Talk:Albanian–Soviet split

Yugoslavia?
Not sure of the real significance of Yugoslavia as mentioned in intro.

This is a dominant Western geopolitical interpretation: Albania feared Yugoslavia, so sided with USSR, and when USSR had rapprochement with Yugoslavia repudiated USSR and sided with China. But how could China help?

I think the real story is that Albania stayed loyal to Stalin and parted company with everyone who denounced Stalin.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Having wrote the article, I would concur that the idea that Albanian foreign policy was solely determined by Yugoslavia's existence is simplistic. Yet it was certainly a significant factor. To quote Mehmet Shehu, "Yugoslav revisionism was the forerunner of the 20th Congress and the first to establish its rule in its own country. For all this, Tito has the full right to boast of being the father of modern revisionism. Therefore all the revisionists, wherever they happen to be, render great honours to, and pompously welcome, him, consider him as their Saviour and God. But the stand towards Yugoslav revisionism has been and remains a touchstone which distinguishes the genuine Marxist-Leninists from the revisionists." (Socialist Albania Will Never Budge from its Revolutionary Positions, 1977, p. 18.) In Hoxha's memoir The Khrushchevites much space is given to Soviet rapprochement with the Yugsoslavs. --Ismail (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, but I think the accent is on "revisionism".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the split's first significant signs were when Khrushchev decided to rehabilitate Yugoslavia. I think the text makes it clear enough that the split was over revisionism and not just Yugoslavia. --Ismail (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sentence needs clarification
Tashko, asked to speak on his behalf, had his text prepared beforehand by the Soviet embassy... Does this mean his own behalf? Or whose behalf is he speaking on? delldot  &nabla;.  20:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On his own behalf, yes. --Ismail (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
I've just gotten done making a series of edits, it's a thoroughly enjoyable and interesting article. I'm not sure whether I'm going to do a whole GAN review or not yet, but I read the article and have a couple suggestions: Hope you find these suggestions helpful! delldot  &nabla;.  22:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are too many long, difficult-to-read sentences. Phrase things as simply as possible while preserving the meaning.  Maybe work on removing unnecessary wording (extra words that can be removed without changing the meaning) and keeping sentences short enough to read comfortably.  You can look at my edits for a lot of examples.
 * Quotations that start in the middle of sentences can have the capital letter turned into lowercase for typographic conformity.
 * More photos would be awesome. I would love to see a photo in the lead of Hoxha and Khrushchev making mean faces at each other, or looking at each other with strained smiles.  Or, failing that, just in a room together.  A photo of Tito might be good for the sections where he appears a lot.  Maybe a map somewhere near the top of the article.  In the section that talks about the submarines there could be a photo of one.
 * I'm not sure what the standards are for long quotations, at what length do you have to start having the quote indented rather than in-line? There are so many lengthy quotes I wonder if some of them could be cut down.  Especially the ones that just go on and on about how we're such great communists and the other guys are total jerks.  Although that certainly adds some flavor!
 * Edit: found it: WP:MOS. delldot   &nabla;.  22:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I get the impression that the article is written with a slight pro-Albanian slant, given that there are so many more quotes from Hoxha than Khrushchev, and the way it talks about aggression on the part of the Soviets sounds critical. We seem to hear more about what Hoxha thought of Khrushchev's words and deeds than vice versa. I'm not sure this is a problem with NPOV, since I have no doubt that it's all accurate, e.g. obviously the Soviets were aggressive, and I'm not sure anyone would have a problem with the way it's written.  It just seems like it might be a very different article if it were written by someone from a more Soviet perspective.
 * Oh, one more thing: I think WP:MOS means that if you're quoting a historian you should use the name in the text, there are a few cases where they are only named in the footnote.  delldot   &nabla;.  22:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. To address them:
 * You have a point in regards to sentences.
 * I think having two photographs is fine; there's no non-copyrighted images I could find that would be topical with the exception of an Albanian socialist-realist painting portraying Hoxha denouncing Khrushchev at the Moscow meeting while Khrushchev and Co. are taken aback, but that obviously wouldn't be a very neutral image to put in.
 * When it comes to definite claims as to Soviet actions you can see that I've largely used Western academic sources. Hoxha's quotes provide context and intricacies, as well as help establish the ideological dimensions of the split.
 * Khrushchev does, of course, have his own memoirs but they do not mention Albania and Hoxha in detail; what is said about either is not illuminating, hence at the end the only thing I could find that wasn't just a blank condemnation was Khrushchev claiming that the Albanians were afraid of Soviet-backed "democratization," hence why they acted the way they did. Every single Western account I've come across concurs with the Albanians as to Soviet exploitation. --Ismail (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Great responses, I see you've worked really hard to keep it neutral. I think the socialist-realist painting would be an amazing addition.  I wouldn't worry about it adding POV, since it's just showing how one side represented themselves.  I think more pictures make the article look more interesting and appealing and break up the monotony. Great work in general.  delldot   &nabla;.  03:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It turns out I can't really upload it, since it's not the "whole" picture (it's scanned from a book and comprises two pages, there's a white space in between in the PDF it is in.) In any case, I will take note of the whole "always name the historians when quoting them" thing. --Ismail (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, too bad, well, I suppose you'll come across something good as you continue to improve the article.  delldot   &nabla;.  15:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole "you have to mention the author being cited every time you quote from said author" is a bit weird and I don't know how I could introduce it without the readability of the text suffering as a result, since there would be quite a few repetitions on the theme of "according to O'Donnell," "Ash pointed out," "Kola noted," "Halliday states," "Vickers writes," etc. which make it sound like a thesis or academic article rather than an encyclopedia. --Ismail (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking back at that I notice it applies only to quotes a full sentence or more for some reason. Does that help?  If not, well, the article is a bit quote heavy, I wonder if any could be paraphrased, paired down to less than a sentence, or taken out.  Maybe a combination of this and all the "Vickers writes" etc. won't be too overwhelming.   delldot   &nabla;.  04:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

On recent edits by Jane.bradd555
I agree that the article reads more like an essay than something one would find in an encyclopedia. For that matter, I also think the tone portrays Enver Hoxha and his associates as a bit too "heroic" (e.g. nowadays I would have taken into account such things as Elidor Mëhilli's article "Defying De-Stalinization: Albania's 1956.") But I don't agree with the changes made. In the first place because it wasn't just Soviet efforts to mend relations with Yugoslavia after Stalin's death that caused Albania's break with the USSR (although it was certainly a large factor), and secondly because I do think mentioning that the Red Army played no direct role in communists coming to power in Albania is notable when explaining the background of the Albanian leadership, much as it is significant that the Red Army's role in Yugoslavia was relatively minor compared to that of the Partisans under Tito. --Ismail (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)