Memorie.al publishes an unknown archival document extracted from the fund of the former Central Committee of the ALP that deals with a meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the ALP, held on August 30, 1960, where he analyzed the “opportunistic attitude” towards the party line of the member of the Politburo, Liri Belishova, during her visit to the People’s Republic of China, where she met with a Soviet diplomat at the Russian Embassy in Beijing, telling them to him all that the Chinese had said during the meeting he had with them. Enver’s discussion at that meeting, where he sharply accused Belishova, told her that: she was a megalomaniac who greatly valued herself and underestimated other members of the Politburo, calling them incompetent, and in that difficult situation that as the Socialist Camp was moving, she thought it was time to take over the party (replacing Enver, Mehmet or Hysni), and the Soviets said that Enver should. to refrain from interfering in the conflict and disagreements between the Communist Party of China and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, so as not to compromise.
Cooling and then the breakdown of official relations between Albania and the Soviet Union in 1960-’61, which came gradually and began after the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, where the new Soviet leadership of the Kremlin led by Nikita Sejgerevic Khrushchev condemned Stalin’s cult and began the process of destabilization not only in all its republics but in all other communist countries in Eastern Europe, not only was it not well received by many communists. simple of basic organizations, but it also provoked reactions from some of the leading cadres of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the ALP, such as Koço Tashko, former Deputy Foreign Minister and Ambassador of Albania to Moscow for several years. , who at that time held the position of Chairman of the Party Control and Audit, as well as Liri Belishova, the only member of the Politburo who was also in office for years of the secretary of the Central Committee of the ALP, for propaganda, art, and culture. Like Koço Tashko who had many spiritual connections with the Soviet Union since the time of the Bird Monaco where he had been with KOMINTERN, who displayed his reserves and came out openly in defense of Khrushchev, even asking Enver to keep the attitude and to condemn all those members of the senior leadership of the ALP who had spoken against Khrushchev in the Plenum held at that time, the same attitude but somewhat more reserved, showed Liri Belishova, who during a visit she made at the time in the People’s Republic of China, (along with Haxhi Lleshi), sided with the Soviets, fully agreeing with Khrushchev’s stance on the contradictions he had with the top leadership of the Communist Party of China. All this, that is, the stance of Tashko and Belishova, “at a wavelength” with the Kremlin’s policy, caused “alarm” to Enver Hoxha, who thought that official Moscow would remove him from the leadership of the ALP and in his place, Liri Belishova, or one of their loyalists, would come (as Mehmet Shehu was thought to be) and in this situation, he launched an ‘unmasking campaign’ against Tashko and Belishova, initially labeling them as “Anti-party” in the meetings he had with them and then in the meetings of the Politburo and the Plenum of the Central Committee of the ALP. This, among other things, is clear in two articles that Memorie. al published in previous issues regarding Koço Tashko, which is repeated with Liri Belishova, in this document that we are publishing in this article. What is noticeable not only in the meetings that Enver had with Tashko and Belishova (where Hysni Kapo and Rita Marko were also present), but also in the meetings of the Politburo, Enver did not take and analyze their political views. thrown by Tashko and Belishova, but from beginning to end, he asks and accuses them, saying: “with whom and how they met, where did they go, why did they go, where did they enter, where did they go, what i they said, as they told him “, etc., etc., and at the end of the meeting after expressing his opinion that they:” should be thrown out of the party, but still, friends will speak and the Political Bureau and the Plenum of the Central Committee will decide. ” “?! Which is clear from this archival document where it is given with some abbreviations the word of Enver Hoxha in the meeting of the Politburo held on August 30, 1960, where he “analyzed” the “anti-party” activity of Belishova, by “Crucified” him, while a day later, on August 31, he would do the same to Koço Tashko, the man who had taken him to the founding meeting of the SNP, on November 8, 1941.
Enver’s discussion at the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the ALP
August 30, 1960
From the discussions that took place at the last meeting of the Plenum of the Central Committee, Liri Belishova did not come up with a sound self-criticism. For these reasons, it was thought that the Political Bureau would review its case once again. I waited for Liberty to come and talk to me, thinking that, after the Plenum meeting, she would have reflected on her mistakes, but she did not come. On August 9, almost a month after the Plenum, he asked me for a meeting and we talked. Comrade Hysni was also present at this meeting. From the conversation we had with Liberty, it turns out that she had not thought deeply about her mistakes, about the causes of these mistakes, in order not to repeat such mistakes again. So Liberty was more or less in line with the views expressed by the Central Committee Political Bureau. I think that Liria will tell us once again how she understands her mistakes and faults, whether she agrees with the Party line, whether there are reservations or not and so on. Liria is a member of the Politburo and I know that after the Political Bureau reconsiders this issue, we will report it to the Plenum. To help Liberty, I wanted to ask him some questions and remind him of some things to keep in mind when he speaks. First of all, I have these questions: What does Freedom mean to us about the people who make up the Politburo, and how does she value herself compared to other members of the Politburo? In her attitude towards them, did she adopt a certain tactic according to the orientation of the Soviet ambassador? Does she have confidence in their maturity and ability to make decisions and maintain the right attitudes in line with the Marxist-Leninist line of the Party? In this regard, what concepts does she have for the friends of the Politburo, because the Party line in our country is not determined only by Enver, but first of all by the Congress and the Central Committee, while he is an implementer of this line and the decisions of The Central Committee and the Politburo? Does Liria have the right concept for the leadership of the Party that was elected in the Congress, that helbete, as she put it, “has friends who are more capable, some are less capable”? I think that Liria should take this issue into account, because it may happen that someone rises in the Plenum of the Central Committee and criticizes him for the underestimation of the main cadres of the Party. I therefore think it reflects better on the treatment of cadres. Also, what impressed you about the information that came from Moscow about your position there, about which I told you: reflect on your attitudes regarding the mistakes of the Soviets against the Chinese? The Soviet ambassador spoke about your attitudes and do not think that anyone from our Party has slandered them. From some data we have, it is thought that Liria agrees with the concepts of the Soviet ambassador, who, among other things, says: “Comrade Enver should not interfere in the disputes between the Soviet Union and China”, “Comrade Comrade Enver”. So she is of the opinion that we should reserve Comrade Enver, and sacrifice some other comrades of the Politburo, because there may be disagreements between the two major parties, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China. to be clarified and resolved. Then some of the comrades of the Politburo, who will be engaged in the debate that has arisen, will burn, but Comrade Enver will remain uncompromising. If we accept the Freedom Thesis, according to which “Enver should not interfere in matters relating to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China,” it means acknowledging that the positions of the Politburo in Bucharest! Freedom must well understand the essence of the matter: we do not agree with the wrong attitudes of Soviet leaders. Some Soviet leaders have spoken out against me other times, and you know our position very well. There have been cases where they have praised Enver Hoxha, but this has been a ploy, because on the other hand, they are doing all these things against our Party. Friends have informed me that Liria has said that “we need to prepare some variants of attitudes towards the Moscow Meeting”. In this regard, I want to say that the political and tactical stance of our Party is not such that we can act with some variants. The tactic of acting with several variants is an opportunistic tactic, which means: turn the mill arm over there from the wind. This is not a Marxist tactic. We have to judge this issue well, because we have a great responsibility. Therefore, let Liberty explain this matter to us, tell us from what conception it starts from these things that it has said after the Plenum. This is very important because it can mean that “I agree with the Political Bureau”. but while thinking of several variants, in fact, he does not agree with the correct position of our Party. Freedom has not been of one mind with us, but it is half the evil, while when it acts and concretizes its thought and attitude, that is another matter. You, Liri, have concretized your position, because you went to the adviser of the Soviet embassy in Beijing and informed him of what the Chinese comrades told you, which, as the comrades in the Plenum emphasized, is impermissible. A member of the political bureau of one party goes and informs an embassy adviser of another state, on issues that do not belong to the latter! This is contrary to the principles of the Party, this is a grave violation of the discipline of the Party. Or let’s look at Liberty’s other concept, from which she departs so as not to have righteous thoughts about the attitudes of her Chinese friends. She needs to analyze this concept in more depth. We have had and still have very good thoughts about our Chinese comrades, we have not had any principled remarks about them, because their positions are right, for example, on the fight against revisionism, on the appreciation of our Party’s line, especially on the contribution that gave our Party at the 1957 Moscow Meeting, and others. In the face of these fair views of the Chinese comrades, the question of Freedom naturally arises: where do its views against the Communist Party of China come from? This has to do with what all the comrades said: the deep ideological divergences between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China that have been noticed in their press, Liberty has not judged them objectively ‘and from the Marxist position, on the contrary guilt he told his Chinese comrades that they were on the wrong track. Her misconceptions are also reflected in the attitudes she held in China, unfairly criticizing her Chinese friends. Even in Moscow, you, Liri, were aware of the development of the situation, you were prepared, because not only did you have instructions, but also letters were sent by us as the Politburo. So how do you explain your opportunistic attitude at the lunch that was served in Moscow? You have to fight there to defend the line of our Party, which you did not do, and that burdens you with heavy responsibility. In China, you were well received for the appreciation that Chinese comrades give to our Party. We cannot say that Chinese comrades have done this formally. However, at the lunch hosted by the Soviets, when it was said that “the work of the Chinese smells,” but you did not object at all. This means agreeing with the Soviets in their accusations against the Communist Party of China. You had to say, “It’s not like you say we come from China, and we saw that the Chinese Communist Party is in a Marxist position.” But you were in a precarious position and did not want to upset the Soviets. In the situation we are going through, it is very important to maintain the unity of the ranks of our Party. This unity, today more than ever, must be complete and unwavering. This is also the aim of the efforts of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of our Party. The unity of the Party on the Marxist-Leninist path must be maintained and strengthened at all times. Now the “cabbage has started to lose its shape.” We need to be aware that situations will become even more difficult, that we need to be clear, that we have no illusions, because that’s how things stand, that’s how international events are going, and how Marxism-Leninism is being interpreted by the leaders of many parties, it is understandable that we are facing very serious and tragic events for the international communist movement. Therefore, we must arm ourselves and stand up as Marxists to these events, regardless of the difficulties that may and may come our way. Our Central Committee and its Political Bureau see these events as clear and straightforward, on the Marxist-Leninist path. All comrades have the maturity and courage of Marxist-Leninist to fight the weaknesses and deviations that may appear, to fight the dangers that threaten the unity of the Party, the building of socialism in our country, all international communism. This is a great merit of our Party, which has managed to have a Central Committee and a Political Bureau, which withstood all storms and storms. Today we are analyzing the ideological mistakes of Liri Belishova, which have been confirmed in her recently. The comrades of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee are making fair and principled criticisms of her, so we will act in the Plenum of the Central Committee. We are confident that the criticism will be realistic, constructive, concrete, Marxist-Leninist. Strengthening the unity of the Party, tempering it and preparing it before the storms requires that we, as always, look at matters in the light of the Party’s interest. So the criticism we make has a single purpose: to strengthen the Party. Friends, let’s talk a little more openly about the issues, how we feel and how we understand them. Our party, like any Marxist-Leninist party, has its own politics and tactics. So is our state. But our policies and tactics are in line with the Marxist-Leninist straight line. By being clear about the events that are taking place, about the difficulties or catastrophes and their causes, we will never err in either strategy or tactics. It is these things that Freedom does not distinguish well. We are on the right track. We have fought and will fight against imperialism. Imperialism has not only not laid down its arms, but continues to arm itself more and more to destroy communism, to seize the freedom of peoples. Whether Khrushchev likes it or not, this is the living reality, and our view is based on that reality. That is why the line of our Party has been, is and will continue to be: the determined war against imperialism with the American one at the top. Whoever wants to accuse us of being a war-monger can accuse us, that we are supposedly with a “knife in our teeth” and so on, we will not move from our point of view that imperialism is the fiercest enemy of peoples. We have no illusions about imperialism. We say, “The socialist camp with the Soviet Union at the helm.” That is right, but if the leadership of the Soviet Union is wrong and is on the wrong track, then it has deprived the Soviet Union of the right to lead the socialist camp. We are against war and we do not say this in words, but in deeds. We do not forget the danger of a new war erupting from imperialism, and we neither overestimate nor underestimate this danger. But that doesn’t mean we underestimate the power of the socialist camp. The forces of our camp, if they act in full unity, are extremely great. In these situations, if we say that in our camp and in the international communist movement there is unity, we would beat the drum in vain, it is another thing that we do not confirm this in the press, for political reasons, but in reality the unity that exists today in the camp of socialism and in the international communist movement, it is not at the height that Marxism-Leninism demands. But who is the cause of the breakdown of this unity? This has worried us and worries us, because the fate of international communism and any socialist country is linked to unity. In addition to the undermining work of imperialism against socialist countries, our unity is also being undermined by the agents of imperialism, the modern revisionists. Our party is right when it says that modern revisionism is today the main danger in the international communist movement. For this we are not only spectators, but also witnesses, because after Stalin’s death, we see a disintegration in the camp of socialism and in the whole international communist movement. Why didn’t such disruptions happen before? This did not happen because Stalin acted wisely in relations with other communist and workers’ parties. The fact is that the international communist movement did not go the way the revisionists wanted to lead, because the communists were fighting all over the world and they had full confidence in the Marxist-Leninist line that the Soviet Union was following with Stalin at the helm. Stalin has never acted without wisdom. One might say what he wants about Stalin, but the truth is that in his time, our camp and the world communist movement had a strong unity. Let’s take the relations of our small Albania with the Soviet Union: “Stalin’s hegemony”, as Tito speaks, has never appeared in the life of the Party and our state. Stalin never spoke to us, showing us the copycat, never telling us, “Do as I say, otherwise I would cut your bread and not speak to you orally!”, Or “blow you away for five minutes”! Our party has expressed and expressed that it has not been and does not agree with the attitudes and actions taken against Stalin. Here it is not a question of a leader anyway, but of Stalin who is a great revolutionary. Therefore we will never agree with those who erase his merits and weave all those slanders about him. It is interesting to note that: we have been accused of attitudes towards people who are not on the right path, even the traitors of the Party, and they have defended such elements. We saw what happened in Hungary, Poland, what is happening in Italy and many other parties. Now, look at what is happening to the Communist Party of China. In these moments, we, as Marxists, holding a fair principled position, are not allowed to think so easily about these events that are taking place in the disadvantage of the socialist camp and not to judge them deeply. We are facing a storm, so we must arm our Party politically and ideologically in defense of Marxism-Leninism, no matter what others say. We are responsible before the Party and our people, but even before the international communist movement we have little responsibility. By resolutely defending Marxism-Leninism, we defend the high interests of our people and socialism. It should be borne in mind that revisionism is not limited to Tito, who today holds the bayrak, but there are many other revisionists, even in the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. We are not against tactical stances in certain conditions and on certain issues, but if the leadership of the Soviet Union, under the pretext of “tactics”, seeks to cover up its mistakes and does not make a turn and self-criticism, this tactic after the meeting that November will have no value. We have implemented the tactics correctly, we have not violated the principles. We, when the situation demands it, can even change tactics, but always without violating the principles and without lowering our backs before the unjust attacks of the Trotskyists or revisionists of any color. They are slapping us, and we will fall on them, if they hit us with their fists, we will also respond, we will never honor the page and we will say: “Fall on us”! – Like the leadership of the Party The Communists of the Soviet Union, as well as all the leaders of the communist and workers’ parties, have well understood that the Albanian Labor Party is incompatible with revisionism, and therefore maintains a revolutionary attitude towards it. Here I am talking about the leadership, not the parties, because we are not aware of them. The issue has reached such a point today that it is impossible to say a word to another leader of another party against the Yugoslav revisionists, even if you write an article to publish it in other party bodies, it will not be published. The sabotage work of these “partners” of the Yugoslav revisionists is clearly seen here. Revisionists fight by being masked and attack us indirectly. If they came out openly, they would be destroyed. It is very difficult for anyone to directly attack our Party, but the revisionists are taking out the duf and venting against us, keeping us angry, trying to find the opportunity and harm us. We need to be clear about this, to understand that these things that are happening are not simple things. We say without fear that we do not agree with the Soviet leadership, not only on the fight against Yugoslav revisionism, but also on other issues on which it has an opportunistic stance. Their revisionist line is reflected not only in politics but also in other directions. Liberty knows that under the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union we have objections to many fundamental problems in organizational matters and not just to what happened at the Bucharest meeting. The Bucharest meeting shed light on other areas as well. Freedom is aware of their coup methods. She heard this from their mouths. Poljanski, when he came to a luncheon, explained to Liberty how the meeting had taken place, when the old leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the so-called “anti-party” group, was liquidated. He said that this action was taken in the form of a military coup that, of course, for us is anti-Marxist. Here we are not talking about whether or not those who were overthrown by the leadership have mistakes, but about the anti-Marxist methods that have been used in this regard. This is their internal affair, but we thus better understand who they are. The right stance of our Party appears once again at the Bucharest Meeting. All norms were violated there. We have the right to maintain our position. But the Soviet leadership does not like it when we say the right thing. She tells us that “you are against the Yugoslav leadership, so you agree with the Chinese comrades.” While we declare that we agree with our Chinese friends, they also agree with us, and we do not do this for each other’s hatred, but for the protection of Marxism-Leninism. Let the Soviet leadership say what it wants. Our Party fully agrees with the Communist Party of China’s attitude towards revisionism in general, and against Yugoslav revisionism in particular. At the Bucharest Meeting, we were not told that we did not have material from both sides. That is why a major hostile campaign against the ALP began. This is an anti-Marxist attitude of the Soviet leadership towards the Albanian Labor Party. Let us admit that there is a misunderstanding here, but this “misunderstanding” was accompanied by sabotage acts aimed at tearing down our leadership. This is anti-Marxist. And we have a whole chain of facts to prove this. Whoever went to the Soviet Union, or through it to other countries, the Soviets tried to process it, in order to create cracks in us. So all the sabotage activity of the Soviet leadership cannot be considered a coincidence. The pronounced opportunistic diseases and all this revisionism that exists in the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, cannot but be reflected in its foreign policy, even in our country. As the situation unfolds, not only the Titoists are revisionists, but based on facts, revisionists and social democrats are also in the Soviet leadership. We have talked about this many times in the Politburo and in the meetings we have had. That is why Freedom has been aware of these issues, just like us. She is not right about that when she says, “I was unaware.” Let us judge the attitudes of the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union towards the Communist Party of China. It has tried not to give China’s Communist Party time to think and express its views. Our position on this great issue is right, because revisionism seeks to pave the way for imperialism, so we must fight against both imperialism and revisionism. It would be a great disaster if we agreed to enter the revisionist path, where the Soviet leaders want to take us. This would have serious consequences. What would be some of these consequences? First, it would be silence on revisionism. Politically, this would be a serious crime against Marxism-Leninism. Throughout the events that take place, many efforts are made to silence us. But silence would be the first stage. The next step would be to open the borders of revisionism, as the leadership of the Bulgarian Communist Party is systematically doing, for example. it for herself and it’s bad for her. We will not follow this path. If we followed such a path, it would be suicide for our country. Zhivkov is being tolerant and very much in line with revisionism. This seems very clear, but Zhivkov’s conciliatory stance on revisionism shows that he holds Ison Khrushchev. We are convinced that the leaders of the Communist Party of Bulgaria will definitely face great difficulties and, if not today, they will inevitably have to do with the party and their people, because the opening of the Bulgarian-Yugoslav borders and the penetration of revisionism. means for Bulgaria the preparation of a counter-revolution as in Hungary, with the difference that in Hungary there was also a war, while in Bulgaria, this work can be done in a silent way. So, out of silence, it goes where Yugoslavia is. If we were to allow such a thing, it would mean losing the independence of the homeland and undermining socialism. What does it mean for us to open the borders and make principled concessions to the Yugoslav leadership, ostensibly for the sake of friendship with the Yugoslav people? We have been and are friends with the Yugoslav people, but we will never give in to the revisionists. Our party has rightly understood this, so it has never stopped fighting revisionism. If Soviet leaders have a “humanitarian sense,” and do their best to bring the Yugoslav leadership closer together, then how can they so easily throw all that big China into the ocean, especially knowing that China’s leadership is neither an agent of imperialism nor ” Trojan horse, such as Tito? Even if Chinese comrades were sectarian, as accused by the Soviet leadership, does that mean we should go so far as to exclude them from our socialist camp? Are these communist and internationalist attitudes towards socialist China? The division of international communism is a very big responsibility. And how can that be? Is it possible to go by imposing an anti-Marxist and blackmailed way on our parties? Our Party’s path is straight and we will not go blind, we will not follow Khrushchev’s revisionist line. Our party and our people are very hardened in the war against revisionism and imperialism, and they have followed and will continue to follow the right Marxist-Leninist path. We will uphold the principles. We will certainly have difficulties and we are convinced that these difficulties will increase, but they do not frighten us. We are convinced that the Soviet leadership, with its attitudes and actions towards our Party, is not on the right track. Ivanov does not do his anti-Marxist actions out of his own head, but according to the instructions of the Soviet leadership. When Freedom speaks, it shows us the minutes of the meetings. So far, none of the members of the Politburo has worked with process words, but with a revolutionary spirit, with great confidence in each other. No one has noted with hindsight in the bloc what words this or that member of the Politburo has said, as Freedom does, because the comrades set out to defend the Party line. And she, who has made all these mistakes, is reading the minutes of the meetings so much in order to prove that we have allegedly waited for the attitude towards the Soviet Union. None of us have been shaken in these situations we are going through, none of us love the Soviet Union less than Freedom. We all love the Soviet Union: We can go through difficult situations, we can be in difficult moments, but we will defend the Soviet Union. We stand firm in our positions. Of course, we achieved revolution and socialism with our war and our efforts, but we rightly appreciate the great experience of the Soviet Union, Lenin and Stalin. With the help of the Soviet Union, we built a combine, like the Stalin textile factory, but the sweat of our people was shed there. Whoever is a Marxist-Leninist and internationalist must know that the popular revolution and the building of socialism are the work of the Albanian people and its Party. We must be consistent, not violate our line, not be disoriented and not waver in the straight line of the Party. Let us not confuse the Soviet Union and its experience with the opportunistic attitude of today’s leadership. One thing you know, Liberty, you didn’t understand right or wrong, and it confuses you. No concessions should be made against their actions. The fight against the revisionists has sharpened our vigilance, it has been a great school that has tempered us and made us look at the actions as if on a radar, without warmth, without waiting party. Therefore, we should be consistent and prepared to face any situation, because with the open war against Khrushchev, he will create political and economic blockades against our country. You, Liri, who have been shaken in these situations, to be as convinced as we are, that the line of our Party is right and not to be impressed either by the question of the Soviet Union or by the personality of Khrushchev, or anyone else. Our party does not waver even in this tight war that is taking place inside our camp, a war which has entered a disturbing phase.
After Liri Belishova spoke, who did not self-criticize at all, on the contrary, she tried to reduce her serious guilt, and after discussions with members of the Politburo, who sharply criticized her guilt and attitudes, she spoke again.
COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The discussions that took place in the July Plenum of the Central Committee and here in the Politburo, were on the Marxist-Leninist path. The evolution that comrades make in their thoughts is also right, and judging these issues, arms us. Theoretically, the issues we are discussing are also known to Liria, but when it comes to practice, she is wrong and the consequences weigh on the backs of the people and the Party. That is why I, like all the comrades of the Politburo, think that Liri Belishova has made a serious mistake, she has been shaken in her belief in the ideological and political line of our Party. She still maintains that she was not wrong. Freedom must reflect more deeply. If Liberty continues to be in the Plenum of the Central Committee to remain in these thoughts, not to understand these issues in the Marxist-Leninist way, it will make its position even more difficult. I think the Plenum will help, yes and it should help the Party and itself. We are trying to save you, knowing your weaknesses, and you are amazed at our attitude. Don’t be surprised if friends ask, we want clarification and we intend to help you. Freedom must know that in the Politburo, there must be full unity. The leadership of the Party must be monolithic, so Freedom cannot stay in the Politburo because it has been shaken. He can stay in the Party, but if other arguments are brought to the Plenum and Freedom does not make its serious mistakes right, it will be the Plenum that will decide its existence in the Party. Friends have their thoughts and will talk. In this way, we protect the Party. In this meeting, Liberty was given a lot of help. She has made serious mistakes and her mistakes are not simple. I fully agree with the comrades that it has not implemented the Party’s directives. This happened because he did not agree with the leadership, he underestimated the Politburo. Friends rightly said that Liria is arrogant and ambitious, she wants to take the place of Enver, Mehmet or Hysni. With the exception of a few comrades of the Politburo, Freedom for Others does not have the proper consideration. But, if you do not have a fair consideration for the members of the Politburo, for the comrades of the Central Committee, for all the cadres, then you will go astray and this will then appear in political and ideological positions. Of course, when you saw our attitude towards the Soviet leadership, you said to yourself: “Come on, comrades of the Politburo are wrong, now is the time to come out on top.” And you rushed to take a different stance from those of the Party. In this way, they also encouraged all the flattery of some Soviet leaders. All of these together have influenced you to make serious ideological and political mistakes. I completely agree with your friends that you have judged that, The Politburo was wrong in its stance and did not want to be compromised, but it was an opportunistic attitude towards the Soviet leaders, in fact, to divert you from the right path of your Party. You thought: “I will go to Albania, I will say that the position of the Bureau has been accelerated, I will propose that Enver Hoxha be removed from the disputes that have arisen between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China. The situation, if not today, will change tomorrow. Time will tell. ” You reserved for yourself the place of the savior of the situation. Therefore, he did not choose the principled position, but the indirect silence and approval of the revisionist actions of the Soviet leaders. You come here and express your surprise: “Why was this change made in the attitudes towards the Soviet Union”! and identifies the Soviet Union with the Soviet leadership. So you thought, “Inshallah things take the path I want”! But for the good of the Party, things did not go as you thought. What do you think of the saying, “Let Enver stand aside”? Well, my friends, this is not all. You remember that Marxism is better than others. Other friends have also finished school and have not finished it badly, even many of them have finished school even higher than you, so they have a wider culture, as well as party internship and longer war, but these friends I have never seen or heard them say, “We stand above others!” Therefore, your attitudes towards friends are attitudes of megalomania. In the Politburo no one has chosen us for beautiful eyes, but, when it does not do the job well, once, twice, then the matter must be seen. We have loved you, we have protected you, we have helped you and we will help you, but you have been misled and you have not properly defended the Party line in these difficult situations. I agree with the opinion of all comrades, that in the Central Committee and in the Politburo, there must be complete unity of thoughts and actions, in terms of the political, ideological, organizational and economic line of our Party. This does not preclude free discussion, but when decisions are made, we are all Party soldiers and we must implement them with the utmost rigor. We will present your case to the Plenum of the Central Committee, but it depends a lot on how you will reflect on these mistakes. If you deepen your self-criticism, judge things right, and openly state the mistakes you have made, then we may think you have understood them and there will be no guarantee that you will not make a mistake again. If you have the opportunity, put it in the service of the Party. Situations are complicated, so we should not be scared and pessimistic. To hold well in our hands like a compass Marxism-Leninism and we will never be wrong./Memorie.al