Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Enver Hoxha

POST REPLY

Was Enver Hoxha positive or negative for Albania?

Very Positive
12
21%
Positive
13
22%
Neutral
6
10%
Negative
12
21%
Very Negative
12
21%
Other
3
5%
 
Total votes : 58
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2014, 02:52
Comrades, be civil. We are all friends here.

I voted negative but Gulper's comments make me think perhaps "other" was a better case. Whatever gains were made ultimately were undone by Hoxha's and the PL Albania policies. And, I'd like to point out, the "hardline and anti-revisionist party" was only too happy to dismantle the state and steal the Party money/HQ to turn into a soc-dem party whose only notable contributions are to not open Sigursimi files and get closer to tbe EU (with predictable results).

And Ismail he's not making patently false or racist claims. Albania has always been poor because of material reasons. It was a crappy area to be in under the Ottomans, Byzantines, and Serbs. Whatever their gains when it fell it fell hard, harder than even the ex-Pact and became host to the absolute worst forms of tribalism and criminality which Enver had boasted of stamping out but which returned quickly enough.

I agree Stalinism>feudal mode of production a la Zog but the country was NOT the flourishing growing nation on the move presented by Hoxha.
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2014, 03:17
When capitalism was restored many gains were undone. But who is to blame for that: the restorers of capitalism or the architects of those gains? You're a Trot, so would you honestly say that the "Stalinist Thermidor" or the dissolution of the USSR suddenly negated the October Revolution and its gains?

Albania in 1989 had significantly improved in every single field compared to prewar Albania. The Albanians never claimed that tribalism had been eradicated, or that they were the most industrialized country on earth, but anyone could see that definite (and to a degree lasting) progress was made in these areas.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2014, 06:12
Ismail wrote:
When capitalism was restored many gains were undone. But who is to blame for that: the restorers of capitalism or the architects of those gains? You're a Trot, so would you honestly say that the "Stalinist Thermidor" or the dissolution of the USSR suddenly negated the October Revolution and its gains?

Albania in 1989 had significantly improved in every single field compared to prewar Albania. The Albanians never claimed that tribalism had been eradicated, or that they were the most industrialized country on earth, but anyone could see that definite (and to a degree lasting) progress was made in these areas.


Indeed the counter revolution was a reactionary step to be sure. However that doesn't stop the fact that Stalin and later Hoxha made pants-on-head retarded decisions which caused massive unintended damage to their countries, which PSR Albania with 3 million people and the GDP of a stale watermelon couldn't afford as much as the USSR could. Case in point: pillboxes, pillboxes everywhere.

That's not to say there weren't significant gains but the problem was it had so far to go and didn't pull a Russia. Even after the collapse of the USSR the country had wealth (albeit the kind that was hoarded by oligarchs or sold off the to West or both) but it still emerged 20 years later as a great power with an uneven standard of living one might compare to Brazil (ie: the middle and upper classes live in abjectly better conditions than Soviet times while 70%+ has a shit level). However Albania went from being "pretty bad" to "really really 3rd world country bad". AS in poorest country in Europe bad.

Comrade I understand you follow in the footsteps of Hoxha and while I have a degree of sympathy for the man himself I believe his actions and choices were generally poor. Even under socialist rule Albania was one of, if not the, poorest countries in Europe. And sure they had a long way to go but compare them to other terrible poor countries. In 1985 Greece was on a massive upswing, the Italians and Portuguese and hell even post-Franco Spain and what was Albania doing? Poorly indeed and unfortunately Marxism-Leninism isn't something one can eat no matter how fun it is to discuss between friends like yourself and I over the internet. Moreover he had an unhealthy habit, as did Stalin, of attributing the successes of the planned economy to his own person (Lenin never carved his name into the side of a mountain nor did he claim the NEP was his brilliant single plan). And as I said: his beloved Party which he purged multiple times to ensure purity and total adherence to the one "true' interpretation of Marx did a 180 into an open counterrevolutionist front which dismantled the entire state within 7 years of his death. Which means there were always systemic problems with the party. Hoxha was almost the Attila the Hun of his Party: a strong, unifying individual whose organization was totally lost without him and dissolved. Meaning that he may have been strong, but his party was so weak it depended upon a single individual for its continued existence.
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2014, 09:16
somewhat wrote:
Case in point: pillboxes, pillboxes everywhere.
It's worth noting the context of the decision to construct pillboxes. First off, Albania's defense doctrine was based on an armed populace, not simply a professional army. Military ranks were abolished as part of this. Second, the pillboxes were built in response to the Soviet social-imperialist aggression against Czechoslovakia. Albania also had to worry about the West: the country had the unique distinction among Eastern European states of having had no diplomatic or trade relations whatsoever with the USA or UK since 1946, plus Greece proclaimed itself as being a "state of war" with Albania until 1987. So conditions were highly unfavorable all-around.

Spain, Portugal and Greece had various ties with Anglo-American capital, had membership in the European Economic Community, etc.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1008
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 15 Feb 2014, 14:03
I don't want to be dragged into this debate as I see that comrade somewhat is doing very well, but I'd like to add that some of the accusations about the albanian communist party could well be applied to the Yugoslav League of Communists, too. I would apreciate seeing a thread where you guys would be commenting (with supporting facts) on good and bad things of the YLC - although you weren't living in the country, I would still appreciate your point of view as outside observers.

With regards to pillboxes and threats... SFRY was under a constant threat from the Warshaw Pact, too, yet it did not build a single pillbox. Choosing diplomacy instead of isolation was very good.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2014, 15:10
EdvardK wrote:
I don't want to be dragged into this debate as I see that comrade somewhat is doing very well, but I'd like to add that some of the accusations about the albanian communist party could well be applied to the Yugoslav League of Communists, too. I would apreciate seeing a thread where you guys would be commenting (with supporting facts) on good and bad things of the YLC - although you weren't living in the country, I would still appreciate your point of view as outside observers.

With regards to pillboxes and threats... SFRY was under a constant threat from the Warshaw Pact, too, yet it did not build a single pillbox. Choosing diplomacy instead of isolation was very good.


I mean I think comrade Ismail raises some fair points and I'd still like to recommend the second part of your post to him: it is possible to maintain ideological integrity while having trade links. Stalin himself bought factories from Ford. Hoxha cutting the country off was a serious shot in their own foot. And that lead to wasteage of GDP on things like building pillboxes. Moreover I'd argue that Yugoslavia, which also needed an armed citizenry, had a better overall military doctrine which advocated a prolonged struggle in the mountains rather than trying to hold 1-man pillboxes (of which, even for this doctrine, too many were constructed) against an armoured wave and aerial bombardment that would lead to total extermination of those holding the line.

I do agree of course that Greece, Spain etc had ties to the outside... so why didn't Albania? Again, purity is nice and all but you can't eat it. You can buy rope from the capitalists later as long as your end intent is to hang them with it.

As for what you raise EdvarK about the League of Communists I agree that that would be a very good alternate thread. I can't help but see similarities between a lot of these post-WWII socialist leaders who were charismatic heads of successful guerrilla movements. There's 5: Kim Il-Sung, Mao, Hoxha, Tito and Ceausescu. The four before old Nikolai all left huge vacuums with their deaths, with Kim leading to a religious church in his following, Mao the restoration of capitalism, and Hoxha and Tito the tragic collapses into criminality and war of their regimes. Yet the thing to note is that despite the avowed orthodoxy or ideological superiority of these movements, without their leaders to hold them together they fell into chaos quickly (the DPRK being an unknown factor as on the one hand it became a cult nation and on the other there may have been/are groups opposed to the Kim Dynasty).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1008
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 15 Feb 2014, 15:41
somewhat wrote:
I can't help but see similarities between a lot of these post-WWII socialist leaders who were charismatic heads of successful guerrilla movements. There's 5: Kim Il-Sung, Mao, Hoxha, Tito and Ceausescu. The four before old Nikolai all left huge vacuums with their deaths, with Kim leading to a religious church in his following, Mao the restoration of capitalism, and Hoxha and Tito the tragic collapses into criminality and war of their regimes.

Ceausescu was no guerrilla movement leader but a prison inmate throughout most of the WW2.
Marshall Tito made a critical mistake in 1960s for not stepping down and letting the personality cult to develop. Had he listened more to economic experts of the time (especially Slovenians who advocated more trade relations with all neighbouring nations, not just the West), the country would've fared better.
As for YLC, the moment it started to accept carreerists and opportunists, it seized to be what it was in the beginning - the vanguard and trailblazer of progress. I am convinced the same thing happened elsewhere, too.
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2014, 18:14
EdvardK wrote:
With regards to pillboxes and threats... SFRY was under a constant threat from the Warshaw Pact, too, yet it did not build a single pillbox. Choosing diplomacy instead of isolation was very good.

somewhat wrote:
I mean I think comrade Ismail raises some fair points and I'd still like to recommend the second part of your post to him: it is possible to maintain ideological integrity while having trade links. Stalin himself bought factories from Ford. Hoxha cutting the country off was a serious shot in their own foot.
First, the decision to terminate ties always rested with the "other" side, not with the Albanians. It was the British and Americans who cut off diplomatic relations, just as it was the Soviet and Chinese revisionists who cut off relations. Albania didn't initiate such processes. Second, Hoxha's Albania was not the USSR of Lenin and Stalin, and by that I mean capitalist companies granting concessions within it are going to exert much more influence on the economy than in the vast territory of the Soviet Union.

Quote:
Moreover I'd argue that Yugoslavia, which also needed an armed citizenry, had a better overall military doctrine which advocated a prolonged struggle in the mountains rather than trying to hold 1-man pillboxes (of which, even for this doctrine, too many were constructed) against an armoured wave and aerial bombardment that would lead to total extermination of those holding the line.
The Albanian strategy was based on mountains being the country's main line of defense. To quote one Albanian writer at the time: "our uneven mountainous and fortified terrain, as well as the fact that our people know it like the back of their hand, constitute a very great obstacle to possible aggressors, to manoeuvres and the utilization of the modern military technique on their part, and a great facility for our popular war. Therefore, the Party has always given special importance to the fortification of the country now, in time of peace, in which the army and the people are actively mobilized." - Simon Ballabani, Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha, 1983, pp. 206-207.

Keep in mind that Yugoslavia could probably count on US intervention if the Soviet revisionists attacked it. That option was not available to Albania, where the Anglo-Americans tried to overthrow the government in the late 40s/early 50s.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2014, 19:06
Ismail wrote:
First, the decision to terminate ties always rested with the "other" side, not with the Albanians. It was the British and Americans who cut off diplomatic relations, just as it was the Soviet and Chinese revisionists who cut off relations. Albania didn't initiate such processes. Second, Hoxha's Albania was not the USSR of Lenin and Stalin, and by that I mean capitalist companies granting concessions within it are going to exert much more influence on the economy than in the vast territory of the Soviet Union.

The Albanian strategy was based on mountains being the country's main line of defense. To quote one Albanian writer at the time: "our uneven mountainous and fortified terrain, as well as the fact that our people know it like the back of their hand, constitute a very great obstacle to possible aggressors, to manoeuvres and the utilization of the modern military technique on their part, and a great facility for our popular war. Therefore, the Party has always given special importance to the fortification of the country now, in time of peace, in which the army and the people are actively mobilized." - Simon Ballabani, Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha, 1983, pp. 206-207.

Keep in mind that Yugoslavia could probably count on US intervention if the Soviet revisionists attacked it. That option was not available to Albania, where the Anglo-Americans tried to overthrow the government in the late 40s/early 50s.


Yes, and the reason they cut it off wasn't because Hoxha acted like a blameless paragon of socialist virtue. He antagonized everyone with whom he disagreed (in other words, just about everyone period) and got the country cut off. Then he instituted bizarre nationalist legislation doing things like barring exit from the country. Then claiming at the UN that the social conditions for prostitution (ie: black markets) had been eliminated when in fact even tribalism hadn't ended. In short, his decisions were eclectic and often silly. Once more proof that one cannot eat ideological purity. Did Lenin constantly piss of Britain when he needed their recognition and trade relations? No, and while it's nice to read Enver lambast the imperialists the consequences for the country meant 0 trade with anybody. In short, there is a time and place for yelling one's defiance and another for going to Wal Mart because, like it or not, you can't afford anything else and starving/living in medieval conditions is unacceptable.

As for the strategy: obviously as a mountainous nation with a history of guerrilla movements that's where the country's natural defence doctrine should lie. So why waste so much money making so many pillboxes in so many places? Just on a logistical level it's stupid: a 1-man pillbox, held by anybody, is guaranteed to die. Then you build enough for 1/5 of the population of the country when they might fare better taking to the hills. That's insane, especially when they build more than their needs for fortification would actually need.

And on Yugoslavia: The US or Brits or anybody would shore up Albania if it meant pissing off the Soviets. Not that the Soviets ever wanted to actually invade since Kruschev. This paranoid fear of getting attacked was too characteristic of all Eastern European nations, the Pact being afraid of NATO attack (and thus MAD), and the Yugoslavs/Albanians of Soviet (or in Tito's case, NATO possibly as well). Which never happened and never would as Albania was 3 million people and not a border state with a large economy and manufacturing base like Czechoslovakia or Hungary. Moreover, I have some qualms about the suppression of Czechoslovakia, but the fascists in Hungary whose "communist" credentials of Nagy involves "freedom fighters" cheering the Iron Arrow and David Irving? Please, the iron fist was better than they deserved.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Feb 2014, 19:26
Actually their defensive system was based on a network of pillboxes : tiny pillboxes were supported by bigger ones made for central command. However, since pillboxes are far from being discrete or mobile, it's hard to see how they could have implemented this into assymetric strategies.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1008
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 15 Feb 2014, 19:43
Ismail wrote:
First, the decision to terminate ties always rested with the "other" side, not with the Albanians. It was the British and Americans who cut off diplomatic relations, just as it was the Soviet and Chinese revisionists who cut off relations. Albania didn't initiate such processes. Second, Hoxha's Albania was not the USSR of Lenin and Stalin, and by that I mean capitalist companies granting concessions within it are going to exert much more influence on the economy than in the vast territory of the Soviet Union.

Was it then a general conspiracy against Albania because the country was deemed very dangerous in economic relations due to its immense economic output and sought-after products it was trying to dump on the world market?
You cannot blame "the other side" as being a culprit. Afterall, let's go one by one: Soviets broke off because Albanians first sided with the Chinese. Then the Chinese broke off because Albanians first sided with Vietnamese in their border dispute with China.
Hogha declared that foreign aid and relations were a trap that causes nations to compromise on their independence. THUS, hogha decreed not to rely on any economic relations. As goes for British and Americans (and French, Italians), the albanians have always seen the world in black & white only. If they sided with one, the other was by default wrong /black. So, by siding with the Soviets (after the Soviet-Yugoslav split), all others were wrong /black.

Ismail wrote:
Keep in mind that Yugoslavia could probably count on US intervention if the Soviet revisionists attacked it. That option was not available to Albania, where the Anglo-Americans tried to overthrow the government in the late 40s/early 50s.

You obviously know very little of Yugoslav self-defence strategy. We were preparing to be surprised from both sides, with preferrential choice of Soviets as aggressors. But as I recall and as books on the subject of special war being waged against SFRY show, the people were ready to fight both sides off in case the other side would come to "rescue". We wanted to walk our own path.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1008
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 15 Feb 2014, 19:47
As history shows, albanians were always easy prey for anyone who had five minutes of spare time to frag with them...
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2014, 20:39
somewhat wrote:
Yes, and the reason they cut it off wasn't because Hoxha acted like a blameless paragon of socialist virtue. He antagonized everyone with whom he disagreed (in other words, just about everyone period) and got the country cut off. Then he instituted bizarre nationalist legislation doing things like barring exit from the country. Then claiming at the UN that the social conditions for prostitution (ie: black markets) had been eliminated when in fact even tribalism hadn't ended. In short, his decisions were eclectic and often silly. Once more proof that one cannot eat ideological purity. Did Lenin constantly piss of Britain when he needed their recognition and trade relations? No, and while it's nice to read Enver lambast the imperialists the consequences for the country meant 0 trade with anybody. In short, there is a time and place for yelling one's defiance and another for going to Wal Mart because, like it or not, you can't afford anything else and starving/living in medieval conditions is unacceptable.
The comparison between Lenin's foreign policies and Hoxha's doesn't really work, first off because Russia was far more significant than Albania economically and geopolitically (thus forcing the imperialists to reckon with it on a more "equal" basis), and secondly due to the fact that Lenin and Stalin did not spare any words in denouncing imperialism, nor did Hoxha. The Albanians did welcome the opportunity to have diplomatic relations restored with the UK. The UK, however, did not agree to the very simple condition: give back Albanian gold that had been stored in Fascist Italy and confiscated by the British after WWII.

EdvardK wrote:
Was it then a general conspiracy against Albania because the country was deemed very dangerous in economic relations due to its immense economic output and sought-after products it was trying to dump on the world market?
You cannot blame "the other side" as being a culprit. Afterall, let's go one by one: Soviets broke off because Albanians first sided with the Chinese. Then the Chinese broke off because Albanians first sided with Vietnamese in their border dispute with China.
Actually the Chinese broke off diplomatic relations before the Sino-Vietnamese War. Besides that, though, can you really defend the actions of the Soviet and Chinese revisionists in breaking off relations with Albania? They were obviously meant to pressure Albania into changing its course. They were done from the positions of great-power chauvinism.

Also Albania did have strategic value to the Soviet revisionists:

"Quite apart from the symbolic implications of Hoxha's [split with the USSR], Khrushchev had always regarded Albania as a key member of the Warsaw Pact because of 'its superb strategic location on the Mediterranean Sea.' The rift with Yugoslavia in 1948 had eliminated the only other possible outlet for the Soviet navy in the region. To ensure that Albania could serve as a full-fledged 'military base on the Mediterranean Sea for all the socialist countries,' the Soviet Union had been providing extensive equipment and training to the Albanian army and navy. In particular, the Albanian navy had received a fleet of twelve modern attack submarines, which initially were under Soviet control but were gradually being transferred to Albanian jurisdiction. Khrushchev believed that the submarines would allow Albania to pose a 'serious threat to the operation of the NATO military bloc on the Mediterranean Sea,' and thus he was dismayed to find that Soviet efforts to establish a naval bulwark on the Mediterranean might all have been for naught.

As soon as the rift with Albania emerged, the Soviet Union imposed strict economic sanctions, withdrew all Soviet technicians and military advisers, took back eight of the twelve submarines, dismantled Soviet naval facilities at the Albanian port of Vlona, and engaged in bitter polemical exchanges with the Albanian leadership. Khrushchev also ordered Soviet warships to conduct maneuvers along the Albanian coast, and he secretly encouraged pro-Moscow rivals of Hoxha to carry out a coup. The coup attempt was rebuffed, and the other means of coercion proved insufficient to get rid of Hoxha or to bring about a change of policy. In December 1961, Khrushchev broke diplomatic relations with Albania and excluded it from both the Warsaw Pact and CMEA. However, he was unwilling to undertake a full-scale invasion to bring Albania back within the Soviet orbit, not least because of the logistical problems and the likelihood of confronting stiff armed resistance."
(Carole Fink, Philipp Gassert & Detlef Junker (Ed.). 1968: The World Transformed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1998. pp. 117-119.)

Quote:
Hogha declared that foreign aid and relations were a trap that causes nations to compromise on their independence.
And this is obviously true. The "foreign aid" of the imperialists caused Yugoslavia to be billions of dollars in debt to US banks. The "foreign aid" given to African countries by their former colonial masters has the same effect.

Quote:
THUS, hogha decreed not to rely on any economic relations. As goes for British and Americans (and French, Italians), the albanians have always seen the world in black & white only. If they sided with one, the other was by default wrong /black. So, by siding with the Soviets (after the Soviet-Yugoslav split), all others were wrong /black.
This doesn't really make sense. Hoxha's position on Soviet revisionism didn't change when the Chinese broke off relations with Albania.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1008
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 15 Feb 2014, 21:24
Ismail wrote:
The comparison between Lenin's foreign policies and Hoxha's doesn't really work, first off because Russia was far more significant than Albania economically and geopolitically (thus forcing the imperialists to reckon with it on a more "equal" basis),

So, you agree that albania had no influence on world affairs whatsoever and that whatever the great leader declared (like unilateral break-off of economic relations), the albanians themselves would be punished and not the rest of the world? Whatever rant Hoxha gave on whatever subject, it only resonated within the country and nobody really cared about what they think. Also, when you talk about independence of albania... how was albania independent if it was nothing but an Adriatic port for the much greater USSR? Is that what you call independence?

Ismail wrote:
can you really defend the actions of the Soviet and Chinese revisionists in breaking off relations with Albania? They were obviously meant to pressure Albania into changing its course. They were done from the positions of great-power chauvinism.

Two points to answer, first: how the f... was Albania to be so paramount for the world to be pressured into changing its course? Who gave a f...? I mean, do you honestly believe that if albania would change its course in whatever world subject, then the hordes of other countries would follow suit? Don't get me wrong, it's good to be self-absorbent at some point, but not *that* much.
Second, you call pressure of Soviet Union and China being from position of great-power chauvinism and you don't fail to mention it was "revisionists" who did that? hahaha So, when your fabulous stalin pressured countries, that was fine and alright as it was clearly marxist to do so, yes?

Quote:
Hogha declared that foreign aid and relations were a trap that causes nations to compromise on their independence.

Ismail wrote:
And this is obviously true. The "foreign aid" of the imperialists caused Yugoslavia to be billions of dollars in debt to US banks. The "foreign aid" given to African countries by their former colonial masters has the same effect.

Why do you ALWAYS have to invoke SFRY when talking of Albania? Are you obsessed with it? Tell me, please, why did Albania go capitalist at about the same time as Yugoslavia if you claim SFRY was st00piT to take loans in order to increase the living standard of the nation?

Ismail wrote:
Hoxha's position on Soviet revisionism didn't change when the Chinese broke off relations with Albania.

Sorry, but who gives a chocolate what hogha thought of revisionism? It's like my thoughts on some subject - totally irrelevant in the world of politics. But, I'm at least aware of my lack of influence in it.
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2014, 21:40
EdvardK wrote:
So, you agree that albania had no influence on world affairs whatsoever and that whatever the great leader declared (like unilateral break-off of economic relations),
Albania never unilaterally broke off economic relations with any country.

Quote:
Also, when you talk about independence of albania... how was albania independent if it was nothing but an Adriatic port for the much greater USSR? Is that what you call independence?
It wasn't "an Adriatic port of the much greater USSR." Hoxha recorded in his diary the chauvinistic remarks of Khrushchev and Malinovsky when they visited Albania in 1959. The revisionists wanted it to function as an Adriatic port and neo-colonial appendage of Soviet social-imperialism. Relations between the USSR and Albania rapidly declined in the 1960-61 period, culminating in the revisionists breaking off ties with the latter.

Quote:
Two points to answer, first: how the f... was Albania to be so paramount for the world to be pressured into changing its course? Who gave a f...? I mean, do you honestly believe that if albania would change its course in whatever world subject, then the hordes of other countries would follow suit? Don't get me wrong, it's good to be self-absorbent at some point, but not *that* much.
The Soviet revisionists were very obviously pressuring Albania to cease its "Stalinist" policies, and Khrushchev outright called for Albanians to overthrow their government at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October 1961.

Quote:
Why do you ALWAYS have to invoke SFRY when talking of Albania? Are you obsessed with it? Tell me, please, why did Albania go capitalist at about the same time as Yugoslavia if you claim SFRY was st00piT to take loans in order to increase the living standard of the nation?
Those loans only "increased" living standards in Yugoslavia in the same way they "increased" such standards in Romania: when it was time to pay up, both regimes imposed austerity measures on the working-class. In the Yugoslav case this had another effect: the republics squabbled amongst themselves, blaming each other for the economic situation the federation was in.

Quote:
Sorry, but who gives a chocolate what hogha thought of revisionism?
You're the one claiming that Hoxha's opinion on things suddenly changed just because relations between countries changed.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2014, 22:04
Comrades be civil. I agree with you EdvarK but not the way you're responding to Ismail, who only writes in a factual and mature manner. Extend him the same respect comrade.

As for you Ismail: I read your points and don't have the time to agree or refute them all right now. I heavily disagree with many but I don't have resources on hand for it. However I respect your opinion and give it weight.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 17 Feb 2014, 23:53
I'll say one thing, he appointed his own family members to the Central Committee (and I think one of his wifes was appointed to the politburo).. Nepotism does not equal socialism, Marxism... He built more bunkers in the country than houses, what?? He made decisions without consulting the Politburo, what? He was a one-man show - the last time I checked Marxism was about democracy, not one-man rule...
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 18 Feb 2014, 04:40
leftguy wrote:
I'll say one thing, he appointed his own family members to the Central Committee (and I think one of his wifes was appointed to the politburo)
His wife (he only had one) was a member of the Central Committee, not the Politburo. She was a member of the Communist Party of Albania from its founding and played an important role in the work of the youth and women's organizations during the National Liberation War. He married her after the war ended. None of his other relatives had positions in the leading party organs.

And where did you hear that he made decisions "without consulting the Politburo"?
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 18 Feb 2014, 13:03
I'll be honest, when i was writing about the nepotism part I was thinking of Nicolae Ceaușescu.. Anyhow, last argument, Albania became the poorest country in Europe because of his rule. It was not so much as catching up with the capitalist West as follow further down. I think it was in 1981 Hoxha organized that two-thirds of the Politburo be replaced - akeen to last year, when the Ba'ath Central Committee decided that all members of the Syrian Regional Command (with the exception of Assad of course) had committeed mistakes and needed to be replaced... .However, i must connceed that form 1954 to 1981 their was a collective leadership at the top.. However, it ended when Hoxha killed his rival, the Premier Mehmet Shehu, and arrested Shehu's whole family (because, after over 50years of service, they had suddenly become anti-socialist...) From 1981 to 1985, one-man rule
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 18 Feb 2014, 20:30
leftguy wrote:
Anyhow, last argument, Albania became the poorest country in Europe because of his rule.
It was the poorest country in Europe upon independence in 1912 and upon liberation from fascism in 1944. It didn't "become" the poorest country under Hoxha.

Quote:
I think it was in 1981 Hoxha organized that two-thirds of the Politburo be replaced
The Politburo elected at the 8th Congress in 1981 had 12 members, of these only 2, Mehmet Shehu and Kadri Hazbiu (a Shehu associate), were removed. The members of the Politburo elected at the 9th Congress in 1986 were the same as in 1981 except for the two persons I just mentioned and Hoxha (who died in 1985.)

Quote:
However, i must connceed that form 1954 to 1981 their was a collective leadership at the top.. However, it ended when Hoxha killed his rival, the Premier Mehmet Shehu, and arrested Shehu's whole family (because, after over 50years of service, they had suddenly become anti-socialist...) From 1981 to 1985, one-man rule
And on what basis was Albania transformed into "one-man rule"? What happened to your claim that Hoxha "made decisions without consulting the Politburo"?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.