Where are some historians wrong about the concept of our National Liberation War...

It's been more than three decades that in the controversies about our National Liberation War, "new" ideas have been thrown, which aim to prove that during the Nazi-fascist occupation of the period 1939-44, the armed resistance and later the organized war did not we had a National Liberation War but a civil war, because supposedly this war was rather aimed at us, against the forces of the "National Front" and "Legalitet". etc..etc. Let's see if this claim of the Ballisto Zogists is true, but also of some historians who, in order to preserve the privileges given to them by the government and to have them well and with the former collaborators, have fallen into the trap of distorting history. First of all, let's clarify what war is. War in the military concept is a skirmish, a military engagement which takes place in a certain territory between two or more armed parties to achieve a certain objective. It, that is, the war on the battlefield reflects one side that attacks to occupy a country or a part of it, as well as the other side that defends its freedom, independence and sovereignty, regardless of what form of regime that country has. In addition to these wars, we also have the concept of "Civil War" which is a war, but it is different from aggressive and conquering wars, or even liberation wars, because civil war and it presupposes armed conflict, but this war takes place within a the country or territory of the same state, with the participation of different layers of the same population regardless of different ethnicities and there is no military intervention from outside. "Revolutions" and because they are armed clashes that aim at major revolutions, are ultimately characterized by civil war. This is what happened with the "Paris Commune", (3 months) as well as with the "October Revolution" in Lenin's Russia, which broke the chains of slavery of feudal bourgeois and military exploitation of the Tsar. In its vortex, revolutions or civil wars pit two classes with different class interests against each other. One class at all costs seeks to change the way of life by changing the old relations and replacing them with new ones, the other seeks at all costs to preserve the old relations and the dizzying privileges that these relations bring to them in the economic field. So we have very deep antagonism which necessarily leads to class struggle, civil war or revolution. But not every civil war is a revolution, because the fights within rival groups in a certain country (for example currently in Sudan) to take power by mobilizing and throwing different groups and layers of society against each other are not revolutionary actions at all. , but simple civil war bloodshed for the interests of the warring parties. Some historians and journalists, as well as the new capobands of the Front of Legality, without leaving aside the young ballistas, come out and declare that the National Liberation War was a civil war, because according to them, this war was not directed against the invading enemy (some of of them, such as Rama, deny the invasion, saying: What kind of invasion did we Italians have? That's why young M. Frashër ran. I appeal to the pseudo-historians and the distorters of history that to determine whether it was a civil war or a liberation war, the basic criterion is not the desire of either the communists or the ballisticians, but the objective reality of that time, because the main enemy was the nazi-fascist occupier and not the Beylers and the agallars of the country despite the fact that they drank the blood of the people. The first anti-fascist gangs like that of M. Peze, H. Lleshi, etc. were not partisans, those with their krismas, as their main goal, had the fight against the invaders of the country and having this mission, it was not accidental that they joined later with the Nac-Cl Movement which represented the Nac-Cl struggle in the most serious way. But this war could give the highest results only if all the people united regardless of religion, region and idea, a directive that was issued by the great powers and not by Enver Hoxha. Enveri, evaluating it correctly, also organized the Peza Conference, which was deeply permeated by the idea of ??the Anti-Fascist Alliance. England, France, America, Canada and many other countries knew very well what B represented. The Lenin-Stalin Soviet also knew and even predicted that with this temporary alliance of that era, the main goal and the main contradiction was not the war between imperialism and socialism, but the common war of all peoples against the Nazi-fascist beast. Seen from this point of view, throughout occupied Europe there were collaborationist forces who became obedient serviles and collaborators of the conquerors, such as Quisling of Norway, Horti of Hungary, Antonescu of Romania, Ante Pavlovic of Croatia, the "Cetniks" of Serbia, Drazha Mihajlovic, etc., just as there were other political forces that were not led by communist principles but were aligned in the general front of the war for liberation. But why initially both the "Ballists" represented by H. Begeja and the "Legalists" of Abaz Kupi accepted the cooperation with our NPSH? This was simply a tactical action of theirs to pretend to the people that they were great patriots but also to show the western allies that they would fight based on the directive that these powers had issued. And how is it explained that they left you to her? This also has its own significance because the base and social strata represented by the Ballisto Zogists belonged to that category that saw great interests in the invaders and what was the main thing, they (the invaders) had no intention of changing the form of the regime, so the Ballisto Zogists were more interested an invasion, Italian, German or whoever it was, be it Serbian or Greek, but only if the NPSH and the National-Liberator did not win the war. Did they really believe that the invaders would sit cross-legged in Albania and a war of the Ballists or legalists against them would make them enemies with both Italy and Germany. Our National-Liberation War, and after Mussolini's Italy capitulated in the summer of 1943, continued more fiercely. The capitulation of Fascist Italy was indeed a victory, but the General Staff of the NAC-Çl Army warned that the vacuum left by the Italian fascists would be occupied by the German Nazis and the war had not ended. So it is not accidental that in all the orders, the circular instructions of the KPSH and the Headquarters of in general, an unshakable consequence is observed, a right attitude for the continuation of combat actions without the slightest illusion. Was there a civil war in Albania?! Never, because the main direction of the combat formations of the National Army was the uncompromising fight against the German Nazis and their workers, and it was not the fight against the Ballistas and Zogists. and why they had been called several times to turn away from the path of shame. If they openly aligned themselves with the occupying forces, especially after October 1943, they would certainly be treated as enemies. There are tens and hundreds if not thousands of documents of the cooperation of these treacherous organizations with the enemy. Even if for a moment we were to consider that there was a civil war, quite rightly without the slightest equivocation, the ballisticians were the ones who fought against the partisans, against the reds, they were the instigators of the fratricidal war. There are hundreds and thousands of documents about how ballisticians spied on communist militants, how they burned the houses of partisans, or villagers who supported the liberation movement. There is no document that Balli Kombëtar M. Frashëri, A. Këlcyra Xh. Deva etc. have denounced the formation of the German SS division "Skënderbeg" in 1944 with Albanian ballisticians. There is and cannot be found any kind of document of the partisans working with the enemy. And an attempt they made, M. Ujaniku and Gj. Marku without the approval of the General Staff, which is known as the "Berat Compromise", they were criticized very harshly by the leadership of the Nac-Cl War. because based on that compromise, they had reached an agreement with the Nazi troops..." we have decided not to attack the Germans as long as they do not attack us" they had signed, this defeatist slogan, submission and agreement with the occupation. As the entire activity of the National Front with the introduction of Hitler's invading troops in Albania is characterized by their open cooperation with the enemy. If a fighting organism is attached to the side of an enemy army, the whole world knows that they are treated as enemies. Is it because of this that the ballisticians should shout that the "liberator" fought us "patriotic Albanians", so the National Liberation War was fought against the "front" of "legality". If we were to accept this thesis, we ask the ballisticians, yes these enemies, who fought them? If you fought them as the first force, why did you run away with them, taking the escape routes? This is why there was no "civil war" in Albania at all, but an all-out popular uprising of the Albanian people and its organized National Army against the invading enemies and their workers, which placed the Albanian people and the victorious partisans on the pedestal of honor of the peoples. As the war drew to a close, the English, who had goals in Albania wanted to encourage these organizations at all costs in our country in order that after the departure of the Germans the Albanians would meet each other - partisan-ballist and - legalist in order for them to have an easy possible landing , but a nail saw was encountered and in the first landing attempt they failed, retreating to Corfu. So it is not at all the fault of the NPSH, the National Liberation Army and its Commander E. Hoxha that history had determined the fate of the collaborationists. They are and will remain the eternal bearers of the seal of betrayal that will weigh on their backs for the rest of their lives. but a nail saw was encountered and in the first attempt to land they failed, retreating to Corfu. So it is not at all the fault of the NPSH, the National Liberation Army and its Commander E. Hoxha that history had determined the fate of the collaborationists. They are and will remain the eternal bearers of the seal of betrayal that will weigh on their backs for the rest of their lives. but a nail saw was encountered and in the first attempt to land they failed, retreating to Corfu. So it is not at all the fault of the NPSH, the National Liberation Army and its Commander E. Hoxha that history had determined the fate of the collaborationists. They are and will remain the eternal bearers of the seal of betrayal that will weigh on their backs for the rest of their lives.