had, that were given to them in connection. I don’t remember, but they may have been given to the Czechs, our collaborators.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Did you give them the platform then?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: That is, your collaborators, the residents, how many were here, did you put them in contact with the Soviet agency, to supervise our students in the military line, or in the civilian line?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, yes. Even in the military line, there are opportunities, they were given in connection.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: Right? We had 1800 – 2000 military cadres and students there, if I’m not mistaken. Can an Ismail Qineti bring all this great mass of people around?! Could even two people do this job, even three? No, that is impossible.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Of course he couldn’t do it.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: I have talked with Ismail Qineti, Comrade Enver. He tells us that he could not go from Moscow to Leningrad to meet our people, and then the Soviets had several military sectors, where our students were in places that we could not reach at all. A Soviet officer was assigned to this job and he took all of them into contact.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I’m sorry, let me finish my thought. That is, not only have you connected the residents to the KGB, to the Russians, which is a very tragic mistake, but we have given the Russians a free hand to take over your collaborators as well.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Then, as an employee of the Security, do you understand such dangerousness, despite the fact that at that time we were friends with the Russians? Who gave the order for these to be handed over?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Now, what can I say, Comrade Enver, but I am convinced that this work was not done with my head.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, whose head was it made of?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: How can I say it, Comrade Enver…

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Who was the Minister of Internal Affairs in 1954-1955?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I was.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Then you should have asked either Hysnia or Mehmet.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: How can I say, who I asked, I don’t remember, but I am convinced that in my head I did not do these actions. I have made the issue present above and I was told that; our collaborators can be given to the Soviets.

Comrade ENVER HOXHA: Who told you?

Comrade ADRIL ÇARÇANI: Can you clarify this?!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What can I say, friend Adil. I had connections with these two.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Once, Kadri, do you understand how dangerous this issue is?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I understand this, after the betrayal of the Soviets. Before this betrayal, I didn’t understand.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Nice. I have a question about this. You understood this after the betrayal of the Russians, then why did you not inform the Central Committee of the Party about this issue, since we broke off relations with the Russians?

COMRADE ADRIL ÇARÇANI: To say here that; look, comrades, this happened with the soviets, this is the situation with them, and therefore urgent measures must be taken.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: In 1960, we cut the bridges with the Soviets, then why didn’t you come to inform about this practice in the Central Committee?!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Dale, let me explain. It is not that I have not said the matter.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Well, we don’t see such a thing.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: If it doesn’t work out, it’s another matter. I don’t know if I told Comrade Enver or not, but Comrade Hysni knew that we gave the Soviets the list of collaborators.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: When did you give it to him?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: After the betrayal of the Soviets.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: We have it as a document, when you gave it to the Central Committee.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: When?

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Do you know when this is?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: When is it?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: In 1975.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: We have it here in the file. Not that you didn’t say anything to me, but from the documents, it turns out that you didn’t say anything to Hysni either.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I, Comrade Enver, do not remember and I will take responsibility for this, but we have called Ismail Qineti here for this issue, one of the others who were our collaborators.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: You only said these things in 1975.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t remember the date when I said it.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Here, we have this in writing.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Okay, Comrade Enver, all this time we have been trying to find the evidence to know who these collaborators of ours were who had connections with the Soviets.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: At that time, there was a problem with Malo Harshova in the army. Can you tell us, what is this Malo Harshova and why was he released then?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t know, we have caught this as a problem, Comrade Hekuran, and we have issued a list, but I don’t know that this has been done.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Let’s clarify this issue in the bloc. After the fight we had with the Hysni comrade, Beqir Balluku, about whom we had many doubts, Sigurimi kept silent. Security continued the investigation for what we had discovered, for what I had discovered, for what Hysniu had discovered. Currently, we have data that Mehmet Shehu gave directives to the investigation at that time.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Through me?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Not through you, but through the relevant section, that only in this or that direction he wanted the putschists to be questioned, but not in the other direction. At that time, Comrade Hysni came up with the question of a cadre, who it was, it is not known, but we suspect that it must have been Malo Harshova.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Where was this one at that time, I don’t remember, but not in the artillery, because there was another one here.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: These people have come and shown themselves that they were collaborators who were put in touch with the Russians. We were caught by those who made it a problem then.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, you knew this; you even knew it better than them, because you had given these collaborators to the Russians.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Yes, yes, these, that’s right, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Well, take it, Comrade Hekuarn, I am also saying this now, what are the rules. The names of the collaborators must be in the Directory.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The Card is not important here, you had made the lists with names and all the requests.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Well, we knew these, but I didn’t know all of them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Here is the issue, Kadri, that you may not have known, which means at least that you were gullible; you did not perform the task that was assigned to you.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Agreed, Comrade Enver, there is one thing here, that in my head, I am convinced that I did not do this.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: And with which head did you do it?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t know what to say. I had connections for a while in the apparatus of the Central Committee with Comrade Rita Marko who was secretary of the Central Committee, and then with the traitor Mehmet Shehu as Prime Minister, I also had connections with Comrade Hysni. I had a relationship with you too. I know one more thing that, in fundamental matters, I have not neglected without informing you, and this is what my conscience tells me. Now did I tell you that we have these connections with the Russians or did I not tell you, I trust your memory?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, here I am not basing it on memory, but on written documents. I have dozens of volumes of written diaries, where I record every day what I do, and in these materials, on the dates of my actions, I have no notes that match your statements.

If you had told me about these things, I would have jumped up, because they happened at a time when I was fighting with blood against Beqir Balluk, because as you know, at that time I was sick at home, and when I was informed of these, I was forced to get out of bed.

So I have this issue written down, I don’t have it based on memory. Therefore, you cannot tell me that you came and informed me about this.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, Comrade Enver, this is what I meant.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I want to add one more thing.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Order!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Even Hysniu did not come to tell me anything about this matter, but in the document it appears that Comrade Hysni came to tell him how the Army should be organized. What is said here, Hysniu does not take it into his mouth at all?

Now here it turns out that you only told friend Hysni. Haxhi, read the document for a while, so that we can summarize this issue. This is Ismail Qineti’s letter, where an addition has been made to show where these residents and collaborators are now, that in Hysniu’s practice, they did not appear where they were. Sing it now!

COMRADE HAXHI KROI: (Sings the document): Tirana, 6.1.1975

The agency from the ranks of the military studying in the Soviet Union until 1960, both those who were recruited there and those who came from here, were known and recognized by the Security bodies of the country. The country’s security bodies, with some of our collaborators, have had direct working relationships, which we will talk about below, and for the collaborators you had a relationship with or not, they, the country’s security, knew that they are like that.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The security of the country is Russian.

FRIEND HAJHI KROI: Yes (continues reading):

“Co-workers in connection with the Operative Workers of the (Soviet) country:

1961. Sh., with the nickname “Lisi”, came to the Soviet Union in 1956 at the Academy of Transport and Prapavija. In 1957, we recruited him as a resident collaborator, and he had two informants in contact, “Lirina” and “Anadot” from Kruja, with whom he only had a couple of meetings. After being recruited, this was given in connection with the country operative. “Lisi” kept the connections until the time when the situation changed. After this time he cut them off. Even from the Operative Worker of the country, no attempt has been made to recover or approach him. “Lisi”, both before and later, has taken a firm stand and has been loyal to the Party. He returned from the Soviet Union at the time when the Soviet side cut off the scholarships, that is, in 1961. He was supposed to finish his studies in 1961. Now he is an officer of the Ministry of People’s Defense at the Army Mechanical Plant.
1962. D., with the nickname “River”, came to the Soviet Union in 1957 and in 1958 was recruited into the military department of the Krabina Academy of Leningrad. This year, it was given to the Operational Worker of the country, the Navy sector. This ended hostile in 1960, that is, before the hostile attitude of the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had yet come out. His attitude has been good; he is a determined and loyal element. Now he is the commander of the Voluntary Forces in Lushnja.
1963. C., with the nickname “Sea”. Came to the Soviet Union in 1956 at the naval school. He finished his studies in 1960. We recruited him there in 1957 and that same year he was assigned to the Operational Worker of the country, the Navy sector, the same one who received the “Dove”. His links with the country’s Operative Worker were severed due to suspicions of debunking. Until the end he remained without connection from the Operative Worker of the country. He returned to Albania in 1960. He is the commander of the Electric Group of submarines.
1964. M., with the nickname “Adriatik”, came to the Soviet Union in 1954 and left in 1958. At the beginning of the year he went to Riga and then to Baku. This was recruited in 1956. After the recruitment, as I was unable to bring this up with the local Operative Worker, I recommended the latter to take him into the relationship, having instructed “Adriatik” the day before about the relationships he would take with the Operative Worker. In Riga, he was connected with the Operative Worker of the country, and with the transfer to Baku, we do not know if he received any recommendation. He is the chief of staff of the regiment in the Coastal Artillery in Fier.

Collaborators in relation to our Operative Worker and who were known by the security authorities of the country. Whether it was the collaborators we recruited, as well as those who were in connection, as they were put on duty from here in connection with work, the country’s bodies knew, because with their help we organized the entire procedure that we had in connection and that the locals knew were:

1959. Xh., nicknamed “Lupi”, came to the Soviet Union in 1954, left in 1959. He was in prison for hostile activities. He is now a doctor in Rrëshen.

Th. R., called “Anadoti of Kruja”, came to the Soviet Union in 1955, left in 1960. He is the head of the Liaison of the Volunteer Forces in…!

1959. L., with the nickname “Zakoni i vendit”, arrived in 1955, left in 1959.

Dh. Dh., with the nickname “Kiçoku”, came to the Soviet Union in 1955, left in 1961. He is the head of the Topographic Branch of the Ministry of People’s Defense.

1959. Sh., with the nickname “Agimi”, came to the Soviet Union in 1955, left in 1959. He is a commissar of the Fire Corps
1960. B., nicknamed “Deli”, arrived in 1954, left in 1957. He is sick of nerves.
1961. K., with the nickname “Metodiku”, came to the Soviet Union in 1955, left in 1958. He is a fugitive.
1962. L., with the nickname “Besimtari”, came to the Soviet Union in 1958, would leave in 1961. He died in an air accident.
1963. Sh., called “Proletari”, came to the Soviet Union in 1958, would leave in 1962. It is located in Pashaliman Plant.
1964. A., nicknamed “Battle of Cepo”, came to the Soviet Union in 1959, would leave in 1965. He is an Air Defense operative.
1965. H., no pseudonym, came to the Soviet Union in 1957, left in 1960. Former commander of the Korça Corps.

Collaborators recruited in Albania and in the Soviet Union have not been kept in touch, but the Soviets knew about them:

Mr. N., nicknamed “Lightning”, came to the Soviet Union in 1955, left in 1960 Dead.

1958. R., called “Kamenica”, arrived in 1955, left in 1958.
1959. Sh., called “Qafuku”, arrived in 1956, left in 1961. He is the Chief of Fuel of the Army.
1960. Q., with the nickname “Kasaforta”, arrived in 1958, left in 1961. He is the head of the Operational Directorate in the Ministry of People’s Defense.
1961. X., called “Drini”, arrived in 1958, would leave in 1963.
1962. H., called “Poeti”, arrived in 1959, would leave in 1964.
1963. B., called “Ural”.
1964. K., with the nickname “Mechanic”, arrived in 1959, would leave in 1965.
1965. B., with the nickname “Laboratori”, arrived in 1959 and left in 1965.
1966. L., with the nickname “Aparati”, arrived in 1957, left in 1961.
1967. Ll., with the nickname “Tankisti”, arrived in 1958, left in 1961.
1968. T., currently Commander of the Academy.
1969. B., nicknamed “Lion”.
1970. M., with the nickname “Pioneer of the Movement”.
1971. S., with the nickname “Prognozi”.
1972. Ç., now commander of the Artillery in department 4625 in Patos.

As you can see, almost all the agents we had in the ranks of the military were known by the security agencies of the country. This was given to them whenever groups of soldiers came for studies.

With them, in the organization, their distribution and the meeting with the collaborators and Operative Workers of our bodies, when it was deemed necessary, some of the collaborators were given in connection with the Operative Workers of the country, who at that time did the work of the liaison, between associates and our Operative Worker.

For the co-workers who came from the end of 1959 and later, the country’s bodies have no knowledge, since at this time by our Operative Worker, they were not given, not only collaborators, but not even as a list, because from that time, that is, from the beginning of 1960, the links between our Operative Worker and the country’s bodies were cut.                                                                           

   Operative Workshop                                                                              

       Ismail Qineti

Note: The above list is according to the original of Comrade Ismail Qineti, located in the Security Branch of the Army. In it, some clarifications are written about where the above persons are currently located.                                                                        

Deputy Head of the Security Branch of the Army                                                                                          Progress Butcher

                                  Top secret

MEETING OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE PPS CENTRAL COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1982

This meeting was called by comrade Enver, where comrades Adil Çarçani and Hekuran Isai were also invited to analyze the serious mistakes of the member of the Political Bureau, Kadri Hazbiu, committed during the period he was in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as deputy minister of then minister.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What do you say now, Kadri, about these things?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: That’s how they are, Comrade Commander…! In the Ministry, as you know, we had Soviet advisers in every branch, including Army Security and Intelligence.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Do you know that the Soviet adviser also had oil, they also had other sectors?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I’m talking about the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where each sector had its own adviser and they took everything from us.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I mean, they got what they wanted?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: That’s right, no secret was kept.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, was this practice right?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It wasn’t right, Comrade Enver, but that’s how we acted.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why would you act like that? The adviser is there to give advice when asked, not to get all the acts and documents that exist in the Ministry.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: To be advised, Comrade Enver, they were consulted with the file, but this one has all the data inside. We have also given them agents from our Intelligence who was sent to different countries. The Russians know all this.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, they might not know them, and they shouldn’t know them at all.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: That they shouldn’t know, Comrade Enver, this is clear, but you, from 1959 or 1960, told me to turn off the faucet to the Soviets. I remember this order well that you gave me at that time.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Was the tap turned off for them at that time?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: From the end of 1959 or 1960, the faucet was closed to them for the Discovery. At that time, Comrade Enver, this is how we considered, everything they knew, from the files, from the agents and everything else that interested them.

Regarding the branch of the Security of the Army, we also had the Soviet advisers, who were interested in not having any of our suspicious cadres go to the Soviet academies or military schools.

“Who will be the agency you will have, for this we will tell them to coordinate the work with our friends there”, they told us. This has been the practice we have had.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why didn’t you inform the Central Committee about this practice?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I know, Comrade Enver, that we did these works with the permission of the Central Committee.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, with the permission of the Central Committee, these actions were not done at all.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, I know this, because we did it with the permission of the Central Committee.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, they were not done with the permission of the Central Committee. Let’s take the letter of friend Hysni who wrote it, even by hand. Comrade Haxhi, you were singing a bit, because this proves that there is no document in the Central Committee, about this practice, and it shows that no one was asked in the Central Committee. Hysniu addresses this letter to Mehmet Shehu, sing it friend Haxhi.

FRIEND HAJJI KROI: (Reads the letter).

“Comrade Mehmet, Kadriu sent me this report that talks about some of our cadres, when they were studying in the Soviet Union, who were collaborators of our Security agencies, but the Soviet Security was also aware of them, even with some of them he was in contact.

Kadriu also gave me a special piece of information about Malo Hashorva, which I gave back to act as we agreed together when I spoke on the phone. He told me he sent it to you too.

I called Kadri and asked him for explanations about these cadres who were collaborators when they were in the schools of the Soviet Union. He told me that the Soviet Security was notified from here, by the Ministry, based on the connections they had at that time.

When our students returned, after 1960, when we broke with the Soviets, Kadriu told me, all these cadres were called by the responsible comrades in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and were told not to have any worries, due to the fact that were related to the Soviet Security, why those recommendations were given from here.

Thus, these cadres clarified, they calmed down and we, said Kadriu, no longer had business with them as collaborators. The documents we had were destroyed.

I instructed Kadri to take care of these cadres that are how the issue of Malo Hashorva turns out, so send them where they should work, keep it in mind.

Here, in the apparatus of the Central Committee, there was no document to prove that they were charged with such a task by the internal bodies.

If you have any opinion or remark, tell me, the material will be returned to Kadri”. (Ends reading the letter).

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Look, what did he write? Let Kadriu look at Hysniu’s writing.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t need to see the writing, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: But until 13.1.1975, Hysniu did not know that there were people connected to the Soviet Security and he says that in the Central Committee, there is no document on this issue. So it is clear that, if it were different, he would say it.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, Comrade Enver, I do not discuss that.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I mean that you, in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, until 1975, when the heads were cut off with the Soviets, you had not informed the Central Committee, whereas you should have necessarily informed it, even when this practice started, for which the documents here do not exist.

But you didn’t inform the Central Committee, even when we discovered the hostile work of Beqir Balluku’s group and all the satellites that came around him. You didn’t understand this issue and tell us: Dale, comrades that the Soviets have worked here to this extent we have put these and these people at their disposal.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I know that we have done this.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, you didn’t, because if you had, these actions should have appeared somewhere.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, this letter of Comrade Hysni, written in January-February 1975, is dated.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Posi, these are the dates.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Good, good, I also agree, that there are dates, but I know that there may be, the comrades are alive. When we broke with the Soviets, I remember that we released the list of those who were collaborators with them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The list exists, but it was given in 1975. Even Hysni Kapoja says this, that we don’t have any documents about them. So Hysniu was surprised, with this practice that you had implemented, cooperating so closely with the Soviets.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Let me explain in a minute, because I remember it now, Comrade Enver. As soon as we broke up with the Soviets, we gave orders to completely review the relations we had with them. The first work we did, as far as I know, we have a list of names, I don’t know exactly how many there were, 80 or 70 people, because I don’t remember well, and I sent them here.

I don’t remember who I sent to the Central Committee, and you will forgive me for this, but with that list I showed who were the collaborators that the Russians had in connection, or these others.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The Central Committee does not have what you say, and the letter of Comrade Hysni Kapos proves it.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Kadri, I had a question for you. Let’s now take this reality that we have on file, let’s judge on this material. To the Soviets, you not only gave them collaborators, you also gave them all the characteristic data of our students and our officers, with their weaknesses and flaws, so that they “beware” and this today is clear to us. Now does it occur to you that the Soviets didn’t work with these people?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: They probably worked.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: I believe that you must have had this opinion even in 1960, when you were the Minister of Internal Affairs. Nice. At that time, what alarm did you make in the Central Committee, where you came to raise your voice and say: “Hey, comrades, we had 3 thousand students, civilians and soldiers, in the Soviet Union? For each of these we have sent all the data that the Soviets now know.

With whom the Soviets worked, we do not know, however, under these conditions, we must think what we can do to prevent any danger eventually, or find any of these people who worked in this direction, for example, to talk to us about this work”. Did you draw any conclusions on this matter? Did you inform the Central Committee about this?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I have been preoccupied with this issue myself, even my comrades have instructed me about it.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Who ordered you?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Even Comrade Enver and Comrade Hysni told me to look into this issue.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Look at this matter, it is very reasonable to say, but we have been told that these people have shown themselves to be heroes, even the report that was made to us at the time, says that our soldiers who were sent for studies in the Soviet Union, are more seal, no one stayed there, because they are all with the Party, determined people. This was the characteristic that you gave at that time for these people. We do not discuss at all that there are good people among them, yes, but in practice they are all suspicious, so we must be careful with them.

In my internal diary, I constantly write who I meet, what he says to me and what I say to the interlocutor. Then Hysniu described all the military issues, from A to Z, because I was sick at that time and the doctors wouldn’t let me get up. Among other things, I told them to be careful that the Soviet agency has infiltrated the Army Security bodies; they have even taken over the head of the Army Security at that time, whose name I don’t remember.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Malo Hashorva.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, Chief of Security.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Halim Xheloja.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Halim Xheloja, it doesn’t seem to me that he is one of Fieri that we arrested, or what did we do to him. To be more precise, I think he was the Director of the Army Intelligence Directorate.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Wasn’t Andon Sheti?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Oh, Andon Sheti, he was the Director of the Intelligence Directorate.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, this should be Andon Sheti. This, I say to Hysniu, is a man who has not given us any information during the entire time he has been working there, and I have doubts that he could be one hundred percent, an agent of the Soviets, so attach great importance to this directorate, because without this, we cannot have anything in the Army. For us it is now clear that Hysniu did not know anything about this matter, we are based on the facts.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: As far as I remember, Comrade Hysni gave me a complete list, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: There is also a list, even they have made it complete with who these people are. It belongs to the Chinese.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, we found out, as far as I remember, by asking all of them, that the Chinese knew a part.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Did they only know about the military?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, even for civilians. I don’t know, even for the civilians we issued a list, who were our collaborators who knew these places and where they are. I don’t know, but we have published this, I have sent it to you, friend Enver, now how can I say it…!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, you took it out, but who did you give it to? You gave it to me?!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, Comrade Enver, we have told the comrades here, just as these are given, that we do not even forward these materials to the protocol number. These materials are here. I have been given the order to look at them and treat these people so that they do not feel disturbed. I say this with a conscience.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Isn’t this a lack of vigilance and a great underestimation of this very dangerous problem, Comrade Kadri, that you only remember this issue in 1975?!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Now what can I say about this issue, Comrade Ramiz?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Do we as the Central Committee know anything about this? We don’t know anything, so we ask you, and we ask you exactly why we don’t know anything.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, we don’t know anything.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, yes, I know these things, I completely agree and the question you ask is legal, there is no discussion about this, but what I should do now that I have not kept notes. From the beginning, when we broke with the Russians, we blamed the problem of the students we had in the Soviet Union and in other former socialist countries on the agency we were taking abroad.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Good, good, Kadri. Sh. M. that you took note of now, you still has a job at the Ministry of Defense today. This one appears to us now as it is, then how do you keep that director in the Ministry? How do you explain this?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t know that he is the director, but that doesn’t matter.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, Kadri, this is important, even very important. A big question mark arises here.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, no, I’m saying this, Comrade Enver, that it doesn’t matter whether or not he is a director in the Ministry of Defense, Mr. M., I don’t have the issue here, and I should take these people one by one, see what to do with one and what to do with the other, and I am not involved with this work.

After we expelled these, as far as I know, we gave the lists to the Central Committee, they were studied here and we were given instructions on how these people should be treated. It is possible that they were called by the Party and some of them were called by the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where they were told not to worry about these problems that they had carried out the orders given to them, they did not bear any responsibility.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Did Mehmet Shehu know about these issues?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I cannot say that I myself gave any list to Mehmet Shehu. He is a traitor, but he didn’t ask me for that. I have given the lists here, in the Central Committee, the comrades have seen them and given me the orders I said. I know that there was a more complete list, with some 180 or 200 names, exactly how many there were, I don’t know.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Look Kadri, these are two facts that we are raising here today. You yourself must know, and you other comrades must also know, that there is a whole life in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, there must be other documents that it is our duty to have patience and composure until they find and see them. For now, we have these two facts. In the letter, you write to your friend Hysni and inform him that you destroyed the documents of these people.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: As collaborators?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I don’t know what these were, but I want to ask: why did you burn their documents?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It is a rule with us, Comrade Enver, I don’t know if we should look at it, but from what we saw, these were no longer valid as collaborators, they must have the card in the Kartoteka, and their files must have been burned as worthless collaborators. We had this rule, that’s why we acted according to the rules. If anything has been done contrary to them, then it is different.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, yes, that’s how we sang these materials, which you tell us we destroyed. That is, all the documents of these associates, you destroyed them?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: We destroyed them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You destroyed them and they were no longer kept in touch by you? Is that so?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, they were not held.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What about these documents, what did they contain?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Those were their personal documents, as I say, Comrade Enver, they had no biography, no nickname as collaborators, no other requirements that we needed for them. For all these people, the cards should be there, because if the document is burned, the card proving that this or that person was an accomplice at this time remains, so that it is known who kept him in touch, etc. The card has all these data that are needed.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, yes, well, but why should they be burned? These were functionaries of our state.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, for the reason that as collaborators of the State Security, they were no longer, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: They must have been charged by the Ministry of Internal Affairs as collaborators in the Soviet Union, they are honest people, so why burn their documents?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: They must have been burned later, Comrade Enver, when they all returned from the Soviet Union.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, I am based on what you yourself said, that the documents of these people you burned in 1975. You may have burned them before, I don’t know that, but you said we burned them. .

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, I don’t know that. Let this matter be verified, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, no, I’m saying this, Comrade Enver that it doesn’t matter if he is or is not a director in the Ministry of Defense Sh. M., I have my own issue here. I myself had to take these people one by one, see what to do with one and what to do with the other, but I am not involved in this work.

After we got these out, as far as I know, we gave the lists to the Central Committee, they were studied here, and we were given instructions as to how these people should be treated. It is possible that they were called by the Party and some of them were called by the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where they were told not to worry about these problems, that they had implemented the orders they were given, they did not bear any responsibility.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Did Mehmet Shehu know about these issues?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I cannot say that I myself gave any list to Mehmet Shehu. He is a traitor, but he didn’t ask me for that. I have given the lists here, in the Central Committee, the comrades have seen them and given me the orders I said. I know that there was a more complete list with some 180 or 200 names, I don’t know exactly how many there were.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Look, Kadri, these are two facts that we are raising here today. You yourself should know, and you other friends should know, that there is a whole life in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, there must be other documents that it is our duty to be patient and cool until we find them. and let’s see them. For now, we have these two facts.

In the letter, you write to your friend Hysni and inform him that you destroyed the documents of these people.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: As a collaborator.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I don’t know what these were, but I want to ask you: why did you burn their documents?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It is a rule with us, Comrade Enver, I don’t know if we should look at it, but from what we saw, these were no longer valid as collaborators, they must have the card in the file, and their file must be burned as worthless associates. We had these rules that are why we acted according to the rules. If anything has been done contrary to them, then it is different.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, yes, this is how we sang these materials, which you tell us you destroyed. That is, all the documents of these associates, you destroyed.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, yes, we destroyed them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You destroyed them and they were no longer kept in touch by you? Is that so?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, they were not held.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What did these documents contain?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Those were their personal documents, as I say, Comrade Enver, they had no biography, no pseudonym as a collaborator, no other requirements that we needed for them. For all these people there should be the cards, why, if the document is burned, the card proving that this or that person was an accomplice at this time remains so that it is known who kept him in touch, etc. The card has all these data that are needed.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: Yes, yes, well, how about burning them? These were functionaries of our state.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, because the associates of the State Security were no longer there, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: These were charged by the Ministry of Internal Affairs as collaborators in the Soviet Union, they are honest people, so why their documents should be burned?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: They must have been burned later, Comrade Enver, when they all returned from the Soviet Union.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, I am based on what you said yourself, that you burned the documents of these people in 1975. You may have burned them before, I don’t know, but you said we burned them.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, I don’t know that. Let this matter be verified, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Was there anything other than their personal file? Wasn’t there anything inside these files and written reports that they made for one and for the other?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Did they make reports or not?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: They didn’t make reports here, Comrade Enver, but they also made reports to those in the Soviet Union.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: In other words, we had put these people completely at the service of the Soviets.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: That’s how they were put, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How was that? How was it possible to act like this? This is not allowed. Let’s suppose we were to send a residency, an agency, to liaise with the Soviets. Why would we do this? Is it to preserve, as you say, the purity of our people and to see the actions of our cadres?

This means that they should report to us, that they should work for us, despite the fact that for a moment we accept that they also gave reports to the Soviets, but they should report to us. Are these reports or not?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: According to the rule, they are reports and are called work files. These are stored for a while, Comrade Enver, then as a rule, they are destroyed. The same goes for everyone else. How much they kept and how they kept these, I am unable to say anything now.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: But here is the question of your responsibility, Kadri that being surrounded by all these enemy elements, means that you slept there among them.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: For me, let any measure be taken for what has been done, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The measure, Kadri, will be taken and judged coldly by the Political Bureau, we do not discuss here the measure that can be taken on this issue.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: We have not put you in front of the responsibility here.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Wait a minute, wait a minute, I meant it here, Comrade Ramiz, when I say let any measure be taken, I’m talking about those issues that have escaped me, that’s all I’m talking about.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Did things escape you?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Look, during the time we were in relations with the Russians, to be honest, I don’t remember exactly when we had Teme Sejko’s combination in hand, Comrade Enver called me here and ordered me to close tap the Thracian Russians. I remember this order well and since then we have not given them anything.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I don’t remember what you said.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I remember it, Comrade Enver, and I remembered it well.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, you can keep it.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Because, when we had the entire combination of Teme Sejko, the Russians came and were interested in this issue.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: What year did Teme Sejkoja come out?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: From 1959 and 1960. That’s what Comrade Enver told me, to say absolutely nothing to the Russians about this.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, it is possible for Teme Sejko, because they doubted him, that Teme Sejko should be a complicated game, and you have not connected this to Teme Sejko. I also don’t understand the issue that he did the organization in the port, but for whom, for which foreign powers did he do it?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: As it turned out for us at the time, he played that game on behalf of the Americans.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, yes, what else?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Other than the Russians, but for them, the matter remained a question mark?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How come you were left with a question mark?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: We were left with a question mark about the direction of the Russians and this matter was connected with Panajot the Elder, as far as I remember. Panajot the Elder, as I remember, illegally came to Vlora at that time and word got out that he had met there with a Russian admiral. This information was given by Teme Sejko in the process.

Until that time, we had Temen as an agent of the Americans. When it turned out that he had contacted Panajot the Elder, who, as far as I remember, was an agent of both the English and, rather, of the Russians, then the question arose that Teme Sejko should be an agent of both the Americans and the Russians, but his whole process has developed mainly in the direction of the Americans.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: In the congress we could not say unverified things; we only said that the conspiracy of Teme Sejko, organized by the 6th American Fleet, by the Greeks and by the Soviet Union, was discovered. Who was running this now?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Who?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This conspiracy down there?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It turned out to us that it was led by Teme Sejkoja.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: But who was leading Teme Sejko here?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: The Americans were running it.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The Americans, through whom?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t remember exactly now, Comrade Enver, with whom he was related, but referring to his file, the center of the Americans was in Athens.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Wasn’t the center of the Americans in Cairo, or was it in Athens?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Through Haki Rushit.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, we know those things, but why shouldn’t they be directed through Mehmet Shehu, who we had here?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This did not work out for us at that time, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: If we didn’t succeed, even if we had succeeded, we would have cut off his head at that time, we are talking about now.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I know one thing that for Teme Sejko I asked for authorization at the time so that, even before the execution, we would torture him. For this purpose, Mihallaq Ziçishti and Xhep Kolli took him and put pressure on him. However, Temja did not say anything. In these circumstances, Comrade Enver, what can I say now, where do you want me to go…

Comrade HEKURAN ISAI: They did not kill Teme Sejko based on the decision, they strangled him.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It’s the same, it doesn’t matter. They didn’t strangle him; they executed him in the designated place.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: They didn’t execute him, they strangled him, and they strangled him, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, it is possible, maybe they even strangled him, but we had orders to put pressure on him even before the execution.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why would you strangle him? Take him to court!

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: No, based on the court’s decision, he was sentenced to be shot.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: After the trial and before he was executed, I asked for authorization to put pressure on Teme Sejko, to see what else we could get, and I entrusted this to these two, Xhep Koll and Mihallaq Ziçishti.

Both of them stabbed Teme Sejko at the place of execution, whether they pressured him or not, I don’t know, but finally they strangled him. In this regard, he did not show anything more than what he had said in the judicial process.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Both Beqir Balluku and Petrit Dumja also acted, all of them accepted only what we told them in the Central Committee and nothing else.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: YES, they may have shown something very small.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, small things and nothing else. Then what conclusions do you draw from all this work of the Security bodies that you led, Kadri?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I have drawn this conclusion that the work done by the State Security was not able to deepen the issue, and my opinion was, if this is the case, that Feçor Shehu, I am talking about the coup plotters, was a traitor , he talks to me differently here, he acted differently in the other wing. I have told you this. On your order, I called Beqir Balluk myself and asked him directly: are you or are you not an agent of the Yugoslavs?

He stayed silent for several minutes, Comrade Enver, he sat and just looked into my eyes, but he didn’t say anything. Even later, I thought about how Mehmet Shehu didn’t call me once to ask: you, friend Kadri, as the Minister of Internal Affairs, you don’t tell us a bit, what is being done with this process? He was not interested at all. You called me, friend Hysni too, and I reported to you, but not a word was said to me by him, so in these conditions, I thought that maybe he gets the data from you, I remembered that you told him something.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: How many months did the process continue? How long did the investigation of Beqir Balluk end?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t know, about 8 or 9 months, I think.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Now, during the 9 months of investigation of the case of Beqir Balluk, did you not care a bit about this investigation?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: For whom?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: About the investigation of Beqir Balluku.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Continuously, continuously?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: This is exactly what I mean, over and over again. You saw how far the work was going, that the investigation was being limited, about the black theses or whatever they were called, theses and antitheses, you didn’t care one bit. What does the hostile activity of Beqir Balluk’s group consist of now?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, no, it’s not like that. The hostile activity of this group consisted in the fact that, according to the process, the participants of this group were organized. It was also told how they met and when they met each other. These are the things that were discovered during the process.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Well, they made the antitheses and started conspiring against the leadership of the Party?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Not only that, it was accepted by them that what they did was a coup and they would use this coup.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: That’s what the Central Committee told them, Kadri said.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Well, Comrade Ramiz, what the Central Committee told them, it’s different then when they deposit this thing in the process with their mouths.

COMRADE ADIL CHARCANI: No, say something new here, what came out of the process?

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: Apart from what was said in the Central Committee, did the investigator do any investigation, did he discover anything new, and how did he discover this?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: What else can you say that it is now clear that the process of the putschists was directed by Mehmet Shehu through Feçor Shehu. Now the thing is, what responsibility you have in this process, that Mehmet Shehu misdirected the work of the process, while you should fight for it to be oriented correctly.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, yes, what crookedness, I don’t know what this crookedness is.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Wrong with the meaning I said.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I gave these guidelines, to do this, to ask about that, to ask about this, and the investigators came and told me that Beqiri did not give an answer for this, and for this the other also did not give an answer. In some cases, I went and asked both Beqir and the other traitors in the presence of the investigators, and I said that the investigations should be deepened on this matter. That’s what I did, I couldn’t go any further.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: With permission, friend Kadri! We accept, and you yourself agree, that we discussed together that the trial of the putschists was manipulated through Feçor Shehu. Fiqiret Shehu also affirms this. In other words, another line was created behind you that operated. How this worked is now clear. The arrested enemies of the caste were instructed not to say more than the Plenum of the Central Committee knew. I am reading the process and see that this line has worked. So, if you claim that you followed the investigation well, this would have killed a bit of the ear, you should have understood something. In this sense I say.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How could you not follow the investigator? I am also following this work from here, I talk with Hekurani about what I should do and what tactics he should follow with the enemies we have recently put in prison.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, Comrade Enver, you did the same to me, the truth is like that. Now I could…!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, as far as I know, I have spoken, all my thoughts are written and everything we have said, we have presented them here, in the Central Committee.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: More, what was there? I have reported several times according to the degree of importance until it had been reached, I also received help from Comrade Enver, in many cases Comrade Hysni also helped me, so that such and such a prisoner was asked about this, asked about that. Then I came, I got materials here, I systematized them, I gave instructions to the investigators on how to construct the way of the questions. Well, that’s what I’ve done. Could I be satisfied with the work I have done? I tell you honestly that I was not satisfied with the investigation then, like all of you, but they told us that this matter is just that, there is nothing more.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Who said this?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I thought that there might not be more; because it never occurred to me that there was any scalpel left, or any other important thing. I never thought there could be more than we got. Now, could I, friend Enver, catch what you think? I’m not saying this to excuse you, but you have to delve deeper to discover the issue further, you have to work, but I could do that.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Did you work in the State Security at the time when the Party Conference of the district of Tirana was working?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, I was.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Have you interrogated Dhora Leka?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I gave Leka?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, I gave the Leka and I took the Leka? Mita Leka, Tuku’s wife, Bedri Spahina and all the enemies we discovered at that time, who were the external organizers of the Tirana Conference, while Beqir Balluku was an internal one. There, if not directly, but indirectly, there should be alerts for Beqir Balluk. By this I mean that you, the responsible employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, should have been alerted, that the work of this Ministry is a chain, that even from the tip of a needle, a big beam can come out later.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, I will say one thing, Comrade Enver, my opinion at that time is that I never thought of Beqir Balluku as a traitor, although I did not like his attitude at the Tirana Conference. However, I have no knowledge of the fact that I have come across a material that says that Beqir Balluku was a conspirator with the organizers of the Tirana Conference.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Are you telling me that Beqir Balluku has not been well?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, I had the same impression, it seemed to me that he took a passive attitude there, Comrade Enver, when you can see that the anti-party elements stood up and spoke at the Conference.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Precisely because he was passive, that’s why when I came here from Vlora, I criticized the three members of the Political Bureau, Hysniu, Mehmet and Beqir, and I said to them: Why do you three leave me from Vlora? Me? Wasn’t it enough that you, three members of the Political Bureau, were able to expose these enemy elements that appeared at the Tirana Conference? I told them that now that I have come, I will destroy them and, in fact, I also told them the tactics that I would follow for this purpose.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, I said this, Comrade Enver, that my opinion was that Beqir Balluku, as the delegate of the Central Committee, did not play his role well in the Tirana Conference, to intervene properly, but any material that to signal to me later that with the attitude he took, he helped the organizers of the Tirana Conference, I did not succeed.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, there is no way. Even if you weren’t vigilant, friend Kadri, why did Llambi Peçini’s close friendship with Beqir Balluku catch my eye? I have told this to my friends too. Why did Nesti Saraçi’s attitudes stand out to me, but not to you? Beqir Balluku didn’t have anything then, I didn’t even know the pranks he did with these people, because no one cared about them, however, I had some doubts about these people from the moral and economic side, knowing Beqir Balluku of the holidays close, with those who enjoyed the conversation. These caught my eye, why didn’t you look at these things?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I have not looked at them with the same eyes that you, Comrade Enver, have also looked at them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, you should look at these things more, because I have not gone out, and I am not even the head of the State Security bodies.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I can say one thing about what you said, that Llambi Peçin, several times also his friends, I have warned them, I have removed the warning about going out to lunches and dinners, with companies such as with Baki Kongoli, with one another, but I had not reached Beqir Balluku. This was one of the reasons that I thought of removing Llambi Peçin from the security bodies of the leadership.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why would you make him responsible for the Security of the leadership?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, he was in charge of the leadership at that time, he was the director of the leadership sector.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: When and what year was this in this sector?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: It was until 1975.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: He was the director of the II Directorate of Security of the leadership and after his departure, Xhule Çiraku was appointed.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: When was Julia in this directorate?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: After the plenum where the hostile work in the Army was exposed, or rather in 1975.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Where did Llambi Peçini go then?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: From here he went to Vlora as the head of the Department of Internal Affairs of this district.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Are you sure he went to Vlora?

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Yes, yes, that is Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You mean he went to Vlora from here?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Now let’s talk honestly. As far as I remember, at that time I had the opinion that we should not take Llambi to Vlora, because I had created the impression that this is a man of dinners and lunches, and his wife had complained to me about the incorrect attitudes he held.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Who put it for… P.J., this man?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t know this Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: But I have been told that you have dealt with this issue.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Me, Comrade Enver? In my life, I have never been involved in marriages and engagements.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It is possible, because the world says many things.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Let the world say.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Let them say and we don’t believe them, but P.J., it came to me and I cried. Do you know her whole story? Vasko Gjinon, she separated, because she was joining another, while J. had left her. At this time, Beqir Balluku put Arif Hasko in bed, which had not yet separated from his wife. That’s why we called him and criticized Arif, we said: what’s going on with you? Two…. do you keep, like in the time of Turkey? And Arifi broke away from……! However, they still put Llambi in Peqini.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I have not even dealt with this issue.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, this is not very important, Kadri, before the others.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: For myself, I am not concerned about who introduced J. to Llambi Peçini, I don’t know, and I say this because I don’t remember when this was… with Arif Hasko. For myself, I found out the last time when J. broke up with Arifi and I said goodbye, but what happens like this?! Who did this…, who dealt with it, I don’t know.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: So Llambi Peçini, how long was he with me?!

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: He was the Director of the Directorate of Leadership Security until 1975. Before that, he worked in the apparatus of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Until 1975, what happened in the ministry?!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: He was the head of the Intelligence Directorate.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: As if you had once again, very close to Llambi?!

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Yes, Llambi Peçini was head of the Secretariat of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: When after the liberation I was the head of the Directorate of Security, Llambi Pecini was my deputy. Then we shipped it overseas with service.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, he was in France.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It was in Bbulim, but we removed it from there.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: And you took it to the Secretariat of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: That’s right, they made him head of the Secretariat of this ministry.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You should be aware of Mehmet Shehu’s letter. Anyway, this one wants to hide his legs for himself. We do not believe him that he is an enemy, but he has immediately responded to Comrade Hysni’s letter. Read a little Mehmet Shehu’s letter.

COMRADE HAXHI KROI: (Reads the letter) Comrade Hysni. (1 for Kiço Janku).

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: This has nothing to do with this.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, let him read it.

COMRADE HAXHI KROI: (Continues reading the letter) “Until the basic organization of the Party has decided that Kiço Janko will return from a member to a candidate, due to the faults and mistakes that are presented, we can no longer keep him as Air Defense Commander, the opinion he does not accept it, although he is not burdened, like Abaz Fejzoja or someone else like him. I think he can do the internship as the Commander of the Rocket Group, which is also his specialty.

After he completes the internship, if he did well, we can appoint him as the commander of the Missile Regiment or the Anti-Aircraft Artillery in some corps and we should think about replacing him. As far as I know, the best candidate is that of Bejto Isuf, who specializes in Anti-Aircraft Artillery and Missiles.

But we can find someone else who graduated from high school in the Soviet Union. We appointed Bejto Isufi there, we should also think about replacing him as group commander. Both functions are corpus rank. Air Defense is of great importance, as a good specialist must be appointed there, who has school, internship, and a good biography.

Regarding the list of the Security collaborators, it is the first time that the Security agencies tell us such a thing that our collaborators kept the Soviets in touch in the years 1955-1959. If we knew about this matter, we would not allow them. Besides, Kadri and those dealing with the Army should have told us this a long time ago, since we broke away from the Soviets in 1960.

So they were wrong. If we had known, not since 1961, but since December 1974, we would not have appointed him to the Central Committee in the place of the Director of the Operational Directorate in the Ministry of Defense, or M.T., as the Commander in the Military Academy. We have no guarantee now for these frames and here Kadriu was wrong again. He should have told us this when we appointed him to the Political Bureau. Now what do we do?!

This matter must be reported to Comrade Enver, and then we will decide. I think that all these cadres should be put under rigorous scrutiny to finally prove their position. I think that the Central Committee, although he seems to be a very good person, at least after a while he should leave the Ministry of Defense. He could go, for example, chief of staff of the Burrell Corps, that of Puka, or the Elbasan group.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This means that you took this man from one hand and put it in another hand.

COMRADE HAJHI KROI: Continue reading the letter of the traitor Mehmet Shehu. Likewise, M.T. For M.H. it is time to demobilize him, release him. This action of the Security bodies has put us in trouble and doubts about these cadres. They say that they have cut ties with these cadres, but Kadriu himself told me months ago that M.T. as their collaborator, he had signaled to the Security authorities about Beqir Balluk’s black material.

This means that they continue to keep the connections. Which thesis should we believe?! It was very bad. Now we have to watch the attitude of these cadres carefully and be careful not to kill them spiritually because they are not at fault. Maybe they all have nothing to do with the Soviet agency, but this must be checked and proven, because in such cases the sleep of the mind causes the disaster. However, this should be reported to Comrade Enver, and his opinion taken.”

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Comrade Enver, nothing has been reported to him; while Mehmet Shehu washes his hands and we understand the purpose of washing his hands.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What about them, why didn’t they call me when I made a mistake and tell me “here you made a mistake, Comrade Kadri”.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How do we know this?! Therefore we have no way to say.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, I say what I know, but you are right, that no one called me to tell me that I did these things with my head and I did not tell them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Regarding Mehmet’s letter, it seems clear to us that he was the chief agent and the main enemy. What he writes there has no value, but with this letter he wants to throw you Kadri. It’s your fault, this one will say to him. But we, to point out, are not based on what he says, but on the letter of friend Hysni, who says that Kadriu informed me about these things in 1975, and that there are no documents in Central Committee on this matter.

So we believe this, but we also believe you. It is clear to us, Comrade Kadri, that giving our agency to the Soviets, on the basis of the kindness and friendship we have had with them, seemed very wrong to me. Our Party has never said to give them anything, and there is no record or document on this matter. The second thing I wanted to say is that our friction with the Soviet revisionists began long before 1959.

In 1957, the Moscow conference was held, and even we had quarreled with them since 1956 and then in 1957, with Khrushchev, when we were in Moscow. We then clashed with the Soviet leaders and when we returned, we reported here to the Central Committee about the quarrels we had with them. All these are written in the documents of our Party. Khrushchev attacked us when he tried to rehabilitate Koci Xoxen with other enemies.

In other words, the situation with the Soviets was such that as time passed, relations with them worsened. Irritation with the Soviet revisionists means first irritation with those Soviets who were here, let alone those who were in Moscow. Even when we were on good terms with the Soviets, when we had these sharp divergences, with the Soviet ambassador we talked to each other.

He would come here, to the Central Committee, and we would talk about the situations that were developing, we would give any decision that came out to the public as a matter of form, but later we didn’t even do that because our relations with them grew colder. So much so that the Soviet ambassador Ivanov looked in disbelief at the stove I have in a corner of the office and remembered that this was some recording device. What do you have there?! – He told me one day when he saw it. It’s a stove that you turn on when it’s cold – I answered.

Good, good, – he said then and calmed down. So, first of all, there are no documents in the Party on the basis of which you were forced to give everything to the Soviets. Consulting Soviet advisers yes, and anything unimportant could be given to them, but not the agency. You have given many other dangerous things to the Soviets, it seems to me. Let’s take a little break now that we are tired, to start again later because we have another problem to look at. There may be many other problems here, but these are the ones we have encountered now.

Regarding the first point, the clarifications and definitions from Kadriu were not complete. I think that if there is anything that the comrades have to add, they should raise it during this session, but I advise Comrade Kadri to delve deeper into the responsibilities that fall to him for these issues. It is known that we had and have a platform of State Security bodies. This is a top secret document, and there are detailed instructions on who can get it and who can use it. Will we find out if this very secret document has come out or not, friend Kadri?!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Where outside?!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Outside of Albania.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, I don’t know anything.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You don’t know anything?! Yes, we have here a document that proves that not only the State Security platform was given to the Soviets, but also a number of other secret documents were given to them by Llambi Peçini on behalf of the Minister of the Interior, Major General Kadri Hazbiu. Take friend Kadri and sing us these and these, so that we have everything clear. We have put these, and what these documents contain. For this purpose, I asked you when Llambi Peçini was with me and when he left here.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Not to you, Comrade Enver, but to the II Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which deals with Leadership Assurance.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: That’s what I want to say, in the Directorate of Leadership Security.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t know the exact time; we have to find it in the relevant documents Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It was in 1959?!

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Where in the II Directorate?! Not in 1959 was Llambi Peçini in the ministry.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What was there?!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: At that time he was in Bbulim, but in any case these are found in the documents.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: He was in the Secretariat of the Ministry of Interior at that time.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It may have been in the secretariat.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: This is a document, for what it contains, it is another document, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Come here and tell me this.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Here, this shows what this Comrade Enver is.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: But we also need the letter and not only the content, because the letter made by Llambi Peçini was sent to Moscow together with the documents.

COMRADE HAJHI KROI: (Reads the report)

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Come on, I’m reading this document. Here’s what it says: “To the Director of the High School of the Security Committee, near the Council of Ministers, Moscow”.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What is the date?

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: The date is 24.12.1959.

I’m reading it again from the beginning.

“Director of the Higher School of the Security Committee under the Council of Ministers in the Soviet Union, Moscow.

I am sending them to familiarize the listeners of the Albanian group, to be used in the teaching process.

The text of the platform on the operational work of the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, approved by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the ALP in Russian, translated and written by…

Directive of the Minister of Internal Affairs No. 8. Date 6.3.1959, on the duties of these State Security bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RPSH, specimen 2. The text of the said order in Russian translated by Major Sali Hoxha.

The instruction on the operational evidence of the bodies of the Directorate of State Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RPSH, approved by the Minister of Internal Affairs No. None, dated 20.6.1957. The text of the first and seventh chapters of the said instruction in Russian was handwritten by Captain Zylyftar Shehu.

Order of the Minister of Internal Affairs No. 08/1236, dated 8.11.1958, five copies of specimen No. 31. The text of the order in question, in Russian, was written by Captain Zylyftar Shehu.

Orders and instructions on the investigative work of the State Security bodies:

Order of the Minister of Internal Affairs, No. AY/384, dated 17.9.1957, on the notification of the charge, 5 copies of the specimen without number.

The instruction of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs No. AI/572, dated 24.12.1957, the interpretation of Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RPSH, five copies of specimen No. 23.

Order of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs No. 01. dated 18.9.1958, with which the instructions of the Ministry of Justice, the Prosecution and the Supreme Court on the relations between these bodies are sent, Five copies of the specimen without number.

Instruction of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs 01/712, dated 17.11.1958, on the investigation of the case of traitorous agents of the State Security bodies. Five copies of specimen No. 35.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How did you say that?

SHOKU HEKURAN ISAI: Instruction of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs 01/712, dated 17.11.1958, on the investigation of the case of traitorous agents of the State Security bodies. Five copies of specimen No. 35.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: In other words, the names of all the convicts of our country at that time were sent to the Soviets in one word.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It is about traitorous agents.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: There are all agents, traitors.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Treasonous agents are.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: For the Soviets, these are all “patriots”. Our traitors are patriots for them.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARCANI: They are our opponents.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: The instruction of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs No. APOY No. 459, dated 22.9.1959, on the question of the predicates, in five copies of specimen No. 33.

The instruction of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs OY/No. 460, dated 22.9.1958, on the rules of detention for three days. Five copies of specimen 25.

Instruction of the Minister of Internal Affairs No. OY/37, dated 21.1.1959, on the investigation of the treason case in five copies of specimen 35.

The instruction of the head of the Investigation Branch of the State Security bodies, No. OY//776, dated 5.9.1959, on the rule of extending the deadline for conducting the investigation. Five copies of specimen No. 11.

The instruction of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs No. OX/937, dated 21.12.1958, with which instructions are sent on the investigation of extraordinary events, theft, or damage to economic facilities. Five copies of specimen No. 29.

Instruction of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, No. 01/614, dated 7.10.1958, on the strengthening of counterintelligence work in the geology sector.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Who is this deputy minister?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Any of those who were there at that time, must be either Mihallaq Zicishti, or someone else.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: When was this written, in 1959?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, in 1959.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Mihallaqi must be the one who wrote it.

Comrade ENVER HOXHA: Mihallaqi?

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI:

8. Instruction of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, No. OT/08/1237, dated 8.10.1959, “On the organization of operational agency work towards visitors who, for various reasons, come to our country and Albanians who go to capitalist countries”. Five copies of specimen No. 1.
9. The instruction of the deputy director of the Directorate of State Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RPSH, No. 05/749, dated 8.10.1958, “On the processing of former members of reactionary organizations”. In five copies of the specimen without number.
10. Instruction of the deputy director of State Security of the RPSH, No. 05/213, dated 23.6.1959, “On the processing of families and relatives of former exponents and key cadres of counter-revolutionary organizations”. Five copies of the unnumbered specimen.
11. Instruction of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, No. 04/470/, dated 25.6.1956, “On the work of the Army Security bodies, in the ranks of the population surrounding the military units”. Five copies of the unnumbered specimen. The text of the instruction was handwritten in Russian by Captain Shahin Tafa.
12. Instruction of the head of the Army Security Branch of the State Security Directorate, Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RPSH, No. 04/1139, dated 19.9.1958, “On the rapid investigation of hostile causes in the Army “. Five copies of the unnumbered specimen. The text of the instruction in question was written by hand in Russian by Captain Shahin Tafa.
13. Lectures on the topic: “Intelligence Bodies of the Greek State”, compiled by Colonel Fetih Smokthina, in 1958, copy No. 100. The text of the lecture in question, without an introduction in Russian, was written by hand by Lieutenant Mihal Jorgaqi.
14. Lectures on the topic “The hostile activity of the Greek Discovery and the organization of Vorio-Epirus, against the People’s Republic of Albania”, compiled by General Rexhep Kolli. Specimen without number. The text of the topic in question was written by hand in Russian by lieutenant Mihal Jorgaqi.
15. Lectures on the topic “The War of the State Security bodies against the hostile activity of the West German agency”, compiled by Captain, Koçi Lubonja and Haki Keta, in 1956, copy No. 100.
16. Lectures on the topic “Hostile activity of the Yugoslav UDB against the People’s Republic of Albania”, compiled in 1950, by Major General Hilmi Seiti, copy without number.
17. Lectures on the topic “The hostile activity of capitalist discoveries against the People’s Republic of Albania”, compiled in 1958, by Colonel Pilo Shanto and Captain Vaskë Afezolli, copy No. 34.
18. Lectures on the topic “The hostile activity of capitalist discoveries against the People’s Republic of Albania”, compiled in 1958, by Colonel Rasim Dedja, copy without number.
19. Lectures on the topic “Albanian reactionary emigration”, compiled in 1958, by Major Koçi Lubonja, specimen No. 17.
20. Lectures on the topic “The main aspects when the attention of operational workers should be focused during the process of processing foreign agents”, compiled in 1959, by Colonel Pilo Shanto and Captain Vaskë Afezolli, copy without number.
21. Description on the processing of the Greek agents, Panajot Buzukut and Jorgo Lazos, compiled in 1959, by Colonel Dhosi Progri, five copies of the specimen without number.
22. Compilation of examples on the first discipline prepared by hand in the Russian language, by Major Sali Hoxha.
23. Five reports “On the hostile activity of anti-party elements towards the Party, compiled by Colonel Raqi Zavalani, 24 pages in total.
24. Report “On the hostile activity of anti-party elements during 1959”, compiled by Colonel Raqi Zavalani.
25. The report “On the hostile activity of Liri Gegë, Dali Ndreu and Petro Bullati”, compiled by the Second Branch, dated 12.3.1956.
26. Report “On the deposits of Dhora Leka”, compiled by Raqi Zavalani.

With the authorization of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Lieutenant General Kadri Hazbiut, the head of the Secretariat of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Colonel Llambi Peçini. (signature)

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What do you say, Kadri, about all this?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: There is no possibility that they were sent and handed over to the School. This was the Security School. We used to send our cadres there to prepare them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, yes.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This must be verified, looked at.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Who is it addressed to?

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: To the Director of the High School of the Security Committee, under the Council of Ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: To the Director of the High School of the Soviet Security Committee.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: These should be the materials that the school requires for lectures, for example, the platform, what are its rules, etc.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why would we send our State Security platform there for our students to learn in Russia and not expect everyone to learn it when they return here and only those parts that were related to the task that would be assigned to them? The platform is a top secret document, isn’t it, Kadri?

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: This is not allowed to be given even to our Higher School of Security, and not to foreigners.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It is given to the School.

FRIEND SIMON STEFANI: How is the platform given to the School?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, slowly, slowly a drop. The platform is a top secret document. For all these materials, with the exception of one or two of them, in no way should they have been sent to teach the cadres who were sent there.

When they came back here from the school they were going to do in Russia, you could keep them another two, three, or four months, finally, and familiarize them with the parts of the platform that they would need for the job. . How could such secret documents be sent to a foreign school? What you say, Kadri, is not a reason.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Now how can I say it, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVERT HOXHA: Yes, we ask you to tell us something.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: How can I tell them now? This is how we acted; I have no way to say otherwise.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: In the first point, you said that at the beginning of 1959, you received orders to turn off the taps to the Russians, while you, with all that you sent, opened all the taps, without any restriction.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, that’s right, all the faucets.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Wait a minute; I don’t know when this letter was sent.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: We have the original document there.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, there is the original letter, sent at the end of 1959, when we were at odds with the Soviet revisionists.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: One thing, Comrade Enver, the advisers who were on duty here asked us for these documents, and it is possible that some changes were made to the platform at that time, that the Soviets must have had these things forward.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: What about the list of enemy elements that you sent to the Soviets?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Not a list, Comrade Ramiz, they should be generalizations.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: What about the depositions of Dhora Leka, with all the people she mentions?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: If they verify them, it should be seen that they are as she says, right?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: They have been verified.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: They have been verified.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Dhora Leka in her depositions shows that the names of over 50 people were sent to the Russians.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Were they sent materials like this, in this way?

Comrade HEKURAN ISAI: The summary materials have been sent to you, but the depositions of Dhora Leka are the same. Here we are not dealing with Dhora Leka’s generalizations.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: How can I say it, I don’t know, I’m thinking that the Soviets must have asked us for material for the Security School.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: This is what the document says, Comrade Kadri, I’m sorry I’m waiting for you to speak.

“Report on the hostile activity of Liri Gega, Dali Ndreu and Petro Bullati”, so it says here.

Here is the copy of the report that was sent to the Central Committee and a copy was also sent to the Soviets. Literally, the copy sent to us here was also sent to the Soviets.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What do the Soviets need this for, Comrade Kadri? How many pages is this relation?

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: This report is 5 pages long and talks about the hostile activity of Liri Gega, Dali Ndreu and Petro Bullati, confirmed by the investigation of the judicial process. Here we talk about the connections of these three enemies with the officials of the Yugoslav Embassy in Tirana, about the information they gave to the Yugoslavs, about the tasks they received from them, as well as about the connections and joint hostile activity with some other anti-party enemy elements, such as: Murat Letin, Pajo Islamin, Foni Cirkon, etc.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why does the Soviet Security need these materials?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I say, Comrade Enver that these will be materials that the Soviets requested for their school, as material to teach our students.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Oh, no. They were certainly used by Khrushchev, because it was he who told me why you killed Liri Gega, she was also pregnant. Was this material for school?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: One minute. Excuse me, Comrade Enver, but at this time the Soviet advisers were here and knew these things.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, let them be, even if they knew about them, we shouldn’t have sent them ourselves. That’s how it is. How could we send these school materials to the Soviets ourselves?

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: Yes, well, you sent them to that school with a signature, the Soviet advisers could have found out and they themselves received secret information, then how could we send them officially, even in the name of the Ministry of Works Interior, these materials so secret? No, Comrade Kadri, is this not acceptable?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, it is not like that. What you say is not true.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: We have made a brief summary of the report on the depositions of Dhora Leka, which is stated here in the document. This report was drawn up by Raqi Zavalani, in 1959, based on the 18-page report that was sent to the Central Committee of the Party, with letter No. 140, dated 18.2.1957. It contains the depositions of Dhora Leka on her hostile activity, especially on the connections she had with the officials of the Yugoslav Embassy in Tirana and Rexhep Xhika, on the tasks she performed on his behalf, information that she herself gave to him. .

Here are also given parts of Dhora Leka’s depositions on the hostile views and activities that some anti-party elements have developed, especially on the eve and during the proceedings of the Tirana Party Conference in 1956. There are also given the names of many communists and cadres, about 50 all of them, that Dhora Leka mixes in her depositions, that during this time have worked and have been put in opposition to the line and the positions of the Central Committee of the Party. This is a short summary.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What did the Soviet security school need, Kadri?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Now how can I tell you, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, you should tell us how this matter stands, because you were there to direct it.

FRIEND SIMON STEFANI: You have to give us explanations here! How do you not know this? You were a minister then. Have a word here that this work revolts you, because here is all this activity that was done behind the back of the Central Committee of the Party.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: We made this shipment based on the request of the Russians. Send us these materials, they told us, so that we can use them at school.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: There is no request from the Russians, Comrade Kadri, neither in 1959, nor in 1958, nor in 1957.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What, what?

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: There was no official request from the Soviets on this matter, I said.

FRIEND KADRI HAZBIU: Not good! Yes, these requests are oral, because at that time we had all the advisors there. In each branch, in each sector of the ministry, we had a Soviet adviser at that time.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Don’t take that thing so lightly, Kadri.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Which one?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The matter that the Soviet advisers were there and asked you. The Soviet advisers had come there only to be advised.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, to be advised, Comrade Enver, they were.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: To consult with them does not mean that we open all the keys of our Security to them. In principle, nothing should be given to them; otherwise Albania would become a branch, a branch of the Soviet KGB. This is clear. We have had the bitter experience with the Yugoslav revisionists. When Koçi Xoxja was minister, he made our Ministry of Internal Affairs a branch or branch of the Yugoslav UDB, and Svetozari or someone else, I don’t know what they called him, was the collector of all the materials of our Ministry of Internal Affairs Internal.

We had this experience. After Koçi Xoxe, Minister Mehmeti went there. Now we know who this was, but then you went there too, then finally Feçor Shehu came, which you presented to us as a good candidate for minister. Feçor Shehu told us here, in the Central Committee, he told us that; I wonder how Kadri Hazbiu is appointed deputy minister of the interior, when he has committed numerous crimes in the Army, while you, Feçor Shehu, rubbed his arms, Kadri, what does it mean that you had great faith in him, until we You proposed here as a minister.

The issue of advisors is like I said, that’s how they should be considered and used. Then why should you consider them differently? This means that you have made a grave mistake, you have not spared them.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: We didn’t keep them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: They asked you for those materials, so you have to come to the conclusion that the practice you followed is good or bad, right or wrong. Here’s the thing.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, it’s not right. Only one thing, Comrade Enver, that is not right, and I tell you this honestly, I do not believe that I did this action on my own initiative, that I gave these materials to the Soviets myself without asking.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You may not have given them on your own initiative, but those documents passed under your nose.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: That they may have been sent with my knowledge is not disputed, but I say this, Comrade Enver, that it is impossible not to have asked a friend that these documents are requested by the Soviet Security School, so give them send or not, because the platform text…

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How is it possible that either I or Hysniu would respond to you sending these materials to the Soviets, when we, under these conditions, should send these materials to the Soviets? When Liri Belishova returned from Beijing and Moscow, you know very well that we put him with his arms against the wall. As for Mehmet, if you asked him, yes, he may have told you, unlike the two of us, no one told you.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: In 1960?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, yes, in 1960. Even in 1959. Then the attack against the Khrushchevites did not take place in a day, let’s be clear about that. Is that so? Then who could be among us to tell you to give these secret materials to the Soviets? No, no, this is beyond all logic, Kadri.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Comrade Enver, all these requests are related to the Yugoslavs. The Soviets and the Yugoslavs at that time kissed each other. Khrushchev declared this publicly, openly.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Comrade Hekuran, one thing must be understood here, that in each of these sectors in Security, there were one or two Russian advisers who dealt with these problems for days. Both for the follow-up and for the processing of the materials, because that’s how the relations with them were at that time, that’s how they had built them in these relations then.

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI: Have you seen this letter there that Llambi Peçini sent on your behalf?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t remember this from that time.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Yes, it is logical that he must have asked you for permission, that these five reports were needed for the Security School, which talked about the hostile activity of anti-party elements. These are the copies of the five relations, sorry, that’s what I’m saying.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Well, let me tell you so that we don’t waste time again; are you crazy, that I gave these to the Soviets for information? Do you think so, friend Hekuran?

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI: No, I don’t think so, so does Kadri.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, listen, Kadri. Those documents should not have been sent to the Soviet Union, because even in the framework of information, this practice enters.

COMRADE ADIL CHARCANI: Posi, they enter the information.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I mean, they went to the KGB.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This was precisely based on the relations we had with the Soviets.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, based on relationships.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This is a mistake, I understand.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: These five relationships, excuse me for a minute, Comrade Kadri.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Look, Kadri, these are made like this and you insist that you didn’t give them on purpose. This is clear to us, but here is the other issue, the KGB may have used and has used these documents against our Party, regardless of which way they went and for what purpose. The fact is that these went to the Soviets, whether or not they used them is another matter. The possibilities are all that they have used.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: They might have used them.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: How do you consider this action, Kadri?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: For my part, I do not consider this action regular, right, but even for that time, please, Comrade Ramiz, I had this practice with the Soviets. What can I tell you now?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Agreed, but this practice is already very wrong.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I also considered it wrong, wrong.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: As long as it is wrong, then why didn’t you notify the Central Committee as early as 1959, that you considered this practice wrong, do it at least in 1960, when we went to war with the Soviets, or at the end in 1961 -in, in 1963, in 1965, are you leaving it until 1975? Why didn’t you do it before?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: She has documents.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, you have documents in your file.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: Why didn’t you do it?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: How do I know, Comrade Enver?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How should I know, you say, but you should know, because I cannot know.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Of course I should know. I didn’t think about it because I didn’t tell the Central Committee. Now what else can I say?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Isn’t this a great lack of vigilance, Comrade Kadri, on your part? That you, after 1960 when we broke with the Soviets, gave them all these documents and you know this well.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It is not after 1960.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Before 1960, and after 1960, the situation we know happened with the Soviets. Then how did you not remember to say; hour, without a drop, that I have given them all the names of the anti-party elements. I have also given them all the names and elements that we have in development.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Why, I’m sorry, Comrade Ramiz, because apart from these, they should have many other details based on the practice we had.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: We assume that we don’t want to know this, and you are to blame for the practice we have set.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: No, no, I want to say for another reason. Even today, Comrade Kadri, the enemy watches our reports with whole satellites, even country by country. However, we do not publish or write them. Why should we give it to them with our own hands?

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: This is not the work of a practical matter that we had with the Soviets, this is a complete lack of vigilance on your part.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, yes, yes, I am telling you that at that time it was like that. Okay, we were wrong.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: The materials we are discussing are very secret, not even the members of the Political Bureau know about them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: They don’t know either.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Well, why should I give it to him, Comrade Adil, Llambit’s letter is another matter, but we made the platform together with them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It doesn’t matter, Kadri.

COMRADE ADIL CHARCANI: That’s how you officially give it to him, in this way you violate a norm.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Agreed, agreed, yes, he is asking them based on the school to enter the common plan, violation is another matter.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This is an important job. Another matter that you made other concessions to them, what about this document, which the Political Bureau has drawn attention to because it is very secret, why did you give it to them?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It is not a secret for the school.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: At school, our students would learn its content when they returned here.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, that’s how I judged it at that time.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: That’s how you judged it, but what do you think, did you judge it right or wrong?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I misjudged him.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, what are the consequences of this mistake on your part?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: The consequences, what can I say now, these have been done, they are to the detriment of the Party.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, a very big damage, but.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I just want to say one thing, Comrade Enver, I do not want to make excuses for this, but it is impossible that I did not get any approval from my friends, that I did not ask how to act, that the Soviets were giving us these materials they ask for school, should we send them or not? However, the responsibility remains with me, because I was the owner there at that time.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, where do you think we should look for any documents?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What can I say now, Comrade Enver, since the 1960s where they are remembered?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: For such an important thing, are you limited to receiving a verbal approval?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: That’s what we did, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You acted, you acted wrongly. So it is for all who have acted in this way.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It is also a mistake for the other collaborators we had outside. They knew, Comrade Enver, we had these orders, this is how we acted, don’t hold any reservations for the Soviets, cooperate closely with them, we were told.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This is not an excuse, Kadri.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t want to make excuses, Comrade Enver, that’s how I know this matter.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The issue is here, we ask the advisor for an advice, if not to give him the entire investigations, what is done for one and what is done for the other. We could tell the counselor we had that a man, without saying his name, killed us, and he has, for example, his father, a party member, and 6 children. What punishment do you give this one? For such a specific case, an advice may be requested.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: We did not have that working method with them, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: If we were to give you the Soviets all the investigations of Liri Gega, this one or this one, this is not permissible.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, they participated, Comrade Enver, in their investigation, in their processes, they asked what the investigator told them today, what answer the defendant gave, etc.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: No, if you tell him like that, it’s a different matter, Comrade Kadri.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Oh, that’s how we built our work with the Soviet advisers. Here, these are for school, these are synthesis. They had us in detail all our work. At least that’s how we built our relationships with them. Now let the responsibility fall on me that am how it’s done.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Let the responsibility fall on you is not a right answer on your part, tell us here how you should feel this responsibility.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, I feel it, how can I not feel the responsibility.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, I am telling you, for example, that Comrade Adil and I were members of the Political Bureau at that time and neither I nor Adili know anything about these matters.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: From whom?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Of all this we are discussing, we know absolutely nothing. Then why did the Soviets know this?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Well, I don’t know, but they were working on these things, Comrade Ramiz.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: No, no, by this I mean that these materials are very secret and it is a good thing that they were kept secret by us, while you take these to the Soviets. How is this job? This is very serious, friend Kadri.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: These are used, but they must have been requested for the school. I think they were sent to school.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: Yes, our Security school, where these things can be taught, the Soviets also has a branch of Security there.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It is not at all reasonable to give the school a secret. Why didn’t you also send the files of the Koçi Xoxes process to this school, so that the Soviet trucks could come and take all the materials of the State Security as a burden? Why?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: These must be issues that our school has dealt with here, Comrade Enver, and they have asked us for the copies. Let the friends verify these issues. It is possible that it is so.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: No, no, there are some copies that have been sent to the Central Committee.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, good, no good, what has been taken and processed for the school is coming out. Now how are they processed? They are processed at school.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: What you have done, Comrade Kadri, is a big mistake and it is not true what you say that these were needed for the school.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Then why were they needed?

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI: Well, I’ll tell you why they were needed.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I didn’t see him, maybe he reminds me of something.

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI: I am reminding you. This is shown only by the latter, the five reports on the hostile activity of all the anti-party elements that we had in 1959. Were there any of these?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: There was.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Excuse me for a minute, Comrade Kadri.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, you have the copies of these five reports now.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Well, I’m sorry, I have them, we also made a summary for them, and their summary is this. In these five relations, whom we also have in number, we are talking about the hostile comments that anti-party elements who were in the Zvrnec camp in a free state, such as Xhavit Qesja, Peço Fidhi, Pëllumb Dishnica, developed at this time against the Party line. , Kadri Hoxha. Excuse me one minuter!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why did the school need these data?

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI: Well, why did the school need these? However, I mean here, Comrade Enver, that in the Zvrnec camp, we had organized the operational agency work, we used the agency to withdraw the hostile comments made by the enemies and these were taken by the Security. What did the Party school need?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Who’s Party School?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Not the Party school, but the Soviet Security School.

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI: YES, I’m sorry; I also wanted to say to the Security school.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Now how can I tell you, come out, take Comrade Hekuran, I’m sorry now that they tell him that these have been done since 1959, so there’s no way I can remember now what the Soviets wanted, why they asked for them and how they asked for them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, why did he ask for it, we can’t dream it, we’re talking about basics here.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, Comrade Enver, I mean here, why should we now go to the relations we had at that time with the Soviets? Soviet advisers were telling us, give us these things. Then, having the counselors inside, they could take them secretly from us, they asked us officially and we: order, we told them and we gave them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why was a Soviet adviser hanged here?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t remember Comrade Enver, because he was not with us, he was a textile specialist.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why did you hang yourself? – I’m asking you. Then you, since there were such good relations, as you insist, since you are so demanding and generous, as you give them all these documents, why didn’t you ask the Soviets for clarification, why this man was hanged with us? No, we must be consistent. We were friends, some of them we had advisors, but one of them hanged himself here. You asked them, why did he hang himself? Moscow knows, they could answer. Then, until you tell me, I will not give you what you are asking for.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, when the Soviet adviser in Textiles, Comrade Enver, was hanged, these jobs were closed.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, it’s not the issue of when the advisor was hanged, but the principle, according to which you say that we were on good terms with the Soviets. In the conditions of these relations, there is an incident that may not be of any importance to them, but why did you not hold the Soviet adviser accountable, ask him why the Soviet textile specialist was killed, when you were so complacent as to give the Soviets secret documents for Liri Gega, for Dhora Leka, and for many others? We don’t know what else we have given, we know about this for now.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: No, no, it is not yet known what else.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, there is no way, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It is not known what else was given by you.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: There are possibilities, Comrade Enver, but these were given based on what I said, on the relationships we had built. To be sure that this advisor may have gone to Kartoteka as well, that he was a specialist but Kartoteka. Therefore he could come there and get the list of collaborators himself. We have had advisers for every branch of Discovery outside; all day long they were engaged in this work.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, well, Comrade Kadri, let’s leave it at what was done until the time we had relations with the Soviets, but I don’t understand your position, after 1960, when we started a fierce war against the Soviets, that even they they fought against us to destroy us, day and night. You, as an organ of the State Security, I ask about this because at that time you were the Minister of Internal Affairs, what did you do to oppose this savage war that these enemies were waging against us, looking at and reflecting as we are doing today for Mehmet Shehu.

He has fought us that are why we now say: Let’s take a look at what this enemy has done to us! Did you do this job? – What did we do with the Soviets until 1960? We gave them all these lists and then we had these issues even fresher in our memory than now, so it would be easier to find what we had given them.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: One minute, Comrade Ramiz.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Not for a minute, I have the issue with you one more time, Kadri, here it is not only the word that these impermissible actions were done, but we also want to know how you see these things now, they were done properly, or they were made wrong! In case you think they were done wrong, you should explain to us why you did it wrong, especially since you didn’t have a problem with the Central Committee of the Party after 1960.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, after 1960, for example, we may not have made documents, but we revised the entire agency that we had abroad, that the Russians knew about us. For those who knew, we took measures, some written and some unwritten, on this occasion we changed our agents’ connection currency, we changed their nicknames to save those we had outside, that the Russians also knew.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: And all these people still remained in the country.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: To Comrade Enver, I was talking about you, not what Comrade Ramiz says, what we did after 1960. Our collaborators, based on the relationships we had, gave these materials to the Russians, we put them on the list for them.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: No, Comrade Kadri, why don’t you answer us what you did after 1960? Why did you not inform the Central Committee, saying: come, dear comrades, during this period, we gave the Soviets these, these and these materials, but you did not do this either in 1975 or until now.

You know very well that all these cadres have been moved, many of whom have been promoted to responsibilities, and you know this, that they are Army cadres. Then, why didn’t you come to tell the Central Committee that we have given these materials to the Soviets, so that the Party leadership would know how to build the work, to take measures to remedy the dire situation created there as soon as possible you?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: One minute now, I was talking about what we have done, and then I will answer.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: Yes, agreed, this is our request.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Regarding what we had with the Russians, I know that we extracted the evidence of who our collaborators were and brought it here, although I don’t know the exact time when we did this in 1975, or earlier but I think it is earlier than that year.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Mehmet Shehu has put these people in the places he wanted. What you did, what you said to Hysni, Mehmet Shehu took it here and there and in the end gave the conclusion that “they may not be agents of the Soviets”, these people, how did he soften this issue and these elements for you he appointed chiefs of staff, school principals, etc. And what happened in the meantime? Nothing was done.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Nothing was done, yes, as far as I remember, we have made this issue present, that this is the situation, these were our collaborators, of which the Russians were aware.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, this does not exist, except in 1975.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Okay, let me answer, Comrade Enver, I am convinced that there are friends in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and they can be asked about this issue. We have done verifications several times, sometimes calling one and sometimes the other of these, to extract the evidence, who exactly were these elements that were put by us to cooperate with the Soviets, and we have identified who they are, regardless of how it went 1975 information, I am unable to speak.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Yes, the 1975 study was also done by Mehmet Kondoja.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Well, that’s how it was as far as I remember about it.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Likewise, in 1975 the material was made by Mehmet Kondoja, Mehmet Çaka and a certain Koli Shuke.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, in 1975, I have this material here, which was prepared by Koli Shukja and Mehmet Kondoja.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Okay, okay, yes, we asked them to do this material. I remember that we gathered all these friends in the Ministry and asked them to remember what they remember and to write it all down. We have tried so to make the list. Before this time Comrade Ramiz, some actions were taken to reach the conclusions that were made in 1975; it is not that we remembered only that year about this issue, as far as I know.

This is how we judged it. But these days, to be honest, if you told me that the Central Committee was interested in this, I would say that we have opened the notebooks to the Soviets. The right is how they were treated until 1959. For this let any responsibility fall on me, but we did not keep anything secret from the Russians, as long as they were here, with the exception of 1959, why at this time we started to refrain.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: However, even that time they were given to them again.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: On December 24, 1959.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, that’s right; these were given to them until December 24, 1959.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: If this weighs on my back, Comrade Enver, well, I don’t know that, but until then we have given them everything we had and this is where my responsibility falls.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I don’t believe it, until you say that we gave it to them, because that’s how we found it, that’s how it was, that’s how we should give them everything, it means that it was done with your consent.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It is possible that it was done this way, Comrade Enver, I am not able to speak exactly about this, but I know that they were given school materials. They asked us for generalizations, they asked for one or the other issue, to teach our cadres that we sent to learn in their schools and, based on these researches, we gave them, while the State Security Platform, they had in their hands for days , we probably gave it to them officially, that’s how we thought about it.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, they themselves may have even photographed it, but we accuse you because you officially gave it to them?!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Agree, agree, that’s how we judged it, as the materials we gave them for the school.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, there was no reason why they needed documents for school.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This is what we judged, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: Yes, they themselves may have photographed a lot of material.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What they wanted, they brought to us.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: They have also entered the archive of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, they also entered the archive.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Even in the file.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, even in the archives and in the files, they knew everything. They also knew about the agency we had against Yugoslavia, that the Counterintelligence had three advisors.

COMRADE ADRIL ÇARÇANI: Okay, but why should we give them these things officially? What did the Soviet Security School need, our investigative processes?

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: And not our school, but their school there in the Soviet Union.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Please, yes, at that time our trainees continued in that school.

COMRADE ADIL CHARCANI: There were five of them.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, there weren’t five people, they were an entire department.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: How many were there, and there was a whole department, 10-15 people in total.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, they wanted us to teach them the changes we made here, how this procedure is, how it is, how we had done it, etc.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: They had gone to learn Axhem Abazi with Halim Zano and some others at that time there.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What can I say; the responsibility is mine in this matter.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Now, as a conclusion, what do you say?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Comrade Enver, the responsibility falls on me for this matter, as you also said. Regarding the self-criticism, I asked for your permission to do it before the Political Bureau, and you told me that there was no need to do it.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: YES, that’s what I told you, there’s no need to self-criticize.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I have also concentrated my thoughts there, how I feel the responsibility for all this hostile work that has been developed, not only as a member of the party and of the Plenum of the Central Committee. This is the conclusion that I have drawn and I can say all that I had written that I have saved the notes. Yes, this does not matter.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Have that self-criticism that, of course, we will raise your case in the Political Bureau, but I can tell you that it was worth nothing, it was very general.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, I agree, I wanted to say this, Comrade Enver, that I didn’t want to leave it to you, I just told you how I judged this matter.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: If self-criticism was given to you, it would be left to the Central Committee, because it is put in the archives, if I told you not to leave it, if you delved into these issues, because they are very big, very delicate, that’s why you had to reflect deeper.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: How can I elaborate, Comrade Enver?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The point is that serious mistakes were made in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Mehmet Shehu was the leader there in the beginning, but after that you came. Now you have allowed enemy elements to operate in this Ministry, even in a large group and in the joints of this body. However, for all the time you worked there, you didn’t smell anything, you weren’t vigilant in their actions, in their contacts, you weren’t strict in demanding the account on the crucial issues, and on the main issues I have word.

For the main mistakes that have been proven there, such as sending residents to the Soviet Union, giving residency and our collaborators into the hands of the KGB (despite the fact that these were sent to the school in the form, they went to the KGB, are taken from her and you are quite sure that the Soviets used them for their own purposes and not to teach our boys, that what was said by the advisers was nonsense), for this you must be conscious, that you are very guilty, despite the fact that you did not do it consciously.

We have advisors, just like in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in other ministries as well. We have had friendship with the Soviets and the truth is that we have been honest with them. We were really friendly with the Soviets, but to some extent we had to talk to them, that we cannot find in the Central Committee any document, and we can look at it, that we have instructed you to give the Soviet advisers all the documents you had there.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Such a document in the archives of the Central Committee, according to which you were ordered to give such materials to the Soviets. We can search, if you are convinced, it will not be found. If there is anything in the apparatus of the Council of Ministers, I do not know that Mehmet Shehu had the opportunity to sign any document on behalf of the government. Even when he was not prime minister, but deputy prime minister, without my knowledge, he may have done such a thing, but I think that even in the government there are no such documents, as far as I know.

He did such things with the telegrams he wrote, as if the German or the Polish Minister of the Interior did not accept our students without sending them to the agencies that you sent them, and the fact is that based on the data that you sent the Poles recruited all the engineers who studied there and we discovered them. The Soviets have done the same thing, even they have acted in a fluctuating manner, so have the Bulgarians, etc. Therefore, these were the two very dangerous directions, the Army and the Ministry of Internal Affairs that had to be very careful, for the preservation of secrets.

The people who surrounded you in the Ministry of Internal Affairs were enemies, agents of foreign powers, whom Mehmet Shehu manipulated as he wanted, through his carefully studied tactics. You had taken these as connections and acted with them. Mehmet Shehu could rarely have recruited an agent himself and there was no reason to recruit him, apart from that, he did not want to compromise personally with such work, because others have done this work.

You have shaped the issue of friendship and contacts with the Soviets, particularly you of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Defense. We must be aware of this, that you have misunderstood, because the main agent was in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, later he went to the Ministry of Defense, where he also took over the entire agency.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Even when he was prime minister, he had both of these departments subordinated to him.

FRIEND ADIL CHARCANI: He was in a relationship, yes.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: He was in a relationship. For some time, Beqir Balluku was also in contact with him, as deputy Prime Minister, Beqiri was also the liaison of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, being at the same time the Minister of Defense.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, at that time the Ministry of Internal Affairs was also subordinate to him.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I mean, in all this activity at least, if I say it honestly at least, you were not up-to-date, you did not have vigilance at the level of duty and you did not properly conceive and interpret the directives and decisions of the Party.

You have a good, fighting past, you have been loyal to the Party, but I am convinced that in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, familiarity worked for you and there was a sick familiarity with those people who were agents and you they threw it away. They have taken advantage of these weaknesses of yours and introduced them, passing them off as truth, all of which have made you look like a fool.

It is important now that we clarify these matters one by one, because without clarifying them, a danger is created for the Party, for all the successes we have achieved, but there is also a danger for you, because you despair today, while we we don’t want you to despair, you just have a duty to give greater help to the Party, so that we can better orient ourselves in these matters, which may turn out differently for us, because other things may turn out for us, as others may not appear.

That you have spoken with me, with Hysnia, with Mehmet, with Beqir, this cannot be denied. But during the practice of my work I have done a good thing, I have kept a diary every day, as I said before, which are the same as my other books that have been published, except that this is my internal diary.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, yes, it is internal; nothing has been published from this journal.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It is not like an external journal, which can also be published in several volumes. In this diary I have written every day, not only that I have talked with one or the other friend, but I have also written what I have said and what I have done. Now, when I look through these diaries, I see that I have noted in them even matters in detail such as, it comes to one place, I noted that Kadriu came to my house and told me about the hostile work of Beqir Balluk, and I continue, that I did not these troubles are enough for Kadri, but now his wife’s illness also comes out, we will save her too, we will send her to recover.

When we were fighting with Beqir Balluk, a little thing happened to me in Durrës, where I immediately called Hysnia and ordered her to go to Shefqet Peçi and ask her how this matter was. So I wrote a little thing. This does not exist either for Hysnia, as he himself says in the letter, or for me.

Of course, we will not do all the issues in writing, with letters. I think that in this regard, friend Kadri, you should go deeper and to complete your discussion better, the reasons you will give should be well-founded. So take the trouble and go to Hekurani, ask him what you need to see from the documents that came out on this or that date, that this work can help you, and it can help us too.

We cannot in any way say that all the workers of the Security, who graduated from the school in Moscow, are agents of the Soviets, but it is right to have a reserve of vigilance in their direction, to let each of them work, but not in that place, where there are great opportunities to harm.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: It is as you say, Comrade Enver. In other words, Kadriu must reflect, understand all the issues well, also due to the fact that many wrong actions have been done in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. As it was said here, Kadriu was surrounded in his work by enemy elements, such as: Feçor Shehu, Mihallaq Ziçishti, Zoi Themeli, etc., in addition to the fact that there may have been others, who were the directors and heads of branches. All of them have done a wild hostile work against the Party, under the leadership of Mehmet Shehu, which they have thrown at Kadri.

They have benefited from Kadri’s weaknesses and flaws and this is an indisputable fact. In this direction, there was and still is a lot of carelessness on your part, Kadri, a lot of lack of vigilance, so the burden falls on you to find its source and how to understand this issue.

It is clear to us that the Soviets worked with these people, who studied in the Soviet Union, with civilians and with the military. The fact is that during the time from 1960 onwards, we discovered various groups of enemies, such as the group of Poles, as some were associated with the Soviets and not only with the Soviet women, Kadri. So there were some who were implicated by Soviet agents. Koço Gjeç’s son, Nako Spiru’s brother, and some others have escaped from us at this time.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: In the Czech Republic.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: In the Czech Republic, we had given Nako Spiro’s brother to them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, yes.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: I mean, we had given it to them as a suspicious element, the Czechs worked with it and made it for them. If we are talking, for example, about Dhora Leka’s report, friend Kadri is here, I probably still have them myself, I have not handed over all those reports to the archive employees, about some writers who had something not good, that they gave me Comrade Kadri himself sent me, starting with Llazar Siliqi, Kol Jakova, Dritëro Agolli, etc., that probably all these things came from Dhora Leka.

And I am now finding out that all these have come out of Dhora Leka’s process, which showed that these frames had a defect. Here, for example, is a concrete case: when we were told about them, we acted, we tried to keep these writers close, we tried to save them and in fact, we saved them. However, there were also those who, despite the Party’s efforts, did not escape, such as Vehbi Skenderi, or what they call another poet.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: For my part, I don’t know any of them, in the sense that the reflex came to me even to the Deputy Chief of Staff. I know some old ones, like Halim Ramohito, the Artillery commander, Todi Naçon, Muhamet Prodani and his friends, but I don’t know the others.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Therefore, it seems to me that in this direction, Kadriu should reflect well on his weaknesses, on his shortcomings and lack of vigilance. On this occasion, I would like to say one more thing here, Kadriu should reflect on his own, that he did not have even an iota of self-satisfaction, for the work done in the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Not only Kadriu, but we also had complacency, because we had faith in him and said: Kadriu is working and our mind was asleep on this side, while Kadriu, the least I can say, slept there.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: The last thing I want to point out is that these issues can be divided, so to speak, into three stages. First, the hostile work that was done in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, until 1960, then after 1960, which in my opinion Kadriu should have reacted, in the way that was said, we are also at the present stage.

Here, these documents, which were read here, are coming out to us now. I ask: what is Kadriu’s attitude towards them? How does he evaluate these, that is, how does he evaluate this bad work, which was done in the Ministry of Internal Affairs? Where does he see his own mistakes?

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: Here, there are no such reports from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, so that the Party can see that, regardless of who is who is who is not, a group is listening. If you take what you also said, Comrade Enver, that all the groups were discovered from above, by the Party, while the Ministry of Internal Affairs later only made arrests, investigations, followed the trial of enemies, etc., this it is a lesson for us, which we should keep in mind in the future.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Adil Çarçani now finds a document that, based on its content, tells Mehmet Shehu that Lipe Nashja should be arrested, put in prison. Yes, if we leave it one more time, Mehmet told him. Look at what Mehmet Shehu was doing, preventing his comrades from acting.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: This attitude of Comrade Kadri has brought many dangers; therefore he must be very aware of these attitudes. We now spend large amounts of money abroad, but in fact we have no disclosure and for this very important problem, I have talked with friends.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: That’s right, today we don’t have Discovery, and our Discovery has disappeared.

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI: We have no Discovery, because Feçor Shehu, being Mehmet Shehu’s agent, must have given our agency to his masters. Comrade Kadri knows this better. Therefore, rebuilding the external agency now is a time-consuming and quite intensive job. It is a colossal damage that has been caused to our Discovery.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: And I am of the opinion that this sector, Counterintelligence, should no longer be connected to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, this is an Army body. Look what’s next for us? They look like carambolas. We had hung both our livers around Feçor Shehu’s neck. It seems to me, and it is right, that the whole world has organized this work like this, they should not be directed by one hand, Discovery and Counter-intelligence.

It cannot be the Security of the Army, subordinate to the State Security, for the reason that Hekurani is in the Ministry of the Interior. Here we are dealing with an important principle. Security of the Army is a special body. Even the Soviets have it like that, they have the KGB, and they also have the GRY, that is, the Security of the Army.

COMRADE HEKURAN ISAI: This is what I think, that Comrade Kadri should delve deeper into all these orders that you gave him, Comrade Enver, I told him that our Ministry of Internal Affairs was actually like a branch of the KGB with these extensions, as friend Kadri himself says. All the materials of our Ministry of Internal Affairs were taken by the Soviet advisers, whatever documents they wanted, they pulled them whenever they wanted and looked at them. In fact, this ministry thus emerges as a branch of the Soviet Security. There were no secrets there for the Soviets, no ciphers, no collaborators, no documents, absolutely nothing.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: One year we also brought a party instructor from the Soviet Union to the apparatus of the Central Committee, I think they called him Tishenko. We assigned him an office and I gave it to Rita in connection to give him only some news, nothing else. And all day he was shaking the door here, so after a few months he got up and left.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: That’s right, he didn’t stay long with us and got up and left.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: He didn’t stay, because no one hung him. So, friend Kadri, we are socially dealing with this issue that has arisen, you should be clear.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I understand, so thank you, Comrade Enver, thank you.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The point is to understand it well, that it is of special importance.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I am saying, Comrade Enver, that I did not do this work with a conscience and the self-criticisms, no matter how short I prepared, either in the Plenum, after the 5th Plenum, or when I personally came before you, express my feelings mine as a party member. I have always seen my responsibility from the angle of the function entrusted to me by the Party, that is why I have expressed that I have responsibility and I not only say this, but also carry this responsibility.

After these remarks you made to me, you can be sure that I will deepen, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You definitely have to dig deeper.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It’s time to say one more thing here, Comrade Enver. My responsibility can be and will be whatever, just know that I am who I have been in terms of loyalty to the Party, to the motherland and to you. This time will prove it. Those we discovered were enemies, while the duty of the Party put me among them. But I assure you of one thing that, whatever mistake I have made and however much it has damaged the Party, I will pay for the damage I have caused, but never as a traitor. Keep this in mind, Comrade Enver.

I am conscious and I am telling you with all my heart that my feelings are pure. I have never been one to look at things with suspicion. This has been a mistake on my part, because my dough is like that. That’s how I judged, even more so when it was about friends. I have raised some issues, I have formulated some thoughts, but my weakness lies in the fact that I have not taken it to the end. I see all of this as a marked lack in my formation as a communist, as a lack of vigilance in particular.

Regarding the relations with the Russians, Comrade Enver, I am telling you that we have not kept any secrets from them; we have given them everything, because that is how we understood the directive at least that is how they were interpreted to us. The ones that were read here for me are few, maybe we gave them everything, but what is important is that we gave them officially with our firm; however, the Russians took everything they wanted from the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Your friends should and will help you, but first of all, try to help yourself, so that your friends will help you. That’s what a popular proverb says.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, always in this context. Of course, it is, as you say.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: What Comrade Enver said, that neither care nor vigilance has been shown on your part towards the Russians, is of great importance. The Russians also received documents from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, that they were inside the department, but they also received many materials from your subordinates. The sick familiarity that existed in this ministry has also done a lot of damage here, which is of great importance.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Today you have to judge the matter deeply, Comrade Kadri. Let’s just take the platform of the State Security bodies. Read it! You have certainly read and understood it in its entirety. At the top of this document, it is marked “Top Secret”, there is also a special instruction to which it should be given. In the districts, only the first secretary of the Party Committee is given this document. Did Stalin do this or did Lenin, the adviser, Mehmet, or Enver do it? The Political Bureau has assessed that this is a highly secret document. Then why send to the Soviet Security School? This is how the case should be judged.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It should not have been sent, I understand, but I am convinced of one thing, Comrade Enver, that I did not do this with my head. Let all the responsibility fall on me, but I did not take such steps myself in this action. I think I may have asked. Maybe you have to get written authorization, but I didn’t do this on my own.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: Don’t justify this, Comrade Kadri that the Political Bureau had no reason to give you a special authorization, since the instruction was given in writing, to which this document should and could be given.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: How did you not remember the instructions of this very important document, when you remembered the order that Comrade Enver gave you verbally to close all the musluqs to the Soviet advisers? How did you not remember who you talked too specifically to give it to the Russians?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, the Russians dealt with the platform every day, Comrade Adil.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Reflect, Kadri, and let’s say that we have in mind that the people loved the cadres of our generation who fought the war, both in a Marxist way, and in a patriarchal, tribal way. When a cadre consistently follows the Party’s line, this is a good thing, but when something is blamed on him, then confusion is created in the people, which become dangerous for the Party.

For the betrayal of Mehmet Shehu, we did not have any difficult situation, because nobody wanted him, with the exception of a few, therefore we saw that the disappearance of his activity did not come with great pain for the Party, due to the person of own. But when people hear what this enemy has done, even those who have had some nostalgia for him hate him.

One person said that Hysni Kapo was killed; the other makes it bigger, until it even sounds to me as if I am the one who told Vito that Hysni Kapo was killed. See how they mix this job? That’s why I gave an order to follow this case and the person who will be found to be the source of this fake news should be put on his neck and in prison. Why is the truth that Hysni Kapo died in bed from cancer, a disease that cannot be inoculated, then there is no way to kill Hysni Kapoja and so on.

Ramizi informed me that a few days ago, the enemy dropped brochures calling “what are you doing, get up”! Therefore, without him, efforts are made to find a point for those who say “Get up!”

We must go to these things in the end, find out who they are, because we are not afraid of them. But the enemies do this in order to create difficult situations in the people. There is among us the micro-bourgeois sense of society, of familiarity, of tribe, of kinship. All these exist and not only exist, even the undeveloped people, they exist in developed people and in the members of the Party and with these feelings they put us in some difficult situations to adopt according to the opinion, that is, or we follow the opinion as opportunists, that is, we either follow the opinion as opportunists who do not understand a certain situation, or we go against the opinion, telling people that we do not accept what you say, because this man is not guilty of what you say, he does not deserve the punishment you are asking for.

Let’s not take the issue as if the Party is all-powerful, the Party is so, all-powerful, and it also works on public opinion, the “Arab newspaper” speaks to people’s ears.

Did you hear this? – says a man

Yes, I got it. I hear the first from a man who is not at all related to Enver Halil, before I was officially told by the doctors that he had an ischemia in the head.

Where did you hear this? – I ask him.

Yes, they told me, he answers.

But who said it?

They told me in a conversation, in a word in the market.

I don’t know, but I say this so that everyone is clear that loyalty to the Party must be to the end, in every situation, the individual must remain unwavering towards the Party’s line. In other words, sick public opinion should not be allowed to influence the conscience of a person whom the Party has given a sentence. It is possible that a measure is something heavier than it should be, as some may judge, and in reality the measure may be something heavier, however the Party still does not reject that person, because there are people who think:

Are you in position?

Am.

Then I rub your arms, and when you are not in position, they lift your legs. It seems to me that we should always take these norms into account in our work and judge them. I had these things to say. Now you, Kadri, try to prepare this self-criticism for the Politburo meeting that we will hold soon.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: When do you think we will hold the meeting of the Political Bureau?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Maybe after a week, I think. What do you say, friends, when can we do it?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: I think we should do it as soon as possible, because we also have to approve the candidacies for deputies, Comrade Enver.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, then, when exactly do you think we should do it?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: We have divided the lists of candidates for MPs, we have everything ready now.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, I’ve also studied it and I’m ready.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Now how long can you get ready, Kadri?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Now, as long as I need, I will try to prepare the self-criticism as soon as possible, while I am a communist and as long as I am alive, I will reflect on these things, but in the self-criticism I think I will address the most basic issues.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Okay, then what date does we have today?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Today is September 20.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Tomorrow we have the government meeting,

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: Yes, we will finish tomorrow at the government meeting.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Okay, tomorrow Tuesday, September 21, you will be at the government meeting, so from Saturday I think we will hold the Political Bureau meeting on September 25. Until that day, have the self-criticism ready, you have time to reflect a bit and be ready.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I will try hard to do it, Comrade Enver, but the good thing is that my self-criticism should be a synthesis, not to go into details. I don’t know what to say about this matter.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: We raised these issues here today based on the facts we have so far, while you may be reminded of other facts during these 4-5 days, which you can make a summary of. .

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Comrade Enver, I understand that you have to think seriously about this work, but keep in mind that I don’t have a lot of time available.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: But there is no way we can postpone this matter any longer, because we have many other tasks ahead of us to complete.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, let’s not postpone it.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: We have the meeting of the Front, the Youth Congress, and the speeches that we will all prepare before the voters; finally we also have the big November holidays ahead of us.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Then we also have the issue that we will inform the Party about the activity of the enemy Mehmet Shehu, that it has been 9 months without informing him.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It is especially the word that we will keep with the voters; the information about Mehmet Shehu will be given, as Ramizi said, that even the Political Bureau has not learned about the continuation of the investigation of this enemy. For my part, I have completed the material.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, once the Political Bureau is informed, the Central Committee should also be informed, I think.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Of course, the Central Committee must also be informed. Therefore, it seems to me that until Saturday you, Kadri, have time, that there are five more days that you have the opportunity to think and prepare your self-criticism.

Then good day.

Top secret

“Project-self-criticism” (“The first self-criticism”) that Mehmet Shehu sent to Comrade Enver Hoxha and “Autocriticism” (Second variant) addressed to Comrade Enver Hoxha and the comrades of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee as well as the minutes of the meeting of Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the ALP, dated December 17-18, 1981: For the analysis of the serious mistake committed by the former member of the Political Bureau, Mehmet Shehu, regarding the engagement of the boy to a girl with a very bad political Composition . (Dt. 17-18. XII. 1981)

I feel it is my duty as a Party member, and as a member of the Political Bureau, to inform you about a serious mistake that I have made recently and to self-criticize for this mistake. Throughout my life as a communist, I have always tried to make the class war right, according to the teachings of the Party, of Marxism-Leninism, and to always be consistent in this war.

But recently, I made a grave mistake in the class war. It is about the engagement of my middle son Skenderi, with the daughter of Professor Qazim Turdiu, who has a family circle with a hostile political-social composition, completely unsuitable for connecting Krushki with my family.

First of all, I want to explain here the course of the event, to show how this completely wrong engagement was reached from the political-social point of view. My second son, Skenderi, is 32 years old. The other two sons, namely the elder Vladimir, are married and have a child. Similarly, the younger son, Bashkimi, is married and has two children. For me, Skender’s marriage has been a big and constant preoccupation.

Since he reached the age of marriage, I have always encouraged him to get ready to get married, to find a girl with good moral-political and social composition first and foremost. In the summer of this year, Skenderi came with a proposal and asked me for my consent to start close acquaintance with the daughter of Qazim Turdi, with the further aim of engagement, if he would agree with the girl, and He was also given family approval from my side.

I did not know Qazim Turdi before. I asked the boy what he knew about the girl herself, about her father Qazim Turdiu, and about his family. Boy, he gave me the first information in this regard. He told me that: Qazim Turdiu is a mathematics professor at the University, he was sent by us to specialize in the Soviet Union, he has a correct attitude and, in recent years, he has been decorated with the “Naim Frashëri” order for good work.

The girl has a good moral and political attitude, studies at the University, is a member of the girls’ volleyball team of “Dinamo”, and with this team has often gone abroad. One of her brothers studies at the University, while her mother works as an accountant at the Autotractor Combine. This is Qazim Turdi’s family, the boy told me. But Qazim Turdiu, Skenderi told me, has a wide family circle, his brothers work as teachers or have retired. Besides these, he has two brothers abroad.

One, he was with the youth of the “National Front” during the years of the National Liberation War, and after its end he escaped to the USA, where he is still today. While his other brother was later sent by us for studies in Yugoslavia in 1946. He remained from Zagreb and has not come since we broke up with Yugoslavia. The boy also told me that, from the family circle of the girl’s mother, from Pipaj of Shkodra, there must be people involved in hostile activities abroad, but that the boy had no further information about them.

When I heard this latest information about Qazim Turdi’s family, I was stunned for a moment. But this step, did not turn into a firm decision to tell the boy (as I should have told him, if I judged the matter correctly) to immediately give up the idea of receiving the acquaintance contact for engagement, with this girl. The steppe, turned into a swing, and the swing ended in error for reasons I will explain below. When I asked the boy what he thought about the issue he raised, how did he see the connection of the krushka with this family, if the girl really had a good moral and political attitude as he said, and if she would was authorized to get close acquaintance contact with her, the boy told me that he felt sympathy for the girl, but had not yet made contact with her with the intention of getting engaged.

And if consent was granted and an engagement was reached, it would be a great joy in life for him. While he was approved by me, he could give up, because he told me in the end that “marriage may not be a problem at all”. This last expression, which I have put in quotation marks, which the boy had said to Fiqreti before, deeply affected my sentimentality towards the boy. I told the boy to wait, that I would be better informed, and we would judge the matter.

Then I spoke to my friend Feçor Shehu, and asked him for information from Sigurimi about the girl and her family. The data that my son had given me were similar to those that Feçori gave me. Regarding the girl, I was told by Feçori that she is characterized as a person with very good moral and political behavior, wise, correct, scholarly, and with very good results in studies. Regarding Qazim Turdi, and the side of his brothers who are here, and the two escaped brothers, Feçori told me the same things that the boy had told me. As for her mother’s side, Feçori didn’t tell me anything at that time.

But apart from what the son told me, Feçori told me that once Qazim Turdiu was under operative control of 2/B, by the Security authorities, because of his brothers who are fugitives abroad. But his file was closed because no hostile activity was proven against him during all this time. The Security organs, Feçori told me, had asked Qazim Turdiu in 1971 to write to his brother in America to give up hostile work, and he wrote him a letter but his brother did not continue hostile work , and “Qazim and his brothers did not have relations with the two escaped brothers”, etc.

Whereas Qazim’s other brother in Zagreb, according to the information of the Security, “has not developed hostile activity against our country, on the contrary, he keeps in touch with and helps the Kosovars”. That’s what Feçori told me. When I asked him about the girl’s mother’s side and about the Pipaj of Shkodra (and it didn’t even occur to me that the name of the fugitive enemy, Arshi Pipa, was also connected with these Pipaj), since Feçori himself later worked as the Chairman of the Works Department of the Interior of the Shkodra district, told me that he did not know anything. This was the information that Feçori gave me at that time.

I asked Feçor how he would act in this case, if Skenderi were his son. He told me that: as for Qazim Turdi’s daughter, who is very good from a moral-political point of view, he would agree to take her for his son. “What about the girl’s family”? I asked him. “I would come to ask you about the family”, he told me. But right then and there he also told me that “Skenderi must be helped” and he repeated this to me two or three times.

I interpreted this as if Feçori was also leaning towards approval, although he did not say this explicitly, and after the break-up of the engagement, when I asked Feçori again, he told me that he had not said it with the intention of approval. This opinion that Feçori showed me, I say not at all to justify myself, nor to reduce the mistake made by me, but to show the course of the event, to show how I fell into this mistake.

That was the situation before I decided. I discussed the matter with Fiqret. Fiqrteti wavered, hesitated. But finally, I said to accept the boy’s proposal. So, although the boy is also to blame, for the proposal he made, Fiqreti also has his share of the blame, but the main responsibility in this matter is mine, for this completely wrong decision from a principled and class point of view. If I had rejected the proposal, the engagement would not have taken place.

Despite the fact that, as I was told by Feçori, that the girl takes a moral-political stance and that she and her brother study at the university, his father is a professor and decorated, etc., and that Qazim Turdi’s close family has no connection with the fugitive relative, despite the fact that, at first, I knew nothing about the tribal and family ties of the girl’s mother, with Arshi Pipa and other enemies, killed or imprisoned by us, for activities hostile, – regardless of all this, even as much as I was informed at that time, first by Skenderi, and then also by the Security bodies, those data were completely sufficient to reject the engagement on my part, immediately and categorically.

And I say it with a clear conscience that I think I would definitely have rejected it, if I had been asked by someone else to express my opinion about this engagement with a girl from a family with such a family circle. Even if it were the case for each of my other two children, that if they were unmarried and asked to get engaged to this girl, I am convinced that I would not approve them. Even if one of my brothers, or anyone else, should seek to betroth one of his sons to this girl, and ask me, I am also convinced that I would advise him to desist from such an affair, with this family.

But in the case of my second son, Skenderi, I accepted him, I gave him consent for the engagement. Of course, with hesitation at first, but I approved. Once, I thought of going to ask Comrade Enver, but then I said: “Why should I bother about such a matter Comrade Enver”, because the problem, thinking that I thought it right at the time, I actually thought it wrong, as you will I will explain below why I thought wrongly, thus making the grave mistake of approving this engagement.

As soon as his friend Enver found out that Skenderi’s engagement was with the daughter of such a family, with a wide hostile circle, he called me and pointed out the mistake, arguing it from a political and ideological point of view, laid out and socially, and told me that the mistake had to be corrected, otherwise the Party’s line would be damaged. In that case, I gathered myself immediately, realized that I had made a grave mistake and told my friend Enver, that the mistake would be corrected and the engagement would be broken, at any cost. Fiqreti also took this position, as soon as I informed him.

I immediately turned the boy back from the way he had left for Sweden, where he is continuing his post-graduate studies, I presented the issue to him broadly from the political and ideological side, I pointed out his mistake, but also my fault and Fiqret’s. Of course, this came as a bomb to the boy, because it had only been a few days since the engagement had taken place (the official celebration at the registry office had not yet taken place, but consent had been given by both families and the engagement had actually taken place).

The boy reacted correctly: he immediately agreed to break off the engagement, the next day he met the girl, explained the reason for the breakup and communicated it to her, the breakup of the engagement. As for Fiqreti, he immediately spoke to the girl’s father and communicated the break-up of the engagement between our son and his daughter, as well as the reasons for this decision.

Before the son arrived, I raised the issue with the other two sons and their wives. All four of them reacted correctly, said that the engagement had to be broken and they also helped me to raise the issue with Skenderi, the immediate breaking of the engagement that he had done a few days ago.

Why did I make this grave mistake, what made me consent to such an engagement of my son and fall into such a mistake, which is contrary to the norms of the class struggle, of the party and in against even the revolutionary tradition of my family? Here are some factors that led me to this error.

First, there is my pronounced sentimentality for the second son, Skender. Everyone has their own sentimentality about their children. But here we are talking about sentimentality beyond any norm, a special, extraordinary sentimentality. Why this particular sentimentality in me for Skender, sentimentality that I don’t have for the other two boys, for Vladimir and Bashkimi?

This is because with this boy I have had significant spiritual concerns for a long time, because he suffered from psychological factors. He has been too suppressed in himself and spiritually killed inside for a long time. And from what I’ve heard and studied, in such cases, people with such psychological trauma, reach suicide relatively easily. This was the issue that stuck me firmly in my sentimentality; it made me suffer spiritually for his issue, so that, finally, I made a mistake, as I did.

My preoccupation and worry about the delay in my son’s marriage turned into impatience in me. This also shows my capricious temperament, the fall into subjectivism that, at certain moments, leads to the fact that I do not balance the principle enough, as it happened to me in the case of Skenderi’s engagement. And when the boy proposed to me that he should be engaged to this girl, even though he informed me correctly, as far as he knew, about her family circle, I was also motivated by the desire to put her on the matrimonial path as soon as possible, but also by fearing that I would cause him some trauma if I did not give his consent, I decided to approve his engagement.

Here I fell into the overestimation of the subjective side, I started from what I wanted to help the boy and I did not delve into it and did not balance the other side, the ideological factor, which is impermissible and harmful and which led me to the mistake I made, a mistake that is both to the detriment of the Party and to the detriment of my family and my own son.

I should not have made this mistake, even if my doubt and fear for the boy’s life came true. But I realized this only when my friend Enver grabbed my hand and said: “What is Mehmet doing?” At that time, I gathered myself immediately and told my friend Enver that the mistake would be corrected at any cost and with this word: “at any cost”, I also had in mind the possibility that the boy would say to me:

“I presented the issue and the approval myself and I told you that if my proposal was not approved, I might as well not get into this job, because I had not yet received contact for talks about the engagement with the girl and the final, marriage for me it might not even become a problem at all”, and then the boy would go into an even more serious mistake, into extreme despair, maybe even suicide, as has happened in some such cases.

That’s what I thought, always based on the considerations I said. But Skenderi, although he made the mistake of not choosing a girl according to the criteria that I had recommended to him, but he fell for the girl that I said, he kept his cool and reacted correctly, as Enver predicted and not as he thought even such an extreme possibility, with my unrealistic, sentimental and subjectivist sponsorship.

Secondly, in judging the case I fell into a partiality, with a metaphysical view of the case. First of all, I took into consideration that the girl had good moral and political characteristics, and in examining her family, I limited myself only to the close family circle (father’s, mother’s, brother’s), not connecting the girl’s close family with the hostile circle of this family.

In this case, I judged simplistically: “The girl, as they say to me, has a good moral and political attitude, her father is a professor, sent for specialization twice by us, to the Soviet Union, and decorated, her mother is account clerk, the girl’s immediate family, does not keep in touch with people, relatives, fugitives and enemies”.

This one-sided view of the issue on my part has its starting point, precisely in what I said before, in the special sentimentality for the boy, based on the reasons I mentioned above.

Thirdly, I think that the ideological background of the special sentimentality for the boy and the one-sided view of the engagement, probably has its source in the feeling that “I have immunity”, to the influence of the enemy ideology and the class enemy. And I think this has its source in the fact that during my life as a communist, in general, I have been criticized for mistakes of an opportunistic character in the class struggle of this scale and of this nature, such as this mistake of mine, and already in connection with the engagement of the second son.

And this, in one way or another, perhaps deep inside me, has also created a certain thought and feeling that “I have immunity” to the influence of the class enemy, a feeling that I cannot say has been crystallized and consciously in me, but something, it seems, existed, if only unconsciously.

That’s why even in the case of Skender’s engagement, I lost my right judgment and fell into the grave mistake I’m talking about, a mistake I’m sure I wouldn’t have made in any other case, except in the case of the boy my second, Skenderit, started from these distorted, subjectivist considerations and reasonings.

It must be this feeling of immunity, as well as sentimentality towards children, that have caused me to have that attitude that, while outside the family I am usually strict in the fight for money; in the family I am also gentle and tolerant. I’m not saying that I didn’t develop the class war even within the family, but, as it seems, here within the family it wasn’t on the right scale and to the right extent, to give the right effect.

The very feeling of immunity, in this case, is also a display of arrogance. I do not believe that arrogance is a characteristic feature in me, that is, that it characterizes all my activity and life, but I am also not immune from the appearance of arrogance, which in this case manifested itself in my wrong judgment, for son’s engagement to a girl from such a family circle thinking that my judgment is right, when in fact it is wrong.

This mistake could certainly have been avoided if I had consulted with Comrade Enver, or if I had consulted with any other friend, before deciding. I said to myself, “don’t bother Comrade Enver”, starting from the feeling that all my assessment above seemed right to me, starting from that wrong point of view that I said, – metaphysical, subjectivist, sentimentalist . I really hesitated at first, but then this hesitation softened, until I realized that I made the wrong decision.

And starting from this mistake, it was reached in the further deepening of it on my part, so that Comrade Enver and Comrade Ramiz, without knowing anything about the bad family circle of Qazim Turdi and his wife, not going never thought that I would have tied the son’s engagement to a family with a bad political-social composition, they came as friends and brothers and congratulated me on the engagement, to whom I am guilty and apologize with communist sincerity and conscience killed.

Fourthly, if in this case I had not been in a hurry to hasten the engagement, of course my friends would have found out and not only Comrade Enver, but any of the other friends who would have grabbed me “by the corner of the coat” “, and said to me: “How are you, friend Mehmet”!, I assure you, my friends, that I would gather myself and correct the mistake immediately, and the engagement would not have taken place. But I was in a hurry. I was hastened by my impetuous temper, which sometimes leads me to excesses.

From time to time, this impulsivity has appeared during my work and widely to such a degree that it has happened that certain friends were affected by the excess in the way of demanding the account on my part, for the implementation of tasks, excesses in the sense of tact, of the way of requesting the account.

Of course, I apologized to these friends, when the occasion arose, with great sincerity. And it is in my nature that I regret very quickly when I reach such an excess, I regret it so much that it happens that I don’t even sleep, until I apologize to the affected friend.

Comrade Enver and other comrades have, from time to time, criticized me for my impulsive temperament at work and in life. I have tried to improve in this direction and I have had some improvement, but this flaw has not disappeared in me even now at this age. However, this does not lead me to give up the efforts that I must constantly make, for the correction.

I just say, with the most complete sincerity, that the excesses in the causes of impulsivity in me have never been for matters of personal interest, but for matters of general interest. I do not want to excuse myself with this. In this case, I assure you once again that I will fight to make amends.

So, impelled by my impetuous temper, I hastened, precipitated: as the boy was to leave in those days for Sweden, to continue his studies, I said it would be well that the engagement should take place before he left. And so from the haste, the precipitation from the evil was concretized.

If I had not rushed in this case, but had left the engagement for further, at least until the end of the year, surely, I would have deepened myself; I would have reflected and withdrawn from the decision about the engagement. Logic would force me to consult with my friends, or my friends would have found out and alerted me, then the mistake would have been avoided.

If the engagement was not broken, then the Party line would have been damaged, especially in relation to the class struggle and the unity of thought and action, because the norms and criteria of the class struggle are and must be the same for everyone, both for ordinary members of the party and for its leaders. But the Party does not allow anyone to touch these norms and criteria of the class war, as it did with me, when I was wrong in this direction.

I understand the significance of my mistake. Misstep fixed. For this, my friend Enver gave me a big, extremely big help. But the guilt weighs on my conscience and this murder of conscience will follow me like a shadow as long as I live. Not to demoralize me and capitulate in the dynamics of work, but it will burden me in the understanding of why I let myself make a mistake, because I had every opportunity not to make a mistake, if I judged you objectively and not unilaterally in the sense that I work harder and better, that I am more vigilant, in any case and direction, that I never make mistakes of this nature again. I will have to work with all my strength and energies, until I close my eyes, to wash away this guilt from the Party.

I am eternally grateful to Comrade Enver, who, as soon as he found out about the matter, immediately acted as it should be done, in the interest of the Party, but also in the interest of my own family, which has linked its life with the Party. Comrade Enver has done so much for my family, not only today, but always, always starting from the interests of the Party, that there is not and should not be any family or personal love outside of us line and interests of the Party. Comrade Enver helped me as a friend and brother and for that, I and my whole family are grateful to him. We all have a duty to help each other.

I deeply feel the mistake in the direction of the boy. He has his own mistake that he got after this girl and made me the proposal I said. But he would give up if I told him “no”!

My approval drove the boy deeper into error. This murder of conscience, regarding my guilt towards the boy, will be removed from me only when he gets married. And I will help him to get married as soon as possible, to a suitable girl and from a suitable family, with good political-social and class standing.

My conscience is killing me for the guilt I committed. But this will not cause me to stumble at work, to reduce work tension. On the contrary, it makes me feel more deeply the obligation I have to the Party and to the people, to fight the class struggle consistently, in every direction and in every case, as Comrade Enver teaches us, in full accordance with the line of the Party and until the end, to merge all energies and life, if necessary, for the protection of the Party’s line in every affair of the activity.

From this serious mistake, I have tried to learn the right lessons, so as not to fall into such mistakes again:

I have to be more vigilant towards the class enemy, always keep in mind the teaching of Stalin, the experience of our Party and my own personal experience that emerges from my mistake in this case, because the danger always comes from where you have put your mind to sleep, from you let your guard down.

My vigilance, in this case, was weakened in the direction of the danger of opportunism. That’s why I fell into this error. But I will never again cause mistakes of this nature, I will try to be vigilant, both from the left and right dangers, as the Party and Comrade Enver teach us.

And not only in the general framework of the implementation of the Party line in the class struggle, but also at the family level.

– I will fight to never fall into one-sidedness, but to always look at issues in a complex way, to look at all sides and aspects of the issue, of every issue, connected to each other, according to the materialist dialectic.

– I will try to be more careful in the education of children, to develop the class struggle with consequences in the family as well, and to be more prudent in making decisions in family matters as well. I will fight to be more communicative with my friends even for such matters of a family nature.

– I will be careful to guard against the thought of immunity from such mistakes, to always be consistent in the class struggle, both outside, in society, and inside, in the family, as well as where arrogance appears.

– I will try to be more restrained, more balanced, in my temperament which is sometimes explosive. I will always keep “in my ear” Comrade Enver’s message that “the first mind is the mind of the horse”, that is, not to rush, when one should walk carefully, to measure the thought well, before reaching a decision, in any occasion.

I promise the friends of the Political Bureau and I swear to the Party of Comrade Enver that in my life such mistakes of this nature, with a political, ideological, principled character, will not be made by me. I may make the occasional mistake at work, but I will not make mistakes of this nature again.

Our party, with its great Marxist-Leninist ideological maturity that it has achieved, does not allow anyone to make concessions (or excesses), to make principled mistakes, as it did not allow me in this case either.

Correcting this mistake I made also shows the strength of the Party, because even when a comrade makes a mistake, other comrades help him to correct the mistake, and this is also a great lesson.

Here lies the strength of the collegiality norm in the internal life of our Party. Therefore our Party is invincible.

The imperialist and revisionist enemy attacks our Party and state on the ideological front, and this attack is comprehensive and complex. The enemy attacks us on the economic front, to suffocate us. The enemy attacks us on the economic front, to suffocate us.

The enemy is preparing to attack us militarily as well. I, like all my comrades, have fought and am fighting on all three of these main fronts against the enemy.

But before the enemy’s ideological attack, in the case of which I am self-criticizing, my foot slipped, “my right foot slipped”, but I did not fall to the ground because my comrades, Comrade Enver personally, signaled me, gave me his hand and rose. It is known that the best thing is not to shoot your leg at all.

That would be the best thing, but as experience proves even in the case of my mistake, people make mistakes. Besides, it is of crucial importance that when you lose your foot, you don’t fall, but hold on, get up and move forward.

This is done either by the person who made a mistake, when he sees that he “lost his leg”, or with the help of his friends. I did this with the help of my friends, with the immediate social, revolutionary, effective help from my friend Enver.

But I assure the Political Bureau and Comrade Enver, that even if I felt myself that my foot had “slipped” (I believe that I would feel it, even if it was delayed), – as soon as I felt it myself, even without signaling from my friends (although comrades, I am convinced that they would not stay without signaling me), I would collect myself and in that case, I am fully convinced that I would correct the mistake made and move forward, only on the way of the Party.

Once again, I assure you, comrades, that I will work and fight for the Party and the people with infinite loyalty and until death, as I have tried to do this throughout my life in the Party.

Tirana, October 1981 Mehmet Shehu

Archival document with Enver Hoxha’s note, after receiving from him, Mehmet Shehu’s self-criticism

Note:

I returned the copy of the original to Mehmet

Mehmeti gave me this self-critical project at his insistence that I read it and help him. When I criticized him for the mistake he made, I openly told him my thoughts. He himself should reflect and again reflect deeply on the causes of his mistake, because after reading this self-critical project, I find shallowness and many excuses.

October 19, 1981 Enver

Archival document with the note of Enver Hoxha’s chief of staff, Haxhi Kroi, regarding the order received to send Enver’s letter to Mehmet Shehu

Note: The original of this note was retracted by Comrade Enver.

At the request of Comrade Enver, today, October 28, I went and handed over to Comrade Mehmet at his home, sealed in an envelope, the project-self-criticism that you had made for the big mistake you made by mitigating the class war with the engagement of a boy to a girl with bad political composition.

October 28, 1981 Haxhi Kroi

Archival document with Enver Hoxha’s letter sent to Mehmet Shehu, regarding his first self-criticism, written on October 28, 1981

Friend Mehmet

I carefully read your project-self-criticism.

I have talked long and several times with you, about the mistake you made on the Party line, and I don’t see a better opportunity to help you.

However, if you will allow me to help in a direction that does not form anything new from those open and social thoughts I have told you, I think:

1. In the project-self-criticism, you attach great importance to the history of how the mistake was made, putting, even twice and in the first place, the “positive sides” of Professor Turdiu, the unknown positive sides, except for the fact that he is a professor.

The event, as it became possible, was only put in five rows, therefore it is not right to consider it as if it were “the positive sides, the ones that made you make a mistake, until the boy himself, as you say in the self-criticism, put you in know about the hostile sides of the Turdins and the Pipajas.

2. As the second main reason, you emphasize your “sentimentalism” for the boy in particular. This is a real feeling, not only for children, but a humanitarian feeling towards others.

It’s just that sentimentality for us, Marxists, has a limit that should not be crossed, when it harms the interest of the Party and the general interest. For us, “sentimentalism” means both feelings (heart) and logic (brain).

Therefore, evaluate this problem properly and adequately.

3. Of course, with your self-criticism, you have pointed out, in passing, some negative elements in your character that often appear in the very fruitful work you do for the interest of the Party, which you love and give your life for.

I think that in the deeper analysis of these negative elements, you will find the real reason for the errors.

These, as they say in French, “te jouent de mauvais tours”, that is, they make you fall into mistakes.

Therefore, I think that here lies the source of guilt and mistakes, and these mistakes, it is up to you to look them in the eye, to understand their dangerousness and to correct them seriously, and in this direction, to be sure, that you will have the help of all of us, your friends and the whole Party.

The archival document with the letter of former Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu, sent to the secretary of the Central Committee of the ALP, Simon Stefani, where he informs him that he is sending him the self-criticism he made regarding the mistake regarding the engagement of his son, Skenderi with the daughter of prof. Qazim Turdiut

Comrade Simon,

As I talked with Comrade Enver yesterday, I am sending you my self-criticism (in two copies) for the grave mistake I have made in recent months, in the framework of the Party’s teachings on class struggle.

I’m sorry that I couldn’t come myself to submit the self-criticism, because today I’m on bed rest (dizziness and headache). But it will pass.

Social greetings

Tirana, on November 12, 1981, Mehmet Shehu

The archival document with the letter of the former Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu, sent to Enver Hoxha and the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the PPSh, where there is his self-criticism regarding the mistake he had made regarding the engagement of his second son, Skenderi, to the daughter of Prof. . Qazim Turdiut

Dear friend Enver,

Dear friends of the Political Bureau

As a member of the party and as a member of the Politburo, I feel it is my duty, although many of you are already aware of a grave mistake I have made in recent months, to say something from the very beginning about its essence and the circumstances of how I fell into that mistake and then analyze the causes and make self-criticism in front of you for the mistake I made.

Throughout my life as a communist, I have always tried to apply the Party’s line in all its fields, to develop the class struggle according to the teachings of our Party, of Marxism-Leninism, and I have tried to always be consistent in the development towards the class war, against all enemies, internal and external.

But recently I made a grave mistake precisely in the framework of the class struggle. It is about giving approval, from me, to my middle son, Skender, for the engagement with the daughter of Professor Qazim Turdi, who has a wide family circle with a hostile political-social composition, completely unsuitable for an engagement of my son with his daughter.

In the summer of this year, when the boy presented to me for the first time the proposal of his close acquaintance with Qazim Turdi’s daughter, with the further intention of engagement, he also informed me correctly about Qazim Turdi’s hostile family circle, as far as he knew at the time. Then I also received information from the Security agencies (from my friend Feçor Shehu), information that matched what my son had given me.

According to the information, it turned out that Qazim Turdiu himself is a professor of mathematics at the University, he was sent by us to the Soviet Union for specialization, he was decorated with the “Naim Frashëri” order, his wife works as an account clerk at the Autotractor Factory, a son who has, continues her studies at the University, her daughter also continues her studies at the University, who is also a member of the women’s volleyball team of the club “Dinamo” and as such, has often gone abroad.

Qazim Turdiu, the boy told me, has several brothers here, as a teacher, a pensioner, etc., but there are also two fugitive brothers, one of whom has escaped since the war in the USA, where he continues to carry out hostile activities against our socialist country and another one is in Yugoslavia, when he was sent for studies by us, right after the liberation and he stayed there in 1948, when the relations between our country and Yugoslavia were broken.

The boy also told me that the girl’s mother is from Pipaj of Shkodra and then later, it turned out that this Pipaj was the first cousin of the girl’s mother, Arshi Pipa, who fled to the USA with her sister, where she conducts hostile activities against us, and she (the girl’s mother), there was also another cousin who escaped from us, for hostile activities, who was killed while trying to escape, etc.

Based on the information I had at the time, I discussed the matter with Fiqreti. Fiqrteti wavered, hesitated, but finally, I said that we should accept the boy’s proposal, based on some considerations that I will try to explain below, considerations that at that time seemed right to me, but which in fact, as it became clear to me later, were completely wrong, and those which led me to the grave error, for which I am making this self-criticism.

So, although the boy is also to blame for the proposal he made, Fiqreti also has his share of the blame, the main responsibility for this wrong decision that was taken in this case, I have. Because of course, if I had not given the approval for intimate contact between the boy and Qazim Turdi’s daughter, the engagement would not have taken place.

And now, when I see the matter deeply, it becomes clear to me to say, despite the information I received about Qazim Turdi’s family and despite what I was told, that his immediate family is not related to the fugitive relative, despite all these, and as much information as I had at first, from the boy himself, that information was sufficient to refuse the engagement on my part immediately and categorically.

This is how I would have acted if the proposal had been made to me either by one of the other two sons (if they were unmarried), or by the brothers for their sons, or by anyone else. But, in the case of my second son, Skender, I gave my consent to the engagement, based on wrong thoughts and considerations, as I will try to explain below, when I talk about the reasons and causes that led me to that mistake seriously, now seeing the issue in the light of the fair criticism and social help that has been given to me several times in a row, in this case, Comrade Enver.

As soon as his friend Enver found out that Skenderi’s engagement was with the daughter of such a family, with a wide hostile circle, he called me and pointed out the mistake, arguing the issue from the political and ideological side, laid and socially, he told me that the mistake had to be corrected, otherwise the Party’s line would be damaged. In that case, I gathered myself immediately, realized that I had made a grave mistake, and told my friend Enver that the mistake would be corrected and the engagement would definitely be broken off.

Fiqreti also took this position, immediately after I informed him, as well as the other two sons and their wives. I discussed the issue at length with Skender, who reacted correctly, immediately agreed to break off the engagement, and it broke off the day after we discussed the issue with him.

Why did I make this mistake, what made me consent to the betrothal of my son to a girl from such a district, to fall into such a mistake, which is contrary to the principles of the Party’s class struggle and contrary even to the revolutionary traditions of my family?

I think that the causes that led me to that serious mistake consist of several different factors, which are also related to some negative elements of my own character, which in special cases, also appear during the work of my life.

These negative elements in my character, taken in general, were not born today, they did not appear in recent years and times, they were, so to speak, constantly present, throughout my life, as a man and as a communist, during which I have fought those negative elements, but, it seems, this fight has been neither intense nor effective, and to the right degree, to uproot and eradicate them completely.

As a result of the struggle I have done, of course I have had improvements in this direction, but not to the extent that these elements of my character have completely disappeared. But I assure you, that this fact does not throw me into pessimism, does not make me capitulate to them and give up the fight for their complete disappearance.

The partial improvements I have had in the fight against them during my life, give me conviction and hope that I have the opportunity and strength to intensify this fight and finally win against these negative elements and this is done and has been done with the help of friends.

I am fully convinced that the mistake I made recently in the framework of the class war regarding the son’s engagement, was worth a “strong shock”, (as a strong mental, psychological and practical shock), to made a radical turn in my life, as a revolutionary for the elimination of those negative elements that are still visible in my character.

The main factors and negative elements in my character that influenced to lead me to the error I am talking about, but which in special cases and circumstances, if not fought and if not eradicated, can lead me to errors of others, which I think are:

Pronounced, excessive sentimentality, outside of communist logic, for my second son, Skender. It is known that everyone has their own sentimentality for their children, as well as for their friends. This is a right human feeling, as long as it remains within the goals of the general interest of the society and does not exceed these goals, to the detriment of the general interest. But this feeling, as Comrade Enver pointed out to me, must be implemented and it must act within the correct Marxist logic, within the limits of the Party’s interests, it must be implemented “with the brain in the head”, that is, with the brain of a revolutionary and not with the brain and logic of the microbourgeois, because as Comrade Enver teaches us, for among Marxists, sentimentalism has two sides: that of human feelings, i.e., of the heart, but also that of Marxist logic, of revolutionary thinking that starts first and foremost from the general interest of society . Whereas in my case, in the case of giving my son’s approval, to enter into close contact, with the further purpose of engagement, with a girl from a family with about hostile, pre-waved, dominated, the first aspect of sentimentality, that of feelings (of the heart), over that of logic (of the brain).

The archival document with the letter of former Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu, sent to Enver Hoxha and the Political Bureau of the PPSh Central Committee, where his second self-criticism is located, regarding “the mistake he had made regarding the engagement of his second son, Skenderi, with the daughter of prof. Qazim Turdiut”!

Dear friend Enver,

Dear friends of the Political Bureau

In our socialism, based on the Marxist-Leninist teachings of the Party, the family and the person cannot be separated and separated from the society, and when the family and the person belong to the revolution of socialism, the interest of the family and the society must and are always in harmony. And why did I have this special sentimentality, with a microbourgeois character, for Skenderi, a sentimentality that is not observed in me and the other two boys? This happens friends, (I say this in social and fraternal confidence), that with this boy, with Skender, I have had significant spiritual concerns for a long time.

This has been the subjective side of the issue, which grips me tightly with my sentimentality, which caused me to darken in this case, the Marxist logic, which threw me into really undeclared, but severe and continuous spiritual sufferings, so that, overestimating this subjective and psychological factor, and not putting in balance the other side, the political-ideological side of the issue, finally led me to make a mistake as I did.

In this wrong thought and action of mine in this case, the starting point, is the kidnapping, the action not laid out, not deep enough, because if I had gone deeper, I would have seen and understood for sure that the judgment and the action my, it was not only contrary to the interest of the Party, but also against the interest of my family and my son, but I was only dazed for a moment, so that I failed to correctly assess both aspects of the matter and in this particular case , in my opinion, as I said before, the aspect of feelings prevailed over that of common sense, and the opposite did not happen, as it should have happened, if it were for me, in those moments I would Marxist logic prevailed over microbourgeois sentimentalism.

I say that this is one of the reasons that led me to the mistake I made, because if I judged and examined the matter deeply and not abducted, as I actually judged it, I would understand that a wrong thought and action, was as in to the detriment of the interest of the Party, as well as to the detriment of the interest of my family, which throughout its life, has not made such a mistake, as well as against the interest of the son himself. Therefore, I am fully convinced that if I had judged the matter deeply, carefully and coldly, micro-bourgeois sentimentality would not have been able to obscure my revolutionary thought and then I would not have made that mistake.

I have this conviction, that the fact is that even today, I do not accept in my family, my two first cousins (from mother’s side), who were married, since before the war, one to a rich peasant, who then also became a ballist, while the other married to the son of one who was among the leaders of the Vlora War (1920), against the Italians, but whose son, (my cousin’s husband), became a ballist and fought with us, with weapons in hand during the National Liberation War. But in the case of my son’s engagement, I made a serious mistake, for the reasons I mentioned above and which I will continue to elaborate on below.

I would like to emphasize that I should not have made this mistake, even if it became a reality, that doubt and that fear that I had for the life of the boy, which led me to the grave mistake that I made. But I realized that in this case, I had made a serious mistake, only when my friend Enver grabbed my hand and said: “What is Mehmet doing?”!?

Then yes, I collected myself immediately and told my friend Enver, that the mistake would be corrected at any cost and with this word: “at any cost”, I also had in mind the possibility that the boy would say to me: “I submitted the case and the approval myself more and. I told you that, if my proposal was not approved, I might not get into this job, that I had not yet been contacted about the engagement talks with the girl, and in the end, marriage for me might not be a problem at all. “, and then the boy would go into an even more serious mistake, up to extreme despair.

That’s what I thought, always starting from those considerations I said, but Skenderi, although he made a mistake in not choosing a girl, according to the social political criteria, that Fiqreti and I had recommended, but he went and fell for the girl I said, he kept his cool and reacted correctly, exactly as Comrade Enver predicted and not as even such an extreme possibility was admitted, with my subjective, unrealistic, sentimental and microbourgeois assumption.

I now understand the danger of the way I judged this matter, overestimating the psychological factor (subjectivist feeling, micro-bourgeois sentimentality towards the boy), and not balancing to the right degree, so that it completely dominated, the other factor, the ideological factor class, Marxist-Leninist logic. But this mistake of mine appeared in the special circumstances I mentioned above and I don’t think it is a general characteristic of me.

I will never again allow myself to think and act as I did on this particular occasion, when, by the mistake I made, I touched the principle of the Party, on the class struggle, and I will always strictly implement all Party principles in all areas of life.

Another negative element that led me to this serious mistake is my impulsive character, many times impulsive in life, at work and in making decisions. This negative element in my character has been almost permanent, throughout my life, both before the War, during the War, and after the War. Impulsivity also appears in my family life.

I have recognized this negative element in my character, even publicly and I know it, on different occasions, I have also made self-criticism and tried to fight it, because I know that it is not a normal trait, especially for a communist and especially for a leader. As a result of my struggle against this negative element in my character, I have had some improvement, but I am aware that this flaw has not disappeared yet and, as I said, it appears from time to time even during work, just as it appears in life family.

It was precisely this negative element, one of the factors and negative elements that led me to make a mistake regarding the son’s engagement. So, driven by my impetuous temper, I hastened, precipitated: as the boy was to leave for Sweden in those days, to continue his post-graduate studies, I said it would be well if the engagement should take place before he left. And so, by hastening and precipitating, the evil was concretized.

If I had not rushed in this case, if I had thought that the engagement would take place later, at least at the end of the year, when the boy could come back from Sweden, on the occasion of the New Year holidays, surely either I myself would have delved into the content of this matter, I would have reflected and withdrawn from this wrong decision about the engagement, or I would have talked and consulted with my friends, who would definitely help me and they told me that such an engagement should not be done.

In fact, in the case of the engagement of my second son, Skenderi, I hastened it so much that even with Fiqreti, I did not judge and did not examine the issue from all sides, but with the other two sons and with their wives, I didn’t even talk at all, but I said my opinion in a hurry, acting like this, in a completely wrong way, as if for such a family matter, the son (Skender), “only my opinion was enough”! Reflecting on this matter now, I judge that this is, so to speak, an arrogance that has its source in that concept of the past, according to which, “for such family matters, the head of the family has the last word.

Indeed, at the time when I expressed my opinion approving the betrothal, such a thing did not even cross my mind, nor would I try to find the causes and reasons that led me to that mistake, I say that perhaps, this too has been a factor. Or a negative element, which has adversely affected the making of that wrong decision. I know and know it as a property of my character, which also appears in my work, is the speed in making decisions. Of course, there are other cases where a decision must be made quickly, because in those cases, if the decision is not made quickly, the delay will harm you. Besides, even when the decision must be taken quickly, it must still be well weighed, to be fair.

But here, in the case of my mistake, regarding the son’s engagement, I am not talking about the time factor; here it is not about making a decision within five minutes, within five hours, or within five days. In this case, this is not the main thing, although this also has its importance. I think the main thing here is to measure, weigh the negative and positive sides of the issue, before making a decision, is to balance all sides of the issue, for which you judge, the pluses and minuses, and then, after you have acted thus, to decide correctly, based on the interest of the Party and society.

This is a general principle in making any decision. But when the decision has a political and ideological, social character, then this principle takes on a sharper, absolute character. And in the case of my son’s engagement, I was wrong precisely because of the fact that I rushed, both in terms of the time factor and in terms of the content factor.

If this negative element, in my way of acting, in my character and in my work style, would appear constantly and in every case in my life and work, in case this negative element, i.e., kidnapping in making the decision it would be a permanent and general characteristic in my life and activity, this would be harmful. I know that this negative element in my character has existed and exists, but I do not think that it is permanent and general, but it is such that it appears in special cases, as was the last case of my son’s engagement.

However, this negative element in my character, if it was not always taken into account by me and if it was not constantly fought by me, in order to eliminate it and that it does not repeat itself in cases where a quick decision should not be made, then this, it would be to the detriment of the Party, which is the most important, but also to my detriment as a communist, as a revolutionary. But I believe that I have the strength to fight and eliminate this negative element, and this serious mistake I made will serve as a great lesson for me to make a radical turn towards improvement, until the disappearance of this negative element in my life my character.

There were also times when I had to consciously be impulsive. Even explosive, and because in these special cases, this was always done against the enemy during the National Liberation War, or in any case, even in the fight against modern revisionists. But, while in those cases that I mentioned, the decision had to be made quickly, but rightly, here, in the case of my son’s engagement, which has no resemblance to the situation of armed war and other cases when a quick decision had to be made, in this case it had to be judged carefully, without haste, with coolness, with good measure.

Here, my haste was not only unnecessary, but also harmful, first of all for the interests of the Party, because the principle of class struggle, of the Party, was violated, and if it was not corrected, as it was corrected, it could have a negative impact also to others, in the implementation of the criteria and class principles of the Party, in cases of marital relations. And I deeply understand how harmful such an action would be, if it was not corrected, as it was corrected, with the help of the Party, personally of Comrade Enver. Therefore, I am fully determined that he will never make a similar mistake again, of that nature and category.

In this case, I assure Comrade Enver and all the other comrades of the Political Bureau, that in the future, this negative element of my character, I will fight with strength, I assure you that I will always be sober and composed, when one should not rush, in making the decision, of course, without showing hesitancy and slowness in cases where the situation requires a quick and firm decision to be made.

I think that another negative element that led me to the grave mistake I made, regarding my son’s engagement, was, perhaps, the feeling that “I have immunity”, to the influence of the class enemy, to opportunism, to the danger of the right .

In the decision I made, regarding the son’s engagement to Qazim Turdi’s daughter, I thought that “the girl is good and has a good moral and political attitude”, as I was informed, while “her close family does not in connection with her hostile relative”, – under these conditions, I thought at the time, “there is no way that girl will influence our family for the worse, but, on the contrary, we will influence her for the better ”, without delving into this case, apart from others, as I said above, also into what negative effect this wrong action of mine would have on others, in the implementation of the actions of the Party, in the class struggle , in cases of marriages, or in other cases.

I think that this wrong judgment of mine rests on the wrong ideological background of “my immunity from the influence of the class enemy”, and I think that this feeling of immunization has its source in what, throughout my life as a communist, I I have not been criticized for mistakes of an opportunistic character in the class struggle of this scale and nature, such as my present mistake in connection with the son’s engagement.

I cannot say that the feeling of immunity to the influence of the enemy’s ideology was and is consciously crystallized in me, but to one degree or another, even in embryo, it seems to have existed, as is also proved with the fact of the son’s engagement to Qazim Turdi’s daughter.

If it happened that this feeling of immunity, against the influence of the enemy’s ideology, was allowed from the embryonic state to germinate, and from the germination to grow and generalize to “bloom” then, it would definitely lead to ordinary, opportunistic and liberal, which would pose a danger to the Party. But I would never allow this in myself and I will definitely extinguish it, as I am extinguishing this feeling from the embryo. Of course I will fight and extinguish this harmful feeling, in the first place through the care and struggle that I must do in myself, so that in every case, in every action and attitude of mine, I guard against every such feeling and foreigner It must be this feeling of immunity, as well as the microbourgeois sentimentality towards children, that have caused me to have that attitude, that outside the family I am harsh, in the family I happen to be gentle and tolerant. I am not saying that I have not developed the class war in these directions also within the family, even sometimes I have gone to extremes, to the point of severity, towards the families in this war, but that, the class war within the family, was not developed by on my part, with family and necessary pedagogic methods and as it seems, here in the family, it has not been at the right level to give the right effect. Even in this direction, I will fight decisively, to definitely improve the situation and I am convinced that it will improve and it will come to the ideological front, with families fully in line with the Party’s norms.

Another factor, or negative element of my character that I think influenced and led me to the mistake I made, was both subjectivism and bias. I have always tried not to fall into subjectivism and bias. But life has shown, as the case of my recent mistake shows, that my efforts and struggle in this direction have not been on the right scale, leading to the fact that I never fall into subjectivism and bias , i.e., in the metaphysical method of looking at this matter.

Looking at the case of Qazim Turdi’s daughter and her family has its source in the metaphysical way and method that I used in this case, in subjectivism in examining this case and this shows that I am completely freed from subjectivism in the judgment about people and that it, subjectivism, in one way or another, happens to be present in my judgment, in particular cases about issues and phenomena. I cannot say that the metaphysical method, one-sidedness and subjectivism, characterize my whole life and revolutionary judgement, but I say that subjectivism and one-sidedness are still in me.

If I had put in the balance of the trial of the case of Qazim Turdiu’s family all the complex aspects of this case, as I should have put them, but which I did not put them, for the reasons I said, then I would definitely find that, while the “positive” side of this family weighed, say, one gram, its negative sides weighed 10 tons and then, I would open my eyes and give up the wrong conclusion to approve the engagement of my son with the girl of Qazim Turdi. I assure you that even in this aspect of the matter, in order to fight and eliminate this negative element of thought and action, I will make a radical turn and that I will never fall into the mistakes that lead to subjectivism and bias in the judgment of issues.

In the negative factor or element that may have led to the fact that some friends or special people who could have found out about the action being taken regarding the engagement of my son with the daughter of Qazim Turdiu before this engagement materialized and did not come to me, on their initiative, to signal me or to criticize me for the wrong step I was taking in this case, I think it is also such an element of my character, as is the lack, in many cases, of tact necessary that is practiced by me especially in demanding the account for the implementation of tasks, which is also related to my temperament.

Of course, we must demand accountability for the implementation of decisions. This is what the Party and Comrade Enver teach us, this is what life itself dictates. But the Party and Comrade Enver teach us that they also instruct us that the seeking of account should be done with the right tact, with party methods, so that we also seek the account properly and that the criticized be corrected, but also that he be encouraged to eliminate the flaws and not that he be spiritually killed.

I can’t say that my entire method of seeking accountability is wrong, but I say that there are excesses; there are also cases of excessive severity, which in some cases exceeds the goals of the right method that should be used in seeking accountability. The method of holding me accountable for the implementation of tasks, not always with the right tact on my part towards subordinates, has had cases that have even spiritually killed the criticized, despite the fact that the criticism may have been fair. Of course, to these friends who have been spiritually killed by my criticism, which was done without the proper tact, when the occasion was, I apologized with complete sincerity. And it is in my nature that I soon regret when I reach such an excess. As quickly as I get angry in such cases, I regret it as quickly. I regret it quickly in these cases, so much so that I can’t even sleep until I apologize, personally or even publicly, to the affected friend, when the occasion has arisen.

I would like to say that I think that the lack of appropriate tact on my part in demanding an account for the implementation of tasks, which is sometimes harsh, is one of the causes of that fact that my friends are reluctant to point out to me flaws, to criticize me at the right time for my mistakes, such as also the case of not pointing out the flaws that they noticed in the development of the class war in the family on my part, which I talked about above. I will try and fight with all my might to correct this situation, acquire the appropriate tact in making criticism and demanding accountability for the implementation of duties, and I am confident that I will correct it, first of all with conscience and with my efforts, but also with the help of my friends. And so that he can encourage the criticism of his friends towards me, I will try that on the one hand, I myself will do more self-criticism towards my mistakes, flaws and shortcomings and on the other hand, he will send more attention and care the remarks, opinions and criticisms of others.

Shutting me down when it comes to family matters I think is another negative element that influenced me to make the mistake I’m talking about. I say this because I am fully convinced that the mistake we made would certainly have been avoided if I had consulted with Comrade Enver, or even with any other friend, or if he had been advised, let’s say, Fiqreti with her friend Nexhmije or with another friend, before we decided on the son’s engagement. But then I thought: “I should not bother Comrade Enver about such a matter”. And I thought so, starting from the judgment and feeling that all my assessment of the issue of the engagement that took place seemed right, starting from that wrong point of view that I said – metaphysical, subjectivist, microbourgeois sentimentalist. In this matter too, I influenced Fiqreti for the worse.

But, when my friend Enver shook me, then it became very clear to me that at the base of this mistake I made, there was also the wrong opinion that “family matters are family matters”, while “social matters are social matters”. I know in theory that family issues are also social issues and for us communists they are also party issues and they are not and cannot be separated from each other. And starting from this mistake, it was reached in the further deepening of it on my part, so that Comrade Enver and Comrade Ramiz, without knowing anything about Qazim Turdi’s bad family circle, never thought that I would I had tied the engagement of the son to the daughter of a family with a bad political-social composition, with a hostile environment, they came as friends and brothers, and congratulated me on the engagement (and on the house that the Party rebuilt for me), to which I am guilty and I apologize to them with communist sincerity and a guilty conscience.

7. The other negative element that led me to the mistake I made, I think, is the appearance of arrogance in this case. Above I spoke about a factor that influenced my making a serious mistake of a class character – about the “feeling of immunity” in me from the influence of the ideology of the class enemy. But this very feeling of immunity from the influence of the class enemy, which influenced the making of the wrong decision in this case, I think, is, at the same time, a display of arrogance.

Cases of this type of arrogance can also be considered the frequent interventions that I make in the meeting of the Government, of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, or even in any other meeting, interrupting the speech of the one who is speaking, to do something question or to ask for some clarification, which the speaker could probably give even without my question and intervention. Even this way of acting, now that I think and delve into the negative elements of my character, I consider that it is not right, it is even wrong, because it makes the speaker not to express his opinion as he has until the end; it waits for him the initiative etc.

Thus, isolated cases of the display of arrogance I think there are in me. This is proven by the fact of my mistake regarding my son’s engagement, when I decided quickly, without thinking and in a hasty manner. I promise the Party and Comrade Enver, that I will fight with all my conscience and strength in this direction, to always be simple, to never feel infallible and immune to foreign appearances, and to be always attentive to the opinion of friends, to listen to the opinion of friends with due care, with maximum care.

I assure you, comrades, that all these subjective flaws, of a microbourgeois character, all these negative elements that led me to the mistake I made, I will fight with all my strength to eradicate them. I also assure you that I will never again separate family issues from social and Party issues, and I will consult with my friends on family issues as well (when it is a matter to be consulted), bearing in mind that for us communists, family issues are not separate, but closely related to Party issues.

Above I said that if I had not been hasty, the mistake (engagement) could have been avoided. Of this I am sure. But I am also convinced that if the engagement was not broken, as it was after the criticism he gave me and the revolutionary social help that Comrade Enver gave me, in this case the Party’s line regarding the class struggle would be violated. But the Party does not allow anyone to touch the norms and criteria of the implementation of the class war, as it acted very rightly with me in the last case, when I was wrong in this direction. This mistake and this shaking of conscience will serve me as a negative experience of my activity to turn it from suffering to learning, to make me be more, much more, vigilant in the future, in any case and in every direction, to never make mistakes of this nature again and to work with all my strength and energies, until I close my eyes, to wash away this guilt from the Party.

On this occasion, as a communist, I would like to express here a feeling that comes from my heart and say that I am and will be forever grateful to Comrade Enver, who, as soon as he found out about the matter, immediately acted as he should acting as a revolutionary leader, as a Marxist-Leninist teacher, but also as a friend and brother, of course starting, in the first place, from the interest of the Party, to preserve the principles of the Party related to the class struggle and helping me to I also see and understand the mistake I made, acting in this way also in the interest of my family, which has connected her life with the Party with her blood until death and which is ready to be extinguished all for the interests of the Party and socialism.

Comrade Enver has done so much for my family, not only today, but always, always starting from the interests of the Party that in our Party, there are no family or personal ties and love outside the interests of the Party, of the revolution, of socialism. Comrade Enver helped me, as I said, as a friend and brother and for that I and my whole family are and will always be grateful to him.

In the first place, I think that I must always be alert to the class enemy and its ideology and all-round pressure, always keep in mind the teaching of Stalin, the very rich experience of our Party, as well as my own personal experience that it emerges from my mistake of recent times, that the greatest danger related to the class war is the one that is forgotten, it is the danger that comes from where you have put your mind to sleep, where you have lowered your vigilance.

My vigilance, in this case, was weakened in the direction of the danger of opportunism. That’s why I fell into that mistake, which has an opportunistic character. For this reason, I will keep in mind that I will never again lead to errors of principle of this character; I will try to, as the Party and Comrade Enver teach us, to be alert, both to the danger of the left and to the danger of the right.

Second, I must be very careful and always guard against the thought or feeling that we are supposedly immune from the influence of foreign ideology, because in fact, the mistake I made showed the opposite, thus proving the teaching of the Party and Comrade Enver, you should not think that you are immune from mistakes. I must always and everywhere be consistent in the development of the class war, both against external and internal enemies, as well as against any foreign manifestation, both outside, in society, and inside my family and myself.

Considering that these are some of the main lessons I learned from the serious mistake I made recently, I promise once again to the friends of the Political Bureau and I swear to Comrade Enver, that in my life, no more mistakes of this nature , with a political and ideological, principled character, will not be done by me. I may even accidentally make a mistake at work, but I assure you, friends, that I will not make mistakes of this nature.

Our party, with its great Marxist-Leninist ideological maturity that it has achieved, does not allow anyone to make principled mistakes, as it did not allow me in this case, but criticized me and helped me to correct the mistake as soon as possible. immediately. The correction of this mistake that I made also shows the great strength of the Party, which is expressed in the fact that even when a comrade makes a mistake, other comrades help him to correct the mistake.

And this is a big, very important, vital thing for the Party. In this, I think, the strength of the norm of collegiality in the internal life of our Party finds its expression, which is a Leninist norm of vital importance for maintaining the purity of the Party’s line. Therefore our Party is invincible.

Coming to the end of my self-criticism, I think it also shows another idea and lesson of the Party and Comrade Enver, which they often remind us: the imperialist and revisionist enemy attacks the Party and our socialist state on all fronts – attacks it in the ideological front and this attack is comprehensive, permanent and complex; the enemy attacks us on the economic front, to suffocate us materially; the enemy prepares to attack us at the moment convenient for him militarily, to enslave and annihilate us as a people and as a nation. And according to the teachings of the Party and comrade Enver, like all comrades, I have fought and am fighting against the enemy on these three main fronts. But before the enemy’s ideological attack, in the case of which I am self-criticizing, my foot slipped, “my right foot slipped”, but I did not fall to the ground, because the Party, comrades, Comrade Enver personally, signaled me, gave me hand and lifted me up.

It is known that the best thing is not to shoot your leg at all. This would be the best thing, but as experience proves even in the case of my mistake, people, whether they are communists or cadres, make mistakes. Besides, as the Party teaches us, it is crucially important that, when your leg goes off, you don’t fall to the ground, but hold on, get up and move forward. This is done either by the person who made a mistake, when he sees that he “lost his leg”, or with the help of his friends. I did this with the help of my friends, with the immediate social, revolutionary, effective help given to me by the Party, Comrade Enver personally.

But I assure the Political Bureau and Comrade Enver, that even if I felt myself that my foot had “slipped” (I believe that one day I would feel it, even if it was delayed), – as soon as I felt it myself, maybe even without signaling comrades (although I am convinced that the comrades would not stay without signaling me), I would collect myself and in that case, I am fully convinced that I would correct the mistake made and move forward, only on the way of the Party.

I didn’t feel it and I couldn’t dictate it myself that “my foot had slipped”, in the case of this serious mistake I made, for the reasons and reasons I explained above, that the negative elements that are noticed hindered my vision and right judgment still in my character which I will fight to make them disappear.

And now, in conclusion, once again I assure you Comrade Enver and friends of the Political Bureau, that I will work and fight for the Party and the people with infinite loyalty and until death, as I have tried to do this all my life my party; I will work with all my strength to consistently implement the Marxist-Leninist teachings of the Party and Comrade Enver and I am fully convinced that in this direction, I will also have the constant and valuable help of all of you, comrades , the social and revolutionary help of Comrade Enver, the unceasing help of the whole Party, which, like a loving and infallible mother, carefully helps her sons to correct themselves when they are wrong and to walk only on her path, on the path of Marxism-Leninism, which our heroic Party has followed resolutely and with unparalleled consistency for 40 years in a row, since November 8, 1941, when Comrade Enver founded it, and until today, and which it will always continue.

I make this communist promise, comrades, on the 40th anniversary of the founding of our glorious Party, for whose interests I am ready to give my life at any moment.

With deep revolutionary respect,

            Mehmet Shehu

Tirana, on November 12, 1981                                                                                                     

Top secret

         AFTER READING MEHMET’S SELF-CRITICISM

(Second variant)

This is a self-criticism not in the Marxist spirit. Everything in it speaks about Mehmeti’s efforts to reduce his grave, political-ideological mistake.

He, during 39 typed pages, makes a demagogic effort to convince us, even if there exists in his file in the Central Committee, such a document, through the content of which, to reach the conclusion that: the leadership, for such a small and especially accidental mistake by a leader with such an excellent past and in a moment of desperation, impulsiveness and especially micro-bourgeois sentimentality”.

In order to minimize his own reasons for the mistake, Mehmeti tries to theorize and reason with such a “deep theoretical knowledge”, the dangerousness of his character flaws and precisely of his world views on these issues, which are so dangerous for the Party, if they are left to grow and that they are sporadic in him, that the natural question is asked: “When you knew their dangerousness so well, even in their ‘metaphysical’ character, why did you do it this mistake, and not only this one, but also others, which he minimizes or completely disappears from memory”?!

Wanting to exaggerate “philosophically”, what he has and what has led him to make mistakes along the way, he manages to prove the opposite, and this is precisely where the demagoguery lies in the “self-criticism” he sent us.

What reasons remain for the mistake made? Nothing but “sentimentalism”, and only for one of the boys, why is he not sentimental for anyone else?!

Mehmet was never sentimental in any case of his life. The opposite is characteristic of him. He has always been and is harsh with place and without place, even more without place. This characteristic cannot be satisfied with gentleness, if judged from the formal side, but if we speak with philosophical language, as Mehmeti tells us in his self-criticism, these are sufficient, which leads to the fact that: he is not balanced in the line of The party.

This is not a lack of tact on his part. This tact is not bought in the market, but we are dealing with the correct understanding of the Party’s line at all times and for everything, which are its vital interests, to judge problems, actions and people wisely, coolly and always understand as well as possible the nature of events, the moments in which they resemble each other, judge with maturity the actions of people in certain moments and in continuity.

How is it possible that Mehmeti, who “carried the flag” against the “braces”, “against the mustache”, in his youth, etc., is so sentimental about the untidy and immoral life of his son in question, which he did scandals in the people, he was called by the party, his ear was pulled and when his friends came, they informed him, unfortunately he did not expect this with pleasure, even with distrust?

How can Mehmet be so sentimental about the moral acts of his own son and not show a thread of sentimentality for the Party, which is being discredited through the acts of this son and Mehmet’s attitudes towards this situation? This “sentimentalism” must have deeper sources than those explained by Mehmeti.

Nothing explains this sentimentality he claims.

Then, why did he go from rain to hail, from a debauched life, to the preparation and realization of a krushkija with a very reactionary family and with known hostile attitudes?!

Mehmeti does not analyze these situations correctly, as he is shown to be equipped with theory. There are many people in the world who learn our theory, and even know it well, but not only are they against it, but they also fight it.

Mehmeti focuses on the only mistake he made regarding his son’s engagement, but forgets that during his life, he made other mistakes. He calls his attitudes with his colleagues at work sporadic, even “he understands and corrects them, so much so that he even falls asleep”. But, surprisingly, he quickly forgets these mistakes and repeats them. For his part, these have become a line against the line and moral and political ideological norms of the Party.

It is not true that my friends, and not only me, did not point out the mistakes when he made them, and even harshly criticized them many times. But these mistakes, these attitudes, these actions of his, have serious consequences and become very dangerous, when you are in a task of such importance, with which Mehmeti has been charged.

Mehmet philosophizes about these issues, but he brings them out as unimportant, almost common things, until he manages to say that my friends should not notice me, why I am impulsive, etc., etc., that my work and struggle, are “so colossal” that these are meanness on the part of comrades, who are publicly attacked, who are called anti-party and Trotskyists, when they are not?!

These issues speak of foreign worldviews on his part about the Party. This is a bourgeois, micro-bourgeois arsenal, where many of Mehmet’s non-communist vices are the source, such as in him: conceit, arrogance, arrogance and misuse of his positions, in the Party and in power.

Mehmeti does not fail to point out the value of his war, which no one denies and no one should deny. But Mehmet’s war also had weak sides and mistakes.

What are these? In short, it is our duty to mention it again on this occasion.

Mehmeti had not properly understood the line of measures and that of the National Liberation War. There are letters and documents in the Central Committee written by Mehmeti about the problem of the “zabites” who led the guilds. In this matter, it is not the fact that the communist has or does not have the right to make a remark, what matters is the political orientation of the Party and the interest of the National Liberation War in using the capacities and influence of these people, who were not at that time and for that time, neither nullity, nor against the Party line.

During the time of Mehmet’s War, reprehensible, anarchist and terrorist actions have appeared and actions have been carried out, which harmed the War and did not help it. In Mehmeti, leftism, in thoughts and actions, at all times, has been considered the true Marxist-Leninist line of the Party. Everything outside these views of his was considered openly or silently, as liberal, opportunistic. This is a big flaw, a lack of objectivity in Mehmet’s line, both during the War and in the post-War period. This leads to self-centeredness, overconfidence in oneself and mistrust of others. These are the causes that can bring shock to the unity of the Party, in the line and in the direction.

This has led Mehmet to a serious error in the Party line, which the leadership knows and has analyzed in a revolutionary way in its time. For this grave error, there is his self-criticism in the personal file kept in the Central Committee.

This mistake committed by him had no basis, no reason, because allegedly I, when Beria was liquidated, had lost faith in Mehmet, who did not ask me for even the slightest explanation, why there was no basis, went straight to the cartridge of the Soviet ambassador, Levichkin, cried to him, for me and at the same time to express to him that he agreed with the new line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

So, Mehmeti, who pretends to know the theory well, instead of coming to clarify this issue in the Party, went to Levičkini.

His last mistake is similar to the first. Even in the first, he did not come to the Party, and in the second, he forgot to ask the Party! For his first mistake, Levičkini came and told me that he knew the danger if he didn’t denounce Mehmet to me. I learned Mehmet’s last mistake from the street.

However, even then, and now, Mehmeti, must know that the Khrushchevites know these events and only the right leadership of the Party prevents the Soviet revisionists from using them to divide us.

Therefore, the repetition of serious political mistakes by Mehmet, intentionally or unintentionally, gives weapons to the enemy to exploit the circumstances, to the detriment of socialism and the leadership of the Party of Labor of Albania.

The party has gone through many dangers. Other dangers will befall her on the way. That’s why we have to tighten our ranks, show ourselves determined in the line and understand this line straight, that with oaths and promises, “grand eloquent”, the Party, socialism and the country are not protected.

November 13, 1951

                          Kana

LABOR PARTY OF ALBANIA

Secret CENTRAL COMMITTEE

-General Sector-

PROCESS – VERBAL

OF THE MEETING OF THE POLITICAL BUREAU OF THE KQ OF PPS OF DATES

                                                         DECEMBER 17 AND 18, 1981

Agenda: Analysis of the serious mistake committed by the member of the Political Bureau, Mehmet Shehu, regarding the son’s engagement to a girl with a very bad political composition.

All members of the Political Bureau participate in this meeting, with the exception of comrade Hekuran Isai, who did not come because his mother died last night.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Today on the agenda of the Political Bureau we have the review of a political mistake committed by Comrade Mehmet. As you know, for this he has presented a written self-criticism and you have learned about its content. If Comrade Mehmet, has something additional to do, can he do it, or should we start immediately from the discussions?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I have nothing to add, Comrade Enver. I have tried and reflected as much as I could to realize the causes, the reasons why I made this serious political mistake and as much as I could, I will draw lessons from this experience. Let the friends say their opinion, how they see it and how they judge it reasonable. I’m ready to listen.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: I have some questions to ask Comrade Mehmet.

What do you think, Comrade Mehmet, have you taken into account or not taken into account what attitude the Party would take towards this wrong action of yours?

Are these actions that you have taken a direct or indirect result of the pressure of the class enemy on you?

Some negative traits or vices, as you call them and that appear to you, how much have they negatively influenced your work as a leader?

Did you inform the basic organization of the party about the mistake you made and was it discussed according to the norms of the party?

With all the criticism I made, why did you send the boy out again? Why didn’t he, as a communist, submit to the analysis of his actions in the basic organization of the party?

FRIEND LAMP GEGPRIFTI:

Emphasized and excessive sentimentality outside of communist norms, Comrade Enver says, has been a negative influencing factor on Comrade Mehmet. He says that this pronounced micro-bourgeois sentimentality, outside of communist logic, has pushed him to do such an act for his son, Skenderi. I ask: Are you now completely freed from this sentimentality?

In his self-criticism, friend Mehmet says that; if he had been helped by friends and people for the findings they had and if they had pointed out to him, the wrong step he was taking, would he have done this action? Which friends are you talking about, friend Mehmet, who knew about this problem and did not point it out?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Are there any other questions?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Are you fully convinced, Comrade Mehmet, that this action, this big political mistake, that you made, has damaged the Party and that if you had not intervened, you would have damaged it very seriously?

COMRADE PALI MISKA: In the self-criticism that Comrade Mehmet makes, he exonerates both Fiqreti and the boy from responsibility, while their responsibility is clear. Why does friend Mehmet do this and take everything upon him?

Are you convinced that the big political mistake you made is a logical consequence of all those flaws, weaknesses and mistakes you had at work and in life? Do you know or not these flaws, weaknesses and mistakes? The political mistake you made is not something accidental, nor the thought of a day’s action.

FRIEND RITA MARKO: Do you think about what is said in the masses and in the public opinion about the attitude and behavior of your little son and his daughter-in-law?

Are you crazy about the arrogance in your behavior and actions? Is it a matter here of occasional, momentary manifestations, as you saying in self-criticism, or the result of arrogance and overestimation of your thoughts and work?

In your self-criticism, you say that, if my friends had given me a warning, I would have corrected the mistake. I ask: Did you have someone at that time to get in touch with the friends who were absent, and especially with someone who was close to you until Comrade Enver? Did you have any trouble not asking them?

COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: Comrade Enver raised a number of very important issues at the last meeting of the Political Bureau; your self-criticism was submitted a day later. Now I ask: Why doesn’t Comrade Mehmet express himself in his self-criticism about anything related to these issues?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I raised some organizational issues in the Political Bureau.

COMRADE LENKA CUKO: If a simple communist had done this, what position would you take, Comrade Mehmet?

Has Comrade Mehmet been informed about the repercussions of his action in the masses?

Comrade Mehmet, by overestimating his work, didn’t he overestimate his area or province and underestimate others?

FRIEND MUHO ASLLANI: Who has known Qazim Turdi’s family before, as a family or as an individual, friend Mehmet or friend Fiqrete? Their son’s engagement to Qazim’s daughter was just a coincidence?

COMRADE BESNIK BEKTESHI: As far as self-criticism is concerned, did Comrade Mehmet do it on his own initiative, or did his friends ask him?

– To add a point about the question asked by friend Ramiz; would the Party be damaged if this engagement were to end, and what damages does Comrade Mehmet think, specifically, would his action bring to the Party?

COMRADE MANUSH MYFTIU: Comrade Mehmet says that if someone else made the mistake he made, he would not allow it. How does he judge this? When you don’t allow someone else to make such a mistake, why did you allow it to yourself?

In what position does he place himself in relation to others?

It is said that one of the reasons that led him astray is sentimentality. But in this particular case, when it comes to a serious political mistake, should sentimentality go to this point, to the point of violating the Party’s line?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You can answer them, Comrade Mehmet, because it seems to me that there are no more questions.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Comrade Simon asked what I thought, what position would the Party take, in case the engagement was carried out? I mean, would this go back to marriage? I think the Party would take the right stand, not approve it and I would break the marriage, so I would understand the mistake. Did you, says friend Simon, take this issue into account at that moment when you made this decision?

As I explain in my self-criticism, at that moment I judged as I judged, and I certainly did not judge correctly. I was more attracted by the petty-bourgeois sentimentality towards the boy, for the reasons stated in my self-criticism, and thought that such an engagement might be possible. Apart from the other reasons, which are mentioned in my self-criticism, two were the basic reasons that made me make that mistake.

First, the issue of psychological trauma, which the boy has had for a long time; secondly, my mistake and this was the most serious, that I separated this family, I considered it within the narrow limits of Qazim Turdi, starting from the fact that whatever this family does to me that has severed relations with the rest of its exterior. Then there are other causes that count, such as the abduction that causes me to err, etc.

FRIEND PALI MISKA: Why do you put your son before the interests of the Party?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I, Comrade Pali, in this matter did not start from putting the interests of the Party, below the interests of the son and the family, because the fact is that in this mistake I made, the interest of the Party was also affected, the interest was also affected of the family and of the boy himself. So I didn’t start from that. If I started from this, to put the interest of the son and the family above the interest of the Party, I would be an enemy, but I did not judge the matter like this, in this way. In this tangle of contradictions, I completely agree with all the criticisms.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: No, Comrade Mehmet, I am not at all satisfied with the answer you give. I am not satisfied in the sense that you do not thus draw out, so to speak, the roots of the error, why you did it. Do not think that the Party would forgive you for this mistake that you are, so to speak, different from others, because you know the Party’s line, you know? Regarding the division you make of Turdiu’s family, into close family and extended family, where do you find these designations when the Party, with the guidance and special instructions of the Political Bureau, has specified well, who enters the the trunk of the family, relatives and other people, without leaving a path to graze? Our concern it lies in what friend Pali said, why did you put the interests of the family, the interests of the son above the interests of the Party?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, Comrade Simon, I did not start from putting the interests of the son above the interests of the Party. I thought wrong by taking Qazim Turdiu’s family closely as a decorated professor and cadre that a son is in the university, a daughter is also in the university, his wife is an accountant at the Autotractor Combine, that there are also fugitives, but that has severed relations. I was even informed that Qazim was asked by the State Security bodies to write to his brother in the United States of America, to cut ties with the enemies, that is, to give up hostile work, but he did not has accepted, and then Qazim had severed relations with him.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What is the importance of this? This, in my opinion, has no importance. Why do we go into these details?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: He wrote him a letter, he didn’t write him a letter, this is agency work and you know these things, Mehmet.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What importance does this have for us, which does not make it easier at all?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: This is how I judged this work. This has certainly damaged the work of the Party, but I did not start from that to put the interest of the boy above the interest of the Party. I misjudged him. Another question is that the negative properties…

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: Excuse me, Comrade Enver, I want to ask another question: Regarding the problem of the class war, do you, Comrade Mehmet, have any wavering in the Party line?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, I think there is no wavering in the Party line. Here, in this matter I was wrong and I admit the mistake. This, as I say in the self-criticism, is a serious mistake.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Well, how do you then accept the opinion that you would influence the girl? What does this mean? Can we advise them in the Party: Men, take the daughters of the kulaks, take the daughters of the ballistas, and bring them into the family because we will influence them? Isn’t this an opportunistic thesis?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, so doesn’t this mean that you are not consistent with the class struggle?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, this is an opportunistic thesis. In this case, my attitude is not consistent, that’s why I say that I was seriously mistaken. In other cases I have not been wrong and I say that for this particular case…!

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, this has to do with your conviction.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: How about doing this, Comrade Mehmet, on the eve of the Congress?! What does this mean? You think that it is not an opportunistic attitude, but it is done at a moment that costs the Party, when the whole Party is mobilized to resolutely implement its line in all areas! Then think about it a little more straightly!

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I say in my self-criticism, Comrade Kadri, that if other boys asked me for such an engagement, if they were not married, or for anyone else, I would not accept. For this boy, I accepted it for the reasons I have given, for the psychological trauma the boy has had, as well as for the mistake I made in separating Qazim Turdi’s family.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: I’m sorry, Comrade Mehmet. That is, you admit that you did this action with full conscience; you knew that you were doing an action that is contrary to the Party’s line.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: And why?! When you say that you would not do this for any of the other children, in fact you did it for Skenderi with full conscience. I am telling you this to help you, because even in self-criticism, for which I will give my opinion, you do not face things head on. What does it mean that you would not make such a mistake for other children? This means that you were convinced that the engagement you made was against the Party line.

You even say that you do not recommend such an action to any friend, and you are right, you should not recommend it to anyone, because it is against the Party’s policy. Nevertheless, you said: “I will do it” and you did it, because you wanted to do it, thinking that the Party would tolerate it, you thought that you were allowed to do it. Why did you think that the Party would not react to what you did? If you thought that the Party would react and you would still break the engagement, why would you do it then? You thought the Party would accept it. Then why did you think so? Isn’t this related to the questions that your friends asked you here? Do you put yourself above the Party? Party norms have no value for you! Then how does one explain what you say, this is my opinion? This is where you should reflect, I think.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I, Comrade Ramiz, do not put myself above the Party. Of course I was wrong in this matter, as I explain in the self-criticism, but I do not put myself above the Party.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Well, this does not explain the matter, Comrade Mehmet that you yourself say that what you did is contrary to the Party’s line; you yourself say that such a thing. You wouldn’t do it for other children, you wouldn’t allow it for your friends, and the truth is, you wouldn’t recommend it to other children or friends, because you were convinced that it is against the line of the party. Then why did you accept it? Here is the problem, here is the key.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Here, in the complex of all these issues…!

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Then the comrades who say why you put the interest of the family and the son above the interest of the Party are right. They are quite right to say that.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I said it; I have not consciously put the interest of the Party…!

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: Yes, you yourself say, Comrade Mehmet, that I did it with conscience for this boy.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: You yourself say that you would not accept this for other children.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I did it for the reasons I said.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Comrade Mehmet, it is not a matter of wasting time here. The point is that you are not at that level to not judge this action which is exactly related to the Party line. Even in this particular case, as long as you have feelings of sentimentality towards the boy, it is clear that all your actions that led to this issue are based on putting the interest of the boy above that of the Party. Here is the error.

COMMON MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, I did not start from what he should do with conscience.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Where you start from is another matter, but the action here brings you out. We always, in every action, at every moment, in everything say that we must not forget the Party. This action on your part is a very blatant and big case. How do you forget the Party in this case?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I know it is big and blatant.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: If you suffer from sentimentality, Comrade Mehmet, why didn’t you show sentimentality about the Party’s norms, about the Party’s line, about the Party’s interests? Let’s judge this matter a point from this side as well. Then this sentimentality, contrary to all norms and rules of the Party, is only in the case of this boy or has it influenced other cases and problems as well? You should look at this issue further.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: In this case, the mistake was made only for this boy, for the psychological trauma he suffered…!

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: The sentimentality you rely on is not an argument. It has to do with your worldview, that’s how you think, that’s why you act. You don’t explain sentimentality either theoretically or practically.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: I say how I thought then, how I thought in those moments when I got engaged, I don’t say how I think now. Now I think differently.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Friends want to know how you thought and how you still think today, that’s why they asked you some questions, the meaning of which proves the opposite of the reasoning, not to push you to do wrong. Now you have to answer these questions clearly, so that you can heal later. I would answer these questions like this: not only did I think wrong, but I put the interest of the Party below the interest of the boy. That would be fair self-criticism. Let’s talk about that moment.

Here we judge the facts. That’s why we say that at that moment you lost the direction of the Party, you lost the balance on the line, that is, you violated this. That is more correct to say. Then a series of other questions that have been addressed to you are quite clear. Don’t try to cover them with the formula “at that time”, because at that time, we all accept it, it was done as it was, now that we come here, what do you think? Do you think so, as friends ask? That they don’t agree with the answers you give them.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: At that time I did not think so, Comrade Enver. Now I understand that it is so.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Do you consider these questions that we are asking you right now?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I consider them rights.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Therefore, at least tell us that you are right, are you convinced of this right that you give us?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: And the conviction that what we are asking you is right, removes you from that mistake. This is what we also want, to help you, to get away from the mistake.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Comrades’ questions are correct. Judging them today, it is. At that practical and concrete moment, judging it the way I judged it, in fact I harmed the interest of the Party and at the same time the interest of my family and my son was also harmed.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, here is a step forward on your part. Now take the answers again from the beginning and answer in this spirit and you will see that you will go out on the path that the whole Party wants to go out.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: The second question, which I have not noted here which of my friends did it, but I have noted it, is whether my negative qualities have affected my daily, ordinary work.

I believe that yes, they have had an impact, without question they have. I have fought against these properties, as much as I have fought and achieved some result, but, as I say, I have not completely freed myself from them. It is impossible that these have not affected my work for the worse, as much as they have. In all my work and life in the Party, all the time there has been concrete cases where those qualities have affected me badly. Such negative properties cannot help but have a negative effect.

The next question: Has the basic organization of the Party, in which I belong, been informed?

I have informed the secretary of my base organization, I have informed him that I have made a serious political mistake of this nature and for this I will make a self-criticism in the Political Bureau and after making a self-criticism there, then I will also come to speak in the base organization of the Party.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Regarding this issue, I also advised Comrade Mehmet to speak like this, when he expressed his opinion that he would come to the Party’s base organization to do self-criticism. I have told him to discuss this issue once in the Political Bureau, then to discuss it in the organization – base for this issue.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Friends ask: The boy, with all the mistakes he made, why did you send him again to study abroad?

The boy, as I say in the material you have read, accepted and broke up with the girl he got engaged to, and I thought at the time that he could go and I advised him myself that he could go out. Then I withdrew this thought and warned him, writing to him that as soon as he passes the exam he has in hand, come back, and he will come back. He has to take the last exam around January 12 and immediately after that he will return and go to work wherever the Party will assign him.

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: I had something to add to that, Comrade Mehmet, he should have returned immediately.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: You must understand this well that the boy should not go. Then, this boy with all the flaws he has and serious mistakes he has made, how could he accomplish them with a letter or by saying: “Dad, I will finish the exams and come back”. He doesn’t even deserve to take the exam for the mistake he made. You said this yourself.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I have now informed him to come back.

FRIEND RITA MARKO: This contradicts what you say, that he also had a trauma. He got mixed up with a girl with a bad family background and was sent out. How is he sent out, how sure are you about this man? Here, too, you are undervalued, and you should think carefully about this issue as well.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: And the people, Comrade Mehmet, listen, he says that the one who made this mistake should not go outside.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: That’s why I also decided to return soon, even before the exams are over.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: The fairest decision would be for him not to go abroad at all, but to be sent to work in a factory, to join the Party’s base organization at the same time, and to give an account to it for what he did, that is a communist. This would be the right thing to do, and would be evidence of an understanding, so to speak, of that grievous error which became partial.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: That’s how it should have been done.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: To some extent, the boy was taken under your protection. Here, the sentimentality you say deepened further. You failed to think that he is a communist, that he made a serious, very serious mistake and must give an account to the Party, which will then judge him whether or not he should go abroad later. He is a man who has made a grave mistake, even repeated it, and I will say this in my discussion.

COMRADE FOTO ÇAMI: Here again is the defect where you fell in the first case, Comrade Mehmet, that is, you did not put the interest of the Party above all. If you thought deeply, you would see that the people, seeing how it was acted and appreciated, the mistake and the gesture of your son, who made one mistake, then another and was allowed to go abroad, has the right to says: “come on, what’s going on here, is there a party line or are there two lines, one for some and one for the other measure”?!

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Well, that’s exactly why I’m pulling the boy from Sweden.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: If he was someone else’s son, we, that is, the Party would have pulled him, but precisely because he is your son, you have to pull him yourself.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, I should have withdrawn it.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: The severity, the haste in this case, you should show it to the other side, tell the boy to go to Martanesh, to go work with the miners and geologists, so that he can wash away the mistake he made, and not take him take exams abroad, let him do this and do that, then come back.

COMRADE RITA MARKO: Doesn’t this show a formal admission of error? This is not an immediate deepening, but you had to take a stand, analyze his issue to the end.

FRIEND LENKA CUKO: Friend Mehmet says that he criticized the boy for not working. Who criticized it? Was your son subjected to criticism in any body or organization, or did you criticize him only as a father? Where else has he been criticized, and who has criticized him?

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, because he was not working. So far I know that I have only criticized him. He is part of the base organization where he studies in Sweden and when he returns to Albania he will be part of his own base organization.

COMRADE LENKA CUKO: Yes, I’m sorry, Comrade Mehmet, do you know if in the basic organization of the Party in the embassy, who is part of it, he raised this problem for discussion, this very wrong action he did?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I have told him to inform the basic organization of the Party and act as the basic organization there tells him. When he came here, I asked my friend Dhimitër Lamani if he informed. He has informed me that he himself has informed about this matter, but in the base organization there, I do not know that such a thing has been laid.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: Well, Comrade Mehmet, what does a positive opinion mean in a case like this? He made this grave mistake, he went out again and nothing was discussed about him. Doesn’t this show that we have to do with those thoughts and concepts that we stand above others, that we are outside the norms and rules of the Party, that there are other rules for us, while for all the communists below, there are other rules?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, I judged that he made this mistake and corrected it, that he accepted the separation. The boy is not to blame here; it is me, because the boy would have left that girl if I had told him to leave her.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: No, no, he even has a very serious fault.

COMRADE QIRJAKO MIHALI: Of course we judge you here, but he is also very guilty.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Of course it is his fault that he got involved with that girl.

FRIEND SIMON STEFANI: Yes, he is a communist.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Once again, I am saying this to help Comrade Mehmet. Do not stay in the opinion as you judged then. Today, now, what do you think about the questions your friends ask you: did you do well or did you not do well to let him go and why did you let the boy stay outside? This is the problem.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, I did not do well.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: How you thought at that time is another problem. Now, now how do you judge?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: You should also look at this sentimentality that you say, and the right is to delve into it to see that it has pierced you into other tolerant attitudes, not only in the treatment of the family, we are not getting into that in detail, but in putting in unequal conditions with others, not only as a party member, but also as a leader with those rights that the Party has given me.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: I may have made mistakes, but I did not consciously set out to put myself above my friends.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: One minute, one minute, in our analysis we do not start only from conscience, we point out the facts as they are, then we look at the cause, is it conscious or unconscious. How much the basic organization of the Party has helped you is another matter, if you have claims that we have not helped you, agree, but once let’s tell the facts as they are.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I think I have not tried to ask the Party for privileges over others. I may have made mistakes, but not to start with a conscience from the fact that I am prime minister or where I know and create privileges for myself.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: For a much smaller mistake than your son’s, we brought them by plane from abroad and told them: go to work now, wash away the mistake you made. You yourself have heard, you have seen, you have gone through these measures that we have taken, but in the case of your son, you have not thought what I am doing, where my mule is leading me, why I am not acting like everyone else others for my son, etc. For this, you have a different belief and the issue does not lie in the action. I don’t know, but maybe you also have reservations in this matter.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, I have no reservations that are why I ordered the boy to return.

FRIEND PALI MISKA: And if you don’t have reserves, then why didn’t you do it in time? This is a very simple thing. If you gave the order as prime minister, the boy would return to Albania within a day. What order are you waiting for, friend Mehmet? Here it is not our job to tell you, you should have done this work yourself.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, I say that if you need it, I order him to come back today, I have warned him to come back as soon as he finishes the exams he has in hand.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Yes, he doesn’t deserve it; take Comrade Mehmet to finish his exams. This should be well understood.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I went and consulted with Comrade Ramiz about this issue and we agreed with him to act like this.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: No, no, it’s not exactly like that. You came and consulted with your friend Ramiz, but I told you the same thing that Pali told you, that boy must be returned immediately. Then you know when you should return, you decide the time.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: I also warned him to finish the exam he has in hand and come back.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: No, what Comrade Pali says is correct. Why didn’t you think of this yourself, why did you wait for us to tell you?

Comrade MANUSH MYFTIU: Shqip, he did not think of this to preserve “prestige” and tries to find different forms so that his authority is not affected. Things must be said openly. That his son not only didn’t deserve to go out again, but what does it matter to him if he passes his exam or not, since he’s coming back for punishment, not for a visit, that he doesn’t had to miss the exams.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Let’s talk as it is, maybe the rest of you haven’t had the chance, but I told Comrade Mehmet straight out: bring the boy back!

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Comrade Enver also told him, I also told him in a meeting we held: Comrade Mehmet the boy must be returned.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Let’s move on to other questions now that this matter is clear.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: We asked: have you completely freed yourself from sentimentality about this boy? It seems to me that in the reflection I have done, I have been freed from sentimentality and the boy should return to account to the Party and be sent to work where he will be assigned. Another question. From which friends should I have been helped? First of all, I had to be helped by friend Enver, but I didn’t only have friend Enver, I also had other friends.

COMRADE LLAMBI GEGPRIFTI: You, Comrade Mehmet, say that if my friends knew this and helped me, I would not have done this action. I ask the question: Who are these friends who knew about your son’s engagement problem?

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: If a friend had come to me, he would have found out and understood he would have grabbed me by the coat and told me: Comrade Mehmet, you are wrong! I assure you, friends of the Political Bureau, that I would immediately correct it.

COMRADE LLAMBI GEGPRIFTI: How did we know this, Comrade Mehmet?

Comrade ENVER HOXHA: Look how he told you, how did we know? But who were the ones who knew? Who knew that you had engaged the boy to a girl with such makeup?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, who knew? Otherwise, why do you put this in self-criticism that, if my friends had helped me… who, who are those friends, tell me their name here, in the Political Bureau!

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I am not saying that my friends knew, but if any of my friends had found out and told me…

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Then how would we help you if we didn’t know?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I’m sorry, friend Pali, since this issue has been brought up here, I have to say this in the discussion as well, he raises the issue that “even my friends should have helped me”. This means that he implies that someone knew and did not help him. This is how it is written in autocriticism. Then tell us who knew?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I’m not saying that my friends should have helped me, but we all have to help each other.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This is how it is written in the self-criticism.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: That’s how it was written, so the natural question arises, why didn’t you tell your friends? They didn’t know that.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: And I didn’t tell my friends exactly. I should have gone, first of all, to friend Enver, but also to other friends with whom I was in contact every day. This happened because, at that time, I judged that I had made the right decision, while the decision was not right, I should have gone to Comrade Enver.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, I’m sorry, what about Comrade Feçor Shehu, why did you ask him what he thought?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: Because I got the data from him.

FRIEND KADRI HAZBIU: Avash, avash, why, where do you get your line from? Where does he get advice to defend the Party’s line? Did you discuss the matter yourself when you asked the question? Why did you do that? Who was missing here? Was Ramiz Alia missing? He was in Durrës during the time you made the krushki, where we used to meet every day. I was also the Minister of the Interior, so it was probably legal to say to me: More Kadri, do you know anything about this family or not? During this time, you also went to Pogradec, why didn’t you say to Comrade Enver: Come on Comrade Enver, I am facing this dilemma. That’s why we need to reflect correctly, Comrade Mehmet, let’s not pass so easily.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Comrade Kadri, I asked Comrade Feçor Shehu exactly, because the guy informed me that he had two people who escaped abroad.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Not only that, but when Feçor Shehu gave you the information, you told him not to tell the man, to leave this matter as it is.

COMMON MEHMET SHEHU: Even the girl worked in the Ministry of Internal Affairs! No, I didn’t say don’t tell the man. I have told him that he has two fugitives outside, as the boy told me, so please give me information on this matter.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This does not last, Mehmet. Regarding the issue, how come no one took me by the coattails, you asked Feçor Shehu, among others, the question: Would you allow this engagement in your family if it were to happen to you? And he answered that he would ask the Party. Then you, why didn’t you come to ask the Party? And until you came to ask the Party, that is, one of the friends of the Bureau, you are not right, you are wrong to say that, if someone had grabbed my coat, I would have changed my attitude, that when I found out that you you made this engagement, and then we immediately plucked your ear…! Yes, yes, at the end of your self-criticism, you said that if someone grabbed my coat…!

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: The groom told me that I would take the girl for the boy, I would ask about the family. In this sense, if the friends would have had the opportunity to find out…! My mistake is, and I admit it, that I should have gone to my friends.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Again, this understanding has no basis, because even if we assume the issue that someone did not have the courage to come and tell you, to accept such a situation, did you ask yourself the question of what did you do when Feçori told you about what he was going to ask above, I was going to ask you? At the same time, you should have said that I should also tell Comrade Enver or my friends about this.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I should have done that, but I didn’t do it based on the circumstances I said.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: You don’t know this yourself?

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: You say it yourself in your self-criticism about your arrogance. This is sheer arrogance.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Here is the issue.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I say that myself in my self-criticism.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: These answers are very normal; Mehmet, but you are not saying it right. Take a look at the self-criticism, read it again. It is as friends say, as we say, and all these questions that were asked help you to deeply understand the mistake, to leave forever from the old positions, that, when you say sentimentality, sentimentality is tenderness and in this case it’s opportunism. However, opportunism also has its opposite. You have to look at these things when your friends talk about your work; you have to analyze them a bit philosophically, while you take them as random things. But let’s not forget that repeated cases become a line.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: If you let them go, if you don’t fight, they will become a line.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: If you let them…! It is also the case that we are helping you in this case to understand that in some things, chances have come to you. Only when you understand this correctly, you will not repeat them again. We will tell you these things because there were friends who came to you, informed you about other irregular attitudes of your family members and you received them with distrust, distrust, you told them: “Don’t exaggerate things.” These have been reported to me by my friends and they will tell me their opinions. What does this show? This again shows opportunism towards the actions of some of your children, not all.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Even the confidence in me that I know all about, what does it shows? One thing, friend Mehmet, you mention sentimentality, but you also have the opinion that you know everything and look how well you answer the questions that are asked.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, I don’t think I know everything, Comrade Ramiz, I’m saying that there is arrogance in me.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Well, let’s just take this, why didn’t you ask your friends? This does not correspond to sentimentality.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: Why didn’t you ask, my friend Mehmet, you asked about even the smallest things, even about the simplest things, you consulted with your friends? In this case, why?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: This is exactly where the arrogance is, the thought that I am immune to these issues.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Do you understand then? You are immune, but not only that, but I am also the most accurate interpreter of how the class war should be done.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I say this myself in my self-criticism.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, I say what you say, I am not contradicting them. Only if we start here, I think you will understand things better, that they do not work with sentimentality.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: And it’s not just sentimentality, I also count a series of other elements.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Comrade Mehmet, I’m sorry that we got stuck on an issue, that of the sentimentality that got you into actions. If we take this now, do you see that these actions are not within the norms of the Party? Let’s talk about it.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I do not understand the question.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Here I am saying that in your relations with the Party, and in your family relations, that is, the construction of these relations was done by you on the basis of all our norms?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: My relations with the Party in what sense? About the relationship with my family, what he heard and found out…!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: You saw this from a sentimental position, that is, you thought that instead of violating the interests of the family, it is better to violate those of the Party, I am talking about the question that Comrade Simon asked you. Look a little wider at this work, not only to get stuck on the boy and the case of this boy.

COMMANDER MEHMET SHEHU: And I have fought not only against this son in the class war that I have to do within the family, as much as I could, also against the little son of his daughter-in-law. So it’s not that I haven’t waged a class war with them, but I haven’t reached the right level for the work done to give full results.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: In the same way, maybe you have explained to them how the class struggle should be understood, but the issue is in their specific attitude.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Now, Comrade Mehmet, regarding the question asked by Comrade Llambi, about help from comrades. The point is that you contradict yourself in this matter. You yourself did not ask for help before this engagement, and then who would give you this help? This is also related to that, you yourself had the idea to make it a fait accompli and then you thought that there is no god mother to turn this work off the road?

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, no, no way.

FRIEND PALI MISKA: How does this stand? Why not ask for your help, let alone mine, you are closer to your friend Adil, with whom you relate more.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: We don’t take into account what they say outside, Mehmet, but they also say outside that, Qazim Turdiu, fought for two whole months to prevent this engagement from happening. Qazim Turdiu said to your son: “Son, do you know my biography?” “I’m not Kalama”, he replied, “I’m a man that means I know”. These are their words. Even, according to their words, that they also talk, because they were also hit, when you called Qazim Turdiu, before you knew the girl and talked to him, he advised you and said: More friends Mehmet, what if this marriage doesn’t work out!

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, he didn’t tell me that.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well said, I say as the people say, this came to me from the people. You told him that when children fall in love, the rest doesn’t matter.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No. I did not say that, Comrade Enver. This conversation is not done.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Now these things, not that people say this, but the very fact that you made this krushqi with these elements and did not inform anyone, at least one of your closest friends, these things can be believed. You also write in your self-criticism that your son told you that even if this engagement does not take place, father, it will not spoil any work. This is where the entire boy’s trauma falls. There is no trauma here.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: It was my fear of trauma.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The boy is being more reasonable here, because he was certainly told either by herself or by someone else that this, Qazim Turdiu and the girl’s mother, have all these things. It is therefore the right way to accept these opinions, despite the fact that we do not want to accept them, we will believe you, but these are what are said and explain this difficult situation.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: I will talk a little about what Comrade Ramiz said that you try to round things out. I have recently sent you information from a communist. In my opinion, instead of judging correctly on that information, you did not trust the communist who sent us the information; you set Nazar Berber in motion. Even when they told me, you started to soften things, rounded them and listened to the bride, according to which this is not true, that was not true, when they were as the communist who informed the Party said!

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I, Comrade Simon, asked Nazar because he was mentioned in the information.

FRIEND SIMON STEFANI: Why don’t you trust me to bring the information, but you trust Nazar?

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Not that I didn’t trust you and the information you gave me, but if there were some other things outside of the information.

FRIEND SIMON STEFANI: Why, if there were other things, I wouldn’t tell them? If others came to me, I would definitely tell them too.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, there were other things outside of the information you sent me, since it was mentioned that Nazar was present at that time. So, I wanted to know what Nazari, who is also a member of the Central Committee, had noticed.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Comrade Mehmet, this was information that came to you from the Party, brought to you by the secretary of the K.Q. and…

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No…!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: One minute, please, don’t interrupt me, Comrade Mehmet, because the matter needs to be judged a little deeper, then, for me to be calm, let’s tell Comrade Simon that Nazari, who says this, is a member of K.Q., please…!

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: I could do that too…

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Why didn’t you do it like this, did you take Nazar?!

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Comrade Nazar confirmed to me what he had discussed with that person.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, it doesn’t matter, as long as this is verified; the Party does not send us things without verifying them. Then why did you do such a demarche? Why don’t you trust the information the Party gives you?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: There is no question that I do not have faith in the Party.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Then we come to what we said from the beginning, that you act without asking anyone, without asking that there is a Party, its rules and norms, etc.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: No, no, it’s not like that, it’s not that I don’t have faith in the Party.

COMRADE QIRJAKO MIHALI: Not only that, but I think that you called Nazar to prove something to the contrary, so that you could then say, this is not how you were informed, but differently.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I spoke to Nazar as a member of the Central Committee and whose name was mentioned in that information, I asked him if he had noticed anything and what he had noticed that could be excessive. Yes, it could have been as you say that I had gone to friend Simon.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Okay, Comrade Mehmet, why don’t you judge this issue from the other side, because I don’t know the work of information, how it is and where it is, you know that, we don’t even know the issue, so you say bravo be it to this simple communist who is preoccupied with the issue of the Party.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I have not criticized that communist. I also told friend Simon that this is how it should be done.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: There was no need for you to call Nazar to confirm what was said in the information, or for Nazar to tell you some other things.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, I did not criticize the communist who sent the information to the Central Committee, and I told Comrade Simon that this is how it should be done, I asked him for the information and I could not help calling the daughter (bride) and the son to criticize them and I severely criticized her, but she told me that she had only gone to buy the chocolate.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I explained well to my friends that this is not something simple. Before Simon and Nazari told you about the bride, I warned you to take measures, because the Frenchman is following him.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I have also acted.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I’m not saying you didn’t react, but I couldn’t say that without being sure. And you, as soon as I informed you, called the bride and spoke to her. You have made this known to me as well and you have done well. Now you get another piece of information, which shows that she still walks that way, so you had no reason to ask anywhere, but this strengthened your belief that this girl has something. Maybe she has nothing to do with the French and ishalla doesn’t, but the point is that he is attacking her.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: I also criticized the girl very severely.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Now I am telling you another, newer thing. After you severely criticized the bride, I still have information from Sigurimi, that when she went to school, the Frenchman followed her behind in a car. Did they talk to each other or not, this is not known, but they were seen walking parallel to each other. Now the issue is not raised, did you ask Nazar or not. What Simon sent you is information about the girl, about whom you previously knew something from me, it came to you one more time, there were two, it came to you one more time, three. Now I’m telling you this, which is newer. Therefore, it is not a question of why you asked Nazar, but you did it because you were not convinced by what Simon told you, you also forgot what I had told you.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, I did not forget that.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You forgot that you received another piece of information from the Party, from another person. Now the question is raised about what I told you and what I had from Sigurimi: You have the right to tell Feçor, who saw this? Such and such a person, he will tell you, an official of the ministry. Then you, if you continue like this, will call the functionary and ask him: did you see this or not?

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, I did not ask Feçor about such a thing.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, you didn’t ask him; let’s take it as if you acted like that. Since you asked Nazar, why not ask “Selman” too? You are a member of the Political Bureau and you have this right, but we have faith in our bodies, in our cadres. What they tell us does not lead us astray; on the contrary, it helps us to be corrected.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I considered that I did not make any mistake in asking Nazar, who is also a member of the Central Committee. If there was anything else, apart from those things that were said in the information, I don’t know, but I criticized the girl based entirely on the information that my friend Simon gave me.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: Comrade Mehmet, I have the right to draw the conclusion that you did not trust the information I sent you and not only that, but also in the answer you gave me, you began to dismiss part of the data, saying that there was no one there when…that is, you listened to the bride and you didn’t listen to the communist.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: I told you how the girl spoke to me.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: I didn’t need what the girl said; I needed what the communist said about the girl. And in the end, how would she tell you? You were informed by your friend Enver himself and yet she continued on her way. The next morning, when she was going to school, the Frenchman’s car was standing a meter away, walking parallel to her, while she was walking, the car with the Frenchman inside, the one with the moustache, was walking with her.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: It is possible that the Frenchman has sewn up his entire mind.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: He can also be a provocateur.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, I have not had any facts that she had contact with the French until now. If such a thing is proven, then I will take the measures that are to be taken.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: No, Comrade Mehmet, the issue has to do with the fact that, from your side, what others inform you should be evaluated. You yourself say that: “I did not appreciate them, I should be simple, and I should not be so and so”. But now when the information comes to you from the Central Committee and it is done by a communist, who has taken the courage and is happy about it, this should be appreciated by you.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Realize the issue well. We don’t judge the girl. We judge your mistakes and the matter of how you understand these mistakes. We do not judge whether or not she had contact with the French. If there are facts about this, we will give them, but as far as I know so far, apart from rubbing the kalaman’s cheeks, there is nothing else, but also for them to sit next to each other, look at each other and they smile, these are also facts. These facts cannot but say nothing.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: Even to refute these at all, they are not. These signals should attract our attention, because then if they get thicker, they become more complicated.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: As far as they are pointed out, these have something and are not to be rejected. Why, for example, doesn’t that provocateur come around to my daughter, or Adil’s daughter, etc.? Because, in your son’s daughter-in-law, he hopes for something, that he has seen something in her character that allows the other to provoke him. And he has reason to provoke, because he has found ground. We have to take this issue from the political side. In the given person, he has found ground and intends to make at least one scandal.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Then, I have no choice but to separate the bride from the son.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No. We don’t say share it or don’t share it. We lay out the logic of things, their consequences and the intentions of the enemy, why Paris has as much as you want to find girls, but he has other objectives, aims at other things. Therefore, these aims, these goals must be understood correctly. No one from our comrades and from our bodies can talk about things that are not. Even there is a great danger that they do not speak, do not say, and certainly do not say many things about us, and this is an even greater danger. Therefore, when they say a truth, or a half-truth, it is more serious. So our people do not exaggerate this information, they say it as it is, they say it as they see it, that they do not know what he is talking to her, but what they see that the car is following the bride, they say it.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: I have no choice but to separate the girl or keep her locked up, if it is proven that the French is behind her.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It is not about him here. You make that decision yourself. Here, in the Political Bureau, we don’t discuss it, we don’t get into that issue, and we get into political issues. From the family side, you will divide it or not, the son will divide it or not the daughter-in-law, we do not get involved in those things, we are preoccupied by the fact that the issue has a political character and as politicians we must understand that this problem.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I also take it in that sense that the French is aiming for something here.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You definitely have something in mind, and you must be convinced that all that your friends and competent bodies tell you are well-founded; I think they are not saying anything too much. If you judge the issue like this, you reach conclusions to ask yourself the question: whatever we do, whatever I do, this issue is politically motivated.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: The other conclusion is also important. These things should not be judged from a sentimental point of view, they are problems that should be seen with political and ideological meaning, if we don’t understand them that way, we make mistakes.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: And they are not even separated from each other.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: These issues of yours, Mehmet, have ramifications. People found out about the son’s engagement and of course they criticized you, but then they found out that it was broken. The enemy also uses this. Now you say that you have no choice but to lock the bride inside. You can’t lock it; you’re not even allowed to lock it in. How will you end it? Will you turn the house into a prison? No, under no circumstances should this be allowed with us.

Second, put here the issue that you have no choice but to separate the bride. These are extreme actions, I think. Until you come to this measure, you must first make an effort for it to be serious, to prepare a situation a little further, if it is possible to separate this girl, for the reason that there are all these antecedents and again for a difficult situation will be created for you and the Party, gossip will begin as to why Mehmeti divorced his bride. Miletus will start asking many questions. Some attitudes of her husband, the world knows very well.

So you see how this work gets messed up, if it moves in an abducted manner. You even do self-criticism, you know that you are kidnapped, but you shouldn’t be like that, you should have a strong logic of the communist and these that are similar, you should foresee them in time. Here is the danger of not predicting them. Since we enter into this girl’s work, although it is not right to enter into this, but since this was done, even in her engagement, you still have responsibility. In this case, there was again liberalism in you or opportunistic attitudes from the employees of the Durrës District Security. If they have informed you about the behavior of this girl’s mother, you should not have allowed the son’s engagement, despite the fact that the father was a driver and he had actually separated from his wife. Why? Without moral reasons?!

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: They did not tell me this.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Then, if they didn’t say this, it means that you made a dead end marriage; you took home a man you don’t know at all.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I have received extensive information.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Where did you get this information? If you have received information, it must have turned out that the mother of the bride does not have good morals. All of Durrës knows this.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: They did not tell me this.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: They didn’t say it, but this information came from Durrës, whose people know everything. I don’t even live in Durrës, nor have I dealt with these things, but this is how they come out. Therefore, in this matter, either there was opportunism, or you did not ask the security bodies of this district, as you did with Feçor about Turdiu’s daughter. And with this negligence, you made a mistake.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: Durrës security has given me more detailed information.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Who told you that you might have called a Security officer without my knowledge? I was the Minister of the Interior at the time and I didn’t know anything.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Regarding the engagement of the Union, I have also been informed at the Directorate of Leadership, the relevant document should be there as well.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: We do not judge him, Comrade Mehmet. We judge things related to your character and your views. These are issues that arise in this situation and to better understand your mistakes.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: May I continue, Comrade Enver?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, continue.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: The next question. Have you realized that this mistake has damaged and damages the Party and would damage it more if it continued? Of course I understood it and I understood it deeply even. This will not happen again.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Yes, the result of this understanding is the position you are taking here, Comrade Mehmet. We have a whole hour with you with three questions. If you understood, as you say, and it is right for you to understand, that the Party has been damaged by this attitude, then is the attitude you are taking here appropriate? Here we are in the Bureau and we must speak openly, declarations are not enough, here we must speak from party positions. If we take the issue from the angle that I have harmed the Party, then you have to go even deeper into the analysis of the facts.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: With that mistake that was made, of course, the Party has been damaged.

COMRADE FOTO ÇAMI: Where is the evil of this mistake, Comrade Mehmet, because you don’t even say it in self-criticism? What consequences would this have for the Party?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: The evil of this mistake, if it was allowed, but I am convinced that the Party would not allow it, I am a person and as such like anyone else I can make mistakes, then the principle of class struggle, the Party line on this issue.

COMRADE HAJREDIN ÇELIKU: Why is it that the Party’s line has not been affected or damaged with all that has happened?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: It is damaged.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: The touch is still something general. What would happen, just imagine, friend Mehmet?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: It was damaged, but it was not damaged to the extent that it would be damaged if it continued. To continue would be a grave mistake and then we would have…

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: That’s what we want to know, what would we have?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: What would we have then?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: We would have two lines in the class war.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: What about what you find, are you convinced that it is very important?

COMMON MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, yes, I am convinced of this, if it would result…

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What would be the result for the Party? Crack?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, split in the Party

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Then where does sentimentality come in? Put this in balance, because this does not belong here, friend Mehmet, sentimentality cannot explain this.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, I’m talking about the mistake I made. I explain the reasons of that time that led me to this serious mistake, because I understand that the mistake is serious.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: If today you understand like this, that what you did would split the Party, it means that this would create a war in the Party, would draw two lines, that is, there would be a complete split the party, from the bottom to the top, up to us.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: This is what would happen if it continued.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Then, if this is the case, you should look at this with the greatest seriousness, because this is capital for the Party, Comrade Mehmet, for our entire life, for the entire life of our country. Without making a retrospective and go back a bit and see: something so capital, so great for the life of the Party and the country, can be explained by sentimentality. This does not help you, friend Mehmet, if you persist.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Well, it’s not just sentimentality, Comrade Ramiz; it’s all the other things I said.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: In one place in your self-criticism, you say: “Before I made this engagement, I was stunned.” Why were you stunned? For what reason?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I was stunned by this issue, because I was dealing with a family that has people who have fled abroad.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What does this mean politically? What does this mean more politically?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: It means that he does not agree with the Party line.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You were stunned because you thought that the act you were doing was to the detriment of the Party, so you were stunned why you were acting like that.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: At first I was stunned, and then I pulled away from this stupor.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: So you were joining the class enemy.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I was stunned and then I retreated from the stupor, I fell into opportunism.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: All the questions come one after the other: But why were you stunned? What about arrogance, etc. Yes, you were surprised why you were convinced that this idea was wrong and you are not a dokudo person. Politically, you understood the guilt, that’s why you were shocked, that is, you understood that what you were doing was a dangerous political mistake. You must affirm this. You say this in self-criticism, but you don’t say it openly. Here, the point of avoidance is that it shows that you were convinced that what you were doing was wrong.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I suspected it might be wrong.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Comrade Mehmet, yes, you explicitly said that you would not allow this to happen to any of the boys, nor would you advise a friend, that is, you were convinced that politically the action you took was wrong, ideologically crooked, but, for yourself, you violated this!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You continued with this logic, although politically it was wrong, you violated it. When you realized that you were wrong, that you crossed the line, you had to find a way to fix what you did, not destroy it. If you don’t know how to fix it, then you should come and ask your friends.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: At least I should have asked my friends that are how it is.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Then comes the question: why didn’t you ask at least one friend? The issue that you did not want to disturb Enver is not discussed, why did you ask a friend and this was Feçor Shehu.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: It seemed to me that such a thing was right, as well as arrogance, immunity, these are all negative elements that influenced me, that am why I mention them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Not only to say them, but also to understand them deeply and develop they further.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Your dilemma means that in that matter you saw two paths and that is effectively the case, politically you saw two paths and you were stuck, because you had to decide who you were going to choose, where to go, on the path that the Party has set, or on the path that was contrary to the norms and the Party line? You here, as Comrade Enver says, did not choose the path of the Party. This one. Second, you took the wrong path, but you should have judged a little later and said: “Hey, where am I going? Where is the mule leading me?” You didn’t do that either and this means that you were convinced of the path you took, because, as we said before, you started from the opinion: “I am right and I have decided, no one discusses my opinion”.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: No, I thought I was right, no, I decided and this was a definite decision.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: Yes, it happened, Comrade Mehmet, and its political effect was felt in the whole of Tirana, and certainly in the whole of Albania. The deed is done, it’s gone. The point was to ask before you act, friend Mehmet.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: It was done, but as soon as Comrade Enver spoke to me, I immediately acted.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Comrade Mehmet, on political issues we should not be able to think and not act and wait for Comrade Enver to draw our attention, that we are not in order. A person at work can make a mistake and for that the Party criticizes us, but what you did is a political mistake, you say it yourself.

COMRADE MANUSH MYFTIU: Comrade Mehmet, if it was another friend who made this mistake that you did, I am one hundred percent convinced that you would judge differently. You, despite the fact that you are very old as a communist, your sick cedar do not allow you to judge correctly as a communist. It is not right for you to take this position in the Politburo. You are not one of those who are not intellectually able to judge these actions. You may not say all of them, but you should say the main ones here. It seems to me that Sedra still hurts you a lot.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: About the sentimentality towards the boy I say a real thing, as I felt then, at that time.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: I’m sorry, Comrade Enver. Comrade Kadri, one minute. Your attitude, friend Mehmet, is the same as Fiqret’s. I was at the meeting of the basic organization of the Party where she was a part, both in the first one, when she made her self-criticism, and in the second one. The attitude is exactly the same, that is, you are one. You don’t want to get to the roots of this serious ideological error; you are trying to pass it off with general, side, non-essential words. Being aware of the attitude of both of you, that you stay on the same line: “sentimentalism, close family, we rushed, etc.” But you don’t want to break down the ideological causes even though you have the opportunity. You also don’t want to say that you made these mistakes knowingly, with conscience, but you turn them around. Neither your friend nor you, friend Mehmet, are suitable for this job. I agree with what Comrade Manush said that you don’t have a sedra.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Comrade Simon, I am not lying to the Party, but at that time I thought so, so I say it honestly as I thought it. Now I understand that it is a grave mistake. I say that it is a serious mistake and that it should not be repeated.

COMRADE RITA MARKO: After the criticism made by Comrade Enver, you corrected the mistake. I ask now: Were you convinced of the correction you made, because I have the opinion that you were not convinced.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: Which criticism?

FRIEND RITA MARKO: What happened to you and that you corrected the engagement and separated the boy from that girl.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I was convinced of that.

COMRADE RITA MARKO: Analyze this well, because my opinion is that you were not convinced, you agreed to make this separation from the authority of the Party leadership, but you were not very convinced in yourself. If you were, you would analyze it better; you would find forces that would drown the sedra you have and all the others.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: No, I do not agree with what you say. I was convinced it was wrong and acted immediately.

Another question I am asked: Why do you exclude the responsibility of Fiqret and the boy?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I do not exclude the responsibility of Fiqret and the boy; I am saying that the main fault is my own. It is the boy’s fault that he did not choose a girl, as we had recommended. Both I and Fiqreti had recommended him to make suitable choices, and he set his eyes on this girl. Fiqreti has her responsibility that she should have stuck to me, she was swaying and finally fell into the positions that I told her. Therefore, in my self-criticism, I say that the responsibility, in the first place, is mine, then Fiqreti’s, of course it is also the son’s, that he is also at fault. That’s what I think, this could be wrong.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: I asked this question, Comrade Mehmet, but I am not convinced that it is as you said. On the contrary. But why do you do this? I mean, why defend Fiqreti? In your self-criticism, you say yourself that Fiqreti and the boy are not to blame.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, I do not defend Fiqreti, but in my self-criticism I say that Fiqreti wavers.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: No, she was not swayed, but she is an instigator in this matter.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: No, Fiqreti is not inciting.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Well, you have your opinion and keep it, but I say that in this case and in other cases, it was inciting. Judge this, Comrade Mehmet, take these things into account, how you are acting, you do not help the Party by defending a communist and a member of the Central Committee who is wrong. In self-criticism, you should stick to it too.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I do not defend him, but I take my responsibility, which is the main one. I am not saying that Fiqreti or the boy has no responsibility, but I have the main responsibility.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Your responsibility alone was not enough. Here, in this particular case, she is a member of the Central Committee, so she should say a word about her as well, to say what is wrong with Fiqreti.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: An issue that goes beyond family goals, you, like you and Fiqreti, should have brought it to the Party. This has held who knows how many reports and lectures on the class struggle and against revisionism, and has even published them without permission, without which even the reports of friends are not published, and in this matter, for herself, she wavered. Fiqreti, if she was a determined communist, had to go over your head, and she would definitely go over your head, to go to the Party and say that: Comrade Mehmet has been put in a position where he will make a grave mistake. I say it like this, because here it should be taken into account that she was tasked with teaching cadres about the class struggle, so she should have told you that: I do not agree with what you are doing and I will go to the Party and speak against you, to save the Party in the first place, so that this engagement does not take place, but I will also save you. This attitude would be a hindrance for you; therefore she also has a great fault.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: That’s how he should have acted.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: And the issue also lies in the fact that your arrogance, the overestimation of your thoughts not only affects all your comrades, which is much more serious, but also affects the family plan between the two members of the Central Committee. I mean that, despite the fact that none of us said this, that of course he didn’t know, but inside the family, a member of the Central Committee said it and he wavered. She said to you, come out Mehmet, what are we doing like this?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: That’s right and then I joined my opinion.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This attitude still did not shake you. If he had wavered, he would have said not to do this. So you imposed it on her. She made a mistake and told him that he did not act as he should have done. The impression I said derives from your mentality and philosophical concepts, because you have put this into practice in many cases even in your daily state work. Therefore, when you analyze such a situation, you cannot analyze it in isolation. These things do not happen by chance. Of course, there are those who come by chance, but this thing in this situation did not come by chance.

Therefore, Fiqreti is also guilty. It is not a formal fault that she faltered, but just as you erred on the line, so did she. Fiqreti should not have listened to you, but, as I said, he should have gone to the Party at once and saved you too. So she made a grave mistake and, if you reflect on it, you should have put this in self-criticism and written there that Fiqreti made a grave mistake, that he did not come to the Party, where he could declare that Mehmeti is on the wrong path.

This is not about a simple engagement with honest people, because Fiqreti knows all this, that’s why she was as wrong as you, that she became part of the guilt. She also has the other fault, that of not reacting to being in the Party. So you also did not react to the widow in the Party, she also did not come to the Party. The mistakes here are the same; you say you were stunned, she admits she was shaken. You know this among yourselves and we believe you about it, but we judge that this is how it should be done. Until this was done, you may have agreed, and we may be allowed to think so.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, you can be allowed, but I say how it was, how the situation went, that she wavered, then later she also agreed with me.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, he doesn’t have to agree with you. Then what should she do, what we say today about you. We will tell Fiqreti what you should do, as we will tell her what she should do with you. Regardless of whether you are husband and wife, you are first party members, then also members of the leadership.

COMMAND MEHMET SHEHU: One of the friends asked the question: Are you convinced that this mistake is accidental, the result of other mistakes made in your life? This mistake is the result of all the negative elements in my character that have happened. I think so.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Even in your self-criticism, you say that you lost your right leg. This is what the question I asked is about. When you say “I lost my right leg”, we are talking about an accident, my leg was lost, but here we are not dealing with “leg loss”.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I fell into opportunism; I said it with that meaning.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: That’s why I asked you, are you convinced that the last act is a logical consequence of all those flaws and mistakes you had? Otherwise, there was no way for such a thing to happen.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I am completely convinced.

FRIEND RITA MARKO: Don’t underestimate your responsibility by saying “I lost my leg”, or are you presenting this matter as a coincidence?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Not by chance, but if I don’t fight these flaws, I may fall into such mistakes again. Therefore, I promise the Political Bureau and the Party that, and with the help of my friends, I will fight those flaws so that I will no longer fall into mistakes of this nature and scale, and I will no longer fall into such mistakes, that a person can make mistakes do, but not of this nature.

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: I had something about that, Comrade Mehmet. Even in your self-criticism, you talk about this flaw of yours and about these mistakes since the war until now. Have you ever made other self-criticisms in the Party about these?

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: For what mistake?

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: For these mistakes and flaws that you say in your self-criticism, such as kidnapping, hot-temperedness, slander and so on, why do you say that I will improve, I will improve…!

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, there were times when I made self-criticism.

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: The party has criticized you again for these, but why did you not take into account the Party’s criticisms? Here’s what happened again.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: He criticized me, but it’s not that I didn’t take them into account. I have fought against these, I have also had improvements, I cannot say that I have not, but the defects have not disappeared in me. If they had disappeared, then the situation would be different. These flaws in my character exist.

FRIEND PALI MISKA: Flaws in your character, friend Mehmet! Let’s face it; this is a long life, an old member of the leadership, one of the oldest even. Your friends have criticized you; your friend Enver has also criticized you, he has warned you several times not to get carried away on this or that issue. So when will these things be fixed, when will they be put on a good path by you? That, let’s face it, your abduction, hot-temperedness and arrogance have their effects on other comrades, even down at the base, because you are one of the main comrades, so when will these be fixed?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, it seems to me that I am not as carried away as I was 10 years ago, I have had some improvement in these directions, it is not that I have not moved at all from my shortcomings, that if I had not moved, the Party would not stay without reacting, as I say in the self-criticism.

Another question. Have you noticed the behavior of the little boy and his daughter-in-law?

With the little son and his daughter-in-law, I had a class war within the family, but it was not on the right scale. There were also friends, one of whom was friend Kadri, who told me about them. I have heavily criticized both of them and have recently noticed improvements in them. However, my task is to take them to the end of the work, to correct them and put them in line properly.

Another question is that…

FRIEND RITA MARKO: How do you claim that you have waged this class war with your son and his daughter-in-law when it can be seen that they are not normal at all? He himself leaves from here with a whole team of companions and goes abroad, he is dressed so that everyone is surprised, he goes to the Gjirokastra Festival, there he isolates himself and behaves so badly that the others said: “What the hell?” this Kosovar who entered us here”? So people talk about why he and his wife dress differently from others. You look at them, you even create all the conditions for such a thing, and now you tell us that you fought! How did you fight? How can this man are left to wander outside, fall on Europe from all sides?

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Ask and talk to him, I have fought and am still fighting, but I have not reached the level I should.

FRIEND RITA MARKO: How can I talk to him and why should I talk? I don’t deal with that, I look at and say the opinion of others, friend Mehmet, and I can also criticize myself for not saying this in time. But I felt it, I also asked the question. How did I lay it out? Here, what we see in others, we must see in ourselves first. You did not see this and you did not fight, because if you had fought, the work would not have reached this point. How did you fight when you created the conditions for him in the opposite?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I have fought, but not to the right extent.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Now, Comrade Mehmet, since we are here, we must bluntly say that he has not fought at all.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I can’t say that I didn’t fight, but I didn’t fight to the right extent. I cannot accept what you say.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: My opinion is that you did not fight. Besides, you favored the guy, why isn’t this about issues you haven’t seen. You used to see, Comrade Mehmet, the extravagances of your children, we call them children, but they are no longer children. Each has one car, one motorboat per head available! I called your companion, you were also there, and I told him: what is happening? With the permission of friend Mehmet, he told me. Now reflect directly on what your friends say.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: After we talked together, I also took measures.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: The fact is that it is not right to talk in the Party like this, “I fought”, “I fought”. What you did then is a superficial war. Even if I were in your place, I would say: Hello friends, I bear responsibility for this too, punish me for this too, that I have favored the children. We can talk, friend Mehmet that these things are coming out now, without telling you that your son went by plane from Sweden to Germany to watch a match. Yes, this boy left to come to Tirana, passing through Denmark, Holland, West Germany, and in Denmark he had an accident.

Why did this boy, as it turns out now, go to Paris, when the other boy was there too? Who are they? Who pays all these expenses? This is state money. For these actions, yes, but we are also responsible, and for what we knew and did not act, we must answer to the Party. Two years ago, when I was Minister of the Interior, we talked together, Comrade Mehmet, and I told you not to get involved in the children’s itineraries, leave it to the relevant bodies. You yourself built their itineraries, not going here, not going there.

Why did you remove your guards and give them to the children, contrary to the wishes and rules of Jule Çirakur and his sector? We have talked about these, friend Mehmet, therefore, since the occasion arose and friend Rita asked the question, I will emphasize them once again in order to reflect correctly. Do not round things off. We have also fought so that our children do not have such things as your children, because they also encounter daily influences, therefore we will definitely continue to fight to educate them. This war was not fought for you that are why the children escaped from your hands. Here you and Fiqereti should also look at the responsibility you have. It is right to speak like this.

COMRADE RITA MARKO: Comrade Mehmet, there is a rule that even a driver who works with us should not go abroad with other jobs, because he knows a lot of things. You personally have made the main guard available to the children. How is this explained?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, the guard can see, Comrade Rita, it can come from that side.

COMRADE RITA MARKO: Just as we work, the enemies also work against us.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: The guard went with authorization.

COMRADE FOTO ÇAMI: Here the issue is that we must reflect, Comrade Mehmet. It cannot be said that you have fought; you may have actually had some conversations, the fact that the behavior of your children has become a problem in Tirana and elsewhere, outside of Tirana, says that you have not worked. Then you have created some favorable conditions for them. As your bride dresses, the question arises: where does she find those clothes? There is no such thing on the market. You look at how you dress for the day at home. Then why do you allow it? So for you, not only has the struggle been shallow, I would say, but on the contrary, you have also created opportunities and conditions, it seems to me, facilities for them to manifest more of these shows outside the home.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Not that I didn’t fight, but the fight I did was shallow.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I, Comrade Mehmet, had to add to those who told you that you encouraged and favored the children a lot, and I say this with conscience as a communist. Even when we talked together, I pointed out to you that I hesitated to tell you what I saw, why I talked to you about things that you saw yourself, it was not that I had learned something that you could not see , and understand it.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: There is sentimentality in you, Mehmet, and you admit it yourself. These things exist in you. Even the friends, who raise them, do not invent them from the mind nor raise them for evil. Here are some things I haven’t heard before. They didn’t tell me these either, but here, for the sake of the matter, they are said, so they must be understood correctly.

FRIEND ADIL ÇARÇANI: Here is the last case for example: Why did your son, who had just gotten engaged, go to Athens for a week to watch the volleyball matches?!

FRIEND SIMON STEFANI: Because of him, even the movement of the team was postponed, because it would have to go a day later. How do you allow this, friend Mehmet?! What is this son like?!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What about the deadline for the departure of the plane, why was it postponed?!

FRIEND PALI MISKA: Did the boy go to Greece by car?!

FRIEND LENKA CUKO: Vajti, with her friend Fiqret’s car?!

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I don’t know that the plane’s deadline may have been postponed, and that’s why I can’t lie, and tell you in vain that I know.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: What about the boy staying in Greece, with state allocations, to watch the matches, do you know, friend Mehmet?!

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, I know.

FRIEND LENKA CUKO: What about the one that friend Fiqret gave the car to and took the boy there, do you know?!

COMRADE RITA MARKO: Did you know that Comrade Fiqret, a member of the Central Committee, put the car at his disposal?!

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: A question was asked here: Is your arrogance momentary, or the result of arrogance?! It seems to me that my temperament is such that even in self-criticism I say that it reaches the point of arrogance. Even with children, I have this flaw.

COMRADE LENKA CUKO: If you had this with the children as well, then this situation would not exist. As it turns out, you have a completely different attitude with children.

COMRADE RITA MARKO: Look more deeply at this matter, Comrade Mehmet that it is related to….!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: People say: When you get hot, grab your ear. This is a proverb, which says that here there is a social discipline, but there is also a party discipline. We are all impulsive, we all have nerves, we all get angry, but in the end, we remember the norms and demands of the Party. We really protect the interests of the Party, from the position we are in, but we do it coldly.

COMRADE QIRJAKO MIHALI: The heat has nothing to do with arrogance.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: There is one thing, Comrade Mehmet, that when we talk about impulsiveness, the source of arrogance is not impulsiveness.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: It seems to me that the source is there.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Look at it from an ideological point of view, don’t just look at it like that without going deeper!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Arrogance is the offspring of arrogance.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Here it is, so look at it a little from the ideological side of where the arrogance comes from.

My friend Mehmet, I judge like this, I can become arrogant when I try to impose my opinion on others, and for this I have no arguments, that’s why I use arrogance. It is the same phenomenon that happens with small children. Why do they use curses, stones, and other prohibited means against children?! That they have no power, they are small and they want to impose their will on you. This, too, is an expression of arrogance. When a man has no arguments to impose his opinion, he uses his fists, and arrogance, i.e., shouts: Rest, shut up, do as I say, etc. Of course in these cases with very poor words. Therefore, this issue should be seen from an ideological point of view.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Arrogance is very dangerous when you are in high positions. It is generally dangerous, but when you are in high positions, it becomes even more harmful.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I am asked the question: Why in my self-criticism, I do not touch on anything from what Comrade Enver presented at the meeting of the Political Bureau on organizational issues. I was done with self-criticism at this time.

COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: With the permission of Comrade Enver. Well, what about you, I asked you this from Comrade Simon, and Comrade Hekuran, and how much you will self-criticize for this work is another thing. You could have inserted a paragraph there, if what Comrade Enver says is right or not. That even, we could be helped. We will analyze this issue, what about you; it seems that you do not agree?!

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: We are studying those problems.

COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: Well, at least one paragraph you could put there. The complete study of the issue is another thing, but you should have spoken about this problem. To say whether you agreed or not, with what Comrade Enver says. This should be looked at a little carefully, because it seems to go further.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Of course, I agreed with what Comrade Enver put forward, and I do not accept that I might have been against them.

COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: Well then, how come you didn’t say a word at least, you didn’t say anything in self-criticism. I will say that you were in a hurry; you were even criticized for being late to issue the self-criticism, a day after the Politburo meeting. At least you should have put a paragraph.

COMRADE RITA MARKO: There, many important things were raised about the work style and method of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. There is no occasion to mention these here, because they are big problems. But among others, Comrade Enver raised the issue that the people in the apparatus of the Council of Ministers have been suppressed. With the method that was used, the ministers could not show the right thoughts, etc. How did these not make you, friend Mehmet, and stop, think, and say, how am I going to start this self-criticism like this?!

Not only that, but this thing, you were reminded here by the friends of the Political Bureau. Well, they will be analyzed, they have been analyzed so far and many things have been put in place. But the point is that you now have to reflect, because if you didn’t reflect, the wrong attitudes are not corrected. Of course, they will be corrected, because the Party will correct them. But you should have stopped in this matter and given your opinion.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, of course, these will be analyzed. I ask: If someone else made this mistake, how would you react? I said that I would not approve it, but for my son I approved it, for all the reasons I say there.

COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: This is a very contradictory logic. To that other person, you would tell him not to do it, even though he could be a simple communist. And you, as the Prime Minister, did not appreciate it, although in your case, the damage was much greater. How do you explain this, that you are both a leader on the Party line and Prime Minister on the state line?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: If someone else made this mistake, I would tell them not to do it.

FRIEND PROPKOP MURRA: Look, look, why didn’t you tell yourself not to do it?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I explain in my self-criticism why I made such a mistake.

COMRADE BESNIK BEKTESHI: It seems to me that the fact that Comrade Prokop intervenes, to ask again, means that with all the answers that Mehmeti has given so far to this question, we have not created complete conviction. Why, how can you tell that other person, so that he doesn’t make this mistake and you do? This should be explained a bit.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Comrade Besnik, it is for these reasons that I said that I made that grave mistake, with which I harmed the interests of the Party.

COMRADE MANUSH MYFTIU: Today, how do you evaluate this, that you told others not to do it, but you allow it to yourself? Why do you do that?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I shouldn’t have said that, I shouldn’t have acted that way.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Mehmet let me explain something to you. Listen to me. You, when I told you, realized the mistake and of course you did this for all the reasons that were mentioned, but then you asked to remove these reasons, why would you present yourself to the Political Bureau and the Party. Now, on the one hand you say one thing, on the other hand you say the opposite of that, that’s why the questions of friends are necessary to be asked, they are also reasonable, trusted. If you didn’t follow the explanation you asked about the question of sentimentality, that if it was for someone else, you wouldn’t allow it, etc., etc., then all these other questions wouldn’t be addressed to you. That is, you say that you made the mistake with consequence, on purpose and fap, to soften the situation; you add another thing to it. He does this to say that: I am a person who reflects. Therefore, it is natural to ask your friends. Then explain why you did it?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: As for the others, Comrade Enver, there were occasions when I recommended him, when there was an occasion like this, I told him to do it.

Comrade ENVER HOXHA: Why were you stunned? You were shocked to realize that it was wrong. Why were you immunized?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I was wrong, precisely for these reasons.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why? That you thought you were immune. You have done propaganda day and night, that the Party must be protected from revisionist and capitalist pressure, while you yourself overcame the Party’s orders.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I overcame them because I thought wrong.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, that’s why we also say that they are mistakes. Yes, these mistakes have reasons, and here is the point. These reasons must be said, broken down, and not just simply saying “I did it wrong”! The mistake is understandable. Did you understand that it is wrong? We are also seeking to know why it was made, what are the causes of these mistakes. In this analysis that we are doing, you do not delve into the causes; it remains in the matter of sentimentality. This does not explain its own reasons.

FRIEND SIMON STEFANI: Yes, I’m sorry, why two lines?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: No, there is discipline in the Party.

FRIEND SIMON STEFANI: Then why did you manage to break the discipline?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: There is no discipline, but these were the reasons why I was wrong.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: To put it bluntly, you were aware, Comrade Mehmet, that the Party would punish you for this mistake you made and you would accept the Party’s punishment? Or did you think that the Party will not punish you

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, I thought that the Party will not punish me.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Here, Comrade Mehmet, all these questions that are being asked are meant to help you, so that you can properly realize the mistake you made.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: When I say that I thought he was right at that time, I thought that the Party would not condemn him, but would accept him.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: And would the Party accept this?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: But why would the Party accept this from you and another simple communist, it would not accept it. Here is the issue. Rightly says Simon, why did you put yourself in the position, that for you, there should be another discipline?

COMRADE QIRJAKO MIHALI: Would the Party accept this, or did you think that I am Mehmet Shehu, a meritorious cadre and others.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: This complex, this tangle of contradictions and mentalities, pushed me to make this mistake.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: That mess of contradictions, Comrade Mehmet, doesn’t explain anything, doesn’t explain why. He may be the instigator, the detonator, but he is not the cause. The reason is elsewhere, it lies in the fact that you thought that the Party would not punish you, that’s why you say this rightly and it is true.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I am asking a question: Do you think that I am the type to create two lines in the Party?

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: No, I don’t say that, but the action you did would create two lines in the Party. I am not saying that you wanted to create two lines, but your action would create two lines, of that I am convinced.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, he would create the two lines and the Party, if I had made a mistake, would not allow me.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Were you aware, were you convinced of this?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I was convinced that I was right, but at the same time I was convinced that even if I was not right, just as I am convinced that tomorrow, for another action that I will not be right, the Party will not to allow me

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Isn’t it, this is very complicated, you make it simple, but it’s not like that. You, as a party member, were convinced that the Party would accept this mistake, that you thought it was right, you were convinced that you were doing the right thing. But why would the Party accept this thing for which you were stunned and that you knew how it created two lines, while you know that for a woman who had a confused grandfather, a member of the Party, a musician, was expelled from the Party? How do you explain these things like that? Why were you allowed not to think that?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: That’s what I thought at that time.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Okay, what do you think now, Comrade Mehmet?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Now I think that what I did was completely wrong.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Agreed, but now think a little: How could this phenomenon happen that the Party would not tell you anything? Maybe he would think, well, this is Mehmet Shehu, a cadre who has given great evidence, so we can forgive him for his mistake?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: No, the Party does not forgive you.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: I don’t know, but this needs an explanation.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I say this too, Comrade Mehmet, you all have us as comrades, based on the function entrusted to us by the Party. Of course, you have Comrade Enver as an even closer friend, not only as a leader of the Party, of the people and of all of us, but also that your work and functions have connected you so closely with him, it blows my mind even in life regular intimates, I speak communist. You had and have these opportunities to communicate more freely with him. Then why didn’t you ask Comrade Enver in this case?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Come in, Kapoja asked me and we solved his case immediately. Mehmet did not ask me.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I put the question like this, because I see two issues here that we should look for. First, you thought that Comrade Enver would not allow you, and in fact you did not ask Comrade Enver to make the case “fait açompli” and effectively damage the Party. Thinking that Comrade Enver would tolerate your action, in this case you bring into question not only the Party’s line, but also the revolutionary attitude of Comrade Enver, in a matter of principle.

Second, haven’t you thought that everyone tells me the new Enver Hoxha? In this you should think that one thing seems clear, what you have liked yourself, you have given preferences to yourself, your works, your work, etc., etc. Or do you compare your work to any of the rest of us? If you have come this far, Comrade Mehmet, and if you have thought about what Enver Hoxha might say to me, it is fair to tell the Party, here we are in the Political Bureau, that if you do not shake your conscience in this matter, you will not only make mistakes, but you will make even bigger mistakes with many consequences for the Party. Then it will be merciless and know that the Party is strong and able to carry any wounds on its back. So be careful! I tell you this as a friend.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: I did not go to Comrade Enver, not only to not disturb him, like the other friends I had around, but I came to those conclusions, as I say in my self-criticism, that this engagement was possible it was done, in this case, so I did it. At first I was stunned, but then I pulled back from the stupor, thinking that this family had severed relations…!

FRIEND RITA MARKO: You were stunned, Fiqreti wavered, Feçori gave you a signal that if it were up to him, he would ask the Party. But you went to Pogradec and…!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: One minute! I asked the question, so please answer it, friend Mehmet! What do you think, if you want to reflect, reflect on this matter, that it is capital, important, that putting yourself above the norms of the Party, is now clear to us, that you have had the opinion of the Party about you there are two disciplines and two rules. How far has this practice gone in your opinion?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I did not set out to create two disciplines in the Party, Comrade Kadri, but I thought that in this particular case…!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: You thought that there would be two disciplines for me. In dealing with my case, the Party will make concessions. That’s all.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You have also expressed this opinion in the criticism we make of Mehmet’s work. As for my posting, he made a mistake. Mehmeti continues this mistake with tricks. He called my son and his son’s daughter-in-law to wait for his son’s fiancee, who was married for the first time, and neither Mehmet himself had seen her, nor had Fiqreti seen her. Sorry, I will state the facts. I found out about this matter precisely from the boy, whom Nexhmija saw dressed and asked him where he was going.

-“I’m going to my friend Mehmet”, he answered, “Where they called me because he got engaged to the boy”.

“Well, with whom?” we asked him.

“With the maid of a professor,” he said.

“What do they call it?”

“Turdiu – answered the boy”.

We knew this was the professor. Well, we were happy.

With this invitation, he once tried to compromise my son, that is, my family. This was sealed, because the word also went to Turdiu, that Enver Hoxha’s son also received his servant, with his entire bride. That’s why I called this a trick. Did you do it or did Fiqreti do it, or the boy, this was a trick. Then I went spontaneously, to congratulate for the new house, and for the son, but rather for the house and of course there is nothing wrong here because we are friends, we should, whenever we went to each other.

Their son’s fiancee was also there. Mehmet, like before, still didn’t say anything to me, because there was no way to let me know that they were all there, but he didn’t let me know at least a little later, saying: Friend Enver, I made this engagement, but there is something here. So with my departure, according to Mehmet, my approval was also sealed, which Enver also agreed with. Mehmeti may have thought that I have the biographies of all the enemies in my pocket. No, I don’t have them in my pocket. Your silence, Mehmet, and my arrival, were considered by you as a “fait açompli” and you fled to Korça, the boy also went to Athens.

But after two or three days, I received news alerting me about what had been done. Do you understand this now? You used a very wrong tactic here, even very dangerous, extremely dangerous, because there were and are people who found out that I came to wish you home. First of all, the girl’s family found out that Enver Hoxha went to Mehmeti to congratulate her on the engagement, and that he also took a picture with the girl, that is, he was accepted by the Party. So there are a series of situations that let us understand that you not only made a mistake, but you don’t dwell on it.

If it was another lowly communist, the issue of sentimentality could be accepted, because it exists, but for political issues and for a personality like you, who saw that what you did was a wrong action and this is proven to have stunned you. Fiqreti was shaken, etc. All these have a heavy political meaning, therefore you should abandon the thesis of sentimentality, which you raised here and it seems like it is a sound and relieving argument for you.

I am sentimental, for example, when my son or daughter gets sick. When the boy gets seriously ill, to cure him, outside the rules of the Party, I can spend a little more, and I tell the Party that. Yes, this is not a political issue. The mistake you made is of a different nature, it is of an ideological and political character, and as I said in the criticism, your nature in such an inappropriate engagement does not allow you to be sentimental, on the contrary, it should have angered you. These do not burn or burn, as I said philosophically, because he who is an opportunist is also a sectarian.

If your son comes to you and accuses you of a political and unacceptable act, even if you are not impulsive, this of course depends on human nature, immediately the feeling of revolt and anger arises and not that of rubbing arms. So, in your character, that you have always been strict, sectarian about many things that were also right, that they were not all crooked, in this case the opposite has happened. Therefore this sentimentality must be explained philosophically and is not the basis of your error. I don’t know if I explain it right…!

ENVERI: A state of despair has been created for you.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, that’s how I understood it. The question was asked, is there an overestimation of his province over other provinces? That seems to me to be the question.

COMRADE LENKA CUKO: Are you aware of how the common people have reacted to this action and your attitude

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: From the information I have, when people heard that the boy got engaged to Qazim Turdi’s daughter, it was not good for them, and when they heard the opposite, that the engagement was broken, it was good for them. That’s what I heard.

COMRADE LENKA CUKO: He said that he was not happy about this; he did well to break it, because the people speak.

COMMON MEHMET SHEHU: It seems to me that there is no preference from me between the province I am from, from Mallakastra or from Fieri, versus Lushnja, and any other province.

FRIEND LENKA CUKO: You are overrated. Something, you put your opinion on others, that we have done this, we have done that, while the rest of you are nothing, etc.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, it seems to me that I did not do this, you may have this impression, but I did not do this.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Not that it’s just her impression. A party secretary came to me and told me that, in a conversation he had with you, he talked about border issues, where is the Mallakastra area, where is Vlora, we are not in the Fier area, etc. What, do you equate Mallakastra with Roskovec and Vjosa?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, Comrade Enver, I did not say that.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: That’s what he told me. It can be as you say, however, you may not have said such things, but others have no reason to slander them. If they slander them, they must correct themselves, not say untrue things. But I have also heard this from others, and you said it in Fier, you talked with the leaders of Fier.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, I have spoken with the secretary and the mayor of Fier, regarding this matter. The mayor of Fier has said that I find it different to speak with Malakastrians compared to Fusharak, where they listen to me. With this understanding, I talked, but not so that I would belittle the farmers of Lushnja or Fier, compared to the people of Mallakastra.

COMRADE LENKA CUKO: Maybe the meeting you had with Fier’s friends was recorded, I don’t know, Comrade Simon was also present there and you can watch this conversation, but where more and where less, what thoughts come out of this nature with contempt on your part.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It’s also the way you, Mehmet, say things. Look how they noticed this in you, I don’t want to throw flowers at myself, but in Fier, when I was going to Gjirokastra two years ago, I said something even more serious: we, I told the mayor in the eyes of everyone, we brought you here because you are from Devolli and the Devolli are great workers, energetic people and you have shown energy and here in the fields of Fier, there is a need to move the people, because they are a bit like sleeping , they don’t have the vitality that other areas have, but I don’t despise them. And they didn’t take me for granted.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Now here the conversation was about the issue of rumors and discipline at work, for this matter.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This also includes the issue of manner and style of speaking. His friends have told him these things, not now that this happened, but before. Well, friend Mehmet, how about we take a break?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: What if I finish the questions, then we’ll do it.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It’s over.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: There is one more question. Did I know Qazim Turdii before? I didn’t know him before. I first got to know him when my son told me about him. I personally do not know him and have never known him.

COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: Did your friend know Fiqret? You know that friend Fiqret has been the first secretary of Tirana for such a long time and surely she has had all the cadres in her hands.

All friends: What is the importance of these?!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I was also a secretary, but I didn’t know that.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: Another question is, did you do the self-criticism or was it asked of you? I asked myself to do self-criticism in the Politburo and in the grassroots organization.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Regarding the grassroots organization, he came and asked me to go and talk, but I told him, let’s meet at the Political Bureau, and then we’ll see the grassroots organization.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: This question was also asked, what damage would it bring to the Party if this marriage took place? We said it.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Mehmeti didn’t do one thing that you should have done, and this is a bit related to the coldness, or as I said, to closing in on yourself in front of this mistake, which your comrades made aware of very shallowly, until you become self-critical. It is possible, as I helped you, that your friends also helped you during this time, and we eliminated all these questions and some things that we could have said to him socially, rather than officially. So in your consciousness, a difficult state can also be created, a state of despair. Now the mistake has been made and we are trying so that nothing remains with you from these despairs, so contacting your friends, before the meeting was held, would be a help to you.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: It is right, the criticism is right. One more question: Why did you allow yourself when you wouldn’t allow another? This was also discussed here.

Next: Should sentimentalisms cross the line of the Party’s interests?

In no way should they, in my specific case they exceeded and damaged the interest of the Party.

These were the questions I was asked.

SECOND SESSION

Discussions

COMRADE SIMON STEFANI: The issue we are analyzing has to do with the violation of the Party’s line in one of its most cardinal points, such as the always straight development of the class war. The arguments presented in the self-criticism of Comrade Mehmet and in the answers he gave to the questions asked here are not convincing and do not reveal the ideological roots of the error. You entered this crooked path, in my opinion, not by accident, not unintentionally, because, knowing the girl’s family, you had full information before deciding on the engagement. In addition to the information provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the girl’s father has spoken to Skendera, both through the girl and directly, about the composition of his family. Skenderi talked to you and answered him, saying: “I am not younger, I have discussed everything with my parents”, etc.

So your actions were not rushed, as you say, because you had enough time to judge, measure and weigh the step you took in Skender’s engagement. But at this moment you forgot the Party’s line, its norms, you forgot the class struggle, you put the interests of your son and your family above the interests of the Party. I have the right to say that in this matter we are dealing with a deliberate violation of the Party’s line, of its norms, therefore the explanations given by you for the reasons that led you to this wrong conclusion are not convincing.

The sentimentality that you try to argue as a negative element is about your worldview and does not explain the roots of the error. It is taken as a means of justifying what you did. In the material where your self-criticism is presented, you say that I lost Marxist logic in making this decision. We ask the question why did you lose logic, when the party constantly teaches us that every step we take in life goes well, how does this serve the revolution, the people, our Party?

You, knowing the girl’s family well, did not work to separate Skenderi from this girl, you gave your consent to his engagement to her. You also did not ask to talk and consult with your friends to help you, because you were dealing with such a family, but you discussed and resolved this issue within the family and in flagrant opposition to the Party’s norms.

What is your conclusion? Why did Skenderi choose this girl who comes from a family with a bad political attitude, and didn’t try to connect with a girl from a family with a good political attitude? Has he not been involved in life and did not consider the norms of our society? How can this have no responsibility before society, before the laws, before the discipline of the Party? In the base organization of the Party, where Fiqreti is a member, the communists said that Skenderi once again got involved with a girl with a bad and immoral attitude, and for this he was called to the district Party Committee.

Now that he is studying abroad, you have created conditions outside the norms and rules we have for other students. I don’t understand why you do all this, friend Mehmet? In my opinion, your son, due to the serious crime he committed, should not go abroad again, that is why I think that he should immediately return to Albania and report to the basic organization of the Party as a communist.

Likewise, your wrong attitude towards Skenderi’s engagement cannot but be related to the concessions you have made towards the behaviors and attitudes of the other son, Bashkimi and his bride, who have become propagandists of fashion with inappropriate clothes. Then she hangs out with uncontrollable and suspicious people. All these actions and attitudes of your children are not coincidences; they are related to significant deficiencies in their education.

You probably see the actions and attitudes of your children that do not match the norms of our society that our common opinion does not tolerate and does not accept. Then why don’t you take measures against them? Why are you principled and strict with others, but so liberal with your children? With your actions and attitudes, you have thus fallen into right-wing opportunism, you have softened the class struggle, and you have crossed the Party line.

In your self-criticism, you list some of your negative traits or vices, as we can call them, such as abduction, subjectivism, arrogance, speed in making decisions, etc. But in your work in running the state, in making hasty and poorly studied decisions, how much have these weaknesses influenced, you did not tell us this, even though I asked the question. What conclusions have you drawn, why does this phenomenon occur? I think that for you these are not shows, but phenomena. They have been repeatedly repeated in your work, in your activity as a cadre, as a communist, which to some extent have brought great damage to the work of the Party.

You and your friends make remarks or oppose your opinions, you don’t have the patience to listen to them, evaluate their opinions, and you often turn into arrogance and insults. This is because you think about the good of work, while others do not. This unfair attitude has caused people, your subordinates, not to express their thoughts freely, to be repressed, not to have initiative and initiative in their work. So, to a certain extent, the application of the principle of collegiality in the discussion of problems and in making decisions has been missing from your side. This has caused the comrades to say that this or that action is due to the fact that Comrade Mehmet gave an order, and not as a result of a joint decision.

This is because the thought has been cultivated that only you can make the right decisions, while others must implement them. This is a negative practice that has to do with not evaluating other frameworks, with not applying the principle of collegiality, as I said above. These that I mentioned and many others have to do with your style and method, which is behind the great, tasks that Comrade Enver’s Party, has laid out. It is therefore required that you make radical changes in your working style and method.

In your self-criticism, you talk about immunity from the influence of the class enemy, especially from the danger of right-wing opportunism. Opportunism both right and left is the same. If you were criticized for left-wing opportunism, it is easy to switch to the right. Comrade Enver in one of his works: “We cannot help but keep in mind that in the current conditions of siege, and of all-round imperialist-revisionist pressure, we are far from thinking that we are immune from dangers.”

These teachings of the Party, which are relevant for today and tomorrow for communists and cadres, have not been taken into account by you. The conclusion I draw is that you think that these lessons, and this Party line, are not about you, that they are for others, that they can be infected by this pressure, while you are immune. By not taking into account what I said above, you opened the way for liberalism, which in whatever form it appears, is essentially an expression of ideological and political opportunism.

Thoughts expressed as the desire to marry the boy since he is 32 years old, or looking at the close circle of the girl’s family, the differentiation you were able to make to Turdiu’s family, are pragmatic and opportunistic judgments. Likewise, the thoughts that he solves such issues himself, that he judges them correctly, that he does not make mistakes, that he takes responsibility, or the thought that he takes the daughter into our family, and not others, because she is a young woman of 20 years, will not be able to influence to us, etc., it only shows arrogance that you are not wrong, that you are immune from the pressures of the class enemy, but it also speaks of a selfish judgment that separates yourself and your family, from the position you have in the Party.

Even in terms of differentiation for the family, you act wrongly and contrary to Party norms. Over time, the party has specified, with special instructions in its documents, which are called family members and close family members. If you were to refer to these Party materials, you would be helped not to fall into the mistakes you made; you would not create new labels such as “close family” or “extended family”.

I think that Comrade Mehmet will draw lessons and conclusions from all this great help that the Party and Comrade Enver are giving him, so that in his work and everywhere he does not make such mistakes, which bring great harm to the Party. But it is necessary for him to work more, to know well and deeply the norms of the Party. To fight for them to be implemented meticulously and without concessions, by himself and by everyone else. Keep in mind the criticisms of your comrades, Comrade Mehmet, that once again you have been criticized by the Party, but you have not always reflected and made corrections in your activity.

So don’t forget the criticism of your friends. Be simpler, with the communists, with the cadres, with the subordinates, and with other people, and do not create in them the opinion that your word is the last word of science for all the issues and problems that come forward, you solve them alone you and no one else. No, issues and problems are resolved based on laws, orientations, powers, norms, set by the Party and nothing more.

Even the comrades who work in the Prime Minister’s office, such as Comrade Adil, Comrade Manush, Comrade Qirjako, Comrade Pali, have seen flaws and weaknesses in the activities of Comrade Mehmet, they have seen that he has made mistakes, that there are significant flaws in the method of work, etc. Yes, they have not criticized him, and they have not stood up either in the meetings of the government, or in those of the basic organization of the Party, as well as here in the high forum of the Party. As for why they have not done this, it is good and they should tell us.

I have the opinion that Comrade Mehmet should be punished based on the norms of the Party. I can say it later after the discussions, and how he will react, but I’m saying it now that he, as a communist, should be punished, with a serious remark on the registration card.

Surely from this meeting I will also learn lessons in my life.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Comrade Mehmet’s self-criticism, with all the many pages written by him, does not answer what is the main thing, what pushed him, what concept and wrong thoughts he had that brought him here, to commit such an act which constitutes a great political error, which contradicts our policy of waging class war, and goes into open agreement with the class enemy.

Those reasons that Comrade Mehmet lists, such as sentimentality towards Skenderi, his capricious character, subjectivism and bias at work, the lack of necessary tact in demanding an account, closing in on himself for family matters, displays of arrogance and others, in they are not really what brought you here, but some thoughts and views that contradict what the Party teaches us.

Comrade Mehmet also has wrong thoughts about the class struggle. He does not work to match his words with his actions; he does not consider it reasonable to apply what others should apply to him. What he wants all youth to implement, in behavior, clothing, and actions, he does not see as necessary for the members of his family. These are wrong thoughts and actions on the part of friend Mehmet. Even the manifestations of sentimentality have their source there. We should not be like this, against the bourgeois-revisionist ideology, Comrade Enver’s Party has repeatedly instructed us.

Here I think that the wrong concepts that are applied in the family of friend Mehmet have the source of his mistakes. He also has wrong thoughts about the influence of bourgeois-revisionist ideology. Comrade Enver teaches us that: “The most dangerous enemy is the one who is forgotten.” Forgetting that you are also vulnerable to bourgeois-revisionist influence is a very big mistake. With the actions Comrade Mehmet has done, calling himself and Fiqret in particular, that they are immune and that they are so skilled and clear, that there is nothing the enemy does to them, and then he has crossed the Party’s line.

To think that you will influence the education of the son’s daughter-in-law, of the family circle with a bad political composition, and not to think that it was she who influenced you, enough to make friends with her, is a big mistake. In this particular case, she has influenced to such a degree that only we know, while neither the son nor Fiqreti know anything. The enemy, in this particular case, intends to build friendship with the Prime Minister. He, who fought us and fights us, comes and sits for lunch with the Prime Minister, their daughter is allowed to walk with the son of the Prime Minister, even to Greece and Sweden, and with the insistence of Fiqret himself, but perhaps also of his friend Mehmet.

This is the consequence of the point of view when it calls itself immune and infallible. The concrete fact speaks for itself, how on a sunny day, what you fought for yesterday, you have cross-legged at the corner of the chimney of the house today. Need to add different vigilance class enemy, acts.

I also think that Comrade Mehmet has wrong and wrong thoughts on discipline in our Party. He strongly raises the problems of discipline and we have heard him when he speaks and demands that others strictly apply discipline. But he forgets himself here; he forgets that he too has to implement it just like all the other communists. Comrade Enver teaches us that: “In the Party, there is only one discipline” that it is mandatory for all its members, without exception, whether they are workers, cooperators, clerks, functionaries, or leaders. No one escapes the discipline of the Party.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: No one is immune from mistakes or flaws at work. You made a mistake, Comrade Mehmet, you should have gone to the First Secretary of the Central Committee and told him the mistake you made, not to leave it until Comrade Enver told you what you should have told him and you should You had expressed it to him, or you should have reported it to him. If this was possible for an ordinary communist, he would certainly come to the secretary of the grassroots organization, while you did not even go to the secretary of the bureau of the organization

(Comrade Enver intervenes here and explains that: Mehmeti did not go to the secretary of the organization’s office at the Prime Minister that is why he had advised him to clarify the issue at the Political Bureau, then to go to the organization).

I’m sorry, I didn’t know this detail, I’m pulling it until you told us to look at it first at the Political Bureau, then at the secretary of the organization, or at Comrade Muho, who was the secretary of the bureau there.

So when you speak and ask others to apply discipline rigorously and here you do well, you should also ask yourself for the same discipline and apply it rigorously in the way of the Party.

My friend Mehmet, in his self-criticism, says that my right leg went off. I say and think that this is not an accidental slip, that while walking, you caught your foot on a smooth and round stone, and lost your foot. No. I don’t judge like that. Comrade Mehmet slipped with both feet and not by accident. This slippage is the result of everything that brought him here.

You let go in principle, I think, you are forced to let go, you let go once, you are forced to let go many more times and then it becomes a road. We must ensure that our children do not think about, and no longer propagate, I underline this, the clothing and other ugly manifestations of bourgeois-revisionist life, become a trigger for the destruction of the healthy social environment that is in our country.

You didn’t see these ugly shows in your family, friend Mehmet, but you didn’t stop them or punish them, you allowed them to grow and become dangerous, both for your family and for our entire society. There are many examples, and these were mentioned by friends, so there is no need to say more.

Comrade Mehmet should therefore look at the problem more broadly and not tell us here that I lost my right leg, reducing this issue only to the last case of Skenderi. I think the last case was the product and result of the whole series of concessions that characterizes your practice. The people say: ‘what you sow, you will reap’. Do you see now what we get here? What happened to you is the product of an attitude and action that you thought ahead.

Even taking friend Fiqret and Skenderi under protection is a mistake, in my opinion, this also burdens friend Mehmet even more. Fiqreti in many cases, even in this last one, has been an instigator; she knew the issue and surely influenced Comrade Mehmet. She has a heavy responsibility for all those shows and manifestations that have appeared in your children and for the wrong concepts that Fiqreti himself has, for the whole way of life in your family. Therefore, she should not be defended by you, friend Mehmet, but she should also be heavily criticized by you and for the responsibility she has, she should also be punished.

The attitude that you maintain to this day towards Skender, in my opinion, is very, very wrong. We also said this in the interventions. He, personally, should have been brought here immediately and taken to a company outside Tirana, to work in the bosom of some collective and in difficult conditions to collect mint, as the people say, and not to wander up and down in Sweden, as if nothing had happened to him.

I heard, I don’t know how true this is, that even there, he led a promiscuous life, there were acts of immorality, etc. If it was someone else, we would have brought him, but Skenderi, as your son, that is, the prime minister’s son, you should have returned him immediately, you should have done this action yourself, without asking anyone.

This action would be in your honor, friend Mehmet, and in the interest of the work and the opinion would receive him very well, that he has found out what happened to your son and your family.

This mistake of Comrade Mehmet is very serious. He also has other mistakes in his work, such as the tendency to monopolize jobs and competencies in the center, up to the displays of arrogance, even arrogance that he has manifested in the meetings of the Government, the presidency, as well as in meetings special with us. All these things have naturally damaged the work and charge it with responsibility.

Lately, it is seen that he has withdrawn from such shows; even cases of confusion at work are noticed. This should not have happened, but he should collect himself, find the causes that brought him here, and then find the possibility of correcting and correcting them. Of course, it is very difficult for him to make the right turn, especially in some directions, but I think that the interests of the work of the Party require him to do so.

COMRADE RITA MARKO: We heard the answers to the questions that were asked, but Comrade Mehmet, for this serious political mistake he made, I see that he has not yet reflected properly. In my opinion, what is analyzed in the self-criticism and in the answers he gave, are not the main reasons that led to the mistake of the engagement of Comrade Mehmet’s son, to the daughter of a bad family circle, enemies of popular power.

I think that this political mistake of Comrade Mehmet will be seen in connection with the nature of his attitude at work, with the people of work and family, who often contradict the norms of the Party. Comrade Mehmet greatly overestimates his opinion and the orders he gives.

This can be seen in his entire activity. He hardly accepts a remark or an advice, especially when it is addressed to his work, or in some way related to it. It is heavy in discussions; it does not create an environment for people to freely express their opinion and even more so to make remarks and criticisms. So, it is not correct what friend Mehmet says, that if my friends would have pointed out this mistake, I would have corrected it.

I think that this was not even taken into account by Comrade Mehmet, he did not even think at the time when he did this and it was not even though, that if it was so, to take into account the opinion, or the remarks of the opinion, I explain this and friend Kadri. Friend Enver stayed closer to him, gave him all those advices, so he had all the opportunities to ask him about this case as well and get the necessary advice, just as he gave him that this engagement was broken, all the more so that friend Enver went to him. But Comrade Mehmet also went to Pogradec, there he had the opportunity to raise this issue.

I think that Comrade Mehmet does not take into account the order of the Party and Comrade Enver that the party member is under double control, both of the Party and of the opinion of the masses. He did not consider this, as I said. He is also harsh in negotiations, loses his temper and goes so far as to seriously insult people. I remember one day, some time ago, when he insulted the chairman of the Executive Committee of Tirana, Comrade Nesip Ibrahimi, who is also a candidate of the ALP Central Committee, with very serious words, in a government meeting and which I think do not agree with the style and method of the Party’s work.

He told him: anti-party, measures should be taken against you, you are not on the street, and some other expressions. This is so, and Nesip was crying. So, Comrade Mehmet was taken by abduction, neurasthenia and crossed every limit, although sometimes, at the moment, he pretends to correct what he does, I think that these things happened that he does not reflect, but the Party has the strength to correct him, that Comrade Mehmet to be put on the right path in these directions, because we are harming the Party.

He did this not only with comrade Nesip, but also with other comrades, for example with the Minister of Internal Trade. This is not the right way. As my friends have told me, at government meetings, he spoke very harshly to Viktor Nushi, about the issue of vegetables, telling him: you are not fit to be a minister; you should be fired, etc. But these things are not done like this, because then all the borders are crossed and then people talk.

This behavior of Comrade Mehmet with the cadres and the people has damaged the work of the Party and it is not just about a momentary occasion in the Government meeting, but these actions are an expression of his arrogance, of overestimating himself and undervaluing his others. The cadre must be helped, encouraged, and listened to and not repressed, as this harms the work of the Party. To some extent, the attitude and behavior of friend Mehmet has done what…

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Have you been to any meeting where you saw that Comrade Mehmet acted like this?

FRIEND RITA MARKO: I was for Nesip.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Did you intervene?

COMRADE RITA MARKO: No, I did not intervene.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why didn’t you intervene?

FRIEND RITA MARKO: I didn’t intervene, friend Enver, I also asked myself why I didn’t intervene, yes, I don’t keep it a secret, I didn’t intervene there…!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why didn’t you intervene, as a member of the Political Bureau?

COMRADE RITA MARKO: I did not intervene because I did not have the civil courage.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: How come you didn’t have the courage? If you had told him there, he would not repeat it, or he could repeat it and you would tell him again.

COMRADE RITA MARKO: Comrade Enver’s criticism is correct. This, in my opinion, has caused the comrades not to raise many problems before him, or not to talk directly with him as prime minister. Comrade Mehmet creates the impression that he deals with the most important problems and that’s right, he tries to deal with the most important problems, he always tells us that we should also deal with problems.

Then, as long as this is the case, why doesn’t Comrade Mehmet influence, for example, so that the other comrades of the presidency also grasp the most important problems related to the strengthening of power, the fight against bureaucratization, and other problems that he has constantly raised the party, for which measures have been taken? This seems contradictory, so in this regard, Mehmeti should look at his working method.

I think that even the self-criticism he did, Comrade Mehmet should have gone deeper into his work method, learned more from the Party’s criticisms and advice, for the work you lead and more for himself. The very nature of our work requires that the cadres working in the power bodies and in other bodies is characterized by the spirit of contact with the people, with the masses, the patience to listen to them, while comrade Mehmet is very heavy in contacts with people, with the masses.

Even with the organization of measures, he should cooperate better and better evaluate their thoughts and work, help with concrete measures, and not only in principle. This, among others, will also lead to the improvement of the work, because a more prudent and careful attitude of comrade Mehmet, taking into account the function as prime minister that he has, would lead to a better capture of the advanced experience, of rationing labor and materials in the same branches, or in better supporting and encouraging initiatives arising from masses, for the advancement of tasks, or any other problem.

Now even the comrades who cooperate with comrade Mehmet, the main comrades of the Government for such actions, that they have been more in contact, could have helped and could have criticized more and intervened. I could do this better too. In general, for these issues, I think that Comrade Mehmet should learn lessons.

As for omissions in the family, such as those in dress, in improper living, in one way or another, these have come to the notice of opinion; people see and have a right to ask. Don’t these things stand out to Comrade Mehmet as bad actions that the Party publicly criticizes and, in case he fights and has criticized these, then why does he approve them, why does he create conditions for children to develop more these shows?!

Why isn’t Comrade Mehmet ready to denounce these publicly? I am for him to denounce them in the Party, when he sees these things. It doesn’t seem right to me that the son of friend Mehmet, after making this mistake, was sent to study abroad and to walk around, even accompanied by people, without giving any account for these mistakes? Even the younger son and his wife, who have become very conspicuous for their extravagant clothing, are also sent out. However, being treated like this, they can make much more serious mistakes.

Do these conditions not influence the development of these errors? I think they influence children for the worse, because they are privileges that they do not deserve. Therefore, Skenderi’s engagement with this girl, who comes from a family with a bad attitude, is related to these attitudes, not only of the boy, but also of his friend Mehmet and his wife Fiqret, who approved this engagement and did not take into account the instructions and the teachings of the Party, separated these in their concrete case.

I am also responsible for these, so are the relevant bodies that allow such things, why even these, such as the State Security bodies, the financial ones, that approve such things, can we intervene. You, friend Mehmet, were looking at these things, but haven’t you ever asked yourself where and how are these tools provided? This is how I judge Comrade Mehmet’s mistake, therefore I am of the opinion that he should analyze more carefully the criticism that the Party is making for these serious mistakes and reflect on his work. This is in the Party’s and his own good. We love the good, without saying it.

COMRADE MANUSH MYFTIU: I read very carefully Comrade Mehmet’s self-criticism, in which he admits that he made a political mistake, which he corrected as soon as Comrade Enver told him. There he also presents some reasons that, according to him, led him to this mistake. Of course, it is good that he accepted and corrected the mistake, but the matter cannot end there, due to the very nature of the mistake, the damage it brought to the Party, despite the fact that it was corrected, but also because, in the opinion tim, his self-criticism is not satisfactory, because he does not analyze correctly, to the end, the causes that led Comrade Mehmet to make such a serious mistake.

First of all, the nature of the error should be clearly defined, the causes should be found and then the ways of correction should be found. Comrade Mehmet has made a serious political mistake, which is in complete contradiction with the Party’s line, with the line of the class war, an essential issue of the Party’s general line. The betrothal of his son to the daughter of a family with a bad political composition is actually a softening of the class war, which is related either to judgment or other attitude, which are not of the Party, to a thought that has evolved towards liberalism and opportunism, or with a completely special consideration, with a privileged position, which he has for himself, which objectively leads to the violation of Party norms and putting himself above the Party. This is also a serious violation of the Party line.

Comrade Mehmet’s self-criticism is incomplete and superficial. Although it extends to various considerations, it bypasses the main political and ideological issues. It talks about sentimentality, about immunity to the influence of the enemy.

He says that he has had the thought that he is invulnerable to the influence of the enemy. He says this at a time when the Party has always emphasized the opposite and, among other things, for 10 years in a row it has been repeating, day and night, that we should be vigilant at the peak. It seems to me that this is not one of the reasons. One of the real reasons why he fell into this mistake is that he thinks that only he knows what is liberal and what is opportunistic, what should be allowed and what should not be allowed. Moreover, he thinks that he can be allowed anything, as long as he calls it reasonable.

Below he says in self-criticism that I didn’t ask anyone, because I thought that as a family matter, I had to solve it myself. I think this does not apply to Comrade Mehmet, or to one of us, when it comes to such cases. To be fully aware that the girl has two uncles and uncles who are fugitives and enemies of the Party and to make her part of the family and call this action a “personal matter” is extremely serious.

I do not agree with what Comrade Mehmet says that, if he had always been arrogant, the Party would have pointed it out to him, etc. Here, in fact, there is something that has not gone right, for which we have responsibility, and I will talk about this below, but I want to emphasize that it is not allowed for anyone, none of us, to blame our mistakes on the Party, even for a special case, when she did not intervene properly and with the necessary force.

Such an engagement is contrary to the Party’s line, and if it were carried out to the end, it would mark a change in the Party’s line; it would be the beginning of the acceptance of a liberal, opportunistic and conciliatory line with the class enemy, and which would necessarily lead to other liberal consequences. In this case, it would also lead to the split of the Party.

So the matter is not personal, nor sentimental, but a matter of principle and politics, it is a swing in the Party’s line, a swing from the right, exactly from that side where Comrade Mehmet thought he could never be wrong. However, sectarian attitudes are not only not a guarantee for right attitudes and are never stable, but it is easy to move from them to the opposite side.

The party has punished its ordinary members, when they have quarreled with the kulaks. And if they made a political mistake, being simple peasants, Comrade Mehmet, as a senior member of the Party, made a hundred times more mistake and made this mistake, because he overestimated himself.

In the Council of Ministers, there were also reactions to your unfair attitudes, but the other comrades did not support them, they supported you who made a mistake, instead of criticizing you strictly and fairly. You insulted people there with harsh words; you left the meeting of the Presidency, because the discussion of Comrade Prokop took too long.

I don’t want to take advantage of the situation in any way, because it would not be partisan, but some things should be pointed out that are unacceptable, and that should not be allowed further. And really, after all these attitudes, can it be expected that the ministers will have the courage to speak; I mean speak and no longer express opinions that do not agree with your opinion?

We, who are more and who are less, are to blame for this situation, but each one of us must discover the flaws and reveal them to the end, even if we lose a little mouth, let the Politburo correct us, but the intention is good, to serve the strengthening of the work of the Party. An end must be put to a way of judging who has acquired the right of citizenship in the Council of Ministers, “that’s how friend Mehmet has it”, “that’s what friend Mehmet said”; an end to your arrogance must be put to an end.

Comrade Mehmet should keep in mind that he cannot act as he wants and he made a mistake, he can correct this when he wants and how he wants. You threw a river of insults at the chairman of the Executive Committee of the People’s Council of the district of Tirana, until you called him an anti-party, because he did not sell vegetables of different qualities in the same store, then in your self-criticism, a little later you recognized that you did not do well, that Nesipi is not an anti-party element, but does not follow the Party line.

A specialist attacked him with insulting words, because he said that it is not possible to make petroleum coke to burn in the furnace, based on the proposal of a driver. I had told this to Comrade Enver and he did not take such a position, but ordered me to look at the issue from many sides and did not call the position of the specialist, who did not agree with the proposal of coking petroleum coke, low. , even told me that you have a duty to give us such information.

You forced me to exchange words about this in the Council of Ministers and you made self-criticism. I agreed with that self-criticism, but I want to emphasize that while you made the loud and unjustified noise in the Council of Ministers, in the presence of the entire press of the Republic, you made the self-criticism after you expelled the secretaries and we were the only ones left the four deputy prime ministers with you.

I agree with the opinion that Comrade Mehmet expressed, but of course I reserve to listen to Comrade Mehmet’s last opinion on these issues.

COMRADE LLAMBI GEGPRIFTI: We got acquainted with the self-criticism of Comrade Mehmet. I want to emphasize from the beginning that his self-criticism, although it is 39 pages, does not highlight those causes or rather that negative element of his character, which is the main and most important. In my opinion, the main cause and the only source of all these negative moments, which Comrade Mehmet mentions in his self-criticism, is that he overestimated himself to others, put him above others and in privileged conditions. .

It is true that Comrade Mehmet has skills, knowledge and broad horizons in all fields, it is true that he has accumulated a great deal of experience and profound leadership and organizational skills from life, which the Party and Comrade Enver have not reserved never appreciate and point out to him, just as they have pointed out his flaws and weaknesses in concrete cases. However, he should never continue to repeat his flaws and weaknesses overestimate him and forget the principle of equivalence with his friends, putting himself above others, because he suffers, as it was said here, from the disease of arrogance!

It is also the reason that friend Enver helped you a lot with his valuable advice, shook you, as you say yourself, saying: “Where are you Mehmet”!? Precisely because we love you so much, we, your friends, think of helping you, all the more, pointing out the flaws and weaknesses we see in you. Yes, this is one important side of the problem.

The other side, which is still more important than the first, is that Comrade Mehmet should delve as much as possible into the shortcomings and weaknesses of his work and activity as a communist and cadre, then reflect and react correctly to his mistakes and shortcomings, as well as to the criticisms and orders that Comrade Enver gave to us all at the last meeting of the Political Bureau.

You, friend Mehmet, say in your self-criticism that closing yourself off, when it is the case for family matters, is another negative factor in you. I, I believe that other friends too, cannot understand this hermetic closure, even for your family matters. How is it explained that for a complicated problem, such as the case of your son’s engagement to a girl with a bad political attitude, you did not consult your friend Enver, or your other friends, with whom you meet almost every day?! How is it explained that you forget the principle of the class war, by linking krushki with declassified people?!

There is no way to explain that you did not take any punishment for Skenderi, in this particular case also for the benefit of the boy, that he had to return from his post-graduate studies, which he is continuing in Sweden, and be sent even as an engineer to one of the factories of our country, even outside Tirana. In your self-criticism, you draw all the fire on yourself and you do not hold the son or the friend Fiqret responsible in the slightest. This moment expresses the truth that you have not yet completely freed yourself from the shackles of petty-bourgeois sentimentality and that for the good of the Party and yourself, you must break them as soon as possible.

Skenderi’s relationship with Qazim Turdi’s daughter was definitely known, even before the engagement, by many other people, close or distant, but they did not have the communist courage to give you advice and criticize you, because, as you say yourself, even more you have oppressed them with your tactless and not infrequently harsh manners and attitudes. In conclusion, I express my full conviction that comrade Mehmet, with a cold mind, with deep judgment from a revolutionary, will understand the criticisms that are made to him and will react correctly to them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: We close this session and come back later in the day at 5 o’clock. Good lunch.

THIRD SESSION

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Let’s continue, comrades.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Like other comrades, I am seriously preoccupied, especially since I learned about the engagement of Comrade Mehmet’s son under known circumstances. I reflected as much as I could to explain why this happened in the life and attitude of a leader in our Party, specifically Comrade Mehmet, as well as Comrade Fiqret, both old communists, who, as you know, from for a long time they covered important functions in the leadership of the Party?

This serious mistake, although it was corrected after the intervention of Comrade Enver in defense of the Party and Comrade Mehmet himself, has nevertheless produced negative effects. Many comments have been made and are still made in the Party and by honest people without the party. In these conversations and comments, on the one hand, the belief in the justice of the Party is expressed, and in this cases also the defense of the line by Comrade Enver in particular, as well as the joy that this mistake was quickly corrected. But, on the other hand, the concern of these people, the concern of the communists, about how such mistakes can be made on such essential issues by the communists that the Party has chosen as leaders comes to the fore.

First, Comrade Enver’s attitudes in dealing with problems and in his relations with many friends, in many cases, are not correct at all. Regardless of our not always combative attitude towards these harmful shows, they are unacceptable for a leader like Comrade Mehmet and have had consequences, especially in the work of the Government, for which I think a special analysis can be made there.

The comrades who knew about these, approved them and did not oppose them, to say the least, they were indifferent and conformist. I feel that I should have done more for the few things that I have known and left unsaid. Regardless of this, Comrade Mehmet should review his attitudes.

In many cases and wrong attitudes, he, Mehmeti has continuity. This is disturbing. I remember several cases in which the softening of the class war on his part was clearly expressed, which, Comrade Mehmet was pointed out. So, for example, with his own initiative he has broken the Security regime at Durrës Beach…!

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: How did you break it?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This happened like this, Comrade Enver: We know the regime that was approved and placed there for implementation. Comrade Mehmet, I don’t remember the year, while reading a report by a western journalist in an azhans, which said that there is a second ‘Pankov’ in Albania, as far as I remember, not only in Tirana, but also in Durrës Beach where more than half of the Beach is intended for leadership etc. etc., orders the guards of the Guard to leave and Fiqreti and his children tell him…!

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Not the soldiers, but the civilians.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, no, Comrade Mehmet, let’s say things as they are. You immediately ordered the removal of the Guard guards stationed around your house. I was informed that this is what is happening with the guards and all the people, as they were on the beach, immediately went inside to the bridge in front of the establishment. I called Feti Smokthina, who was the commander of the Guard, he is still alive today, Comrade Mehmet, and I ordered him to go and put the guards in place and come and tell you, Comrade Mehmet, that if you had such an opinion, to order me first, as the Minister of the Interior that I was, then act.

Comrade Mehmet, what is the truth, welcomed this intervention of Feti and then allowed order to be restored, as before. I went to the dinner myself, I pointed out the importance of this issue to my friend Mehmet, that the measure he had taken, I told him that it was a mistake. We talked about this issue, if I’m not mistaken, at the Party House here, with Comrade Ramiz and Comrade Manush also present. I started to come to you who were in Pogradec, Comrade Enver, because Comrade Hysni was in Vlora at that time, but when I went in the afternoon, Comrade Mehmet recognized that you were wrong about this and the matter was put in place, that you had to be careful that not to liberalize the insurance regime…!

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, I remember the military guards who were on the beach…!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: This is a fact, Comrade Mehmet, this is how it happened. Then we turned them into civilians. Likewise, there have been other cases of this nature, which speak of an underestimation of the dangerousness of hostile activity. I, when he was in the ward and I opposed these thoughts, however, several times he repeated the view that: “What do you have, what do you want all these guards, in prisoners, even in the escape, wherever they go” ?!

As these cases have been proven separately, they are probably not important, but connected now as a whole; they speak of what we are dealing with a tendency to soften the class war on the part of Comrade Mehmet. And lo, even now we encounter the same attitude of this character.

I also remember his impulsive and extreme positions in the long process of the class struggle. It is known that these are phenomena of the lack of complete balance in the fair development of the class war, for which I think that Comrade Mehmet should take the criticism seriously and not consider myself as the absolute competent person in this matter.

To be careful and more profound in every thought and action, on the other hand, to be even more predisposed to learn from the dynamics of life itself and from the struggle, the attitudes and remarks of the Party and comrades, of whatever rank they may be. Not only because in principle there are no immunized people, but also because in practice and in the life of Comrade Mehmet, there were and are fluctuations in this matter.

I have also reflected on how I have defended the Party, fighting against any show that contradicts its line and norms, both in relations with Comrade Mehmet, as well as with other comrades that the Party has chosen for us in leadership and as I judge so far, I will tell you my thoughts. I do not feel it in my conscience, that when I dictated everything that was not right, I passed it in silence, for the sake of many influences.

I had the opportunity to say and denounce that act, but at the same time, in addition to this, I cannot say that I have always evaluated things correctly and it must be said that in special cases, I have only sufficed with pointing out the case, without going deeper and without connecting these cases, which would have been more fair and given the opportunity to strengthen the criticism and attitude towards these performances in repetition.

In my relationship with Comrade Mehmet, as I judge, I have not lacked either the predisposition or the courage to speak my thoughts openly, even on issues related to his faults and mistakes, or family life. It is not worth enumerating the cases and examples, but what is now more clearly evident to me is related, on the one hand, to the lack of predisposition of Comrade Mehmet, to benefit from these remarks, although, on the spot, the impression was not created that he have been valid, and on the other hand, I myself have not connected these even better, and in a partisan way to strengthen, as I said, the position of continuity.

Despite all this, I do not find it completely right and legal what my friend Mehmet says, that my friends could help me. The word here is about the case of the son’s engagement, about the case of this mistake. Let’s not confuse things here, I think, because I didn’t know about the engagement before, as my friend Enver told me, when I returned from the service. If I’m not mistaken, it was a couple of days, after my friend Enver asked me if I knew anything about this matter.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, yes, you answered that you didn’t know anything.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Just like me and all the other comrades, without excluding Comrade Enver, it is clear that they did not know and when you do not ask us, when you keep the issue hermetically sealed, then how can you ask for help from your comrades ?! It is a fact that when the event was learned, this help was given to them. But your closure, Comrade Mehmet, is not easily explained.

It has led you to undervalue the normal order of our communist life, it has cut you off from society, to some extent even from people, it has put you in a burden of your life regime and your security, and it has led you to what to see things with suspicion for example, you have asked me the question several times: “Do not have our phones tapped”?!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: He told me about the tapping of our phones.

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Who would eavesdrop on us?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Insurance.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: The enemy, because my phones kept breaking.

Comrade ENVER HOXHA: Which enemy?!

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Which enemy? Do you call the Internal Affairs bodies an enemy?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, the bodies of Internal Affairs.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: And who then?!

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: I asked to have my phones checked because they kept breaking.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, those who put our phones on us, also check our phones. Do we have other specialists who control us?

COMMON MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, I did not say it in that direction, but my phones kept breaking and I told them to come and check my phones, because they kept breaking.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why did yours break down and not ours?!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: But even when Comrade Enver breaks down, none of us has raised the issue like Comrade Mehmet, “The phone broke, why did it break”?!

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: No, when the issue is brought up, my phone broke, please look at why it broke, and if you say make sure they don’t eavesdrop on me?

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, I have told you 100 times, destroy, destroy, and destroy so that there is no defect.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, it’s not like that, Mehmet. How is it possible for us to have doubts in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, or that an agency has entered my house, for example, that there is no one entering my house to hack my phones.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: No, no, because telephone lines are excluded.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, the enemy has the opportunity to interfere with them, if you don’t break the line here. It connects from the outside.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, Comrade Mehmet, I think that you should not do the work to smooth things over; this is not the case…!

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: I don’t soften them; I’m talking about the goal…!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: No, no, well, dear, maybe with that intention, they didn’t tell me, but you said look that…, that would be Trotskyist, if we were eavesdropped. And, as far as I have told you, if you do not believe, order now that we change the men, or that others be charged. Yes, that’s how it was. You have continued this later, as my friends have told me, even after I left as Minister of the Interior.

Yes, I have the issue here; this doubt can go too far, not only towards the norms we have set, but also towards those who are in charge of their implementation.

COMRADE MANUSH MYFTIU: No, no, this goes further, not to the lieutenant of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, if we do not have faith in the Party and our bodies.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Let’s reflect a bit here, Mehmet, that it is very dangerous, it is very serious about the phones, this means that we do not have faith in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in the weapon of our Party. This department has under its influence and controls our communication and is concerned about this issue itself.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I honestly say here, in front of the Politburo, comrades, that even when our comrades’ direct telephone with two numbers, which is the main one, was broken, none of us raised this problem. I tell you honestly, even I myself, who was the Minister of the Interior, and whose position often made me look at things upside down, it never occurred to me that these defects could happen because someone foreigner and taps our phones.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: In our old devices…!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: And this is not excluded, it is a class war, if that is not how it is said boom, this is not how the issue is presented.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You are explaining to us, Mehmet, that it puts us in doubt, that is, it creates a situation for us to doubt even our shirts, that this is so, that is, to have doubts about the cadres of the internal organs, that they are they monitor us.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I have repeatedly told them look, look, look at my phones that they are breaking. Now there is a time that does not break. It seems they have found the bugs.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: It’s one thing when you say look for defects and another thing when you say the enemy is eavesdropping on us. That means, as if we have enemies within.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I don’t know if it was liquidated or not, because they no longer deal with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Comrade Enver and friends of the Political Bureau, but when the opportunity arose, I talked with Feçor about these things and he said that we told the same thing to friend Mehmet, until he was forced and he made minutes, which he presented to you, assuring you that there is no danger in the meantime.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How did he make these minutes for you?

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: He made a record of the opening of the power station, which is hermetically sealed, that is, it is only opened by a certain group of people. This was requested, I don’t know, Feçori told me that I didn’t go into details, but he told me that Mehmeti asked me that he wants to know for sure that such a thing is excluded and I, he said, charged the specialists, opened the switchboard, they saw it and I presented the minutes to my friend Mehmet.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Did you ask Feçor for the minutes, if he did this job or not?

COMMON MEHMET SHEHU: No, I asked him to assure me that the phones are working or not, that they always break down and I told him, give me this in writing, that my phones always break down.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, I’ll give you the minutes, but who is the issue, we don’t trust each other? The switchboard is hermetically sealed and the specialist checks that it is permanently sealed.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: No, not for here, but the enemy outside, why does the line from the power station, until it comes to me, pass through the street.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: Well done, Mehmet, it seems to me that you know these things well, but it turns out that you don’t know them well at all. I don’t pretend to know these things either. You say that the line goes through the street, and as it crosses the street, he hears me. But we have also read that the enemy has all the tools and can overcome the wall with vibrations from 200 meters away, and can hear what we say here. We have heard these things and we know them all, even though we are not specialists, but in this way, as you have acted, it seems to me that it is not right at all, it is very wrong.

If we stay on these issues, then their phones must be special, because I have not seen ours break down often. Maybe I don’t call a lot, but then it’s technical, the phone can break sometimes.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Even it breaks down, Comrade Enver, but the point is that, when it breaks down, people say why it breaks down, take measures and fix it for us. This is the language we speak. If I tell you, ore: watch that my phone is not checked. Then the question arises: who controls this phone?

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I am talking about the enemy.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: If you are asked by the specialists, Mehmet, that the enemy is eavesdropping on us, the phone does not break. On the contrary, he takes his voice without breaking the phone, because he will hold it well and listen to you every minute, so he does not break the phone. No way to spoil it. On the contrary, he will have the line open, he has this interest, how to listen to what you have to say.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: How? Dear friend Mehmet, you have posed the problem that you see, comrades, so that nothing happens to us, or have you posed the fact that there are eavesdropping, and it is Trotskyism? Yes, this is how we talked together and this is what I told you. Maybe it’s my fault here, that I didn’t come and inform you earlier. Yes, I told you the steps: If this is the case, order us to check then!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Listen, Mehmet, this work has nothing to do with the enemy.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, no, I didn’t say that, I said: make sure there is nothing here that controls us, why should my phones be broken?!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: But why haven’t the other comrades said this? Here again we can bring out your megalomania, that the enemy does not only have you, only your phones break, that is, you are the only target of the enemy! Why put it like that? And if your phone breaks, Adil’s also breaks, the other’s breaks, and so on.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: In fact, they found them broken.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Fact, fact, Comrade Mehmet is also spoiled for us. Many times you have not had your phone broken, because we are keeping the Political Bureau here with this issue, you have put the handle wrong.

A specialist came to me and told me; see that you have not placed the phone handle correctly. This is how we should look at these things. The point is here, to think correctly that things are related, it doesn’t matter how she told me or what tone you used, what matters is the content of the matter.

If it is the case that you lacked this help in other cases, I am always talking about the help you raise in self-criticism, the case, friend Mehmet, should be judged mainly in two aspects, it seems to me.

First, full responsibility is borne by the one who makes the mistake; because the Party’s ideology, line, and norms are one, then why should you violate them? That’s why there is no partnership, here because my friends should have helped me as well.

Second, helping each other in the work of implementing the Party line is a condition that we have fulfilled and continue to fulfill mutually, regardless of the shortcomings. But the good has no end, and therefore we have to look critically at the attitude in this matter, and it is right to say that it is of decisive importance here, that it is the predisposition to recognize this help and to benefit from it. In this view, the first concrete help is given and it was given by us, friend Mehmet, with our relatively correct attitude, which is not the same as yours on many things. Why don’t you take advantage of this?

Take an example. Which of our children have you seen with a motorboat available, friend Mehmet? Which one of us, the members of the Political Bureau, have you seen on the beach to sail in a motorboat, when your children and children’s daughters-in-law roamed with such tools?! Am I right to pose the problem like this? To judge correctly, to correct the problems?

Who among our children have you seen change their itineraries as they please when they have gone abroad, that you yourself may have drawn up this itinerary for them and approved it? Therefore, let’s be more attentive and when we pretend to the positive example, to the help of the opinion given by the friend.

In addition, the unique attitude of the Party in the implementation of the line and the norms is the biggest colossal help in continuity, for us communists. Do you know this? A question arises: Do you, Comrade Mehmet, make the life of the Party orderly? Look and reflect for yourself. Even the grassroots organization where Comrade Mehmet is part of should think and look carefully at this issue.

And in the end, as far as I know from Comrade Enver and other comrades, you have been given this help from time to time, but, apparently, the benefit from it on your part was not what it should have been, therefore a different understanding and a different attitude is also needed in this matter from your side, friend Mehmet.

With all this, we should also reflect in order to do this work better in the future, both towards Comrade Mehmet himself, and towards each other in defense and in the interest of the Party’s line.

Judging Comrade Mehmet’s mistake as a whole, from this point of view that I said, I think that his responsibility is heavy and his duty is great, from here on out. Regarding the first, I think that Comrade Mehmet should be punished with a reprimand according to the Party’s Status, with a note on the Registration Card, but it seems to me that there are no serious reprimands.

If there are serious remarks in the Statute, so be it. And for the second one, I think that this help from the Political Bureau, and the help that will be given later by the Party, should be worth to Comrade Mehmet, to make a turn both in the understanding of the issues, and in his life and activity as a communist. This work that we are doing, we are doing it in a partisan position.

From these points of view, you should also understand that I have the impression, sorry for being late, that you are not taking it that way, friend Mehmet. The fact that here in the Politburo you are making replies, no it’s like that, it’s not like that, proves that you have taken a certain point of view and apparently these are ricochets to the remarks, preoccupations, and thoughts of the friends of the Politburo.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: I, too, read Comrade Mehmet’s self-criticism, regarding the grave political mistake he made, which has to do with violating the Party’s line for the class struggle. Even in my opinion, his self-criticism is not at all complete, it is not deep, and it left me with the impression that he made more of a chronology of the event, than a deep reflection on the real reasons that led Comrade Mehmet to do this serious political error.

For any communist, no matter how simple he is, even more so for us, it is clear that with this grave mistake of his, he has seriously damaged the Party’s line, acting contrary to its norms, which not only are they clear to everyone, but in life they have proved their great justice, he has set a very bad example in the development of the class war.

Reading his self-criticism, it seems more like this mistake was more of a coincidence that he couldn’t catch. And that he corrected it when the Party intervened, when Comrade Enver called him and told him that this should not be done. So rightly, and to protect the Party’s line, he forced him not to make such a mistake.

This was not a coincidence, nor was it the product of sentimentality, as it is presented to us, but only an opportunistic, liberal, and informed action, in complete opposition to the Party line, for the class struggle. Comrade Mehmet himself says that I was dumbfounded, I found myself at a dead end, I saw that it was something that should not be done, and so everything is understandable otherwise dumbfounded. There was no reason to come, if it was an action that should not be done.

His self-criticism also left me with the same impression as his other friends, that friend Mehmet protects the boy, especially Fiqreti. Comrade Fiqret has a very heavy responsibility as a member of the Political Bureau, and of the Central Committee, even to us in the courses we develop there; she has given us lectures on these issues.

Comrade Mehmet’s mistake has damaged the Party because the public found out about it, discussed it rightly, and spoke badly about this act. Our attitudes everywhere, at work and in life, at the office and in the family, should always be partisan attitudes. Apart from these, any other attitude contrary to it is in open contradiction with the Party’s line.

Precisely for this reason, he should not have betrothed the boy to such a girl whose family has 4 fugitives, with a bad political attitude and background. The directives of the Party, on these issues, were and are clear and only those who go against them could allow themselves such approval or approval.

In this self-criticism, friend Mehmet lists some causes and reasons that are not in-depth, not convincing, as his friends said. He attributes his mistake to bourgeois sentimentality, as well as arrogance. But the Party has also explained sentimentality correctly, how it should be understood and how it should be applied. The Party has never said that sentimentality should be placed above its interests. While Comrade Mehmet put his sick sentimentality above the interests of the Party.

He even put him, even after being criticized by the Party for this matter, because instead of returning the boy immediately, he let him continue his studies abroad. He told me that after my friend Enver called me, he criticized me for the case that I will explain, and that he immediately told me to give an order, and I gave an order to return the boy. You did very well on this matter, but this conversation has been going on for a month or so, that is, even these two months the sentimentality with him continues. If he had implemented this measure from the beginning, it would show a deep understanding of the issue on his part.

This is the case with arrogance. It is true that comrade Mehmet’s arrogance is the real cause of his mistake. But he does not analyze where the arrogance has its roots. In the first place, due to the myth of infallibility that was created in Comrade Mehmet, it arises due to the overestimation of oneself and the underestimation of others.

It also arises because of not listening to the opinion of others; this also happened and is happening to friend Mehmet. It is also based on overestimating successes and attributing them to oneself, in the first place. Of course, we will appreciate the successes, but their overestimation and especially self-appropriation, creates and promotes arrogance.

Not only for the concrete case of his son’s engagement, to a girl with a bad political makeup, he shows arrogance, because Comrade Mehmet did not ask anyone, although as he says he found himself in the middle of the road, but also in his work he has shown haughtiness. I agree with the remarks of friends, and I will speak below about my responsibility. Comrade Mehmet is very self-absorbed, and acts as if he knows all the issues well.

That Comrade Mehmet has skills, this is not discussed, and that he knows the issues very well, the Party has recognized them. But to act as if you know all the matters in detail can be nothing but conceit and self-esteem.

I agree that it often interferes with various talks and discussions between friends, and that it gives you frameworks for a free exchange of ideas, in a warm atmosphere. It is right what Comrade Manush said, that we also have our responsibility, first of all me. Often with us when we talk freely, it is not that he waits for us to speak, but as soon as we start to speak, he takes our word and continues talking, without leaving us the opportunity to hear our thoughts.

Of course, he too will speak and give opinions, but he should listen to others calmly and more carefully, so that at the same time he also understands that we are not only for giving as the Party teaches us. Stalin said the cadres must give of course but also take. Comrade Mehmet has highlighted this flaw. Several times he has manifested such shows in the Council of Ministers or in the Presidency, sometimes even in a serious form, even offensive.

In some cases, after he saw that he made a mistake, in some case and with some thought or intervention or tone signal, at the moment or out of the blue, he turned around and made self-criticism. But evil is not here. It’s good that he made self-criticism, this shows that it is no longer a matter of isolated cases, but of a path, a line for him, this enters into the daily method of his work. Self-criticism is important when it is not repeated. Recidivism is never good; on the contrary, it is harmful, even dangerous.

Not only that, but for his authority as a member of the Political Bureau, for the function he has in the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and in the meetings of the Government, to say at one moment to the other: anti-party, acts in anti-party ways, etc., and then after a minute, telling him “I’m sorry I made a mistake”, doesn’t look good and in fact in this case, it doesn’t leave a good impression at all.

In this case, I feel my responsibility is greater than that of other friends, because many of these mistakes and wrong attitudes, I should have told him openly, to help him. I haven’t done this enough. I have made some remarks. In a case where he also criticized me very severely, he behaved incorrectly. The issue was related to our trade relations with Czechoslovakia, on balance. I told him that it is so; he insisted that it is so, as he spoke to me arrogantly. I made this remark to him and finally, he accepted and apologized “for being hasty, for being harsh”, both.

If that’s not the case, the issue is that a mistake was made, that is, the bad thing was said. However, I have not fully fulfilled my duty to criticize many of these cases even in the Government meeting. I have the question about my responsibility in this case, yes and especially, that I had more frequent contact with him and I should have pointed it out to him, I should have helped him. This for me is a lesson, a self-criticism.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Like all comrades, I condemn without any reservation the action of Comrade Mehmet, to make trouble with a reactionary family in whose bosom there are ballistic missiles, open and active enemies against the Party and our socialist state. This action constitutes a very serious political and ideological mistake.

The mistake made by Comrade Mehmet and Comrade Fiqret would have very big and very dangerous consequences and the Party would be seriously damaged, if Comrade Enver had not intervened immediately, as soon as he found out, who severely criticized the action of Comrade Mehmet and forced him to break this tree.

In my opinion, Comrade Mehmet’s self-criticism is not complete, but the main thing is that it lacks ideological and political analysis, both of the mistake committed and of the causes that led to it. In self-criticism, sentimentality and one-sidedness are given a lot of space, even considered as the main source of guilt.

You, Comrade Mehmet, have started crookedly; you have not taken the bull by the horns, neither in the written self-criticism, nor here today after the questions that were asked. In fact, you talk about the consequences in passing and very generally. In two places, there is talk about the negative effect it would have on others, if the engagement was not broken, the Party’s line would be violated.

Very simply, it seems to me, the issue is dealt with, and at the end of the self-criticism you write: “I believe that one day I would feel that my foot had slipped and as soon as I felt this myself, even without the warning of my friends, I would gather myself, I would I would correct the mistake made and move forward”. Here you completely abstract from the political and ideological consequences, it even seems that there would be none at all and you put the mistake only as a matter of time, you didn’t see it today, but you would have seen it later even without the alerting of your friends.

This is not a political or ideological reasoning, especially not reasoning from the position of the leader, such as Comrade Mehmet, who’s good or bad actions, without any doubt, have very large consequences throughout the Party.

First, the engagement was not completed hand and foot, as they say, within a day. This issue has been discussed in your family for weeks, friend Mehmet.

Secondly, as it appears from your self-criticism, you had all the information about the girl’s family, not the immediate family but also the wider one, including the uncles and aunts who escaped and were killed by us. The boy knew this data, to whom the girl’s father gave it with a written list, friend Mehmet and friend Fiqret also knew it, to whom the boy gave it, but according to their request, friend Feçor also gave it to them. Shehu, so…!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Mehmeti was sent by me to lead punitive actions against Myzafer Pipa. Mehmeti headed our expedition that liquidated him. How could he not know then what Pipaj are?

FRIEND RAMIZ ALIA: Myzafer Pipa was killed along with Jup Kazazi, Arshiu is the brother of Myzafer Pipa.

So, you friend Mehmet, you had all the elements to conclude that the family you were connecting with in Krushqi was from a hostile circle, therefore unacceptable for a family of communists, even more so for the family of a leader. This is so true, that friend Mehmet in his self-criticism, says that: “if it was about any of the other boys, or without being asked by any friend, he would never advise such a fool”.

So it is clear that both friend Mehmet and friend Fiqret knew were aware that, by accepting this engagement, they were acting contrary to the Party’s line and norms. In my opinion, there are two reasons why Comrade Mehmet made this mistake:

The first, arrogance, overestimation of himself, the belief that he is allowed to interpret the Party’s line, and that its decisions are always right, that is, indisputable.

Second, the distorted understanding of the Party line, about the class struggle.

Accepting this mistake, Comrade Mehmet actually thought that he is allowed to do anything that he can violate the Party’s line and norms, the Party’s discipline that he decides on everything correctly. Arrogance, coupled with an incorrect understanding of the Party’s norms, have pushed Comrade Mehmet to think that the Party’s norms and discipline, vigilance and other norms, are obligatory for others and not for him, because he has given a lot of evidence, that he is immune, etc.

In the class struggle, the Party and Comrade Enver have always ordered us to be consistent, without underestimating either the left or the right. The mistake you made, Comrade Mehmet, is the expression of right-wing opportunism, but it must be said that you have two measures: towards others you are sectarian, to the point of formalism, while towards yourself and your family, you are liberal.

It is not exact that you were sentimental towards the second son and only on the occasion of the engagement. If you think about it even before and in general you have always been liberal with children, especially with your two youngest sons, who have caught the eye for inappropriate behavior.

People talk about Skenderi as a drunkard, who has caused scandals, is known as a vagabond who has established contacts with evil women. You have tolerated this. In the same way, they talk about the Union and his wife as extravagant, foreign fashion trendsetters, etc. You knew these, if not, why not, friend Mehmet?

We have the right to ask: do you work with children? Do you pay attention to their education? There were friends who commented on the behavior of the boys and the bride, but friend Fiqret said: Why will everyone dress the same? You should review your attitude towards children, but this is not done with concessions and liberalism. I say this, that with Skender, despite all the grave mistake he made, and he made it first of all, because even though he is a communist, he chose as his wife a man politically from a hostile circle, so despite all this mistake, you continued to caress him .

Even in self-criticism, say that you will calm down in conscience when the boy gets married. That the boy will get married, this will surely happen, but you must calm down in your conscience, Comrade Mehmet, and for this, you must work, when the boy understands the teachings and the Party line well, so that he becomes a good fighter hers and not to make mistakes that cost the Party. All these should not be seen as family matters, as sentimental matters, but related to your concept of the class struggle, which must be correctly implemented by all.

Comrade Enver has criticized Comrade Mehmet several times both in meetings of the Political Bureau and outside the meetings. I am referring to those cases that I myself have been present when I have seen that he has criticized him precisely for the kidnapping, for not respecting the norms of the Party, especially in relations with other cadres. For my part, excluding the criticisms related to the work as well as any partial remarks, although with some wrong actions of Comrade Mehmet, I did not agree, I did not criticize him in full form and in their connection as I am doing today.

I say this in a self-critical way, because I feel that I have not done this duty towards the Party properly. Why haven’t I done it? In any case, I thought wrong and I say it openly, opportunistically, that: this is how my friend Mehmet is, he gets angry quickly, but without going into depth that his nervousness was an expression of the tendency to impose his own opinion and affected the norms and interests of the Party. We all need to learn as much as possible, Comrade Mehmet must learn from Comrade Enver. We work together and talk every day with Comrade Enver freely and without any shyness.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Also from all the rest of you, and not only from Comrade Enver.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, I agree, Comrade Mehmet should learn from you and the rest of us. On the contrary, Comrade Enver, he listens to us patiently and attentively, advises us and corrects us, criticizes us when the occasion is right, even harshly when necessary, but we never feel ourselves spiritually killed, because everything is told to us in a social spirit, with party spirit, with convincing arguments, that helps us all learn and work better.

From these phenomena, Comrade Mehmet, you should see the violation of Party norms, the wrong tendency to impose your opinion that you call the most correct, and the most correct. In you, the wrong opinion has been cultivated, that you are a specialist in everything, both for Agriculture and for the Army, all the military regulations, even the book ‘On Military Folk Art’, it is said that Comrade Mehmet wrote it, and so for everything.

Without a doubt, the fellow vice-prime ministers are also responsible here, especially Comrade Adil, who made self-criticism, but in my opinion, he did not do enough. He and the other comrades should think more deeply, why, in one way or another, they fed these tendencies to comrade Mehmet, and even started to adopt this style themselves. Such a work style, based on orders, does not help the comrades; it leads to the violation of norms and the creation of incorrect opinions about the cadres. He works well who acts as you think.

It is known that friend Mehmet, when he has a job, takes all the necessary measures and gets it done. This is a very good thing, but I’ve noticed, maybe I’m wrong, that this happens especially for those things, for those problems, that he himself cares more about, or that are ideas of comrade Mehmet himself.

This is what happened recently, with the issue of raising turkeys, or with the sanction for silage pits. Of course, both of these shares are valuable. At the instigation of comrade Mehmet, for this purpose, special decisions were made, funds were allocated, investments were made, stables were built, organizations with special specialists were created, and even comrade Muho Asllani, the task of growing turkeys, charged you as his main duty in the government.

I said both of these actions are a good thing, but I ask: Why wasn’t the same care, the same enthusiasm, why weren’t the same measures taken for the issue of spreading the experience of Plasa, or for the implementation of the decision of the 7th Congress on Livestock Farms?

These important issues for the development of our agricultural economy, which were elaborated here 6-7 years ago by Comrade Hysni Kapo and Comrade Enver Hoxha, have remained almost at the initial stage, especially the experience of Plasa. This seems unfair to me. I may be wrong, but here I see a tendency to advertise myself and to highlight the “special” skills of Comrade Mehmet.

The criticisms and remarks that I have, I am telling you openly, Comrade Mehmet, just as all my friends told them. The goal is that you can learn the necessary lessons from them. I want to emphasize that these issues and the open, unreserved relations between us are of great importance for the Party, for its work, for the Marxist-Leninist unity of the Party.

I am confident that this meeting of the Political Bureau, the criticisms we are making on the street and in the spirit of the party, will serve the cause of the Party, will also serve Comrade Mehmet himself. They will further strengthen our Marxist-Leninist unity. I believe that Comrade Mehmet will properly understand the criticisms we are making and as a communist, he will react positively. He has strength and we, his close friends, will help him spare nothing.

COMRADE LENKA CUKO: When we were admitted to the Party, we swore that we will work, fight and consistently defend its line, and that we will not put anything above its principles and norms. Comrade Mehmet, I think, did not keep this oath in his work and with this action he did with the engagement of his son, Skender, to the daughter of a declassified person.

In the written self-criticism made by friend Mehmet, he says that I was sentimental and you were afraid that the boy would suffer some trauma. We can tell him, what about the trauma that the Party line could suffer; did you have it in mind? Or did he find the shortest way, so that I better complete the son’s shroud, without the Party line, others will fix it. I would say that Comrade Mehmet should not have corrected the engagement when Comrade Enver recommended it to him, because we should all work to make his job easier and not burden Comrade Enver with such things.

Even when the news broke that Comrade Mehmet’s son is engaged to Ismail Turdi’s granddaughter, who lives in Lushnje, a very worried communist came to me and said: What happened, that Comrade Mehmet’s son is engaged to Ismail Turdi’s granddaughter? As much as they could know who Ismail Turdiu was, I did not know him, but now, looking at comrade Mehmet’s self-criticism, I see who Ismaili or Qazim Turdiu are.

I actually didn’t believe him and told him that’s not true, so shut up. But she and her friends said that Ismail Turdi’s friend is talking to others, come with your wishes, because our granddaughter is engaged to the prime minister’s son, that’s why you talk in vain, that we are of bad political composition.

It is known that the son of friend Mehmet, it is not the first time that he falls into such mistakes. I can say here, in the Political Bureau, that in Lushnje people talk a lot, that he goes after several degenerate girls, one of whom also lives in Lushnje and will allegedly take her as his wife.

In the end it turned out that he got engaged to another girl. People say, just as the friends here said, that these issues are fed by Comrade Mehmet and Comrade Fiqret, they have even reached the point where, when Comrade Mehmet’s son passes by with his entire bride, they say: What are these aren’t they Marxist-Leninists?

So they also talk about appearance. So I think that friend Mehmet should not take this lightly and say that he doesn’t know what these people are like, that I don’t look after my children. Yes, we can tell him that the son of friend Mehmet went out barefoot outside the “Block” when he was on the beach in Divjaka, even without slippers at all, without letting his bride change and walk her children, son or daughter., by motorboat. Once we were there with my friend Kadri and he said to him: don’t come here, you, who ordered you to roam around here and pick people up?

I don’t have much contact with Comrade Mehmet, but he represses you, doesn’t let you talk, and the people below say: “Thank goodness it wasn’t Comrade Mehmet, when we reported to the Government, that it can’t be done with him.” It is easier for us to come and talk to Comrade Enver here, to put our problems before him, to listen to us, and to be honest, I have learned a lot from other comrades, but especially from Comrade Enver, from the treatment of criticism that makes us.

The creation of special conditions that he has made for his children, he must see them. We also have children, but we hear a lot of talk that the children of friend Mehmet dress like this and dress like that, that they are the spreaders of fashion, that they tell us: why does friend Mehmet’s son’s daughter-in-law dress like this and we should not dress like her , etc. All this means that Comrade Mehmet, along with Comrade Fiqret, say that for us there is another fashion, for the Party and for the people there is another.

I think that friend Fiqret is also responsible, and I don’t know what attitude the Party organization she belongs to has taken, but this friend must give an account and give a good account, because the car that the boy went to Greece for two weeks, she made it available to him, as we have heard. Where are you, why are the children of friend Mehmet, people saying, going out with the entire bride? Why is the daughter-in-law of friend Mehmet’s son, without finishing high school, allowed to go to the University, in the second year without completing the first year? Friends watch, people talk. Why doesn’t friend Mehmet know this? I don’t know these Fiqret friends? That’s why I think that friend Fiqret should also give an account and give a good account.

I think that Feçor Shehu is also responsible. He is entrusted with State Security and is a member of the Central Committee. Despite the fact that he gave the information to Comrade Mehmet and told him that I do not agree he should have informed the Central Committee and told him that I am powerless to influence Comrade Mehmet, therefore you, comrade, should judge this. Don’t pretend you don’t know anything. He is entrusted with State Security. Who gets these people out? Why did our country let the colors of Albanian sport be represented by Qazim Turdi’s daughter? What is this? Who gives these people the exit visa?

And here, please, who gave the visa to the one who went abroad? Who knows, she might be an agent there, the enemy might have compromised her. Thus, all of them appear to us now as innocent and friend Mehmet takes under his protection friend Fiqret, also friend Feçor, and saying that I am to blame. When it came down to it, we expelled the communists from the Party, telling them that you, my friend, married a declassified man, your ex-father-in-law was a ballistic missile and you were not honest, that’s why we don’t accept you in the Party, etc. etc.

What about these? Do they have to be accountable or do they get away with it? I think that even so superficially, I don’t know, but Comrade Kadri said that he made self-criticism. What self-criticisms he has made, I think they should be discussed by the Plenum of the Central Committee, and he has not made self-criticisms, why does he issue a firm to bring people with companies abroad to represent our sport? Shouldn’t our country be represented in our sport by these? We must always defend the Party line…

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I didn’t say anything about Feçor.

FRIEND LENKA CUKO: No, no. You said that Feçori doesn’t know what he did, forgive me if I didn’t hear him wrong, but anyway I say that he has to do it and he has to give an account. That now, Comrade Enver, he has another opinion, it is enough to be a sportsman and an artist and he goes abroad without difficulty, aside from the other main ones, for the political side, no one asks. I personally do self-criticism, but I haven’t had many contacts with my friend Mehmet, so better self-criticism should be done by friends Adil, Pali and others.

Friends say here that he doesn’t let you. Well, he won’t let you, but Comrade Enver in the Political Bureau has said several times that, come on guys, let me know. We have made self-criticism in front of Comrade Enver that we should inform him about problems, and Comrade Enver is also interested in simple problems of agriculture, industry, trade, what about these problems, which are related to the Party’s line? Here, these churches.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Let’s take a break.

FOURTH SESSION

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: Like all other comrades, I studied very carefully Comrade Mehmet’s written self-criticism, in which he tries to analyze the political mistake and find out the causes that led to this mistake. Since Skenderi has not returned until now, and I had the impression that he would have returned, he would be in Albania, now I say that he should return immediately and not only that, but also be careful not to do any other stupid things in Sweden, or in any other country, since he is used to wandering from one country to another.

This is a serious mistake also due to the fact that you sat at a table with Qazim Turdiu, and what’s worse, in the self-criticism you made in writing; you raise his figure up, pointing out his titles and merit his. Of course, we know that he is a professor, but he is not a party member and there was no need to praise him so much, he is like that and he is like that. You, friend Mehmet, should think long and hard, why did this girl want to join your family, be engaged to your son as prime minister?

You, friend Mehmet, as far as I know you, especially during these two years here in joint work, are characterized by abduction in making decisions. Many times you have fallen into mistakes and made self-criticism and again you say, I will try to correct myself. Of course, there have been several occasions when even in Government meetings, as it happened here, you cut off the words of your friends who are discussing, so that in one meeting, I remember, Comrade Prokop said: until you call us, we should also listen to the thoughts until the end, otherwise don’t call us at all, or on another occasion, when you spoke to Comrade Manush, what are these nonsense you did, giving the orientation and ordering to study the problems of the framework, Comrade Manush, for my opinion, straight and calm, he told you that: I implement the decisions of the 7th Congress of the Party, therefore you, Comrade Mehmet, he said, you should be more careful and he did not take it any longer.

Often you, friend Mehmet, are in a hurry in the orders you give, you rush without properly and carefully judging the problems that arise. Of course, later you judged that you did not act well for the opinion you gave, but here Comrade Mehmet Shehu gives orders, not someone else, a communist or a simple cadre, and the masses, Party committees, executive committees implement it immediately. However, there are some work processes and some sectors that are no longer repaired by the action taken.

Comrade Mehmet, I believe you remember, in 1980, coming out of the national road from Kavaja, on the left was a block of vines against phylloxera. You have ordered that this vineyard be uprooted within 24 hours. The first secretary of the district, Mihallaq Ziçishti, together with the chairman of the Executive Committee, gave orders and the vineyard was uprooted. You have studied this matter, you are also an agronomist, life itself has introduced you, so to speak, to the problems of agriculture, as well as to other problems, but you cannot know the technological processes of the vine, as know agronomy, or the technological processes of grain culture, as the specialist knows.

You can know many things, of course, above all you know the Party line, Comrade Enver’s teachings, in the first place, but you cannot get into the fine specialties, just as someone else who has also studied for these issues. Comrade Adil, charged me to see the vineyard and fruit nursery there, but the vineyard had ended, while the fruit nursery, with their initiative and fearing, andlet’s say it openly, for the very authority of Comrade Mehmet…!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Wasn’t there a vineyard near the bridge beyond Kavaja?

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: No, when you leave the city of Kavaja for Rrogozhinë, on the left, near the railway track. There used to be a vineyard, before going to the bridge, they will also uproot the orchard…!

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: Mehmet has these things, he has them, he does it with his head, as if it is his property, within 24 hours this will be destroyed, within 24 hours that will be destroyed. It is not right to act like this.

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: Here I am explaining, Comrade Enver. I discussed this matter with the specialists, I returned to Tirana, I told my friend that I am of the opinion that the nursery should remain where it is. Of course, friend Mehmet, if you take the principle of preserving the bread land, especially the plain land, in general the order stood, but the nursery requires healthy, clean land, because it is the future of fruit culture, it is the seedling, and there is how to plant them in hilly and mountainous lands.

You do well not to remain indifferent, friend Mehmet, to many problems wherever you go. In my opinion, you do well when you fix these problems, look at them with your friends and discuss them together with them and decide them collegially.

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: We discussed it with Comrade Adil, yes, we said, let’s leave it as it is, we will also explain it to Comrade Mehmet, and that’s how the nursery remained.

You do well not to remain indifferent, Comrade Mehmet, to many problems wherever you go. In my opinion, you do well when you fix these problems, look at them and discuss them together with them and decide them collegially. However, these remarks, these orders, these problems raised by Comrade Mehmet, are not one or two, but dozens, if not more, even 50 typed pages at a time.

These problems, from the smallest to the biggest, and when I say from the smallest, starting from women’s brooches, street poplars, to the biggest, block the vice-chairmen of the Council of Ministers, block the entire apparatus, and block all the dicasters, because you, you have to be given answers then for all of them.

Of course, this is good for you, because you give orders and an answer must be given, it must be reported for what you said, yes, as I said, for these problems the apparatuses have been blocked, the ministries have been blocked. We have also discussed with our fellow vice-chairmen of the Council of Ministers, but we have not given a solution to this work method, because in order to follow up on these problems and to prepare the answers of Comrade Mehmet, apart from us, a friend from the Inspection has been assigned of the State, the best man, the most prepared man, the secretary of the basic Party organization of this institution, alone to prepare, so to speak, the answers for Comrade Mehmet, after the other sectors prepared them.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: For these little things.

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: These small things, if it were for the decisions of the Government, for the decisions of the Presidency and the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, this is right and should be done.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: That is, these, the questions, come to you with a form.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: About the decisions.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Decisions yes, it also depends on what decisions, because we have major decisions, but to see, he says, a poplar on the street as well…!

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I have searched for the main problems.

COMRADE ADIL ÇARÇANI: No, you also asked for very small things.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: 80 percent are small, Comrade Enver, and 20 percent are other.

COMRADE ADIL CHARCANI: That’s right Comrade Enver. What Comrade Muho says is right, another thing we are responsible for is why we didn’t tell him, in any case we told him that there were excesses, it could be that he gave 60 different orders.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Yes, 60 are only for one deputy prime minister.

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: Comrade Adil, 60 can be just for you, but also from 30 to 40 for each of the other deputy prime ministers, so they exceed 100.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This, Comrade Mehmet, you must understand is not a right form of leadership, it is a wrong method.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: These are findings.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Not simple findings, that they turn into control and orders that require answers. How is it possible that you, as the prime minister, deal with such small things and engage the leadership to give you answers for such small things?! How is it then possible for you to think about big problems? Materially it is impossible. No, no, and it is one thing, that all of us have gone down…!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: One more thing, Comrade Mehmet, why don’t you work with the ministers? Well, you saw the issue of poplars, why didn’t you call the Minister of Agriculture, Themien, and raise the issue with him? I’m sorry, if we don’t just get caught up in poplars; we get caught up in the whole wide range of problems. If you found these things, call him and sit down with the Minister of Agriculture, or with the other interested minister.

Comrade Enver, what has come out of the consultations, we will look at these things now, maybe even at the next meeting, but the ministers, when we tell them the time, if something happens, go to the prime minister, but they are afraid of the widow this may sound strange to you, we are talking here like it is.

Why should friend Adil, friend Pali, be burdened with these things? They have their responsibility and we have what belongs to us, but if you saw something like this on the trip you made, give it to Pec, he will look at it to whom it belongs, or else call the Minister of Agriculture himself or that the other. What you do is not right.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The minister is not called for small things. We must bear this in mind.

COMRADE MANUSH MUFTIT: We have our responsibility, Comrade Enver, that’s how it is, 50-60 issues and not only are they written, but we stayed there for an hour and a half and two hours, taking notes. I have not called this practice right, I have said something, but this has continued and it is not right. There are all kinds of things there, there are also some important problems, and there are 40 others that anyone can do, but not us.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I do not believe that there are important things in such a working method, where 60 problems are immediately thrown on the Government’s table, or at the Presidency meeting, I do not believe that there are important things and problems, why one important problem , does not allow you to raise 40 more problems, this is impossible.

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: There is something else, Comrade Mehmet. It was very difficult for me once, when one of the heads of the Executive Committee asked me: where will Comrade Mehmet pass to go to this facility?

Why you are asking me, I said.

I ask you, because you have been in the district, to fix the plots and other objects, because I don’t want to eat shamata.

To be honest, it was hard for me, as a communist in the first place.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How did you say that, because I didn’t understand you?

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: When he asked me where he is going, which road will Comrade Mehmet take, to go to the facility he wanted to visit, so that he could fix the agricultural plots on the side of the road, fix the stables and other objects, so that our friend Mehmet does not find us bad.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: Wow, he understands, like the Potemkin he used to do to Katerina.

COMRADE MUHO ASLLANI: I did not stand by and spoke a lot to that chairman in this case. Why, I told him, arrange them only where Comrade Mehmet will pass? You have to fix the entire agriculture of the district, because you are a black face, you have not completed the tasks. It doesn’t matter who it was, mate, it’s not just one that does it, and it’s several. The point is that even in those tasks that you give, stick to it then, as one of my friends said, that what you say will be done, or it will not be done.

Now, Comrade Mehmet, you should be a bit more careful in your attitude, because since your political mistake happened, you seem to be a bit dull. I have noticed this since during the proceedings of the 8th Congress, even one of the delegates asked us: “What’s up, friend Mehmet?” It’s not a sick thing”.

Therefore, so to speak, you made a mistake, but go with courage and tell the Politburo the mistake, tell it with courage to the Party organization, the Government, the whole people, if necessary, but not to the dull ones and then fall into pessimism. In this regard, I say, you should be careful, as your friends also told you.

Discussing this problem, I also analyze my work and draw out tasks for the future, so that we do not fall into mistakes, always and whenever we apply the principles and norms of our Party, apply the teachings of Comrade Enver.

COMRADE FOTO CAMI: Many things came out here from the discussions of friends, so I will try to be as concise as possible and speak as briefly as possible. Like the other comrades, I read carefully, even twice, the self-criticism of comrade Mehmet. When I saw it, to be honest, from the number of pages, I said that there will be a deep analysis, from which we will all learn, but when I read it, the self-criticism of Comrade Mehmet did not satisfy me, and it seems to me that three large gaps.

First, there is no analysis from the political and ideological point of view of where lies the evil of the mistake made. What would people say and what would happen if the mistake that was made was allowed? People would say that in the Party there are two lines, there are two attitudes, one for the leaders, and another for the mass of communists and the people. From this point of view, Comrade Enver’s intervention was completely right and appropriate and the breaking of the engagement, necessary. This intervention was in the great interest of the Party, but also of Comrade Mehmet himself and his family, because the interests of each of us are inseparable from those of the Party.

Second, in his self-criticism, Comrade Mehmet tried to analyze the causes that led him to this mistake, but it must be said that the emphasis is not where it should be. Emphasis is placed on sentimentality, on the kidnapped character, on the haste in making decisions and so on. These occupy the overwhelming part of the self-criticism, while what constitutes the fundamental cause is dealt with clearly and only in point 7 of the self-criticism, towards the end of it.

It is very meaningful what is said in the self-criticism that, if someone else had asked me, if an engagement could be made with a girl from a family with such a family circle, I would definitely have refused. Why does this speak? This speaks of that feeling of superiority, of overvaluing oneself, of arrogance, it speaks of that wrong concept that you can allow yourself anything, even what others cannot and should not do. An expression of this feeling, of this concept, is also closing in on oneself and not consulting with friends, as well as the supposed thought of immunity from foreign influences, etc.

I think that not delving into this fundamental cause has also led to the other gap of self-criticism, that the conclusions drawn from the mistake made, mainly revolve around this mistake and a little and in a rather general form self-criticism leaves its goals. Comrade Enver, at the previous meeting of the Political Bureau, made some serious remarks about the method and style of work, which should be deeply reflected upon. Friends brought many examples that prove that there are many things that need to be seen in this direction.

Even the overestimation of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and its transformation, as Comrade Enver said, into a small government on top of the big government, also the tendencies for a pronounced centralism in the Presidency, in the Government, down to the smallest issues, basically they are issues that have to do with that sense of superiority of dictation, of a priori decisions, that only someone is able to judge competently, accurately, truthfully, and fairly about everything. Not only the ministers, but also the heads of the Executive Committees of the People’s Councils of the districts, have felt the heavy atmosphere of the meetings held in the Government.

It is also meaningful the case that you mentioned friend Adil with friend Vito, it seems to me, when she was at the Government meeting, she also complained to us about this attitude that was taken. She raised some problems of the women’s organization for which the intervention of the Government is also needed…!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: It wasn’t Comrade Vito, it was Comrade Hatixe Katro.

FOTO ÇAMI FRIEND: No, that Vito’s friend was also there in one case, I know that Vito’s friend came and complained, but in some other case Hatixia was also there. She came, laid out some problems related to the Women’s organization, for some relief measures for women, problems that the Government should study and, if possible, think about what could be solved by them. But, instead of these problems being listened to attentively, with care, she was met with the first feet and was held accountable by saying: What are you doing at the Women’s Organization, where are you? You sleep; do nothing, what are you doing here, etc.?

Comrade Enver’s remarks about the work of Comrade Fiqret at the Party School, which were made at the last meeting of the Political Bureau, are completely correct. Without denying the work, her efforts and the achievements of this school, it must be said that friend Fiqret has tried to transform this important institution into something closed, into a fortress where not only outsiders, but also the employees of the Central Committee apparatus, with difficulty they were able to get into her affairs.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Excuse me; let me ask Mehmet a question: Is it true that you gave a report on Military Folk Art at the Party School?

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Yes, I have been holding it for a long time.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You took my permission for this as the Commander-in-Chief, because that matter is a secret?!

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I did not talk about that, but about other parts that are ready. What I spoke about was not secret material, but for “internal use”.

COMRADE LLAMBI GEGPRIFTI: Yes, that report was made into a booklet.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: There is all the Popular Military Art. Well, anyway, you retire as a soldier, you are a member of the Politburo and the Defense Council, and you know that without my permission you cannot hold lectures on the People’s Military Art, without first getting permission from me? Then, despite speaking at the Party School, why didn’t you come to take my leave? We have a special school in the Army for such lectures.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: It was not secret material, but for internal use.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: As far as Folk Military Art is concerned, there is no “internal use”, for the Army, yes, but not to be kept in other institutions, so for this particular case, you had to get permission from me.

COMRADE LLAMBI GEGPRIFTI: Yes, it has been published, Comrade Enver, a book has been made on the People’s War.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: So this material has been made public at all?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: General things about the People’s War are discussed there, not the whole People’s Military Art is covered.

COMRADE LLAMBI GEGPRIFTI: The basic principles of Folk Military Art are all broken down there. That’s how it is, friend Mehmet. There are the basic concepts of our Folk Military Art.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: This is a serious point, Comrade Mehmet, and it means that we fight here for the preservation of state secrets; you yourself publicly spread the principles of our Martial Art. It should be kept secret and not published. This too was done without my permission. This fact is even more serious.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: It was done by the Ministry of Defense.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The Ministry of Defense did it. Did you allow it?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I started from what is not a matter of state secrets.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How is it possible for this to happen to you? We keep the secret even for a simple circular that we do about discipline in the Army, we call this secret and everything in the Army is secret.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Why didn’t you make him aware, tell Comrade Enver, that you will deal with this issue?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Listen, Comrade Mehmet, we must speak more openly here, in the Political Bureau. This is a big mistake. To give a lecture in the Party School without my permission, on the People’s Military Art, which is secret, is reprehensible, to print and spread this lecture on the People’s Military Art, and to receive it openly even by the agency, which itself buys it in shopping, this is another mistake…!

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: This brochure is not sold in the bazaar.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: You know all this very well. If I were like you, I would say this: I wanted to tell the students of the Party School, and all the others, that this Popular Military Art, signed by Enver Hoxha, is not his, but mine. This has pushed you, you don’t say anything else. I explode in front of the Political Bureau, any hostile intention on your part, I think there is no hostile work on your part, but under these conditions, you wanted to do such an act. Only this explains this, namely: let me tell those who will listen to me, that I am the author of Popular Military Art, despite the fact that it was signed by Enver Hoxha, as Commander-in-Chief.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I have never affirmed that I am the one who made this Art.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, I’ll say it. I have said that you have done the main job, and you have done a good job, but you wanted to do it publicly?

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: The Ministry of Defense published this material for internal use.

FRIEND PALI MISKA: This brochure has your name on it: ‘Mehmet Shehu’.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: What internal use, Comrade Mehmet?! You know very well that Folk Martial Art is not like my Diaries, which I published for internal use. It is a secret military document, with which we will go to war. This Art contains our tactics and strategy, is one of our weapons, with which we will oppose the enemy, and you give it to the enemy. Why? For a personal selfishness, why, as I said, I explode another goal, hostile work. You must understand that this is a grave mistake.

COMRADE FOTO ÇAMI: This is your goal, Comrade Mehmet, that’s why we need to go deeper, because right here, it seems to me, is the source of many evils.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: And how come this lecture takes place at the Party School, talking to Fiqreti before, and it doesn’t occur to you once that this is a secret document, that’s why I ask Comrade Enver first, Our Commander-in-Chief of the Army, for that matter? See where familiarity and unhealthy views lead! The ego does this.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: I was once a delegate to the Corps Committee in Burrel. There I heard a report where, without exaggeration, it was said ten times: Comrade Mehmet said this, Comrade Mehmet said that.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Why, for military issues?

COMRADE PALI MISKA: Yes, about the military issue. I say to those friends there, not openly, let’s be clear, with some caution: More, you are coming here, what Comrade Enver also said!

Another time in ‘Stalin’ City, Comrade Enver, in a Free Military School, I saw quotes by Mehmet Shehu there as well. More, I said to them, again carefully, just like that…! You notice, Comrade Enver, dualistic views in this matter. And from this point of view…!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I am listening to these now.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: I haven’t seen that, I haven’t seen any quotes from mine there.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: You should have seen them, Comrade Mehmet, because you spent 4-5 years in the Army. How do you allow them to quote from you? Why are there no quotes from Comrade Hysni there, or from Comrade Ramiz?

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: No, there are no quotes there!

COMRADE PALI MISKA: There are no quotes there; we also have quotes from Comrade Enver. So there are signs of duality here.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I have not seen what you are saying.

COMRADE PALI MISKA: It is impossible that they have not noticed you that you have been a minister for so long.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: They have been sent down to the wards from my discussions.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Listen, Comrade Mehmet, let’s talk like it is. You are glad to see from your quotes, you are glad to hear it said that: Comrade Mehmet said this, he did that, so I think it should be reflected in this matter, that there are some facts that speak of defects in this action serious in your character.

Let’s take an example… sorry friend Enver, sorry friend Foto, I won’t talk long. Comrade Enver called me, and then he told Comrade Mehmet himself to look at the negative sides of the fortification system, both from a psychological point of view, and from the point of view of the construction of the Art of War, etc. As much as I could learn from Comrade Enver, I immediately went and gathered my friends at the Ministry of Defense and told them what we are going to do.

We started there from work. As much as the friends could, they disassembled the order. After a while, even Comrade Mehmet broke down this orientation. But it is a lack of modesty and he must say in front of the staff that this work was being done according to the orders of Comrade Enver. Why didn’t you say that, friend Mehmet? In the ward of the Party conference it was said: According to the breakdown of Comrade Mehmet Shehu. I was forced to correct this, telling my friends for accuracy, for accuracy, that it is not Comrade Mehmet Shehu’s thoughts that are being said here, but Comrade Enver’s.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: I did not say that. When it came to your meeting about this matter, I said according to Comrade Enver’s orders.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: If it had been written like that, it wouldn’t have been written like that. Apart from that, the quotes… wait a minute, friend Pali, the issue should be seen like this, do you like it or not, do they do it for you? Yes, these are facts. I have been talking to you about quotes at the Military Hospital since you were minister. They are still there today.

I have said that it is difficult for me to remove them, but it is better for you, Comrade Mehmet, to order them to be removed yourself. We are communists here and I don’t want to excuse myself, but I told you this and I have a clear conscience. Even now your quotes about hygiene, health, one another, where do I know what they are there. The party will certainly take measures to put these things in place, but why don’t you?

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: When I told you, Comrade Mehmet, to review the analysis of that big mistake of the Tirana Group, which you didn’t see well, that’s why I sent it back, I made it clear to you that these results and conclusions you had issued were wrong. There I told you that it was “la deronte” and this “derute” of the First Brigade, you pointed out, I said that you went there, and among other things, you said: “you shamed me”, because I was the commander of the Brigade First, you also pointed out that in Spain, such a thing could not stick, etc. By this I mean that the First Brigade is not your Brigade, but the Party Brigade and the war in Spain is not characterized by the fighting qualities of our Brigades.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Of course it is the Party Brigade and the Spanish War; I haven’t even mentioned it at all.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Well, well, that’s what they told me, but our Brigades cannot be characterized with those of Spain, ours stand higher and are more disciplined than the Brigades of Spain.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: As far as I remember, Comrade Enver, you criticized Comrade Mehmet, pointing out that he made a mistake by speaking as the former commander of the First Brigade.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: She is right; I spoke as the commander of the 1st Brigade, but not about Spain.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I said, how I could not tell him. You told them.

COMRADE PHOTO ÇAMI: When it comes to the action of the 1st Brigade, for breaking the siege, differentiation has been made like never before, that it is not compared to any other, but…!

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: It covers the whole war…!

COMRADE FOTO ÇAMI: Comrade Mehmet does not speak at all about the war of the General Staff, who came out of the siege by himself.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Why didn’t you, Comrade Mehmet, correct this entire treatment of the First Brigade, but put us in difficult positions?! I have called Ndreçi Plasari and pointed out that he is not right. Why didn’t you do it yourself? Why don’t you correct the historical treatment you did to the liberation of Tirana? Look at it from this angle.

Why are we asking you these questions? That we want to help you. No interpretations should be made here, you told me this, and I told you that, if you look at the root of the problem. “I”, I ask this thing from you, this “I”, cultivates this tendency that appears in you. This is where the issue should be seen.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: And you contribute to this, Comrade Mehmet. These days, reading the reports of the Congress, I was very impressed that in the matter of intensification of Agriculture, Comrade Enver, I’m sorry, Comrade Foto that we left you in the middle, an addition has been made. Here, in the Political Bureau, and precisely in the hall above, in the meeting of the Plenum of the Central Committee, we decided that the intensification of agriculture should include the rural area of six districts: Vlora, Lushnje, Fier, Durrës, Tirana and Elbasan.

While in the report that was held in the Congress by comrade Mehmet, on the issue of intensification, it is spoken as Comrade Enver said, but in the intensification, the area of Korça is also included. Who decided this, friend Mehmet? I immediately got Haxhi Kroi and asked him for the report of comrade Mehmet, which was examined by the Political Bureau, which was taken out of the archive, and I saw that it did not appear there! I also looked for the report that the Central Committee saw, but even there, it does not appear!

By what right did you, without a decision of the Political Bureau, without a decision of the Central Committee of the Party, this elementary party norm, tell the Congress that the area of Korça was also included in the intensification?! Even the way you said this in the report is not right. I mean it here, Comrade Enver, forgive me, but Comrade Mehmet, when he was in Korça, said at the Party Conference that the area of this district was also under intensification. Although you said it there, it does not mean that this decision was made.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: It is not about spreading the experience of Plasa.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: No, no, you put it that way. You don’t have to say otherwise.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: No, no, it’s written like that. I do not want to emphasize one thing, the progress of agriculture in the Field of Korça, I, nor you, nor did Hysniu. More specifically, I was in Korça before you left with the team you sent and the friends there, they told me about the Plasa experience that I knew. I asked them: Have you expanded the Plasa experience? They raised the issue of the obstacle from the highlands as a problem, and especially this year they said, the hills hurt us more than the highlands.

They also raised the problem of increasing the tank capacity. ‘Okay, we have that’, I told them, ‘present the case for the reservoir to be expanded. As for those two thousand hectares, look at this with their own benefit, so of course, these two thousand hectares, we will not leave them unplanted, but if we have to remove something there and add it here, do it. ‘. Now, why do I tell this story? I say this to point out that the Party and government comrades there have worked before you and I.

But you, as Ramizi said, seemed to them that, with your departure, the issue of Korça and its involvement in the intensification came to an end. Korça, it really takes 45 kv. Wheat per hectare, it has all the possibilities for this, but here, there is also the issue of the highlands. Therefore, neither you nor I did this situation. Bile, Hysniu, has a great merit, that he sews Plasa, while you have opposed this, you have not allowed the experience of this cooperative to expand, and now he appears to us as a fighter of Plasa.

Therefore, there is no need to brag about this, if you, mother, until the Congress pierced this issue. If we talk that the experience of Plasa has not spread, we must see this in the districts, such as in Lushnje, etc., why in Korça, if it has not spread 100%, 90% of the area of this district has been fixed.

COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: It is the issue of removing 1,200 ha.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, 1,200 ha. it is not the whole Field of Korça, it is a small thing, 1,200 ha. for this circle.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: Yes, you prevent that too, Comrade Mehmet. After all, do you remember the plenum of the Central Committee years ago? You called Enver Halil and talked to him like a pig, when they say, why are you raising this issue? You haven’t studied it. That’s right, it was about 1,200 ha. That’s a problem, isn’t it? We’ve all been there, it’s been a year or so…!

COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: You, Comrade Mehmet, were not in favor of Plasa and you even gave the scheme to the Ministry of Agriculture. I went to the Ministry of Agriculture three times because I didn’t really know the problems of agriculture, when I was here, in the apparatus of the Central Committee, but I couldn’t leave, because the head of this department had your pressure there.

Comrade MEHMET SHEHU: Now you say that I was not for Plasa and for the intensification of agriculture?

COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: No, you haven’t been, and that’s what Comrade Enver said now…!

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: But why are we telling you now, why are we setting these examples? Do you like to show off, to take credit for others? Here, this is closely related to the “un” that we are pointing out, to arrogance, to all that the friends are saying one after the other. You now catch, no it is so, yes it is not so.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: These are the facts and no one told you that you are not in favor of intensification, they only said that for the experience of Plasa, you were not determined and the fact is that the experience of this cooperative has been left behind, not in Korça, there is only 10% left behind, but it is left behind in other plain areas, in other districts.

COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: I also said this, Comrade Enver. This is not Comrade Mehmet’s idea. Where Comrade Mehmet’s idea is, he does his work properly, while in Plasa, let’s say in Albanian, Comrade Mehmet has not done his work. I even remember that at the 7th Party Congress, we had a little fight together on this very issue.

COMRADE MANUSH MYFTIU: We have a duty to help Comrade Mehmet, but he also has a duty to help himself, to think and reflect and not to ask us with dozens of examples, just one is enough, because we will not we continue

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, this is indeed his duty. It gets difficult, Mehmet, it seems to me, if we get caught up in an issue, like for example, have you seen that quote or not. At the end of the day, even though they put a quote in a department, the work is not ruined. Yes, it is not only this, there are many other things that clearly show your arrogance and the tendency to overestimate and praise your person. And there are many flattering people who are ready to put you on this path. Flatterers don’t eat grass and when they see that you eat these praises, they are ready to give you three or four more.

COMRADE PHOTO ÇAMI: Many of these flaws that are manifested in Comrade Mehmet are also in the Party School. Friend Fiqret also maintains a crooked position, she does not accept any criticism of the work that is done there, and she does not accept any discussion. He accepts any remark or suggestion with great difficulty. In general, it creates the impression that in the School; everything is in order, as if there is no room for correction, for any improvement. In addition, a harsh environment has been created there, Fiqreti makes the law, while all the lecturers have become like chickens, and they don’t dare to express their thoughts freely. They have to ask Fiqreti for everything, they can’t do anything without her permission.

There is a sick spirit of conformity among the lecturers there; an unpleasant situation has been created. This was also clearly seen in the meeting of the Party organization of the Party School pedagogues, when the issue of Fiqret’s attitude regarding the son’s engagement was analyzed. Instead of taking a stand and criticizing Fiqreti for this action he had taken and for the responsibility he bore, they all turned the meeting into a tribune of eulogies, praising Fiqreti “for a Bolshevik self-criticism”, etc., etc.

This servility has reached the point where, according to the words of a friend, in an evening they had there, one of them raised a toast, saying: “Let’s drink a glass to the commissariat of commissariats, to the mother of mothers”, to the point of absurdities such have achieved.

FRIEND ENVER HOXHA: How did you say that, are you telling us once again that I didn’t understand?

COMMAND PHOTO CAMI: Someone raised a toast at a dinner that was held at the Party School: “for the commissariat of commissars”, “for the mother of mothers”!

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The flatterers. Another one told me that in a meeting, which someone set up and said to him: “Why are you criticizing this, this is what the great strategist of Albania, Comrade Mehmet Shehu, said”! So, what Fiqreti does, of course, is also covered under Mehmet’s name. We must understand this.

COMRADE FOTO ÇAMI: I was talking here, Comrade Enver, that we should go deeper into these problems together, because even Comrade Fiqrete, is a pretty cadre, a member of the Central Committee, and just as she is responsible for the act she commits with the engagement, he is also responsible for this behavior and the attitudes he held in the School, which were also discussed at the last meeting of the party organization.

Even for children, I think that friend Mehmet and friend Fiqrte should think more deeply, that there are many problems related to their education. People talk a lot about the children’s behavior, especially the last two boys. And this is related to the fact that friend Mehmet has created opportunities for them and allows them to do anything, to behave as they want even for those things that others criticize. Comrade Mehmet has made a name for himself when he has met someone like that, and in the behavior of his children, he allows things that are very extravagant and flagrant.

This is again related to what we are always saying, with the feeling of superiority in him, according to which: “I am allowed to do anything, others cannot do as I do”. This is related to the fact that he always puts himself in a privileged, special position, above others, above the norms, above the Party line.

From all these remarks and criticisms, I think that Comrade Mehmet should draw opinions and conclusions, delve into his self-criticism and especially make a change in his attitudes and concrete actions in his daily work. This is required by the great interest of the Party and of Comrade Mehmet himself. I agree with the opinion that this action should be punished, as well as with the measure that was proposed here.

From this meeting came out many problems about the method and style of work, which apply to all of us and will help us to improve our work in the spirit of the tasks laid out at the 8th Party Congress and the efforts that must be made to implement theirs.

COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: I also carefully read Comrade Mehmet’s self-criticism. There were more events, circumstances and regrets recorded there, but very little analysis is done, the causes that brought about this situation are not related. The act committed by him is very serious, because it affects the Party’s line, while the self-criticism he has made is very weak, and in the answers he gave to his friends, I think that so far he is not reacting correctly, it even seems as if he is not wants to react.

Comrade Mehmet was criticized at the meeting of the Political Bureau for the delay in making self-criticism, and he does not say a word about this issue, why this is happening to him. On the other hand, I say that even in submitting the self-criticism, a day before the meeting of the Political Bureau, there is haste on his part. In his self-criticism, he does not say a word about the very important problems that Comrade Enver raised in that Politburo meeting. I understand that the analysis of these problems requires some time, but not to mention them at all, not to pronounce on the need to look at them and not to show solidarity with the content of the problems that were raised by Comrade Enver, I don’t think right, even I should say, that for these things friend Mehmet should be investigated.

I ask friend Enver to do self-criticism, he delays this, friend Enver raises many problems of method and style at work, he does not take these things into his mouth at all! When he acts like this with his friend Enver, what about his other friends?! They look like flies to him. He should have helped us with his self-criticism about these big issues that Comrade Enver raised, so that we too could then try to unravel, find the causes of these legitimate concerns that Comrade Enver raised in his speech.

Why does Comrade Mehmet take these positions, I don’t know, but one thing is clear, these are not forgetfulness, because in the last meeting, he was told by his comrades: Comrade Mehmet, reflect and connect self-criticism with these issues. I think that overestimation, “me”, often putting himself above the Party prevents him from doing this. From Comrade Enver’s speech in the Political Bureau and from reading Comrade Mehmet’s self-criticism, I have tried to see myself as well, to see this in relation to work and family.

I have not spared work, but I have not always done it well. I have to delve into a number of important problems that present concerns for the Party and face more courageously the cases of euphoria and incorrect attitudes that were observed in Comrade Mehmet and some comrades of the Presidency. It is true that I have said in the Government and the Presidency: let us talk, or don’t call us in vain.

Yes, friend Mehmet, this connects a bit with what friend Lenka said, with your attitude towards your fellow cameramen. I could be wrong, but he must have that opinion. If we raised something, he would answer: And you, what do you do? What does the Party do? Yes, all of us in the Party are. If you are going to talk about the basic organization, it is not the place to talk here, in the Government meeting. Of course, we had our responsibility, and state problems were discussed there. That’s why I connect the issue with the one raised by friend Lenka. It happened to her like this, to me like this, to the friend of the Women’s Organization, like this. Isn’t there some disregard for the apparatus of the Central Committee on the part of Comrade Mehmet?

As for the family, I have no problems, but I am in debt, because I have to do something more with them. Our children live in the people, so they should be as simple, as modest and as polite as possible. From the children for the first time I have heard how it happens that friend Mehmet is so strict with foreign shows and now on the other hand he allows his son’s daughter-in-law to go out in public with all kinds of fashions, not only that , but also side by side with Fiqreti? Let then the issue of Skenderi, who got engaged to Turdiu’s daughter, that the children were surprised.

Now I draw this conclusion: our children, our young people know the Party’s line much better than Comrade Mehmet. In this regard, we should also be more careful about the directorate that serves us, because many whispers arise from differences and people are taken by mouth. A number of things were said here, but I have the impression that even Comrade Adil, who has this directorate on the line, should be careful, that there are differences first.

Comrade Mehmet’s responsibility is very serious; the step he took is such that even a simple communist rarely finds it. In self-criticism, he seems to take every responsibility upon himself. It is clear that he has the main responsibility, but I think that friend Fiqrtet also has a lot of responsibility. Friend Mehmet says in his self-criticism that, being closed in on family matters, I influenced my friend Fiqret for the worse that she might ask. Here he takes it under his arm. But who prevented friend Mehmet and friend Fiqrtet from asking? After all, what would they ask about, when the girl’s biography was clear, either from the information of friend Feçor, or from those of Skenderi himself.

He excuses himself for the speed of Skenderi’s engagement that he was going to Sweden, so if he had postponed it and not been in a hurry, he would have either reflected or asked his friends. I have no conviction for this either, because it is not a well-argued reasoning. If he had time available to ask, he should do this, it didn’t take much time, half an hour was enough. It seems to me that he did not want to ask, thinking that: “my friends will come and visit me, congratulate me and thus everything will be legalized”.

I think that some friends from other sectors are also responsible for this, as they have allowed the rules and norms that have been set to be broken. For example, why should this girl with this biography, who is a volleyball player, be allowed to go abroad, or why is she from the “Dinamo” team? When they lived in such element districts, they were not allowed to go outside. But also for the permission of Skenderi who accompanied the team, isn’t someone responsible here? No, even comrade Mehmet himself, it seems to me, has responsibility in this matter.

COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: To expel the girl, I think, it is not the fault of Comrade Mehmet.

COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: Well, I’m not talking about Comrade Mehmet; I’m talking about the one who gives the approval, who approves him to go? Who approved Skenderi to go with the volleyball team? That he didn’t go illegally? So someone approved it and that someone has responsibility, I think. Comrade Mehmet says that, if someone asked him to do krushqi with a family with such a circle, he would answer not to do it.

This is a bit anachronistic, why even if he started from the thought that this girl would not affect his family, because he supposedly felt himself immune to the influence of the enemy, but did he not think that he included her among other friends? I am with what comrade Ramiz says, that the action that comrade Mehmet did means: O men, get up now and get engaged to the daughters of the declassified. Even for opinion, the problem that he is the prime minister now arises. How much will this job cost? Different things are said and lectures are held, and different things are done. This doesn’t work.

I think, as all the comrades here said, with the action of Comrade Mehmet, two lines emerge in the Party, even on very serious, very delicate issues. How can one say what is rightly said, that the danger comes from what one forgets? How can the class war be forgotten, but tons of us have listened to the lectures from you, friend Mehmet, and also from friend Fiqrete. This is not to say that the implementation of a task, a decision was forgotten. We are all parents, we have feelings, we have obligations, but sentimentality should not lead us to where it led you. For myself, I am convinced that sentimentality will not take me so far as to touch the Party line.

Friend Mehmet says she is impulsive. Everyone should be impulsive, but within the norms, to the point where the Party line is not violated. If you show yourself to be abducted, accompanied by this abduction with arrogance and conceit, these are matters of tact. This has reflected in your work and in your relationships with your friends and with the main friends, with whom you have had cooperation. I had the impression and I said it once in the Political Bureau, that your friends, friend Mehmet, do not raise things on time and properly. For many problems, I noticed that friends were reluctant to tell you things as they were; they spoke maybe with a bit of gloss and with delay!

COMRADE HAJREDIN ÇELIKU: Comrade Enver’s proposal to submit a written self-criticism on the part of Comrade Mehmet, after the criticism he had given him, as far as he had acted regarding his son’s engagement, is a forced party norm, no more only for the leaders, but for all communists. This is also a great help that you gave to your friend Mehmet, in order for him to be freed from the great anxiety that has plagued him throughout this period.

The discussion we are having aims, as Comrade Enver says, to save the Party, which is the main one, to raise the morale of the critic to correct the big political mistake he made. But as it turned out from the self-criticism, he could not do it right neither there nor here. However, I think that his action was not only accelerated, but also not deepened, and not weighed from all sides, especially, in terms of the implementation of the principle of class struggle and the implementation of the Party’s norms, regarding the criticism and self-criticism, which given the experience he had as an old communist, and even more so as an experienced leader, he should never have done, because, as we have seen, the mistake was political and, as it turned out, he could not get over it easily if he had thought so, that he would throw such a thing at the Party.

My opinion is that, even if Skenderi had a daughter, it would be better for her to remain unmarried, than for Khrushchev to associate with people in such a circle, with a bad political attitude, both from his mother and from his the father. This action, although it did not end in marriage, because even here the Party and friend Enver helped, still, as the friends said, there were consequences. And the consequences were not only for Comrade Mehmet and his family, but above all, whether we like it or not, it also damaged the Party in terms of the understanding and implementation of the principle of class war.

Why did Comrade Mehmet fall into such a mistake?! This rightly surprised us all. He tries to explain this in his self-criticism, analyzing the causes and circumstances that led him to this action, but he did not succeed either in writing or here, even after the help that all his friends gave him.

I think that he has not yet reflected how and sufficiently, for what he has done and for the great damage he has brought to the Party. Comrade Ramiz said it right and all the other comrades too, and in this direction make the right turn. We love Comrade Mehmet and we are sorry that he fell into a not simple but serious mistake, a political mistake. But in front of the high interests of the Party, we cannot remain silent, because this may have made them think that, just like in the past, you would overcome this situation as well.

This self-criticism and criticism of comrades that Comrade Mehmet needed, not only to not allow the Party’s line to be damaged anymore, but to free himself from an anxiety and closing in on himself, which is harmful to the Party, especially when now that we have all this great work ahead, for the implementation of the historical tasks that the 8th Party Congress set, for breaking them down and the tasks that Comrade Enver laid out at the first meeting of the Politburo to further perfect the method and style at work, as a basic link to carry out all tasks in the idea-political, economic and defense fields.

In addition to the serious political mistake that you made, friend Mehmet, regarding the son’s engagement, for which everyone rightfully criticizes, try to draw valuable lessons for the critics, so that in this case they can also do them in the direction of method and style at work, of a harsh character, not at all social towards friends, towards subordinates, towards whom you have to temper your will to listen to people more prudently.

If you get tired, it is better to keep in mind at least to adjust the competences of the subordinates and further increase the trust in them. All our achievements are dedicated to the people, under the leadership of the Party and Comrade Enver. We, no matter what we do, are part of the whole great work done by the Party, without wanting to undervalue the role of the individual here, but not as it appears here, so that your “me” comes out on top of the great work it has done and the Party is going underground even with the entire leadership of the Party, with Comrade Enver at the head.

You say that you would not make such an engagement for one of the other two boys! Why? Because you knew you were wrong. The boy said this, Fiqreti also said it, Turdiu himself came to say it. Then why didn’t you stop this act? Didn’t you think that just like many other facts that came out here, with other family members, you wouldn’t be accountable to whom? If you knew what you were going to come here today and what is being done would happen, then of course you would not have done it.

Why did you think so then? The comrades said well, that for you there was a different Party discipline, from what the Party has for all its members, this maybe fed by the position and the merits you have, reaching the conclusions that you are infallible, immune, and you know everything So there are not two disciplines in the Party, of which one is for all communists and the other is for the leaders. We criticized many bad actions of the putschists and from the analysis we made of their hostile work, we all learned lessons.

What did you do, that the son followed the bride even in the sports matches that this would do outside? With what money are such things made? You did wrong to send the boy back to Sweden, to finish school or take the exams. It would have been good if he had stopped him and sent him to the bosom of the working class, so that he could wash away the mistake he made with work. Skenderi’s engagement to Turdiu’s daughter, the meetings of the other son’s bride with the Frenchman, show that you and your friend Fiqeret are not only sentimental, but also liberal. Go back to the decisions of the 4th plenum and the analyzes that were made then, look at yourself once again in the light of these decisions.

Well said friend Kadri, don’t act like we don’t know things, when we do know them and in fact don’t expect others to tell you this. You are making a big mistake by doing so. Harm Fiqret’s friend and son and everyone else, when you think that they have no fault and responsibility for these events, I took everyone under my arm and all the fire for myself. No, that’s not how you do it, friend Mehmet, because even with this action, you think that you will be able to pass their case more easily, taking all the blame for yourself.

However, in addition to the political error and the responsibility that Comrade Mehmet has for this issue related to the engagement, the members of the “Dinamo” Club and the Ministry of Internal Affairs are also responsible, because they should not only signal, but also intervene more energetically to prevent at all costs the introduction of Turdiu’s daughter into the Bloc, and into the family of fellow Party leaders. Where is their vigilance here? Even the other friends of the prime minister’s office, really didn’t know anything about this engagement at first, because friend Mehmet had not informed them or talked about these things, but when they found out, what did they do?!

They didn’t talk, they didn’t say a word. But why are they waiting for Comrade Enver to tell them all the things? Were they also afraid of him criticizing them? And as it turns out, there is a bitter truth here. How many times has Comrade Enver talked about the problems of criticism and self-criticism as important norms of party life? He especially spoke about the parallel criticism, especially to incite it from the bottom up, that is, also towards officials and other comrades. In this regard, the courage of these comrades should have been greater.

From what was discussed here, everyone learns lessons, including me as a communist and a cadre, both for the understanding and consistent application of the principle of class struggle, as well as for the understanding of the best application of norms such as self-criticism, criticism , listening to the voice of the masses, strengthening vigilance and democracy in the family, etc.

Since the employees down at the base know this issue, Comrade Mehmet should do self-criticism not only in the base organization, but also in any collective meeting, where he will address these issues as much and to the extent that it would be worth it to them. I think this would make it easier for Comrade Mehmet, and the masses would understand his self-criticism correctly, but real self-criticism and not like what he presented to us here.

COMRADE BESNIK BEKTESHI: At the next meeting of the Political Bureau, you, Comrade Enver, told us that we are all waiting for Comrade Mehmet’s self-criticism, so that we can be freed from worry, if he himself is also freed. Here, in the Politburo, I am the youngest; I am saying this with sincerity from the communist that every day I have worried and thought about this issue. Comrade Enver, in the last meeting you taught us that in our revolutionary Party, we should feel free, to speak our thoughts openly, you taught us to work as a single body, but not with a family orientation.

I had definitely prepared my discussion in a sense, because I didn’t have a relationship or working relationship with Comrade Mehmet, but all the time I was taking stock, that’s why I asked the question: what consequences will you bring to the Party, if was this marriage? I do not intend to prolong things here, because the comrades said it very directly and very clearly, but I want to say that, in my opinion, first of all, the unity of the Party from the base to the center, the unity that we have holy

I think that party-people unity would be harmed. In truth, we have an excellent people, but no mistake escapes its judgement, no matter which it is, that’s why we say: what the Party says, the people do, every people, the Party does. I think that the class struggle will be weakened, so you will become a very harmful work for the Party in this regard. The enemy would have achieved an even greater victory, even if it was temporary, if he would not have allowed the Party any further, as he actually achieved on this occasion.

I think that the image of Comrade Mehmet would have been damaged even more, at the same time all those flaws such as: the view you have about infallibility, the abducted character in making decisions, the micro-bourgeois sentimentality, etc. for which he himself makes self-criticism, they would receive artificial food, because the Party in turn would not give them.

But the Party has an iron discipline, based on mandatory norms to be implemented by everyone. She does not allow anyone to harm them. If you get married immediately, the meeting of the Political Bureau would be held, but it would be more serious for all of us, the wound would be bigger, and with more consequences. I think that this is the merit of the Party and Comrade Enver, that at the moment, they saved not only Comrade Mehmet and his family, but also saved the unity and discipline of the Party. Therefore, you, Mehmet, should not only reject Skenderi’s proposal, but also analyze the matter immediately, find out the reasons why this proposal was made and draw the necessary conclusions from it.

I think that Comrade Mehmet should draw very deep conclusions from this meeting and from this help that the Party is giving him. Even for me, personally, this gathering is a great school, a great lesson, which I will always keep in mind in my life, work and family. I fully agree with the measure proposed by Comrade Simon and with which all the other comrades also agree.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: I propose that we continue the meeting tomorrow, because I also want to speak. I just want to make it clear to Mehmet that in this meeting, all comrades, with an open heart, as communists and as leaders in this high forum of the Party, pointed out your big political mistake – ideological and also reflected where this error came from. Everything the comrades said was for the good of the Party and yours that you have served them and will continue to serve the Party and the people, and I am convinced that you will continue to serve them even better, as you have served them. in case you make these mistakes, you should also understand where they came from. So, it is important to realize where these mistakes came from, that they were made.

In the first place, you must reflect and be convinced of the justice of the criticisms of the comrades, which were well-founded and made within the most just revolutionary Marxist-Leninist norms and with the aim of correcting this mistake, to fix you, to fix the work from now on. Therefore, this is how you should take it. You have never seen these criticisms in this form, but I, who have a long experience in the party, can say that this meeting was at a much higher level than the other meetings we have held, for some other errors.

This shows for me and for all of us, the high Marxist-Leninist level of the comrades, their sound judgments, near and far perspectives and their sense of responsibility to keep the Party line clean, to save you too, friend Mehmet, because we don’t want to throw you away, we just want you to turn around.

My opinion is that what you will tell us tomorrow, and I am convinced that you will speak here tomorrow, because we have a friend and we know you, and that all these things that were said, that impressed you must be based. Don’t take things lightly, no, this criticism was a bit exaggerated, the other one incomplete, but you get their essence, their essence, and we are interested in that, because this is how we are convinced that we will correct you and in this direction, we will let’s also give help, with sincerity and communist love.

The important thing is to understand us, to understand us as a leadership, to understand us as communists, within the principles of the Party, not in a sentimental way, which you mention, or in a “social” way.

Therefore, in order to reach a correct conclusion, tonight and you all night, you will not sleep, because these concerns, if not of this nature, but also of other natures, disturb the sleep of all of us, especially this situation for you, that is heavy. Therefore, you should not aggravate the situation more. We, too, will try again tomorrow, in the interest of the Party and in your interest, so that this situation does not get worse.

I advise you to drop that alibi self-criticism that you presented to us, that is, to justify the political mistake you made. This alibi, before the strong Marxist-Leninist logic, failed. Then, what is the right path that you should walk on? The right path is what the friends said. So, if you reject that alibi, with all the con-tours, then in a very short time, you will judge things correctly and you will be calm.

These, for your friends to point out, are lessons not only for you, but for all of us, because I think that there is not one of us who does not have a bit of microbourgeois spirit in himself. This reality is the reflection of the society in which we have lived, of the classes we come from, which sometimes appears more and sometimes less. Therefore, as a communist, as a revolutionary, we must always be vigilant to analyze the action we are doing and see what is in this action that is microbourgeois?

If we go from the principle that: it is not that we are seasoned communists, that nothing affects us, then they will thicken, they will become big. We have to look at each step ourselves with this mirror, but when our friends help us, and then the work is easier for us. In this sense, the discussions of the comrades, here have been a great help for you, in the first place, but also for all of us, especially for the Party, that the comrades judged it correctly, but you must also judge it, that the situation was heavy. It was serious, not only because the engagement took place, but as the friends explained, it was a very serious situation, even in the management of state affairs, in that form, and with that flaw in your character, which should not be underestimated that are the main ones.

I can say that every evil has its good. Now, this evil was done and it is good that it was opened and you opened this, you are the one who opened this wound, but you must understand that you are not the enemy of the Party, in any way, no one thinks that, only that I made this mistake.

Yes, you did it at the same time, also a good thing for the Party, you did a service, why all these criticisms that we are giving you, we have made you before, but you have not corrected, now I have the conviction and I will say when I speak, that this current situation will shake Mehmet, rather bring him to the right path, only if he understands the mistake correctly. That’s why it seems to me, if you reflect tonight, you Mehmet, I will speak first tomorrow, and then you can speak too.

FRIEND MEHMET SHEHU: Agreed.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Then we close this session and continue tomorrow at 10 o’clock.

THE FIFTH SESSION

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: We are opening the meeting of the Political Bureau. Comrade Hekuran takes the floor.

FRIEND HEKURAN ISAI: I consider the incident to be a consequence of some appearances on which I will think of expressing my opinion, focusing on the appearances of dualism and those that I will say existed before the event and if it were understood differently, this would it was an unfair connection between cause and effect and would not really consider what happened as the cause of what we are now discussing. This would make understanding and debugging difficult.

In principle, dualism, as an aspect of the class war, appears precisely because there are wastes that push our organism towards liberal decentralization, towards bureaucratic centralism, giving up and taking over powers. For all sectors, these are fundamental problems, to which the forums and Party bodies provide solutions. There are analyses, generalizations and relevant decisions about these problems from the Party leaders. The role of a forum depends not only on the name, but also on the level of problems and cadres that are part of it.

In relation to problems, there have been cases when due care was not shown. I say cases that are why I also say manifestations of dualism. From these shows, it has become a rule to say “Party and Government”, because if the Government does not say it, it seems as if it denies the work of the Government. Since we say “Party and Government”, it is a rule to place together the photo of the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party, with that of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Comrade Mehmet.

In addition to this, along with the main quotes, it is becoming a rule that quotes from the head of the Government, Comrade Mehmet, about discipline, about Military Art, about the agro-technical code, about the issue of power, etc., are placed in lectures and lectures. It seems to me that there is no need to start writing on the walls in addition to the main quotes and to mention quotes from other comrades in lectures. This must be understood correctly by you, friend Mehmet, because if it is not understood correctly, then it can take on a different meaning. The thing is that gradually, willy-nilly, situations are created that cannot be eliminated with actions, and then other problems are created.

It seems to me that the placement of members of the Political Bureau as members of the Government and as party leaders, who are members of the Government, is also related to what I said, add here also comrades Rita and Muho, who assist several times in the Government meeting, we become 10 members of the Bureau in these matters. What is noticed there? It is noted that for the reports with problems that come to the Political Bureau for review by the Government, only three or four comrades who have been to the Government meeting make remarks, proposals and suggestions.

The others, up to 10 friends, either answer the questions, or counter the remarks or argue in defense, or remain silent. Thus the issue presented for discussion seems like a predetermined problem; even the number creates an influence of superiority. “We are the majority of members of the Politburo here”, said comrade Mehmet to comrade Simon Stefani, so don’t stop “X” problem.

In the Government, especially in the main sectors, there will definitely be members of the Political Bureau, because among the levers of the Party, that of power is the most important sector, but wouldn’t the number also be better evaluated? We have also had manifestations of dualism between the state bodies themselves and specifically between the Government and the Presidency.

The way the meetings of the Presidency are held today, they have faded the role of the Government to some extent, this sometimes not only at the level of problems, but also in the fact that the Presidency, whenever it wants, calls the members of the Government, asks them to account until at that level, like anyone in the Government meeting, not only does he not raise problems, but he doesn’t even raise his head. Thus the Presidency today resembles a micro-government within the macro-government.

What Comrade Mehmet emphasizes on page 6 of his self-criticism, that “the negative factors of my character, if they were not fought and if they were not rooted out, could lead me to other mistakes”, I do not understand that it is a question of events analogous to what happened, I understand it in relation to work and concretely, if Comrade Mehmet does not seriously fight against these factors, the consequence would be clear, the continuation of the fading of the role of the Government, the concentration of power more and more very much in the hands of the Presidency and in the future only listening to the voice of comrade Mehmet.

So, in addition to the existence of selected forums, there is dominated by one person, Comrade Mehmet, who interrupts everyone, shouts at everyone, who insists on getting his way and, as a conclusion, we would have the transition from work with decisions, in work with orders. Even today, the members of the Presidency and the Government work with orders almost 15% of the time; let’s not forget what happened to us.

After what happened to us, after what Comrade Enver said that no one is immune, that’s why we should pay attention to education, to think and act, as Comrade Mehmet writes in his self-criticism, that I had the feeling of immunity to the influence of the class enemy, to the danger of the right, this means experiencing yourself from that rule that the Party has set. The overestimation of oneself is concretized in the manifestations of arrogance, which you, friend Mehmet, could and should have talked about in the first point of self-criticism.

Arrogance, even as you treat it, as it appears in you, is born from the moment you begin to think that there are only small minds around you. The party, as an experienced cadre, has from time to time sent you to important sectors to stabilize the situation. You have worked conscientiously everywhere to carry out the tasks assigned to you by the Party. All these times the Party and Comrade Enver have said the best words about you that you deserved. From above, you have never been praised more than you deserved.

It is not communist modesty to talk about “veni-vidi-vinçi” everywhere, because the way work is built in our country in general, “viçi” is collective. The experience of Plasa has not been implemented by you so far. Now, after so many years, when you, my friend Mehmet, went to Korça for just a few days, it was seen that the entire system of the Government and the economy is working on this problem, while on the problems of Plasa, it has never worked seriously until now, although its experience is it is applied today in several sectors of the economy, such as in Lapardha, Cakran, Dajç, Përparim, Vrîna, etc.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Now I will also read, as I had prepared, the criticism that I thought I would make of Mehmet Shehu’s work, despite the fact that this is taking place in his absence that he proved to be an enemy of the Party until the moment the last one, until he killed himself. But the Party, as always, is strong and able to overcome all difficulties, just as it has overcome other such and great ones, that’s why our work continues.

Friends,

The Political Bureau is discussing a matter of great importance, about the great political mistake that Comrade Mehmet made, approving the engagement of his son to a girl who, in her fathers and mother’s circle, has 6-7 fierce enemies of the government our people, fugitives, war criminals, prisoners and exiles.

Before the Party Congress, Mehmeti sent me a first version of his 26-page self-criticism and asked me to help him. I returned this variant with the remark that we were not interested in talking at length about the history of what the error looked like, I advised him to delve into the causes of this error, which, I emphasized, are connected to certain concepts and attitudes not right, with some negative elements in his character and that he had to understand the danger of guilt and the mistakes he made.

After the Congress, Comrade Mehmet submitted the 39-page self-criticism to the Political Bureau, which you read. His self-criticism does not convince me that he has deeply understood the mistake he made. In self-criticism it is extended in some circumstances, in factors and justifications, more to justify oneself and to minimize the error.

Comrade Mehmet puts the emphasis especially on the psychological moments, moments of great emotionality and sentimentality related to some pathological aspects of the boy, which led him to make a mistake. But these are not the main and decisive reasons that led him to this mistake, but there are others, there are some sides of Mehmet’s character, which he passes over casually, which he calls sporadic and random and which, while “philosophizing”, comes to the conclusion that, if not corrected, they become dangerous. Exactly these performances in the character of Mehmet have become harmful and dangerous for the line and for the work of the Party. He should have delved deeper into these issues and in this regard, we should also help him to understand and eradicate these negative manifestations.

On the political level, the Political Bureau is not interested in the psychological circumstances of Mehmet’s son’s engagement. It is preoccupied with the political mistake made by one of its oldest and leading members, to find out what led him to this mistake and what is its nature? With this engagement, Mehmeti has made a serious political-ideological mistake. He, concretizing this family-social connection, made a political-ideological alliance with class enemies. He put himself above the Party, did not question the leadership of the Party at all, and violated its line regarding the class struggle.

Mehmeti made the mistake with full conscience, being fully aware of whom he was making this alliance with. Formally, he asked the Minister of Internal Affairs, Feçor Shehu, who informed him about the activities of the girl’s father, who has been processed by the State Security bodies, and also informed him about two his fugitive brothers. Feçori didn’t know more on the spot, but he was advised by Mehmet not to involve Sigurimi in this matter. Why? Because, in fact, he had all the data.

Fiqreti also asked him about Pipaj’s family. This means that Mehmeti and Fiqreti were also aware of the family circle of the girl’s mother, which had imprisoned and escaped members, among them, the war criminal, Myzafer Pipa, and the wild and very active reactionary, Arshi Pipa that to this day continues to spew bile from the United States of America against our people’s power. Although Feçori, as a member of the Plenum and Minister of Internal Affairs, did not take a firm stands when Mehmeti asked him: “What would you do, if such a case happened to you in your family?” he answered: “I would I came to ask you”, that is, I would ask the Party.

Then, why didn’t Mehmet reflect a little on this answer? Why didn’t he come to talk to me about this issue, which came out of the usual family framework? In one place of his self-criticism, Mehmeti says: “At first I thought of going to my friend Enver.” Why did you think to come? When quarrels between families are made along party lines, there is no reason to seek approval. But he thought to come to me, because he understood that this family connection was not in line with the Party’s line.

Then he tries to explain his absence to: “not to bother Comrade Enver about such matters”. This does not hold. He didn’t come to me, not because he didn’t bother me, but because he knew that I wouldn’t approve of the decision he had made. Why didn’t he talk with any other member of the Political Bureau, by the way, with friend Kadri, who was also the Minister of Internal Affairs?

Mehmet acted this way for two reasons: First, because he guessed that none of his friends would approve of this krushki, and, second, which is even more serious and the main source of his error, because he considers himself on friends. He excludes or places himself above the discipline of the Party, which made him violate its line, which is one and binding for all Communists, without distinction, even more so for a Communist, whom the Party has chosen to lead precisely to keep this line clean and to protect it from violations and distortions.

Mehmeti, not only did not consult with any of us about this crisis, but thought to make it a “fait accompli” with an inexplicable haste. I found out about this matter indirectly, from my son, Iliri, who had invited him to Skender’s engagement. If you judge, even this invitation is not without tricks. Why did my son have to assist in the first acquaintance visit that Skenderi’s fiancee made with his parents? That I would find out indirectly? To tax my pulse or compromise me and my family in this matter? Part forty five

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: We, in our family, did not know anything about Qazim Turdi except that he was a mathematics professor, and we did not know the family circle, both his and his wife’s. We went with Nexhmija to Mehmeti, to congratulate him on the new house. There we found Skënder’s children and fiancee (who Mehmeti himself had met the day before), congratulated them, and took pictures. Mehmet and Fiqreti were very happy and this was their right.

How could they not be a little worried in their consciences, that they were mixing and bringing Comrade Enver into this dirty dance? They thought that with this presentation, this work was sealed; the approval of Comrade Enver was obtained. The photos that were taken with me went to Qazim Turdiu, they even went to Athens, with the girl’s team and, from there, why not also go to Arshi Pipa in the United States of America, who would see that Who was his niece engaged to and, for this fact, a photo certificate was also sent to him?

From the next day, I started receiving news from 2-3 directions about the bad family circle of Mehmet’s son’s fiancee, along with the expression of concern “How is it possible?” “How did Mehmet do this”? “Does friend Mehmet knows the family circle of the girl’s father and mother”?!

In my life in the Party I have rarely felt myself in such difficulty, why with this sudden action Mehmet, one of the main leaders of the Party, was consciously making such a big mistake in the line, a mistake that could have serious consequences for the Party.

I always kept in mind that bad things could happen, knowing Mehmet’s impulsive and uncontrolled character. He might accept my advice to liquidate this stinking alliance, but he might not, as he didn’t bother to ask the Party when he conceived and realized this alliance.

I was in front of a dangerous unknown.

I had to necessarily avoid the split that could happen in the Party.

I immediately consulted with some of the friends of the Political Bureau who were in Tirana at that time. (Mehmeti and some others had gone to the districts to participate in the Party conferences). They unanimously condemned this action of Mehmet. I acted cautiously, but firmly, to have the political error corrected immediately. I called Mehmet from Korça, where you had gone for the Party conference.

He met my question about the girl’s family circle with the utmost sincerity and claimed that he knew about the girl’s two runaway uncles. In his self-criticism, Mehmeti says that he made this mistake only when his friend Enver asked me “What are you doing like this”?! Then I gathered him and said that the mistake made will be corrected at any cost.

No, it’s not exactly like that. Mehmeti, in the third meeting they were having, came to me with a list, which he insisted on reading to me. I was telling him that I don’t need that list, and he stood still and continued saying: “please listen to me”. It contained the “positive” notes of the girl’s family circle. This was done to convince me that Turdiu had “positive” sides and it was these that made him wrong.

Why did I need them?

Mehmeti and Fiqreti pretended they only knew about the girl’s two runaway uncles. However, only these two were enough not to tie this knot, not to mention that they knew about all the others, as Feçori has also claimed. Mehmeti has long known who Myzafer Pipa and Arshi Pipa are, because he was the Minister of the Interior himself.

He also tried to impress me with the fact that the boy could kill himself, so I told him textually: “Look, Mehmet, I assure you, the boy is not one of those who kill himself. He has done a lot of insolence with women, so don’t be afraid of him from this side”, while Fiqreti, on his part, told me stories, trying to justify himself and his son, and managed to tell me: “Neli is principled” (!) And you say this to me, at a time when the boy had such an engagement, when you had caused scandals in public, associating with an immoral woman, with whom you had a relationship.

However, for the interests of the Party and Mehmet himself, I advised him to reflect deeply to discover the causes of the mistake he made. As much as I could, I helped him, in the first place, to help the Party from a danger that was facing it (from the split), not that the Party would not be able to overcome this even in the worst case. And here, what happened is the worst case, this enemy killed himself to save himself and harm the Party.

However, the Party and the people would go through a trauma. And when? Right before the 8th Party Congress. His hostility did not avoid this trauma. Our enemies, internal and external, could take advantage of this event. This was avoided, but it was a wake-up call for the Party.

In his self-criticism, Mehmeti puts “sentimentalism” and “one-sidedness” in the judgment of the case as the main cause, then as separate things he lists some negative elements of his character, such as impulsiveness, kidnapping, lack of tact and some other aspects. I want to tell you that I completely agree with all your discussions, as well as with the settings you made to Mehmet’s character and work, therefore the thoughts I have about this enemy, which I am reading to you, are the same as yours.

But even what he said, he covered with many theories and justifications, with circumstances and factors, elements that appear “in special cases”, that the mistake I made “is not a general characteristic of me…, it is only a case “, etc. These are all Mehmet’s statements. In self-criticism, Mehmeti theorizes, revolves around some negative phenomena of his character, promises that he will make a radical turn, but why-the truth from where this mistake came from, are either not mentioned at all, or they are approached casually, or they are laid out crookedly.

The main reason Mehmet brings “sentimentalism” and only for this boy, whereas, if it was about the other two sons (who are already married), as well as for the brothers’ sons (after all, they are not the sons of Mehmet Shehu, high-responsibility of the party and the state), or for someone else, he declares that he would have refused.

As far as we all know, Mehmet has never been sentimental in any case of his life. The opposite is characteristic of him. He has always been and is tough, with place and without place, even more without place. This characteristic cannot be compared to softness, if judged from the formal side. But, if we speak with the “philosophical” language, as Mehmeti tells us in his self-criticism, these are enough, which shows that he is not balanced in the Party’s line.

Nothing therefore explains the sentimentality that Mehmet claims, until, as he himself claims, the boy told him that no work would be ruined even if this engagement did not take place. It is interesting to note that, when his son came to ask him to take his daughter as his wife, he asked him the question: “Do you know our biography, son?” The enemy element therefore knows the line of our Party, while the members of Mehmet’s family and he himself forgot it in this case.

You, Mehmet and Fiqreti are tough outside, but at home you are sentimental. This is how children are not educated well. Therefore they, and especially Skenderi with the Union, are making mistakes, political and moral, which the Party condemns. As it seems, in the family you have rubbed shoulders. Instead of you processing them, they process you. The fact is the political mistake you made.

Even after the mistake was made, Mehmeti and Fiqret continued to treat the boy with a strange “sentimentalism”. In order not to make it an issue in our public and in the district where he studied, we did not intervene to stop Skenderi from going to Sweden (instead, as a party member that he was, to wash away the mistake by sending him somewhere to production, to put mind, as we usually do with everyone else). But what was the need for Mehmeti to give the boy his main security escort to keep him with “gajret”, to “comfort” him, as we say in Gjirokastër?

Now we find out that for this “specialist”, who is being prepared abroad, expenses are being incurred outside of state regulations. Not only does he get and pay for his own house, he is given a companion by Sigurimi with his wife, a car with a driver is made available to him, but he, with the money of the state, the state not only within the country, where he is sent to study, but goes for fun from Stockholm to Paris, or from Stockholm to West Berlin to watch a football match.

Comrade Mehmet doesn’t know about all these movements and expenses that his son is making? This summer, Fiqreti ordered a separate house to be rented from his companion. Apparently, they would also send the fiancee there. Now measures were taken by us, but some friends who deal with these things, should not let go, not only for our children, but also for us. Nothing should be given outside the laws, rules and decisions we have made.

When you think about these omissions, the question arises: How is it possible that Mehmeti, who talks so much about savings, who “carried the flag” against “keflesh”, against “mustache” in young people, against pants, dresses and inappropriate clothes to be so sentimental and make so many concessions to his children?

Somewhere in his self-criticism, Mehmeti says that “if someone grabbed him by the corner of his coat and told him: where are you going like this, he wouldn’t make the mistake”. What he says is neither right nor consistent with reality.

First, that he did not inform anyone, everything was done in a closed vase, in the family and friends found out, when the matter had become a scandal in the people. Therefore, Mehmet, none of us can be blamed.

Secondly, that even when your friends came and informed you about unpleasant actions committed by members of your family, you welcomed them with distrust and indifference, telling them that: “things should not be exaggerated”. But I can say that, what your friends told you, not only were not exaggerated, but, on the contrary, they told you a little. Why did this stick with you? Are these also explained by sentimentality?

In his self-criticism, Mehmeti expresses an uncontrolled opinion, according to which “later I would be able to see myself that I was wrong and I would also correct the mistake myself, even without anyone signaling me”. This thought also shows that he overestimates himself, even when he makes mistakes. He forgets that a political error has many consequences. And who pays for broken pots? Without a doubt, the Party.

I have made many remarks to Mehmet about some bad sides of his character, such as kidnapping, harshness in relationships with friends and some other weaknesses, which he mentions in his self-criticism and you pointed out in your discussions. Even about the last mistake, I talked about it at length and without gloves, but this mistake has made it absolutely necessary to dot the “i” well.

In his self-criticism, Mehmeti says that it is not in his nature for a cadre, who does not perform his job well, to criticize him lightly. “What I have to say to the one who is criticized, I say it in full”, he points out. This is good. And it is precisely that we are giving him full criticism here today, and not for a lack of weakness at work, but for a serious political and ideological mistake, which he sees as something of a coincidence. In parentheses, I would like to point out that he wants to be criticized by others, while he himself kills himself, that he cannot bear the fair criticism of his friends.

However, for what he did, again we are acting tactfully towards him, raising this issue only in the Political Bureau and not in the Plenum of the Central Committee and in the Party, because we do not want to shake the confidence of the Party leadership in Mehmeti. He killed himself, because he would have listened to these words of mine, he did not have the courage to listen to them, although you are brave.

The act he did does not speak of bravery in him. But we also went with the hope that he must make a radical change in many aspects of his character, in some aspects of the work method and especially in relations with comrades, whether these are leadership cadres or other levels, in the Party and in the state.

One of the main sources of this mistake and his other mistakes, which have prevented him from correcting his character, is arrogance, which Mehmeti has put at the bottom of the list and presented with theoretical contours and justifications, giving us reminded Lenin of what he called: “communist arrogance”. And “this kind of arrogance, says Mehmeti, appears in certain cases, as it appeared in the son’s engagement”.

Again, “accidentally”, again “only”, for the son’s engagement. If he were to dress like that, then he could very well say: “Why are you making such a big deal about this”?!

No, Mehmet, your displays of arrogance are not isolated cases, not just the frequent “interventions” at government meetings, as you say in your self-criticism (comrades discussed here how these interventions are made without tact on your part, which in others, it creates fear to speak and present thoughts). Ignorance and disrespect of friends, arrogance and arrogance are features of an excessive arrogance.

Mehmet is constantly nervous, irritated, worried. I always ask the question: why? How could he not correct this nature of his? Maybe it’s the troubles of work that make it so? But all of us worry about these problems, not less, if not more than him. This state of mind only he can explain, but he makes no effort to explain or correct!

“Hidden temperament” and “subjectivism” in you are not accidental, as you say, but they are much deeper, which you must analyze correctly in your life and work, so that you can eliminate them, why a the leader in one case is not allowed to cross the Party line.

In his self-criticism, Mehmeti says: “…the property of my character is the speed in making decisions” and gives us the history of the War and the theory of its importance. This is fair. But balance is more important in making decisions, especially political, ideological, organizational, economic, military, etc.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: With the last mistake, Mehmeti crossed the Party line, knowing that he was crossing it. He says himself that at first he hesitated, but decided, that he thought he was immune. If he really thought so, he still thought wrongly out of arrogance, excluding himself from the norms of the Party. Why should he be allowed to make such a mistake, when he knows that the Party punishes even a simple communist, in case he decides to marry the daughter of a kulak? Why have we put the rule in the army that every officer, before getting married, must ask and get approval from the base organization or from the command of the unit where he serves? But he excludes himself because he is a seasoned, immunized leader!

What about the rest of us? Will this be allowed to each of us here to do such things? If each of us thought that he could take such steps, would each of us climb? No, that won’t stay, it’s too thick! This is an alibi that I told him last night, and it is known that the alibi is a lie. So, what he says is also a lie.

The mistakes that Mehmeti has made and the positions he takes in some cases, show that there are no right concepts for collegial leadership, there are no right concepts on the class struggle in any case, there is also no right concept for unity in the Party and in leadership.

In the conversations with Mehmet, I told him the steps, but I have to reiterate before the Political Bureau, what I told him before:

Mehmeti overestimates himself, his thoughts, and this is why he often underestimates the opinion of his friends.

He wants his opinion to be imposed, creating a difficult situation of shyness with his friends, to say their opinions and to discuss as equals with him, which in principle Mehmeti accepts, but in practice he forgets. He has his opinions that are right, except for my remarks; he cuts his friends in the head and creates in them a feeling of fear and inferiority. Friends are afraid to open their mouths, show an opinion, make a proposal, why in many cases, Mehmeti answers them harshly, criticisms fall like hail even when it is not the case. This creates a coolness that is not shown, but is felt.

He is very impulsive, hot-tempered to the point of arrogance, and many discussions about ordinary problems, when they do not suit him, he turns them into matters of principle, even offending his friends. I have warned him many times about these things, he has repented (and this is positive), but time passes and this weakness is repeated in him, which is not correct.

Mehmeti does not have that balance in attitudes that communists should have. Many times his positions are right, but there are cases that are left-wing extremist, exaggerated, rigorous, or sometimes even liberal-opportunistic, reprehensible, like the case we are discussing. This is a great flaw in him, because, in certain cases, they do the Party a lot of harm.

Both Mehmeti and Fiqreti are very “cachottier”, or secret, closed, hidden in a family carapace, with a mentality that is not open, not free. Inside the family, who keep it almost closed even to their relatives, they are liberal; they are sentimental for their children, while outside they are very sectarian, they remove “principles” to the point of harmful severity. This causes them to see the mote in others’ eyes, but not the beam in their own. Fiqreti, in particular, has her thoughts outside “philandering”, as the French say, that is, twisted, so that for herself it seems that she is always principled, rigorous, and precisely this closed psychosis, is one of the reasons that made Mehmet kill you.

Fiqreti, as a communist and a member of the Plenum of the Central Committee, did not show herself at the height she should have. Not only did she not prevent Mehmet from making this mistake, but she made a mistake herself in this case, as well as in several other cases. Young comrades should know that during the War, Fiqreti was also expelled from the Party, precisely for acts of terrorism. Fiqreti did not play the role of communist and mother in her family. As various friends of the Party and her circle tell us, she has been made aware of the immoral attitudes of Skenderi, as well as of some behaviors of the other son, Bashkimi.

Fiqreti has underestimated these and has tried not to solve them on the party road. Maybe even Mehmeti didn’t tell her this in time, let alone the Party. Fiqreti, even regarding the last mistake, tried to reduce her responsibility, denying the blatant facts in a bitter voice. Mehmet, for his part, tried to take over Fiqret’s mistakes, repeating them with force and crying: “I, I, I made this mistake”, or when he says in self-criticism: “…I was in such a hurry that even with Fiqreti, I did not judge and I did not examine the issue from all sides…! She is locked in the room, it may be so, it may not be so, the other marry the boy with a girl from a reactionary family and not discuss this issue with the woman, no one understands such a thing, only Mehmeti asks to serve this to us to eat, even taking us for naive.

We don’t say these now, since Mehmet is not here, we told him this last night, and we have told him again and again.

Both Mehmet and Fiqreti made this big political mistake, so they should tell the Party both the mistake and the reason for it. In other words, immediately after signaling the mistake, both of them made self-criticism not only in front of Enver, but especially in front of the Party’s leading bodies. Mehmeti, in the past, as if through the legs, showed this serious mistake lightly with a few words to only 2-3 friends of the Political Bureau, thinking that this would close this very important issue. Fiqreti intends to make self-criticism somewhere.

After many days had passed, when Simon ordered her to go to the grassroots organization and there to do self-criticism, she said: “But my friends will ask me: “Does Mehmet know this?” Simoni gave him the right answer: “You cannot lie to the Party, that’s why you have to tell them: Mehmeti also knows and he was just as wrong as I was in this matter.” It seems clear that the authority of Mehmet and hers preoccupied them more than the authority of the Party, the implementation of norms and the protection of its interests.

Mehmeti, in his self-criticism, does not realize what further damage he would cause to the Party, if this mistake were allowed on its part. I have emphasized these damages and dangers in the meetings we have had about this incident, but I am telling him again before the Political Bureau, although he did not mention these.

The Party does not care much about the so-called trauma of Skënder Shehu or Mehmet Shehu, than the trauma in the Party. Some very difficult events will happen: Either the Party would turn a blind eye to a major political-ideological mistake of a key leader, or this would have serious consequences, because this would weaken the class struggle, the authority of the Party and of leadership would fall down. Mehmet is not allowed not to think about these things and he did not think about them until he killed himself. We will now encounter these things, but we will overcome them.

I have said this to Mehmet and I am saying it in front of you: You love the Party and fought for it. This is not discussed. Personally, as a fellow communist, I have loved and respected you. You did the same to me. I have always pointed out, in the Party and in public, your merits, but I have also criticized you openly, of course in the Party, when you have made mistakes.

In the life of the Party, Comrade Mehmet has made many mistakes, even serious ones. You young people don’t know these things, but you will learn them. What are these? Briefly, it is our duty, on this occasion, to mention a few: Mehmet does not fail to point out the value of his war, which no one denies and no one should deny. But his attitudes and actions during the war have both weak sides and mistakes.

Mehmeti, in some of his letters and in the positions we know, was not so clear about the Party’s line for the National Liberation Front. He expressed contempt and wrote a letter to Dushan Mugosha, in which he criticizes the General Staff, calling the officers, communists or not, those whom the Party had approached and given wards to lead, “shitholes”. This does not mean that the communist does not have the right to make remarks, but Mehmet’s megalomania and careerism appear in that letter. The political orientation of the Party and the interest of the National Liberation War in the use of the capacities and influence neither of these people, who at that time and for that time were neither nullity nor against the Party’s line, are important.

For the liberation of Tirana, on every anniversary, only the role of Comrade Mehmet is noted. He was the commander of the forces and the Operational Headquarters that were assigned for the liberation of “Tirana”. But it is known that the plan for the liberation of the Capital was prepared by the General Staff (these documents are forgotten), it was also prepared by the First Corps, where Hysniu was commissar. Neither Hysniu’s role, which did not deal with the direction and coordination of military actions for the liberation of Tirana, nor Gogo’s contribution, as the head of the organization of the Party for Tirana and the delegate of the Central Committee, are not discussed at all. Why this monopolization? Propaganda friends, the press and those who write articles and give interviews are mainly to blame for this. Why should I interfere with these things? Even Mehmet himself could and should put things in their place, as a communist and leader that he is.

During the time of the War, Mehmeti’s thoughts appeared and reprehensible, anarchist and terrorist actions were carried out. He killed peasants en masse and these actions harmed the War and did not help it. Mehmeti and other friends were volunteers in the Spanish War. This is a merit for all of them, but it is not right to exalt only the merits of Mehmet, and for others, who fought like him, who also had higher responsibilities, (because Mehmet was just a simple volunteer and he managed to become a platoon leader and not a battalion commander, as he said), it is almost not talked about at all.

Let’s be clear, it is not Mehmet who has prevented anyone from talking about them, but flatterers and opportunists themselves are concerned about this matter. When you are in power, such types praise you, while when you lose your foot, they throw stones at you. Spain’s war has its good sides, but it also has the disadvantages of its “corace”, such as anarchism, terrorism, voluntarism, etc. That’s why I’m mentioning this issue, that there is a possibility that these dangerous influences have unwittingly left impressions on Mehmet and are considered as merits that are covered by the shadow of the Spanish War.

In the conversation with me, when I was analyzing the mistake he made, Mehmeti told me among other things: “The enemy wants to tear apart our unity, to tear Enver and Mehmet apart.” On this occasion, he also said that “the Yugoslavs hit me (Mehmet) first, to isolate Enver and liquidate this”.

Both of these opinions are not correct, I opposed them and corrected them, saying that “the unity in the Party lies in its Marxist-Leninist line and not in Enver – Mehmet unity”.

Regarding the issue of Yugoslavia, for which Mehmet is removed as a hero of this war, I pointed out that “Yugoslavs attacked our Party, its line and the General Secretary. There was no talk at all in Berat and in the first years after Berat about Mehmet. He later came to their mark and the treacherous group of Koçi Xoxes. And let me explain this a little bit for the new friends. The arrow from the Yugoslavs was directed against Mehmet, for the issue of Yugoslav military art.

At that time, Tempoja held a report in Belgrade. I think Shulja and Mehmeti went there. Tempoja emphasized in his report that: “we should no longer follow the style and tactics of the Stalinist war, that is, the Soviet military art, because we have our Yugoslav military art”.

As you know, comrades, you young people should also know that in Berat I was surrounded by enemies. All of them were fighting against me; all of them were fighting for power. Koçi Xoxja, Pandi Kristoja, Nako Spiroja, Sejfulla Malëshova, Ymer Dishnica fought for power. Their goal was to remove me from the middle and then act, but they could not remove me. History should be known as the events developed and not written according to the subjective wishes of some. All the aforementioned attacked me, because they wanted to attack the Party line.

Velimir Stoiniçi, who came later, presented another thesis. He accused us of being leftists. When our Party had won the War, when the Albanian partisans had shown themselves heroic in the fight against the occupiers and traitors of the country and had taken power, this one came to tell us that our War had been wrong, sectarian. But how could it be wrong, when we won this war? “You have not made a fair policy with Cen Elez, with Muharrem Bajraktar, with Gani Kryeziu, etc.”, continued Velmir Stoiniçi, what he meant was that we accept the reaction within our ranks. Sejfulla Malëshova, as you know, openly told me that I was not capable of the responsibility I held, he also brought out the “boss” theory. And many others like these.

I have an issue with Mehmeti being removed as an anti-Yugoslav ‘War Hero’. No, the fight against the Yugoslav revisionists was done by the Party; it was done by its healthy members, among whom we were. We cannot exclude ourselves from this struggle. So it is not as Mehmeti says that the Yugoslavs fought this, to liquidate me. Mehmeti came on stage later. I have told him these things and he knows these things, only he does not like them to be presented like this.

COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Mehmeti in this case took a good stand, but I also stayed as much as I could in very difficult conditions. If my attitude at that time seemed somewhat shaky (and for this I have made self-criticism), it happened because I was completely isolated, surrounded by all those enemies, even Nako Spiro for the atrocities he had done before with the Yugoslavs , not to mention Koci Xoxen and all those I mentioned, killed himself. Nakoja had attacked the Party; he had attacked me, both in letters and in conversations, both with the Yugoslavs and with the Soviets.

He not only insulted and denigrated me, but tried to remove me from the leadership, with the aim of replacing me. Whether or not Mehmet had a hand in these events, I don’t know, and I can’t confirm that. A friend of Nako Spiro, I know it was, but for events I do not know, I cannot speak for sure. But Nako’s actions are known, documented, and the Yugoslavs themselves announced them. So, there are things that Mehmeti does not see correctly, as individualism and subjectivism predominate in his views.

In his self-criticism, Mehmeti emphasizes his firm and fair stances during the War, and later against factionalists and revisionists. This is the way it was and is the way it is, the Party knows this. But let’s face it, this war that we fought only “me and him”. These considerations are not openly affirmed by him, but several times Mehmeti, in political discussions, lets it be implied, as I mentioned regarding the Yugoslav revisionists, the Soviet ones, and finally the Chinese ones. That is, according to him, only he and I have fought this war.

No, the protagonists of this Great War were not only the two of us, but the entire leadership together with the Party, and all the people clenched fist around our Party. So this unity of thought and action of the Central Committee – Party – People, we would not have this stable situation that we have today. It is said that man makes mistakes in life. This is true, but there is error and error. This is not the only case that he crossed the Party line. It is not the only case that Mehmeti acted for a position of principle and political importance, without asking me for any opinion as the First Secretary of the Party’s Central Committee.

The friends remember that he, without any reason and without any basis, went and complained to Ambassador Levičkin, as if I had lost faith in Mehmet when Beria was liquidated. This one is removed as if he knows the norms, the line, the theory, and the politics of the Party, but here he stepped on these with both feet. Mehmeti then made self-criticism about this and it is in the fund of the Central Committee. However, he again made a grave mistake. His last mistake is similar to the first. Neither in the first nor in the second did he ask the Party. For his first mistake, Levičkini himself came and informed me, that he knew the danger, if he did not denounce this dissension of Mehmet.

The last mistake of Mehmet’s alliance with the enemies, I learned from the street. However, Mehmet, even then and now, should know that the revisionists and their agencies know these things and only the maturity of the Party prevents them from dividing us. Therefore, the repetition of serious political mistakes by Mehmet, intentionally or unintentionally, gives weapons to the enemy to exploit the circumstances to the detriment of socialism, the Party of Labor of Albania, and its leadership. The party has gone through many dangers. Other dangers may befall her on the road. That’s why we have to tighten our ranks and be determined in our line, because the Party, Socialism, and the Motherland cannot be protected by promises and eloquent oaths.

Mehmeti is a good friend, but also with flaws and mistakes. Let others know the good things, and they have always done this. He should always be modest! His flaws and mistakes, at least I, have openly pointed out to him so that he can correct them. The other comrades of the Central Committee, of the Political Bureau and of the Government have avoided this task many times; they have not shown enough legal communist courage to point out the flaws and mistakes that they have noticed in Mehmet. Not only did they not point it out to him, but he to me, they didn’t come to signal me. This is very wrong, it hurts the unity in the leadership, and it creates the cult of the binomial Enver – Mehmet, as if we are “taboo”, which is very dangerous for the Party.

The cult of personality is reprehensible, not only when it is exaggerated with cheers, slogans, songs, etc., but it appears, even becomes very dangerous, when a leader, despite not being cheered for him, seeks to impose himself with orders, with arrogance, with arrogance, when he has created the conviction that such attitudes, such actions are right and normal and that, unlike other comrades, he can and should be allowed these, no matter how they are, even when they are not rights. Here again lies the cult of the person.

I have emphasized hundreds of times that there are no privileges in the Party, that the cult of personality must be fought in the Party, that conformity must not be allowed in the Party, but that conscious communist Marxist-Leninist conviction prevails, through open, frank discussions, without an iota of shyness from anyone.

We all know these principles, they are talked about a lot, but not everyone applies them in life. The latter think they are doing well, because, according to them, this is how “harmony is preserved”, while this harmony is weak; it is rotten inside, because it is infected with micro-bourgeois views.

The situation in the Party is strong, but it must be continuously strengthened day by day. This will be done and must be done when all communists, ordinary members or leaders and especially leaders, at every step, in every circumstance, must defend the Party’s line and norms.

In the end, I wanted to emphasize a little under what political circumstances, external and internal, was this great political-ideological mistake made by Mehmet? It was made at a time when the imperialists, the social-imperialists, the reactionary bourgeoisie of every capitalist state and all the modern revisionists are putting a constant pressure on our socialist homeland and have organized a vicious blockade against it. Every step of Socialist Albania is being watched and targeted by the enemies of class and Marxism-Leninism.

Mehmeti made a mistake at a time when the events in Kosovo were at their peak and the Yugoslav revisionist leadership accused us politically of these disturbances and declared that our leadership had made an alliance (common cause) with the Albanian political reaction abroad. When the people and the Party were attacked, to come to the 8th Congress with new victories, Comrade Mehmet made this family alliance with elements of the blackest reaction.

When the entire leadership was engaged in the preparation of the Congress, reporting on many political-organizational problems related to this Congress, Comrade Mehmet completely isolated himself to give the final touches to a book on the world crisis, which after many years he is preparing it, and he told me for the first time, when he came to Pogradec in July, for a meeting, and this was the first thing he said to me. For books to be written, it is a right of every comrade, but one must think carefully, both about the time and the topic, about what serves the Party better.

The book that Mehmet was writing, the last one, was waiting. We were in front of the Congress, so it was the case that especially Mehmeti was fully mobilized, because it was the first five-year plan, fully based on our forces, for which many studies and constructive discussions were made, and these were not on his initiative. On the side now, we missed Hysniu, who carried many economic-organizational and military problems of the Party on his shoulders.

Mehmeti, not only did not come to my aid in this period, for these problems, and did not take care not only of the report of the Central Committee, which was to be presented to the Congress, but he did not take care of his report either, and he left this until the end of August, then the mistake he made happened, and he was not able to raise it to the level required for the Congress, and even left significant gaps, in the political handling of some cardinal issues, as well as other aspects that were pointed out to him.

So, Mehmeti must deeply understand the mistake he made, other mistakes and flaws at work. The source of this error is not sentimentalism, but simply misjudgment, but mainly arrogance and some other negative elements in his character.

The Political Bureau, in its analysis, did not stop only at Mehmet’s last mistake, because it does not consider this as a random thing, as he tries to explain, but as a mistake that came from deeper causes, that are harmful to the Party, become dangerous for the future. The ugly act he committed explains this.

It would be a mistake to think that the Party’s line is violated only when there is a fight with reactionaries. Such shows are a consequence of a worldview, narrow, sectarian and liberal-opportunistic.

Therefore, Mehmet’s self-criticism did not convince me that he deeply understood the source and manifestations of the error. Mehmeti should not limit himself to just making promises, but, I deeply feel that he must make a radical change in his thoughts, attitudes, and unweighted actions, in cooperative relations, with his friends and in his behavior with subordinates. To turn around and improve the work method, because some of his character traits have had a bad influence on the state bodies he leads.

And you, friends, were right to ask Mehmet a question, why in his self-criticism, he does not mention this issue. This did not help him and he said he would do it later. For this, we must all help. The social criticism we made should not make him waver and faint. Unfortunately, we did not predict this, we predicted it wrong, he fainted to the point of suicide.

Mehmet with new forces must be in charge of the responsibility that the Party has assigned to him. The result showed that he did not have this courage and this faith in us, he did not wait.

In the last meeting of the Political Bureau, I laid out the need for a deep analysis for the correction of the working method in the Government and its leadership, even taking some organizational measures for the leadership of the Council of Ministers and for the fairer definition of the division of the work and functions of the members of the Presidency, not allowing this to be imposed on the Government.

In the last few days, I had a long conversation with my friend Adil and Mehmet about this problem. For three whole hours we talked and discussed together brotherly, socially, in a very open and warm spirit, I even gave shakara to both friends. Adili was convinced of that, that this is right and this is how it should be done, I also convinced Mehmet.

(But the suicide showed that he was not convinced of anything.)

We need to define more clearly the powers of ministers, as individuals, which should be much broader. Their responsibility should be much greater for the departments or sectors they lead and as members of the Government, as a collegial high state body.

We must all be fully mobilized and more than ever at work, to respond to all this revolutionary impulse that has erupted in the working class, in the cooperative peasantry, in all the workers of the scientific, educational and cultural sectors of our country, to implement, with the communists at the forefront, the historic decisions of the 8th Party Congress and to realize the new plans of the seventh five-year plan.

I want to express my conviction that, like all of us, even Mehmeti, will be in charge of the tasks assigned to him by the Party.

Mehmeti did not have patience, he killed himself and did not listen to my discussion, which is in line with the comments of his friends, and Mehmeti had lost faith in the Party. Memorie.al