Make your own free website on

  The Stalinist bureaucracy lead the international communist movement to disaster with it's incorrect policies. The policies of Moscow through the ComIntern consisted of a  menshevik theory of revolution in 2 stages where the parties in developing countries had to first have a bourgoise-democratic revolution and then in the far off future have a socialist revolution. This reflected the interests of the Stalinist bureaucracy who wished to intentionally destroy the communist movement in order to protect their privileged positions.

 False: This is all Trotskyite hogwash. Anyone who has actually taken the time to study the polices of the comintern over the years would recognize this. Stalin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, dedicated the lives to spread world revolution. There were times when the ComIntern had incorrect policies(and leaders) but this cannot be seen as something purposely done to destroy the communist movement or all made by one evil man-Stalin. What will be presented here is brief presentation of the history of ComIntern polices, beginning with Stalin's application of Leninism to the colonial world; with the Chinese Revolution for example.

 The starting point of ComIntern policy Stalin distorted Lenin's policy towards revolution in colonial polices by subverting the working class to the national bourgeois in fight with the imperialist bourgeois. There is no different between the two.

     The colonial policy was the result of a debate between Lenin and an Indian delegate named  Mabendra Nath Roy at the Second Congress of the Communist International. The center of this debate was:  What attitude should the communist parties in developing countries take towards the bourgeois ? Here Lenin (and Stalin) stressed the need to ally with the national bourgeois in a colonial revolution. Roy made a Trotskyite error in his draft supplementary thesis assuming that all sections of the bourgeois was counter revolutionary.

"Afraid of revolution, the nationalist bourgeoisie would compromise with    imperialism in return for some economic and political concessions to their  class. The working class should be prepared to take over at that crisis the    leadership of the struggle of national liberation and transform it into a    revolutionary mass movement."

 This was made in response to Lenin's original draft thesis that said:
"All the Communist parties must assist the bourgeois democratic liberation     movement in these (i.e. colonial type countryside).. The Communist  International (CI) must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in colonial and backward countries."

 I would like to particularly emphasize the question of the bourgeois  democratic movements in backward countries. It was this question that gave  rise to some disagreement. We argued about whether it would be correct, in  principle and in theory, to declare that the CI and the CP's should support the    bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. As a result of this  discussion we unanimously decided to speak of the nationalist- revolutionary    movements instead of the 'bourgeois-democratic' movement. There is not the        slightest doubt that every nationalist movement can only be a          bourgeois-democratic movement.. But it was agreed that if we speak about    the bourgeois-democratic movement all distinction between reformist and     revolutionary movements will be obliterated; whereas in recent times this                   distinction has been fully and clearly revealed in the backward and colonial   countries, of the imperialist bourgeois is trying with all its might to implant the   reformist movement also among the oppressed nations.. In the Commission   this was proved irrefutably, and we came to the conclusion that the only    correct thing to do was to take this distinction into consideration and nearly   everywhere to substitute the term "nationalist- revolutionary" for the term      » bourgeois -democratic". The meaning of this change is that we communists   should, and will, support bourgeois liberation movements only when these  movement do not hinder us in training and organising the peasants and the  broad masses of the exploited in a revolutionary spirit.. The above mentioned distinction has now been drawn in all the theses, and I think that, thanks to   this, our point of view has been formulated much more precisely. "

 However Lenin saw a positive feature in Roy's analysis: That in a national-democratic movement, when the working class takes control over it, the national bourgeois would betray it and go over to the imperialist side. The national bourgeois would prefer a subordinate exploiting position to the imperialist bourgeois rather than the possibility of the working class to transform the revolution  into a socialist one. This was the position adopted at the 4th Congress of the CI in November 1922 in a document called  the "Theses on the Eastern Question"

"At first the indigenous (national-ed) bourgeois and intelligentsia are the    champions of the colonial revolutionary movements, but as the proletarian  and semi-proletarian peasant masses are drawn in, the bourgeois and  bourgeois-agrarian elements begin to turn away from the movement in  proportion as the social interests of the lower classes of people come to the forefront."

 This is completely in line with Stalin's view :

"The situation is somewhat different in countries like India. The fundamental  and new feature of the conditions of life in countries like India is not only that   the national bourgeoisie has split up into a revolutionary part and a   compromising part, but primarily that the compromising section of the   bourgeoisie has already managed, in the main, to strike a deal with    imperialism. Fearing revolution more than it fears imperialism, and concerned   with more about its money bags than about the interests of its own country,  this section of the bourgeoisie is going over entirely to the camp of the   irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, it is forming a bloc with imperialism   against the workers and peasants of its own country." (University of the Toilers of the East)

Also it should be noted that Stalin took great care to distinguish the different types of colonial countries:

"Firstly countries like Morocco who have little or no proletariat, and are industrially quite undeveloped. Secondly countries like China and Egypt which are under- developed industries and have a relatively small proletariat. Thirdly countries like India.. capitalistic ally more or less developed and have a more or less numerous national proletariat. Clearly all these countries cannot possibly be put on a par with one another." In countries like Egypt and China, where the national bourgeoisie has already split up into a revolutionary party and a compromising party, but where the compromising section of the bourgoise is not yet able to join up with imperialism, the Communists can no longer set themselves the aim of forming a united national front against imperialism. In such countries the Communists must pass from the policy of a united national front to the policy of a revolutionary bloc of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie. In such countries that bloc can assume the form of a single party, a workers and peasants' party, provided, however, that this distinctive party actually represents a bloc of two forces - the Communist Party and the party of the revolutionary petty bourgeois. The tasks of this bloc are to expose the half- heartiness and inconsistency of the national bourgeoisie and to wage a determined struggle against imperialism. Such a dual party is necessary and expedient provided it does not bind the Communist Party hand and foot, provided it does not restrict the freedom of the Communist Party to conduct agitation and propaganda work, provided it does not hinder the rallying of the proletarians around and provided it facilitates the actual leadership of the revolutionary movement by the Communist party. Such a dual party is unnecessary and inexpedient if to does not conform to all these conditions for it can only lead to the Communist elements becoming dissolved in the ranks of the bourgeoisie to the Communist Party losing the proletarian army. The situation is somewhat different in countries like India. The fundamental and new feature of the conditions of life in countries like India is not only that the national bourgeoisie has split up into a revolutionary part and a compromising part, but primarily that the compromising section of the bourgeoisie has already managed, in the main, to strike a deal with imperialism, Fearing revolution more than it fears imperialism, and concerned with more about its money bags than about the interests of its own country, this section of the bourgeoisie is going over entirely to the camp of the irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, it is forming a bloc with imperialism against the workers and peasants of its own country."

    China 1927

 Contrary to the Trotskyites', Stalin never insisted that in the 2 stages of revolution, the 2nd stage of socialism be put off i n the far off future.

"To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese wall between the first and second revolutions, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of unity with the poor peasants, is monstrously to distort Marxism, to vulgarize it, to put liberalism in its place".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky' (November 1918), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 191).
"Lenin himself maintained the point of view of uninterrupted revolution".
(Josef V. Stalin: 'The Foundations of Leninism' (April/May 1924), in: 'Works', Volume 6; Moscow

 So now we have established the correct line on colonial revolution established by Lenin and the ComIntern in 1922.  Now, what happened to first revolution in China ? Was it wrecked by Stalin as Trotsky maintained ? No. The revolution was wrecked by the Chinese CP itself which ignored Roy's contribution on the vacillations of the native bourgeoisie. Here is Stalin's thesis on the subject.
»What are the stages in the Chinese Revolution? In my opinion there should be three:

             The first stage is the revolution of an   all-national united front, the Canton period,     when the revolution was striking chiefly at   foreign imperialism, and the national    bourgeoisie supported the revolutionary   movement;

               The second stage is the bourgeois democratic revolution, after the national troops    reached the Yangtze River, when the national bourgeoisie deserted the revolution   and the agrarian movement grew into a mighty revolution of tens of millions of the    peasantry. The Chinese revolution is now at the second stage of its development;

     The third stage is the Soviet revolution which has not yet come, but will come.«

 The CCP would refuse Stalin and the ComIntern's advice to move from the first stage to the second allowing for Trotsky and Zionvev to criticize Stalin for not showing the Chinese CP the betrayal of the Kumitang in the revolution. But Stalin did warn them:

"It is necessary to adopt the course of arming the workers and peasants and    converting the peasant committees in the localities into actual organs of     governmental authority equipped with armed self-defence, etc.. The CP must not      come forward as a brake on the mass movement; the CP should not cover up the      treacherous and reactionary policy of the Kuomintang Rights, and should mobilise the masses around the Kuomintang and the CCP on the basis of exposing the     Rights... The Chinese revolution is passing through a critical period, and.. it can     achieve further victories only by resolutely adopting the course of developing the     mass movement. Otherwise a tremendous danger threatens the revolution. The    fulfilment of directives is therefore more necessary than ever before."

In February 1926, the Executive Council of the CI wrote a directive sent to the CC of the CCP stating that they had 2 choices: to either  attempt to maintain the  alliance with the national bourgeoisie, who were on the point of desertion of the national democratic revolution; Or; cement an alliance with the peasantry through the agrarian   revolution. Failing to choose the latter would be disastrous. Emphasized in this was the need to carry out the agrarian struggle.

               "In the present transitional stage of the development of the revolution, the agrarian  stage of the development of the revolution, the agrarian question becomes the central question. The class which .. succeeds in giving a radical answer to it will be      the leader of the revolution".

Stalin repeatedly urged the CCP, through 1926 and early 1927 to break the bloc with the right  KMT and move to a militant revolutionary struggle. Stalin commented on the betrayal of Chiang Kia Shek with the revolution when the Koumitang launched its coup on April 12 killing Shanghai militant workers and communists.
 "In the First period of the Chinese revolution.. the national bourgeoisie (not the  compradors) sided with the revolution...Chiang Kai-Shek's coup marks the  desertion of the national bourgeoisie from revolution". April , 1927.

In May 23, 1927 Roy warned the CCP that a coup was eminent and to carry out the agrarian struggle. Instead Chen Tu-hsiu wrote a telegram to the ECCI :

                     "90% of the National Army are.. opposed to excesses in the peasants' movement.   In such a situation, not only the KMT but also the CCP is obliged to adopt a policy  of concessions, It is necessary to correct excesses and to moderate the activities              of the confiscation of land."

 The CCP failed to carry out the advice of Stalin and the Comitern. In July the coup came. On the 15th, the Communist ministers resigned from the Wuhan government to make the government look "more respectible." It was to no avail, the the KMT expelled members of the CCP from the  KMT and the army. Stalin characterized this period as the      Stalin characterized the new development as the desertion of the petty -bourgeois   intelligentsia from the revolution:

»The present period is marked by the   desertion of the Wuhan leadership of the KMT   to the camp of counter- revolutionary   intelligentsia from the revolution.. This   desertion is due firstly to the fear .. In face of    the agrarian revolution and to the pressure of  the feudal landlords on the Wuhan   leadership, and secondly to the pressure of  the imperialists in the Tientsin are who are  demanding that the KMT break with the  Communists as the price for permitting  passage Northwards.«

But Stalin pointed out that NOW it was correct to propagandize in favor of the formation of   soviets. This was made contrary to Trotsky who wanted Soviets from the beginning when it was not a correct tactic.

»If in the near future - not necessarily in a couple of months, but in 6 months or a    year from now, a new upsurge of the revolution should become a fact, the question     of forming Soviets of Workers and peasant' deputies may become a live issue as a  slogan of the day, and as a counterpoise to the bourgeoisie. Why? Because if   there has been an upsurge of the revolution in its present phase of development,      the formation of Soviets will be an issue that has come fully mature. Recently a few   months ago it would have been wrong for the CCP to issue the slogan of forming     soviets, for that would been adventurism, which is characteristic of our opposition,       for the KMT leadership had not yet discredited itself as an enemy of the revolution.   Now on the contrary, the slogan of forming Soviets may become a really       revolutionary slogan if (If!) A new and powerful revolutionary upsurge takes place    in the near future. Consequently alongside the fight to replace the present KMT  leadership by a revolutionary leadership it is necessary at once even before the     upsurge begins to conduct the widest propaganda for the idea of Soviets among    the broad masses of the working people, without running too far ahead and   forming Soviets immediately, remembering that Soviets can only flourish at a time       of powerful revolutionary upsurge.«

  Instead of moving to the correct line, the CCP would later swing from right opportunism to left opportunism. On December 11, 1928 the CCP carried out an ill prepared insurrection. It was drowned in blood at the hands of the KMT. They would also try to carry out the ComIntern's advice on land reform but it was to late; the revolution was destroyed. The cost to the party was 4/5's of its membership. A reduction of 50,000 to 10,000 by the end of 1927.


 In 1933 Hitler and the Nazi party came to power in Germany. The Nazis could have easily been defeated if a united front was established between the German Communist Party and the Social Democrats. Unfortunately the KPD took a very sectarian line. Not only did they refuse an offer from the Social Democracy to form a United Front, but they engaged in hooligan activities against social democratic party members. Those who consistently blame the rise of Nazism against Hitler show no knowledge of what was going on in the ComItern at  this period.

 While Stalin did play an active role in ComItern affairs during the early part of the Chinese revolution, he did not after the 8th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Comintern in May 1927. From then on, all decisions in the ComIntern were made by the Political Secretariat elected in sixth congress of 1928.  It was these people in the PS who should be blamed.At the 10th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, in July 1929, Otto Kuusinen  stated "The aims of the fascists and social-fascists are the same. Social-fascism openly shows itself up as fascism". (Otto Kuusinen: Report to 10th Plenum of ECCI, in: 'International Press Correspondence', Volume 9, No. 40 (20 August 1929); p. 848).

 This line of "social democracy equals social fascism" was a distortion of Stalin's thesis on the subject.  In 1924, Stalin wrote an essay entitled "On the Current Situation" in which he stated, "Social-democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. These organizations (Social-Democracy and fascism -- Ed.). . . are not antipodes, they are twins".  What Stalin was trying to say here is not that social democracy and fascism were the same, but that they were different things that originated in the same source. In his "On the Current Situation" Stalin was explaining that you should not be fooled by the pacificist policies of the imperialist countries; that they were not a liquidation of fascism, but the strengthening of the moderate wing of fascism - social democracy. Further in the essay he writes that it is the job of the Communist Party to expose the corrupt nature of social democracy and criticized those left elements that refused to combine work inside and outside for obtaining trade union unity.

 These errors made by the ComIntern, rather or not they were intentionally, were responsible for the rise of Nazism. The German revisionist leader Wilhelm Pieck admitted at the 13th Plenum of the ECCI in December 1933 -- after the imposition of the Nazi dictatorship: "The sole force which could have prevented the fascist dictatorship, or can defeat it, is the German working class united".

The policies of the ComIntern did not get any better onward. In 1935 at the as soon as the Seventh Comintern Congress was over, steps were taken to decentralize the organization by giving individual parties a significant degree of autonomy in managing their affairs. There would be no more congresses, no more Executive
Committee plenary sessions, which had been very frequent in the past and in 1941 the management of its work was placed in the hands of a triumvirate of three leading revisionists - Dimitrov, Manuilsky and Togliatti. This decentralization was indeed contrary to Lenin's and Stalin's insistence that proletarian internationalism could only be effective provided that the Comintern retained a highly centralized apparatus. "The comintern is a militant organization of the proletariat . . . - Stalin had indicated in 1925 - and cannot refrain from intervening in the affairs of individual parties, supporting the revolutionary elements. . . . To deduce . . . that the Comintern must be denied the right of leadership, and hence of intervention, means working on behalf of the enemies of communism."
"As regards the rights of the Comintern and its intervention in the affairs of the national parties, I emphatically disagree with those comrades who spoke in favor of curtailing those rights. They want the Comintern to be transformed into an organization situated beyond the stars, gazing dispassionately at what is going on in the individual parties and patiently recording events. no, comrades, the Comintern cannot become an organization beyond the stars. The comintern is a militant organization of the proletariat, it is linked with the working class movement by all the roots of its existence and cannot refrain from intervening in the affairs of individual parties, supporting the revolutionary elements and combating their opponents. Of course, the parties possess internal autonomy, the party congresses must be unfettered, and the Central Committees must be elected by the congresses. But to deduce from this that the Comintern must be denied the right of leadership, and hence of intervention, means working on behalf of the enemies of communism."
Josef V. Stalin,The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (27-3-25), in Works, vol. 7, Moscow, 1947, p. 67.

            Spainish Civil War

 Far from helping to develop the International communist movement, the ComIntern worked to destroy it. After the period of 'social fascism' the ComIntern jumped to a right wing opportunist policy of "anti-fascists united fronts" under the direction of Dimitrov. He demanded that communist parties demand:

"the formation of a wide, popular anti-fascist front on the basis of the proletarian united front." Such a popular front government, inclusive of the representatives of the bourgeoisie, "should carry out definite and fundamental revolutionary demands . . . For instance, control of production, control of the banks, disbanding of the police and its replacement by an armed workers' militia, etc."
G. Dimitrov, The United Front:The Struggle against Fascism and War, S.Francisco, 1975, pp. 39, 75.

 Why would the capitalist class accept their own demise ? Thus, the way is paved towards the peaceful, parliamentary transition to socialism, with the goal of the socialist revolution remaining only in theory.  This had grave effects on the parties in France and Spain. In Spain, it was STalin personally who , in opposition to the whole revisionist policy of "non-intervention", ordered the supply of Soviet arms to the Spanish Republican government. But during the course of the Spanish civil war (1936-39) the Communist Party of Spain rejected the revolutionary path in favor of preserving "parliamentary democracy" under instructions from the Comintern, which sent a delegation to Spain, headed by Togliatti and Tito, to run the party for the duration of the war. "Let the example of the People's Front in Spain and France strengthen the will to unity among the workers all over the world," stated the 1937 May Day Manifesto of the Executive Committee.

The people of the Soviet Union played a major role in helping the Spanish Republicans. However the course the Soviet Union took was contradictory. At the same time they were taking a 'non internvention' policy, they were also helping the Spanish. This was a reflection of the division inside the USSR itself on what policies they should take, to either appeal to the imperialists for peace, or help their comrades in Spain.  To those ediot Trotskyists like Ted Grant who believe Stalin had total authority and yes men in the party, we say to them that there were always divisions and even the bourgoise acknowledge this. In a letter to the French Minister of National Defense, the French military Attache writes in August 1936:
      "The moderate faction . . . would wish to avoid all intervention. . .
     The extremist faction, on the other hand, considers that the USSR should not remain
     neutral but should support the legal government."

 The Marxists-Lenninists led by Stalin knew that the non-intervention policy was a trick by the imperialists to prevent a sucessful revoluiton in Spain.

"Actually speaking, the policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving   free rein to war and, consequently, transforming the war into a world war. The policy of    non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their    nefarious work.      Far be it from me to moralise on the policy of non-intervention, to talk of treason,   treachery and so on. It would be naive to preach morals to people who recognise no human   morality". (Josef V. Stalin: Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the 18th    Congress of the CPSU (b) (March 1939), in: 'Works', Volume 14; London; 1978 p. 365,    368).

 Begining in 1936, the Soviet Union and the Communist International began helping the Spanish Republicans while at the same time maintaining themselves o nthe Non-Internvention Committee. They did this by first setting up an apartus by the NKVD to help smuggle arms into Spain.  Later on the soviet Union was able to bring in 2,000 volunteers of military specialists, tank men, and airmen who thought along the Spanish comrades.

 The ordinary people of the Soviet Union themselves also took up solidarity with the Spanish people. The trade unions for example raised 47.6 million rubles which was used to purchase food and clothing sent to Spain. In every city and town, meetings were helf to demonstarte the solidarity with the Spanish people.

On 15 October 1936, Stalin sent a telegram to Jose Diaz, leader of the Communist Party of Spain, saying:

     "The workers of the Soviet Union are merely carrying out their duty in giving help within   their power to the revolutionary masses of. Spain. They are aware that the liberation of  Spain from the yoke of fascist reactionaries is not a private affair of the Spanish people but  the common cause of the whole of advanced and progressive mankind".   (Josef V. Stalin: Telegram to CC, CPSp (15 October 1936), in: 'Works'; Volume 14;    London; 1978; p. 149).

 Thanks to the 'moderate' faction in Spain, the revolution was lost. The People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, Maksim Litvinov, admitted to aplenary session of the League of Nations in September 1936 that the Soviet government had adhered to the 'Non-Intervention' Agreement solely in order to oblige the French imperialists:

     "The Soviet government has associated itself with the Declaration on Non-Intervention in   Spanish Affairs only because a friendly power (i.e. France - IM) feared an international   conflict if we did not do so".    (Maxsim Litvinov: Speech to Plenary Session of League of Nations)

 Stalin must have reached the conclusion that the ComIntern was dominated by revisionists when he ordered it dissolved. To those who say that Stalin did this to appease imperialism, please read on. Also let it be noted that as soon at the war ended, it was on Stalin's personal initiative that the Communist Information Bureau, or Cominform, under a new leadership which excluded Dimitrov and Manuilsky. It is significant that the first acts of the Cominform were to express strong criticism of the revisionist lines of such communist parties as those of France, Italy, Japan and, later, Yugoslavia. It was still in use till it was dissolved by Krushev in 1956.

                        Greek Revolution and Albania
  The CPSU continued to help other countries achieve socialism.  After the Greek Revolution was crushed, the British and U.S. imperialists used the Greeks as pawns to disrupt Albania. In a conversation with Enver Hoxha, the founder of Socialist Albania, Stalin explains that the Albanian people must continue building socialism in the face of outside forces:

"As for the screams of the external enemies about partitioning Albania, they are just to intimidate you because I do not think there is any danger in this direction at present.. In the first place Albania is a free and independent country, the people have seized independence and they know how to defend their independence. Second the external enemies have themselves contradictions with one another over Albania. None of them wants Albania to belong only to the other. If Greece wants to have Albania for itself, this would not be advantageous to Italy or Yugoslavia, which would raise obstacles.. On the other hand the independence of Albania has been recognized and confirmed by the delegation of the big three-The Soviet Union, Britain and the USA. This declaration may be violated, but it is not easy to do. Hence come what may, Albania has its independence protected."
Hoxha : "With Stalin", Ibid, p.116-117.

 Stalin also demonstrated to the Albanian people how well he understood their situation. For example in Albania, the majority of people were peasants:

"Cmde Stalin asked us in detail about the situation of the middle and poor peasants in our country. Hoxha told Cmde Stalin, about the policy of the CPA, and the great all-round work it had done.. in order to find support among the peasantry and win it over to its side.. Hoxha said "We acted in that way, proceeding not only from the Marxist-Leninist principle that the peasantry is the closest and most natural ally of the proletariat in the revolution, but also from that fact that the peasantry in Albania constitutes the overwhelming majority of the population and through the centuries had been characterized by great patriotic and revolutionary traditions.. Cmde Stalin replied :
"In general the peasants are afraid of communism at first because they imagine that the communists will take the land and everything they have. The enemies talk a great deal to the peasants in this direction with the aim of detaching them from that alliance with the working class and turning them away form the policy of the party and the road of socialism. Therefore the careful and far sighted work of the CP is very important, as you also said, to ensure that the peasantry links itself indissolubly with the party and the working class.".. "Stalin advised: "You must set up the Machine and Tractor Stations and strengthen them, so that they work the land well, both for the state and the cooperatives and for the individual peasants. The tractor drivers must always be in the service of the peasantry, must know all about agriculture the crops, and the soils, and must apply all this knowledge in practice to ensure that production increases without fail."
"With Stalin", Ibid, p.59-62;75-76.

Even the name of Albania's communist party was suggested by Stalin:

Cmde Stalin gave us some valuable comradely advice about our work in future.. He expressed the opinion that since the biggest percentage of its members were peasants, our CP should call itself "The Party Of Labour of Albania".
"With Stalin, Ibid, p.62.

Also let it be noted that Stalin gave practical aid to the Albanians.This consisted of everything from maize and cotton seeds(p.153), rails (p.103), army materials (p.103); and most importantly to specialists and educational help to build up industry and self-realince of the people.

"We shall help you with specialists in order to speed up the process of development of the Albanian economy and culture. As for oil think we'll send you Azerbajani specialists, because they are masters of their profession. For its part, Albania should send the sons and daughters of workers and peasants to the Soviet Union to learn and develop so that they can help the advancement of their Homeland".. We shall assist both with literature and with specialists in order to help increase the number of higher institutes which are the basis for the creation of the university"

The conversations Stalin had with Hoxha are indeed very interesting. Not only do they disprove the claim that Stalin was responsible for Greek defeat, but also that his advice was sage.

     In 1947, at his Second meeting with Stalin Hoxha was blunt :
"We think that the leadership of the KKE made grave mistakes.. among others that the Greek Democratic Party (GDA) stood aloof from the people.. made great mistakes in regard to the expansion of the party in the countryside and the town during the war.. and during the war against internal reaction and Anglo-American intervention."
"With Stalin", Ibid, P.109-110.

 Hoxhas also noted to Stalin how many of the mistakes made by the Greeks were the same sort of ideas made by revisionists  that the Albanians had to fight in their own party.

 "We think that at the battles of Gramos and Vitsi the comrades of the Greek leadership did not keep in mind the Marxist Leninist principles of people's war.. We have told the Greek comrades in a comradely manner that the leading role of the party in the Greek partisan army must be ensured more firmly; the political commissar of the company, battalion, brigade and division should be the true representative of the party, and as such should have the same right to command, just the same as the commander. But we have noticed and have often pointed out to the Greek comrades that they have not taken a correct view of the leading role of the party in the army.. Failure to understand the leading role of the party in the army was one of the main reason which led to defeat in the GDA.. In the Greek National Liberation Army (ELAS) the joint command of the commander and the commissar existed but this was poorly implemented in practice. The pressure of erroneous bourgeois views of career officers who could not tolerate trusted people of the party in command alongside them, brought about that.. the role of the commissar was overshadowed and relegated to second place. This is a consequence of the views of the leaders of the KKE on the 'regular army'."

 Stalin agreed with Hoxha:

As regards Varkiza, the Albanians are right.. Varkiza was a major mistake. You should not have signed it and should not have laid down your arms, because it has inflicted great harm on the Greek people's war.. as regards the assessment of the strategy and tactics followed in the Greek Democratic War, although it was a heroic war, again I think the Albanian comrades are right. You ought to have waged a partisan war." Ibid, p. 196-197.