ENGLISH

 

 

ENVER HOXHA

 

On CUBA


collection of quotations
by Wolfgang Eggers

 

 

1960

 

Radiogram - September 28, 1960

2) Castro's speech was a good one. We published as much of it as was transmitted by TASS. We have published nothing of the other friends' speeches. We will go about it on a reciprocal basis:
we will publish as many lines from their speeches as they publish from yours.

[Enver Hoxha: "ALBANIA CHALLENGES
KHRUSHCHEV REVISIONISM"
; Volume 19, page 117]

 

 

 

1961



MONDAY APRIL 17, 1961


THE AMERICAN IMPERIALISTS ATTACK CUBA


At 5 o'clock this morning the Americans and the Cuban mercenaries attacked Cuba. (On April 15 and 16, American "B-26" aircraft bombed Havana and some other Cuban cities. Landings were made at different points in Oriente province, including the Bay of Pigs) The fighting began. The heroic Cuban people will not be conquered!


Khrushchev's empty boasting that he would launch his missiles were shown up for what they arc in reality How false sounds the famous "peaceful road" for the taking of power which the revisionists Khrushchev, Gomulka, Togliatti and company preach! Not only will the bourgeoisie not relinquish power, unless it is seized by violence, but even when you have seized it by violence, the bourgeoisie will attack you to rob you of it, Cuba will suffer, but the great betrayal of the revisionists, headed by Khrushchev and company, will be exposed in the eyes of the peoples and the genuine communists.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", page 47]

 








THURSDAY APRIL 20, 1961

BRILLANT VICTORY


The Cubans triumphed. The attack of the American imperialists and their mercenaries was smashed and the counter-revolutionaries were wiped out. Castro announced this today.

A brilliant victory! A great victory for Cuba, a great victory for us and the revolution, in general. Confirmation of the correct line of our Party, defeat for the opportunist-revisionist line of Khrushchev and company, defeat for the policy of flattery, smiles and concessions to the imperialists. Defeat for the American imperialists. The plans of the American imperialists, Yugoslav revisionists and the Greek monarcho-fascists who are plotting against us will be defeated in the same way.

Our people and all the revolutionary peoples can never be conquered. The enemies will always be unmasked!

Bravo Cuba!

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", page 48]

 

 

 

1962

 

 

China failed to take into account «the movement
of missiles» in aid of Cuba. When Cuba was attacked at the Giron Beach «Khrushchevs' missiles» did not move, but later Escalante (1), «the Khrushchevite missile», moved. Interesting, the Chinese comrades are not drawing the proper conclusions from events in the world.

___

(1) A. Escalante, former organizational secretary of the Committee of United Revolutionary Organizations of Cuba.

[Enver Hoxha: Reflections on China, Volume I, page 27]

 

 



 

19th and 20th September 1962

 

Modern revisionism supports the basic strategy of American imperialism.

The many dangerous actions that American imperialism has taken lately, can be explained by the strategy of imperialism and its war preparations such as (...) the barbaric bombardment of Havana, the preparation of a new aggression against Cuba (...).

U.S. forces (...) began with their aggression against Cuba, to protect the interests of their sugar trust.

Preparations for an invasion of Cuba show (...) that the imperialists do not flinch from any means to maintain and restore their positions.

On the American continent the United States try to create a military bloc of the American States for the purpose to direct them against Cuba and the national liberation movement in Latin America.

 

Great betrayal of Marxism-Leninism.

At the invitation of Tito's Yugoslavia Brezhnev paid an official visit of eleven days. Anyone who considers closely the visit Brezhnev and who reads the final communiqué on discussions between Tito and Brezhnev, is aware about the striking danger that threatens the peace, national independence of peoples and socialism on the part of American imperialism. Now the illusion is widespread that supposedly the time has come, when the imperialists are expending a great deal as a result of the disarmament released funds for the benefit of the people, especially in developing countries. If the Cuban question is touched, it is not the talk about the American imperialism that threatened Cuba with aggression, but speaking only about certain aggressive "circles" of imperialism.

[Article from "Zeri i Popullit" of 19 and 20th September 1962 - unknown author]

 

 



 

MONDAY OCTOBER 22, 1962

KENNEDY'S WAR-MONGERING SPEECH


Addressing the Soviet Union, and concretely on the question of Cuba, Kennedy delivered another very threatening, war-mongering speech, a Hitlerite speech. The essence of it was his threat to launch a new world war. Cuba is the pretext, just as Danzig was for Hitler. In the speech Kennedy proclaimed a naval blockade on Cuba, because offensive weapons threatening the American continent have been deployed there by the Soviets. Kennedy declared that any ship sailing to Cuba would be stopped and searched and those that would resist would be sunk. He declared, also, that if rockets were launched against the USA from Cuba, then the Americans would launch their atomic bombs and missiles against the Soviet Union, etc. In a word. the USA is preparing to attack Cuba, is establishing a blockade to stop aid reaching it, and is threatening Khrushchev. Kennedy. the friend of Khrushchev and the revisionists, is playing hell with them.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", page 80]

 


 

 

TUESDAY OCTOBER 23, 1962

THE KHRUSHCHEVITES ARE COWARDS, COMPROMISERS AND TRAITORS


In connection with Kennedy's war-mongering speech on the question of Cuba, the Soviet government, wanting to appear unalarmed before world opinion, made a wishy-washy, non-committal pacifist statement after some delay. The statement does not say that the Soviet Union will defend Cuba, nor does it reply to the direct attacks and threats which Kennedy made. The Khrushchevites are showing themselves to be what they are, cowards, compromisers and traitors who leave their friends in the lurch, individuals devoid of principles and morals, therefore, they are unmasking themselves in the eyes of world opinion. They will come to terms with Kennedy, will make concessions to him, but if they leave heroic Cuba in the lurch. this will be a great crime and mean total exposure for them.

Cuba decreed general mobilization under the slogan "the Homeland or deaths". It demanded a meeting of the Security Council of the UNO. The United States of America and the Soviet Union also demanded this and it will meet today.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", page 81]



 

 

 

SATURDAY OCTOBER 27, 1962

KHRUSHCHEV CAPITULATED AND LEFT CUBA IN THE LURCH


It turned out as we thought. Khrushchev capitulated to Kennedy and left Cuba in the lurch, Messages were exchanged. Kennedy issued an ultimatum to Khrushchev that he must stop the construction of missile launching pads, dismantle those he has established and remove the missiles from Cuba. The traitor Khrushchev accepted Kennedy's conditions in a servile tone and with fear in his belly. The terrible thing is that with his stand the traitor has utterly discredited the Soviet Union. This is a new great betrayal which has been committed against the Soviet Union, Marxism-Leninism, socialism, mankind and peace. This stand whets the imperialists' appetite.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", page 82]


 


 


 

THURSDAY NOVEMBER 8, 1962

SHAME ON KHRUSHCHEV


The news agencies report that the Soviet missiles are being shipped away from Cuba, and that American warships are going to verify their removal on the high seas. Shame on Khrushchev and his henchmen who have stooped so low as to umiliate the Soviet Union such a degree! Bat the day will come when they get their just desert.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", page 83]

 

 


 

 

 

 

From a political, practical standpoint, these approaches are very dangerous because they spread pacifist illusions about Kennedy and the other heads of imperialism and thereby lull the vigilance of the people, damaging the cause of peace and give the imperialist warmongers hands free. But all these pacifist illusions that the leadership of the Italian Communist Party, the Khrushchevite revisionist group and the Tito clique and all revisionists spread, are doomed to burst like soap bubbles by life and facts. What does the dangerous adventure of the "realistic" and "peace-loving" U.S. President John Kennedy show in the last days? Where are the "elements of differentiation" of the theses? Are the aggressive and warmongering actions of Kennedy "understandable concerns for the safety of the United States" ? Have we to express our "satisfaction and gratitude", because he is now "responsable for the maintenance of world peace"? It's really amazing that such "communists" are out there who make their business to adulate the president of the United States and other heads of imperialism and to call them "smart, realistic and peace-loving people" .

[ Theses of the X. Congress of the Communist Party of Italy, from "Zeri i Popullit" of 17 - 18 November 1962 - unknown author]

 

 

 

 

 

The "politics of the Cold War" of imperialism - headed by the United States -, is becoming more and more a transformation into a politics of the hot war. It is the "policy of strength", policy of threatening speeches, pressure, extortionate robbery and open aggression. The U.S. imperialists caused the crisis on the Caribbean Sea and threaten Cuba with aggression.

 

The harmful and capitulating policy of the revisionists in the last events on the Caribbean was especially quite obvious. Now the Khrushchev-Group and their followers do everything to justify their concessions to the U.S. imperialism, and their retreat for all the world to see.

It is said that N. Khrushchev kept mankind from a nuclear missile catastrophe when he dismounted missiles and removed other military equipment from Cuba. Those who call this unilateral removal of missiles from Cuba "an action that saved mankind from World War", do actually accept the thesis of imperialist propaganda that the Soviet Union brought the world to the brink of nuclear war by the stationing of missiles in Cuba . The way to preserve humanity from a war and the maintenance of peace is not disarming the socialist countries, is not the weakening of their defense force, is not the submission to the dictation and ultimatum of the imperialists and is not the surrender to their pressure and their threats. This makes them even more aggressive. Such a path does not lead to the strengthening of peace, but inevitably to war. What a great perspective for the solution of international questions - this capitulation of the Khrushchev group in crisis on the Caribbean !

Furthermore, it is said that N. Khrushchev guaranteed Cuba's freedom and independence. But in reality, the danger of aggression against Cuba is not banned. The modern revisionists believe the words of President Kennedy that he will not invade Cuba. But fortunately the Cuban people and the peoples of the world do not trust in the words of the U.S. imperialists, and they know well the meaning of the words of President Kennedy. It's just words to express all sorts of maneuvers. In order to guarantee Cuba's freedom and independence need facts, specific acts, as defined in the 5 points of Fidel Castro. Because these are the only proper basis to defend the rights of the heroic Cuban people effectively and with dignity.

Finally, the Khrushchev-Group propagates the Cuban events as a model of the policy of peaceful coexistence, which - in Khrushchev's own words, was a compromise. The propagandists of the Khrushchev-Group - with a lantern in their hands - are looking for arguments to justify the unprincipled compromise with the U.S. imperialism over the Cuban question. They even go so far as to refer to Lenin in banal way, and compare their action with the time of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, with a people who was disarmed and had been attacked by bandits . But the Soviet Union if today is not the same as in the year 1918. Today, such a thing is only said by people who fear the imperialists, who underestimate the forces of the socialist camp, especially the Soviet Union, and who overestimate the forces of imperialism. Of course, these people are willing to surrender completely before any blackmail and threat of the imperialists. Of course, mutual concessions and compromises in the context of the struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence are necessary in order to reach agreement. But the concessions and compromises must first do not harm our common interests, must not harm the rights of sovereign nations, and second, they must be based on reciprocity and may not be one-sided, as in Cuba. The Khrushchev-Group yielded in all, while the US- imperialism made empty words but no concessions. Also, it is not right to equate the peaceful coexistence with the compromises of N. Khrushchev. The compromise is not the key factor to achieve peaceful coexistence, however the resolute struggle of all peace-loving forces who impose imperialism to peaceful coexistence. It is this mighty struggle of the peoples which results in concessions and compromises of the imperialists. To justify their capitulation to imperialism the Khrushchev-Group must present this peaceful coexistence as a compromise and stand only as a compromise.

[ We must hold high the revolutionary banner of the Moscow Declaration and protect it from attacks by the modern revisionists, from "Zeri i Popullit" of 6 December 1962 - unknown author]

 

 


 

 

 

THURSDAY DECEMBER 13, 1962

KHRUSHCHEV TRIES TO EXPLAIN HIS BETRAYAL


Yesterday Khrushchev delivered a speech on the international situation and Soviet foreign policy at the session of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. Beside him in the presidium of the meeting he had his brother and close comrade, the traitor Tito. The main purpose of his long speech was to make a long-winded explanation of his betrayal (in fact, to avoid explaining it), of his retreat before the strength of American imperialism. His whole problem was to try to clear himself, to wipe out the bad impression created and the great disgrace which he brought upon the Soviet Union. But he could not and never will be able to do this. Now the whole revisionist chorus has adopted this theme and aim. Nikita Khrushchev presented the removal of missiles from Cuba as a victory, as a road open (through a catastrophe) to new victories (new scandalous compromises and concessions). The second aim of the speech was the complete, official, public rehabilitation of the Titoite renegades, both from the state stand-point and, especially, from the ideological stand-point. On this issue he threw off all disguise. The predictions of the Party of Labour of Albania have been confirmed.

As usual, Khrushchev attacked the Party of Labour of Albania and its leadership without any argument. In this way he pleased Tito greatly. Likewise, he attacked the Communist Party of China. The treacherous aims of the Khrushchevite revisionist group, the splitting of the camp, the formation of the international revisionist bloc, the feverish open approaches to American imperialism, the efforts on Khrushchev's part to provide Kennedy with more and more proofs of his goodwill so that the agreements they will reach with his agent Tito will be welcomed by Kennedy, are becoming clearer every day. The future will make clear all their intrigues and capitulationist plans.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", page 84]

 

 


 

 

The PLA unmasked continuously the counter-revolutionary policy of reconciliation with American imperialism. The PLA made ​​it clear that the Soviet-American cooperation, the formation of an alliances between American imperialism and Soviet revisionism (which had turned into a new imperialism) is for the purpose to rule the world. This constitutes the core of the line of the Khrushchev revisionists. This policy drove the revisionist Soviet leadership in a shameful capitulation to American imperialism. Under American threat in 1962 they withdrew their missiles and aircraft from Cuba that they had just sent recently, and at the same time they accepted the "international" U.S. control of Soviet ships and on Cuban territory.

[History of the PLA - page 381 - German edition]


 

 

1963

 

 

The more time passes, the deeper the modern revisionists sink into the dirt of betraying the interests of Marxism-Leninism, the international communist and workers' movement, of socialism, of the liberation of the peoples and of peace.

A striking example is the entire story of the evolution of the renegade Tito clique and the revisionist Khrushchev group. This particular show, the events of recent times.

This particular shows, the events of recent times.

The attitude of the revisionist Khrushchev-Group towards the crisis in the Caribbean (...), the full convergence between this group and the revisionist Tito clique, the ever wilder acts of N. Khrushchev and his supporters against the Albanian Party of Labour and against the other parties who protect the purity of Marxism-Leninism with vigor, and their outrageous slanders and attacks against them, reveal not only the present but also the future perspectives of the modern revisionists .

The prestige of the revisionist Khrushchev-Group received a severe blow. To justify his opportunistic and treacherous policies and to regain the lost prestige, N-Khrushchev devoted most of his speech to the course of the crisis on the Caribbean, and provided the necessary "evidence" to show that his attitude to the interests of the Peace and Socialism corresponded.

In his speech on 12 December 1962, N. Khrushchev underlined that the peoples of the world would welcome the Soviet position as a supposedly "moderate attitude which kept Cuba and the world from a nuclear disaster" etc.

But if all the nations of the world would have really welcomed the attitude of N. Khrushchev so enthusiastically, what then forced N. Khrushchev to describe the crisis on the Caribbean Sea in such detail?
If everything is clear and in order, then why had this question to be discussed and decided at all party conferences, plenary sessions of the Central Committee and national and regional conferences by writing special resolutions in which the attitude of N. Khrushchev had to be supported ? The propaganda of the revisionists enter into the issue of "elasticity" of N. Khrushchev in the Cuban missile crisis in such a large presentation that one wins the impression that everything was already prepared carefully to pave the way towards the future compromises.

But despite the deafening noise, the people and the true revolutionaries during the Cuba crisis saw clearly the danger that is caused by the political acrobats and opportunistic and treacherous tendencies to surrender and to make compromises with imperialism. For he shows no respect for the sovereignty of peoples and is not considerate of the danger which threatens the world peace in the future.

The crisis on the Caribbean, once again showed that American imperialism is the main bulwark of aggression and war, the fiercest enemies of the socialist countries and the peoples.

To realize his reactionary and predatory aims, he does not hesitate to undertake the most dangerous actions against socialist Cuba.

This is not about some "mad" and "insane," as N. Khrushchev says, but the U.S. government itself with President Kennedy at the top, with premeditation and full consciousness.


On an October day in 1962 the American imperialism decided - with the familiar impudence and effrontery that is the warmongers own - , to dictate to a sovereign nation, to the Cuban brother nation, what defensive weapons it may have and what it may not have, from whom they have to receive them and from whom not.
The USA-imperialists issued an ultimatum to the people and government of Cuba, either remove these defensive weapons from Cuba and to allow the control of the imperialists, or the U.S.A. would attack Cuba.

The naval blockade was imposed on Cuba. The sovereign right of a nation has been trampled under foot. The U.S.A. adopted the right to dictate their will, today against Cuba and tomorrow against another country.

Two stances were taken up over this arbitrary act of American imperialism bandits.

The heroic people of Cuba was under the leadership of Fidel Castro with the slogan, "Fatherland or death!" - "We shall win!" Cuba stood up like a man in order to protect its independence, sovereignty and national dignity, and also the peoples of the world and the entire world public stood up.

Those who rely on the people's forces and the role of the masses and who welcomed the action come to the conclusion that it is the indomitable revolutionary and dignified bearing of the Cuban people and its leaders, socialist with Fidel Castro at the helm, as well as the solidarity of the camp and all peoples, which forced the American imperialism to retreat, to exercise the reins and to renounce its dangerous adventure. As a result of this crucial factor direct aggression against Cuba and the danger of war was averted.

However, Khrushchev proposed the path of concessions and surrender during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the way of resolving the issues by the actual endorsement of the right of American imperialism to impose its will on others and to spurn the actions of solidarity.


By the underestimation of the popular forces and the overestimation of the forces of imperialism, N. Krushchev wanted to show to President Kennedy that he is a great pacifist and N. Khrushchev withdrew missiles and aircraft from Cuba who were in his opinion the cause of the crisis. He accepted the control as a law of the U.S.A. According to N. Khrushchev both parts made concessions. Those concessions which N. Khrushchev made, is more than clear, and the concession of the United States is clear. According to the propagandists of N. Khrushchev Kennedy gave assurances that he will retreat from military intervention in Cuba. Can we call this a concession? The President of Cuba, Comrade Dorticos said correcly:

'.... If you consider the military non-interference as a guarantee, so thereby a dangerous precedent would lead to the recognition of the right of armed intervention. If we give up our sovereign right, if the United States can dictate on the type of our weapons and impose a military intervention in case we do not agree, then you could call the military intervention in our country as a sovereign right of the United States. (...) We and nobody will accept this military law of interference.'


So this is the "reasonable" compromise of which N. Khrushchev has claimed, that it saved Cuba and the world peace - and satisfied all parts.

A Russian proverb says: "The wolves were fed and the sheep suffered nothing!"

In vain, N. Khrushchev tries to hide what cannot be hidden, namely his shameful capitulation to the niclear boasting of American imperialism. He did not hesitate to sacrifice the sovereignty of peoples and the interests of socialism in different countries.

N. Khrushchev sought to exploit the Cuban events for his anti-Marxist goals.

He tries to create the illusion that the threat of aggression against Cuba and the danger of war and peace were banned by means of the peaceful resolution of all major international issues.

Allegedly, by his "resolute" position, N. Khrushchev had "curbed" the imperialist warmongers and "forced" them to retreat and to become "reasonable".

However, in truth, the evolution of the events after the Cuban missile crisis really shows, that American imperialism is not only not reasonable, but on the contrary has become even more dangerous, because its appetite has increased. The imperialists are now pursuing all the more diligent preparations for war and conspiracies against the people.

The American imperialists and the President do now, emboldened by the events in Cuba, a major effort to build their world domination and its NATO allies.

Firstly, there is furthermore the danger of an invasion of Cuba by American imperialism, regardless of the colorless and repeatedly denied Statement by President Kennedy that he will not take any armed invasion.
In fact, both in the interview of 17 December 1962 and at the meeting with former Cuban counterrevolutionary prisoners, who returned to the United States on the 29th December 1962, Kennedy still spoke of the so called "liberation of Cuba",and about the need to prepare against the "communist regime of Fidel Castro," etc.

The real guarantees, to prevent military involvement of U.S. imperialism in Cuba, are included in the five demands of Fidel Castro. The statement of the leadership of the the Government of Cuba on 25th October 1962 is correct:

"We do not trust the empty promise that they will not attack us. We want facts. And the facts that we need are included in our five demands."


Second, many statesmen of the United States, Adenauer and other West German, also Home in England, and many other personalities of the West explained to the Cuban events and further explain that "we must continue our policy of strength" towards the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. All the issues in dispute must be resolved only at the cost of the concessions of one part. And in view of the teaching of Cuba, the Soviet Union has to yield to the NATO bloc in all the other isues, etc.

 

These are the conclusions which the imperialist circles have drawn out of the "reasonable compromise" of N . Khrushchev.

It is therefore quite clear that the policy of flattery and unprincipled concessions makes the imperialists neither reasonable nor peaceable.
But the imperialist circles are not satisfied with words and statements they made.

They also take practical action. After the events on the Caribbean Sea, the efforts of the imperialists in preparation for the war was clearly expressed in the conversations between Kennedy and Macmillan.

 

The Cuban events and averting the imminent threat of American aggression, however, showed very well the crucial role and importance of the peoples themselves and international solidarity for the maintenance of peace.
N. Khrushchev underestimated the role of the masses, he is afraid of the power and determination of the people to defend their fate.

From his speech, we see that the protests of the people and their internationalist solidarity were allegedly nothing more than "bombastic declarations" by which the "imperialist forces became not weaker and the matter of Cuba not easier."


This position of N. Khrushchev can be explained by the fact that he wants to have a free hand in his dealings with imperialism, and that the crowds have to follow him blindly, and unconditionally approve each of his "compromise" for any agreement with the imperialists. The Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko said openly :

"... If there is a harmony between the Soviet Prime Minister, Nikita Khrushchev and U.S. President Kennedy, then a solution for the international issues on which depends the fate of humanity, will be found."


It is clear that such a dangerous conception has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism . The Moscow Declaration of 1960, emphasizes:

 

"Fighting for peace means vigilance, means to unmask the policy of imperialism, means to look through the intrigues and machinations of warlords with great attention, means directing the holy wrath of the people against imperialist war policy, means organization of all peaceful forces , means to multiply the active mass actions to maintain peace. "

 

Everywhere the masses are brought to the foreground. Their crucial role is underlined everywhere. Nowhere their actions are called "bombastic declarations."

At no point it is stated that the fate of world peace is in the hands of two personalities. And it can not be otherwise. Without disputing the role of personalities, Marxism-Leninism teaches that the masses, the peopleb are the main force of history and not the personalities, no matter how great they are or how high their post may be. This is the most basic teachings of Marxism-Leninism which N. Khrushchev rejected as worthless in his revisionist zeal for his future goals.

[The revisionist Khrushchev-Tito Group forges new plans to the detriment of the cause of socialism, from Zeri i Popullit of 8 January 1963 - unknown author]

 

 

 


SUNDAY FEBRUARY 3, 1963

KENNEDY HAS RECOMMENCED UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR TESTS


Another defeat for Khrushchev and another proof of the correctness of our line. Khrushchev's "good man" Kennedy, is continuing the armaments race and the nuclear blackmail, as he was bound to do. He has announced the recommencement of underground nuclear tests. After this Kennedy will demand further concessions from Khrushchev and he will certainly make them, because his course has been set. He is already in Kennedy's clutches. Along with the announcement about the recommencement of nuclear tests, the American imperialists have raised the question of the presence of 17.000 Soviet soldiers in Cuba and are sure to launch a campaign for their withdrawal. The Americans will get what they want easily, because he is a coward. On the other hand, by withdrawing the missiles he as in Cuba, Khrushchev ensures that the Cubans never get possession of them.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", page 88]

 

 

 

The ugly reflection of the false and harmful acts and revisionist concepts and unprincipled concessions is, without doubt, stance of N. Khrushchev during the Cuban crisis (...).

During the events in Cuba, N. Khrushchev acted both as an adventurer as well as capitulator.

It is recalled that not only ​​unilateral concessions have been made to the American imperialists during the Cuban crisis by withdrawing the missiles, aircraft and military specialists from Cuba.

This means also constant pressure on a sovereign country to accept international control of American imperialism on its own soil.
This is the promise that N. Khrushchev gave to Kennedy.

No doubt, N. Khrushchev once has to be brought to justice for the damage he has inflicted on the international communist and workers' movement.

He will have to give accountability not only from his party and his people, but also from all the Communist parties in the upcoming international fora

Anyone who follows observantly the course of events and the attitude of Yugoslavia to various international issues, can see, that the attitude of the Yugoslav revisionists has had to do nothing with the attitude of the socialist countries in no single case. Proof of this is the attitude of the Tito clique during the crisis on the Caribbean Sea (...), where they took openly the side of the aggressors (...) and condemned Cuba and Fidel Castro (...) .

[ N. Khrushchev once again in the role of demagogues, slanderer and splitter, from "Zeri i Popullit" of 18 April 1963 - unknown author]

 

 

 

Anyone who is against these treacherous concepts which are only in the interests of imperialism and which are against the interests of the people and the revolution, is in the opinion of the revisionists an "adventurer" and "Trotskyist". But the revisionists forget , that the use of these expressions matches much better to N. Khrushchev, because he was both a Trotskyist adventurer and a capitulator during the events in the Caribbean Sea .

[New crusade of the revisionist against Marxism-Leninism will fail ignominiously, from "Zeri i Popullit" of 15 June 1963]

 

 

 

The Tito clique has not made any changes in its foreign policy. It serves the interests of imperialism and continues to serve them . There are many examples: What is the position of the Yugoslav revisionists during the Caribbean crisis?

Instead of condemning the U.S. imperialist aggressor and warmongers, the "Borba" wrote in November 1, 1962: "If we look for the cause of the Cuban crisis, we will find that it is the fatal blocks, guided by the policy of force and the principle of nuclear threats." So the countries of the socialist camp are placed on a line with the imperialists . The Yugoslav revisionists condemned the determined attitude of the revolutionary Cuban government to the imperialist U.S. aggression as "unilateral foreign policy" , "worsening of relations with the U.S. "," lack of tactics ", "return of Cuba to the front of the Cold War ". They condemned Cuba because it responded with resistance, and they accused the Cuban government, with their attitude that they are an obstacle to the achievement of an agreement between Kennedy and Khrushchev. They also condemned the refusal of Cuba to accept an "international inspection". They considered the demands of Cuba, summarized in five points, just as an obstacle to the solution of the Cuban crisis. "

[ article in Zeri i popullit entitled: "15 Years Since the Issue of the Information Bureau Resolution 'On the Situation in the Yugoslav Communist Party'" - June 29, 1963 - unknown author]

 

 

 

 

 

It is the same Khrushchev, who owes an explanation, if the newspaper reporter ask him whether they will accompany him on his planned trip to Havana or not, but who knows how to haggle very well with the U.S.A. and who put no questions at the time of the crisis on the Caribbean Sea in the October of last year.

[Although Khrushchev does not care about world opinion, he can not disguise the conspiracies of the Tito-Khrushchev group;

article from the newspaper "Zeri i Popullit" from 1 September 1963 - unknown author]

 

 

 

 

It is known that N. Khrushchev - in his notorious speech to the Supreme Soviet on 12 December 1962 - made the sensational "discovery" that the war is not only caused by the "possessed" imperialists, but also by the so-called "dogmatists" who do not believe in the victory of socialism in conditions of peaceful coexistence ! In fact, he accused the Albanian Party of Labour that they have allegedly tried to rush the Soviet Union and the United States into a war ! The Khrushchev-Group has not only dispensed to unveil imperialism, but also tried to impose this line on all communist and workers parties, otherwise they are declared to be "war-mongering". This is truly a valuable service of N. Khrushchev to the U.S. and other imperialists and for which he has earned their thanks and praise.

The Khrushchev group threatens seriously the cause of peace with their views and actions.

We remember the Caribbean crisis with which the Khrushchev -Group have dealed closely in their Open Letter from 14th July. Despite the deafening propaganda of the Soviet leadership that supposedly thanks to their attitude, especially Khrushchev, Cuba was saved from a nuclear war, it is clear to any objective thinking people that N. Khrushchev seriously harmed the cause of peace, Cuba and the Soviet Union itself, by his initially adventurous and finally capitulating actions. The Caribbean crisis worsened the international situation, brought socialist Cuba in a difficult position, discredited the Soviet Union, encouraged American imperialism in the implementation of its policy of "strength" and its nuclear boasting, and paved the way for such a "very sensible compromise" with the imperialism, which is in reality an unconditional surrender.

After Khrushchev, countries like Cuba, Algeria, Indonesia, etc. would not need to increase their defensive capabilities, to face any threat and aggression of the imperialists and the old and new colonialists, instead they would have to fight for disarmament because in case of danger they would be protect (as Cuba was "protected" when he ordered the missiles and under the pressure of American imperialism he withdrew them in ignominious fashion !).

[N. Khrushchev openly unfurled the banner of division and betrayal, article from the newspaper "Zeri i Popullit" of 4 October 1963 - unknown author]

 

 

1964

 

Who put Annibale Escalante - the renegade, who tried to undermine the revolutionary leadership of the Cuban people - and who was therefore expelled from Cuba? The Khrushchev group should deny this fact or reject if they have the courage to do so.

[The dangerous maneuver of the Khrushchev group has to be revealed until the end - in connection with the so-called "cult of personality" ; page 32 ; unknown author]

 

 

 

1965

 

 

SUNDAY
JANUARY 31, 1965
[ "Reflections on the Near and Middle East" ]

 

...
Algeria is trying to present itself as a Cuban-style development of «Cuban socialism», or «Cuban Marxism», and the Algerian communists, who are legal and incorporated in the National Liberation Front, are allegedly operating inside it, like the supporters of Blas Rocas in the Cuban Communist Party. They are engaged with the press and propaganda. And what a «lovely» influence they are exerting!! They have adopted Koranic eclecticism and are trying to show that the Islamic religion conforms with socialism on many moral issues. For their part, Ben Bella and those in leading positions, wanting to be on good terms with the Soviet revisionists, the Titoites, the Americans and the French and to get material aid from them, do not fail to say that they are for «practical socialism» and cannot be for scientific socialism, as if these two things were divided by a Chinese Wall. The revisionists are in complete agreement with these views and they support any demagogy, any diversion, any revision of Marxism, they are in favour of any
variant, any sort of eclecticism which can be made of Marxism-Leninism, provided only that scientific Marxism-Leninism is combated. Now in the period of Ramadan, religious terror is reigning in Algeria — they beat and jail those Algerians who do not observe Ramadan, have prohibited the restaurants from serving food to Algerians during the day, compel people to go to the mosque, or to pray wherever they happen to be. And they dare to call this «socialism»!!!...

 

 

 

THURSDAY
JUNE 24, 1965

THE OVERTHROW OF BEN BELLA AND THE
ALGERIAN PROBLEM

 

 

The situation in Algeria becomes even more complicated, because that country has become a field of intrigues between internal and foreign clans. The Soviet, Yugoslav and other revisionists are intriguing there under the cloak of «socialist» aid; Castro and the Americans are intriguing there; Nasser, Bourguiba and Hassan II are also intriguing there, not to mention France and all the other «independent » countries of Africa, which are influenced in their attitude towards Algeria according to the «rewards» they get from one patron or
another. This is the basis of the complication and
difficulty of the Algerian question.

 

Ben Bella dressed himself in the «toga» of the fighter without firing a shot, took advantage of the war to seize power and to become a «world figure», to follow the «road of Castro», etc.

 

Castro considered Ben Bella his revolutionary
double, and through him sought to penetrate
into Africa, allegedly in order to activize
«the struggle of the African peoples» for «socialism
», as in Cuba.

[ "Reflections on the Near and Middle East" ]


 

1967

 

 

THURSDAY
JUNE 8, 1967


WHY THE SOVIETS ARE NOT HELPING THE UAR

 

The Khrushchevite revisionists betrayed Cuba
and today are perpetrating a thousand and
one dirty tricks against Cuba and the peoples
of other Latin-American countries.

[ "Reflections on the Near and Middle East" ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRIDAY
JUNE 9, 1967

THE ARAB PEOPLES ARE FREEDOM-LOVING
FIGHTERS

 

The Soviet revisionists behaved treacherously
with the Arab peoples, just as they did with
the Congo,
Cuba and Santo Domingo. They will
do the same thing with everybody, their line is
clearly anti-revolutionary, capitulationist and imperialist.
In the future the Soviets will become
open aggressors (1) and no longer operate under
disguise as they are trying to do at present. That
is where the logic of their treachery will lead
them. [ "Reflections on the Near and Middle East" ]

 

 

 

MONDAY

JULY 24, 1967

THE CHINESE DIPLOMACY HAS FALLEN ASLEEP

 

2 — What do the Chinese comrades think about the

question of Cuba?

Is it not the time that, while safeguarding our principles, they moved a little from their rigid

positions towards it at these moments when Castro has contradictions with the Soviets, with the capitalists of the Latin-American countries, and with the United States of America, as always? We know Castro for what he is, what ideas he has, what aspirations he nurtures, and what methods he employs. But the fact is that with the country in a very difficult economic situation, in his own way he is resisting both the Soviets and the Americans to some extent, and issuing calls for «world revolution». Castro does not accept our views and neither do we ever accept his views. But, while his views do not influence us, our views might influence him.

The fact is that he is showing signs of approaches to

us, and feeling the need for us. Then, should we continue to remain «rigid» and refrain from carrying out a principled policy to deepen the differences between Castro and the Soviets? Certainly not. We ought to make a move.

What do the Chinese intend to do in these situations so that we can co-ordinate our actions?

In all the anarchist activity of Castro, there are certain stages which must not be forgotten, such as the resolute resistance to the Americans, the resistance over the question of the missiles, the fight at the Bay of Pigs, and now the disagreements with the Soviets. Castro is not a purist but neither is he like some Korean or Rumanian leaders.

Castro has a pronounced sense of resistance. Relying on these features, without retreating from our principles, we should try to influence him for the better, because this is in the interest of the revolution.

[Enver Hoxha: Reflections on China, Volume I, pages 382 - 383]

 

 

 

 

1968

 

 

We have defended the Cuban revolution because it was against US imperialism. As Marxist-Leninists let us study it a bit and the ideas which guided it in this struggle. The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists. They were liberation fighters against the Battista clique and triumphed over it precisely because that clique was a weak link of capitalism. Battista was an obedient flunky of imperialism, who rode roughshod over the Cuban people. The Cuban people, however, fought and triumphed over this clique and over American imperialism at the same time...

In our opinion, the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few “heroes” constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism, especially in the Latin-American countries. Your South-American continent has great revolutionary traditions, but, as we said above, it also has some other traditions which may seem revolutionary but which, in fact, are not genuinely on the road of the revolution. Any putsch carried out there is called a revolution! But a putsch can never be a revolution, because one overthrown clique is replaced by another, in a word, things remain as they were. In addition to all the nuclei of anti-Marxist trends which still exist in the ranks of the old parties that have placed themselves in the service of the counterrevolution, there is now another trend which we call left adventurism.

This trend, and that other offspring of the bourgeoisie, modern revisionism, constitute great dangers to the people, including those of the Latin-American countries. Carefully disguised, modern revisionism is a great deceiver of the peoples and revolutionaries. In different countries it puts on different disguises. In Latin America, Castroism, disguised as Marxism-Leninism, is leading people, even revolutionaries, into left adventurism. This trend appears to be in contradiction with modern revisionism. Those who are ideologically immature think thus, but it is not so. The Castroites are not opposed to the modern revisionists. On the contrary, they are in their service. The separate courses each of them follows lead them to the same point.

The question whenever the Soviet revisionists fail to prevent the masses of the working class and the people from carrying out the revolution, this trend steps in and, by means of a putsch, destroys what the revisionists are unable to destroy by means of evolution. The Soviet revisionists and all the traitor cliques which led the revisionist parties preach evolution, coexistence and all those other anti-Marxist theories we know. From the terms it employs, left adventurism seems more revolutionary, because it advocates armed struggle! But what does it mean by armed struggle? Clearly—putsches. Marxism-Leninism teaches us that only by proceeding with prudent and sure steps, only by basing ourselves firmly on the principles of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, only by making the masses conscious can victory be ensured in the preparation and launching of the armed uprising, and only in this way will we never fall into adventurism.
The authors of the theory that the “starter motor” sets the “big motor” in motion pose as if they are for the armed struggle, but in fact they are opposed to it and work to discredit it. The example and tragic end of Che Guevara, the following and prorogation of this theory also by other self-styled Marxists, who are opposed to the great struggles by the masses of people, are publicly known facts which refute their claims: We must guard against the people lest they betray us, lest they hand us over to the police; we must set up “wild” isolated detachments, so that the enemy does not get wind of them and does not retaliate with terror against the population! They publicize these and many other confusing theories, which you know only too well. What sort of Marxism-Leninism is this which advocates attacking the enemy, fighting it with these “wild” detachments, etc. without having a Marxist-Leninist party to lead the fight? There is nothing Marxist-Leninist about it. Such anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist theories can bring nothing but defeat for Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, as Che Guevara's undertaking in Bolivia did.
This trend brings the theses of the armed uprising into disrepute. What great damage it causes the revolution! With the killing of Guevara, the masses of common people, contaminated by the influences of these anarchist views, will think: “Now there is no one else to lead us, to liberate us!” Or perhaps a group of people with another Guevara will be set up again to take to the mountains to make the “revolution,” and the masses, who expect a great deal from these individuals and are burning to fight the bourgeoisie, may be deceived into following them. And what will happen? Something that is clear to us. Since these people are not the vanguard of the working class, since they are not guided by the enlightening principles of Marxism-Leninism, they will encounter misunderstanding among the broad masses and sooner or later they will fail, but at the same time the genuine struggle will be discredited, because the masses will regard armed struggle with distrust. We must prepare the masses politically and ideologically, and convince them through their own practical experience. That is why we say that this inhibiting, reactionary theory about the revolution that is being spread in Latin America is the offspring of modern revisionism and must be unmasked by the Marxist-Leninists.

 

["The Fist of the Marxist-Leninist Communists Must Also Smash Left Adventurism, the Offspring of Modern Revisionism"]

From a conversation with two leaders of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) of Ecuador

October 21, 1968

 

 

 

1969

 

 

 

 

TUESDAY JULY 29, 1969

SOME ASPECTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION


The South American continent is stirring. Castro is an anti-Marxist bound with Soviet chains. What is positive is that there is a pronounced sentiment against the United States of America in Latin America. The genuine Marxist-Leninist parties there are organized and in struggle.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", page 257]

 

1976

 


 

 

THURSDAY

JANUARY 1, 1976

THE ZIGZAGS OF THE CHINESE LINE

 

Fidel Castro is trumpeting that «the army is the party».

The modern revisionists do not say this openly, but the fact is that in China the army commands the party, which Mao Tsetung «broke up» during the Cultural Revolution. During this revolution it was the army that was left and remained as the only «pillar» of the regime: without the party, without the trade

unions, without the working class in power. This is what happened, this is the fact. But why did this occur? It is quite clear — because of a non-Marxist-Leninist ideological world outlook.

[Enver Hoxha: Reflections on China, Volume II, page ]

 

 

 

 

1978


Although the capital investments by the imperialist states in Latin America led to the setting up of some modern industry, particularly the extracting industry as well as light and food processing industry, these investments have been a very great hindrance to the general economic development of the Latin-American countries. The foreign monopolies and the neo-colonialiss policy of the imperialist states have given the economic development of these countries a distorted, onesided form, a mono-cultural character, turning them simply into specialized suppliers of raw materials: Venezuela - oil, Bolivia - tin, Chile copper, Brazil and Colombia - coffee, Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic - sugar, Uruguay and Argentina - livestock products, Equador bananas, and so on.


[Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and Revolution]



Besides this, in Latin America the peasantry and the working class, which has emerged from its ranks, have a rich militant revolutionary tradition gained in the ceaseless struggles for freedom, landy work and bread, a tradition which has been developed further in the battles against the local oligarchy and foreign monopolies, against American imperialism. The peoples of Latin America rank among the peoples who have fought and shed their blood the most against their internal and external oppressors and exploiters. In these battles they have had more than a few victories, and not minor ones either, but the complete victory of democratic freedoms, the wiping out of exploitation, securing national independence and sovereignty, has still not been won in any Latin-American country. The Latin-American peoples cherished many hopes, had many illusions, about the victory of the Cuban people, which became an inspiration and encouragement to them in their struggle to shake off the yoke of the local capitalist and landowner rulers and American imperialists. However, these hopes and this inspiration soon faded when they saw that Castroite Cuba was not developing on the road of socialism but on that of revisionist-type capitalism, and faded even rnore quickly when Cuba became the vassal and Mercenary of Soviet social-imperialism.


[Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and Revolution]

As a means to penetrate into Africa and elsewhere, the Soviet revisionists employ and spread slogans of a socialist colour in order to deceive the peoples who aspire to liberate themselves, to liquidate oppression and exploitation, and who know that the only road to complete national and social liberation is socialism.

The Soviet Union also involves its allies, or better, its satellites in its interference. We are seeing this concretely in Africa, where the Soviet social - imperialist and their Cuban mercenaries are intervening on the pretext that they are assisting the revolution. This is a lie. Their intervention is nothing but a colonialist action aimed at capturing markets and subjugating peoples.

The intervention of the Soviet Union and its Cuban mercenaries in Angola is of this nature. They have never had the slightest intention of assisting the Angolan revolution, but their aim was and is. toget their claws into that African country which had won a certain independence after the expulsion of the Portuguese colonialists The Cuban mercenaries are the colonial army dispatched by the Soviet Union to capture markets and strategic positions in the countries of Black Africa, and to go on from Angola to other states, to enable the Soviet social-imperialists, too , to create a modern colonial empire.

Under the cloak of aid for peoples' liber the Soviet Union and its mercenary, Cubal are intervening in other countries with armies equipped with artillery and machine-guns, allegedly to build socialism, which does not exist in either the Soviet Union or Cuba. These two bourgeois-revisionist states intervened in Angola in order to help a capitalist clique seize power, contrary to the aims of the Angolan people who had fought to win their freedom from the Portuguese colonialists. Agostinho Neto is playing the game of the Soviets. In the struggle against the other faction, in order to seize power for himself, he called in the Soviets to help him. The struggle between the two opposing Angolan clans did not have anything of a people's revolutionary character.



The fight between them was a struggle of cliques for power. Each of them wassupported by different imperialist states. Agostinho Neto emerged the winner from this contest, while socialism did not triumph in Angola. On the contrary, following the intervention from abroad, Soviet neo-colonialisrn has been established there.

Social-imperialist China, too, is making great efforts to penetrate into the former colonial and serni-colonial countries.

[Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and Revolution]

 

 

 

SATURDAY FEBRUARY 18, 1978

THE CENTRES OF THE WAR FOR PLUNDER ARE MULTIPLYING THROUGHOUT THE WORLD


The interests of the United States of America require a greater concentration of the weapons and diplomacy of the American government in Africa, where hot wars are going on, such as the war between Somalia and Ethiopia, etc. These are unjust, predatory wars. The Soviets are predominant in Ethiopia. They send there weapons and Cuban mercenaries who are fighting to occupy the territory of Ogaden and possibly the whole of Somalia. Somalia was formerly under the wing of the Soviets, but the United States of America intervened, of course indirectly, and Somalia let the Soviets down and occupied the provinces of Ogaden and Harar. Fierce fighting is going on there now, but the United States of America does not like this situation. It wants Somalia under its control, because it dominates the entrance to the Red Sea. Hence, the Horn of Africa, as they call it, is a strategic point and the United States of America has, so to speak, issued an ultimatum to the Soviets who are in Ethiopia, that they must not allow the Abyssinians to pass the Somali border and the Somalis must withdraw from Ogaden.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", pages 463 - 464]

 

 

 

 

SATURDAY MAY 20, 1978

THE USE OF MERCENARIES ON THE AGENDA


Katanga and the whole of Zaire is under the domination of big imperialist powers which are exploiting it.

This is the second attack on Katanga by the so-called Katangan gendarmes. Who are these Katangan gendarmes? They are nothing but mercenaries, who are trained in Angola by the Soviet social-imperialists and the Cubans, and are certainly accompanied by officers of these two states. They undertake these interventions in Zaire in order to topple Mobutu and transform Zaire into an allegedly democratic, or even a socialist. country, as they may call Ethiopia tomorrow, and place it under the suzerainty of Soviet social-imperialism.

The United States of America did a similar thing in the time of President Kennedy during the attack he launched against Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, where he sent in Cuban mercenaries trained in Miami, but on that occasion these mercenaries were defeated.

The Cuban army has now become a "Foreign legion" of the Soviet Union and is being used as a mercenary army especially in Africa, in Ethiopia against Somalia. There the Cuban mercenary troops are leading the Ethiopian troops and, at the same time. fighting to liquidate Somalia, in other words, to create a new Soviet colony there. They achieved this in Angola, where the Cubans, assisted by the Soviets, supported Neto, brought him to power, and maintain a considerable number of mercenaries there to this day to fight Neto's opponents, that is, the tools of the Americans and the other former colonizers, in order to firmly establish the Soviet influence in that country and turn it into a Soviet market.

Similar situations are developing in Rhodesia, Zambia, and in the Sudan. The use of mercenaries has become fashionable today. World capitalism uses mercenaries to fight the peoples who rise to win their freedom and national independence, to throw off the yoke of foreign imperialist exploiters and their local allies. The mercenaries are described as liberation armies that "defend" the sovereignty and freedom of the respective peoples.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", pages 471 - 472]

 

 

1979

 

POGRADEC, MONDAY AUGUST 13, 1979

GREAT OSCILLATION IN THE POLICY OF IMPERIALISM AND REVISIONISM


In the existing revolutionary situations the decay of the capitalist-revisionist regimes can be seen more clearly. This is occurring with the Titoite regime, too. To keep up appearances and continue on its course of deception, this regime is relying on its dada (Hobby-horse (French in the original)), the so-called non-aligned countries, which are allegedly the great force of the "third world" which can stand up to imperialism and social-imperialism.

This force is "non-aligned" only in name, because in reality it is a mish-mash. The preparation of the Havana meeting is an utter fiasco. Although the meeting will be held and many speeches will be made there, it will be completely abortive. It will bring the peoples of the world nothing of benefit.

In Havana there may even be clashes and opposition from the supporters of the Soviet Union, which wants to emerge as champion of the "non-aligned world". In fact paper Pravda is raising a big fuss about this meeting, saying that this forces of the "non-aligned countries" is important and must be strengthened.

The official rag of the country which heads the Warsaw Treaty and which exerts its savage domination over the member countries of this Treaty, is appealing to the Titoite "non-aligned world" to safeguard its "Unity" and remain "non-aligned". In other words, the revisionist Soviet Union is calling on this world to join with it, to abandon China's "third world" and not link itself with the United States of America. In the long run, the Soviets are asking this "world" to preserve the status quo. In support of this propaganda Pravda is publishing leading articles to convince others that the Soviet Union has allegedly given the "non-aligned countries" large amounts of aid and is allegedly building about 430 major enterprises there, etc., etc. This loud publicity is an expression of the bad habit of big powers, which, when it is in their interests, are so shameless as to boast about those Penny-pinching credits they provide to keep the undeveloped countries in poverty and under their domination.


[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", pages 518 - 519]

 

1980

 

SUNDAY MARCH 16, 1980

THE POLICY OF "NON-ALIGNMENT" - A CASTLE BUILT ON SAND

The American policy has suffered defeats in the world and this has been reflected in the so-called policy of the "non-aligned" countries. Thus, at the Havana conference opposition was displayed among participating countries which are allies of both blocs. The pro-Soviet countries like Cuba, Somalia and others supported the policy of the Soviet Union, while the group which allegedly follows the policy of Belgrade defended the American policy under the camouflage of the "non-aligned" policy, the policy "outside blocs and in opposition to the blocs". This whole meeting, like the former ones, was a masquerade and those that will be held in the future will be the same, too, because every capitalist state, large or small, which is part of the "non-aligned" world pursues a foreign policy in tune with that of the power that finances or supports it and with which the fate of the governing clique is linked.

 

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", pages 548 - 549]

 

 

1981

 

 

Beginning with the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the policy of the Soviet Union has gradually assumed a pronounced militarist character which is expressed in the use of military force to realize its expansionist aims. Its military interventions followed one another. After Czechoslovakia came Angola, Yemen, Ethiopia, Eritrea, into which the Soviets intervened by third parties.

[Enver Hoxha: Report to the VIII. Congress of the PLA, page 380]

(with "third parties", Enver Hoxha was paraphrasing i.a. Castro's Cuba )

 

 

1983

 

 

TUESDAY OCTOBER 25, 1983

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCCUPIES TINY GRENADA


As a pretext to justify its military intervention in the internal affairs of a number of sovereign countries of Central America such as Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador, Panama, or certain other countries of Latin America, the United States of America raises the danger of intervention by Cuba and the Soviet Union or the establishment of their influence in those countries, as well as their efforts to set up bases there against the United States.

It cannot be excluded that Cuba, or the Soviet Union, or rather the latter through the former, is trying to poke its nose in the internal affairs of those countries in which it wants to find markets and spheres of influence. In the concrete instances, however, we have to do with the intrigues of American imperialist circles to sabotage and attack the liberation struggle of the peoples of Latin America and to come to the aid of monopolies, multinational companies and the financial circles of Washington, so that they will not lose the investments they have made and the assets they have seized in that continent.

[Enver Hoxha: "Superpowers", pages 640 - 641]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enver Hoxha