3. THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF GREECE AND ITS POLICY OF “STATE WITHOUT A NATION” (1

3. THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF GREECE AND ITS POLICY OF “STATE WITHOUT A NATION” (1924-1931)

The Socialist Workers’ Party of Greece was well aware of the Macedonian National Question but was not much interested in the way it was handled, treated and resolved. Its first contact with it took place back to 1918, but later, after 1920, the Communist Party of Greece, the Socialist Workers’ Party of Greece’s successor, was forced to look at it more seriously. The CPG became entangled with the Macedonian National Question when Vasil Kolorov, a representative of the Communist Party of Bulgaria (CPB), made a request to the other Balkan Communist Parties to adopt a policy for a united and independent Macedonia. Being unprepared to immediately deal with the issue, Ianis Petsopoulos, the CPG representative, requested a postponement to give the CPG some time to study this “very important issue”. He said the issue needed to be looked at by the CPG Central Committee after his return to Greece. (Polikroni K. Enepediki, i Eliniki Andistasis, 1941-1944, Athina, 1964, p. 83.) The CPG again ran into the Macedonian National Question in 1923, at the Balkan Communist Federation Conference in Sofia. This time A. Stavridis, the CPG representative at the Conference, spoke against drafting a policy for a united and independent Macedonia.

According to Stavridis there was no need for such a policy because, on one hand, drafting a policy for a united and independent Macedonia was not acceptable to the colonist population deposited in Greek occupied Macedonia in the early 1920’s, which was now in the majority, and on the other hand, such a policy would not be attractive to the large number of Macedonians who had emigrated to Bulgaria and who were now more interested in uniting Macedonia with Bulgaria. (Kosta A. Bramu, Slavokomunistikes organosis en Makedonias, Athina, 1969, p. 86.) The CPG again expressed its dissatisfaction with the Macedonian national question, this time during a Balkan Communist Federation Advisory Meeting in Moscow, held right after the September uprising defeat in Bulgaria. Here, Sargologos, the CPG representative at the Moscow Advisory Meeting, refused to accept arguments made by G. Dimitrov and V. Kolarov which were in favour of drafting a policy for a united and independent Macedonia. Sargologos, as did Stavridis in 1923, found such a policy unacceptable to the CPG, especially after the mandatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey and after the massive colonization of Greek occupied Macedonia. (Nalca A. Hristoforu, To Makedonike zitima ke i sovietiki politiki, Thesaloniki, 1954, p. 112.) During the Comintern Fifth Congress, held in Moscow in 1924, Vasil Kolarov reopened the issue of a united and independent Macedonia which, this time, was also supported by Manuilski, President of the Comintern. Manuilski stated that there were people in Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian and Albanian occupied Macedonia who, despite their ethnic diversity, wanted to create their own Macedonian historical tradition. These peoples who lived in Macedonia, having a special historical tradition, “had the right to national independence and autonomy”. (Gheorghi D. Kaculi, op. cit. tomos 11, 1923-1927, Athina, 1976, p. 140-141.) Serafim Maximos, the CPG representative at the Comintern Fifth Congress, however, disagreed. According to Serafim Maximos a policy for a united and independent Macedonia was not acceptable to the CPG, because “there were already 700,000 Greek refugees... and Greek workers in Macedonia who would not be willing to accept Macedonian autonomy”. (Angelos G. Elefantis, i apegelia tis adinatis epanastasis, Athina, 1976, p. 38.) But representatives of the Fifth Congress pressured the CPG representatives (S. Maximos, P. Pulipulos and N. Megas) to accept the Comintern’s proposal. According to statements made later by Serafim Maximos: “As representatives of the Party, we had orders from the majority of the Central Committee to support a policy for a united and independent Macedonia, which was contrary to our personal convictions…” (S. Maksimos, Mia eksigisi, “Rizospastis”, 6. II 1927, p. 3.)

But the acceptance of a policy in support of a united and independent Macedonia by the Comintern, Balkan Communist Federation and the CPG caused “real anxiety among some CPG members”. (Kosta A. Bramu, op. cit., p. 92.) This was because this policy was “not the wish or the view of the Greek Communists”. (Angelos Elefantis, i apegelia tis adinatis epanastasis, Athina, 1976, p. 38.) The first resistance to this policy came from Ianis Kordatos, a CPG Central Committee member and director of the newspaper

“Rizospastis”, an official CPG organ. In an article in “Rizospastis”, Kordatos wrote: “The policy of a united and independent Macedonia and Thrace is out of space and time, because Macedonia is divided into three parts and the inhabitants in Greek Macedonia are all Greeks, as I know this personally.” (Kosta A. Bramu, op. cit., p. 92.)

In view of the anxiety and resistance caused by the CPG’s acceptance of the Comintern policy regarding the Macedonian National Question, before seeking congressional approval of the policy, the CPG Central Committee decided to sample the mood of its various CPG Party organizations. When the delegate returned from his visit to these organizations he reported that, with the exception of the Piraeus Party organization and some sections of the Communist Youth of Greece, every other CPG Party organization opposed the adoption of the Comintern policy on the Macedonian National Question. But, in spite of all the resistance and the negative responses offered by the majority of the Party organizations, the Macedonian National Question was put on the agenda of the Third CPG Extraordinary Congress, which took place in Athens from November 26 to December 3, 1924.

This particular agenda item, however, caused “a lot of heated discussions” during the Third Extraordinary Congress. (Aleku A. Kiru, Sinomasia enandion tis Makedonias, Athina, 1950, p. 14.) Two clear tendencies emerged during these discussions. On one hand, a “minority” group, headed by Ianis Kordatos and Tomas Apostolidis, emerged which was against the policy of supporting a united and independent Macedonia. On the other hand, the “majority”, headed by Pantelis Pulipoulos, supported the acceptance of the Comintern’s policy towards the Macedonian National Question. In support for its stand on the disagreement, Ianis Kordatos, leading the “minority” group, argued that a policy for a united and independent Macedonia ignored the New Greek historical reality created after Greek occupied Macedonia was settled by colonists and after the various population exchanges between Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey took place. By accepting this policy of a united and independent Macedonia, argued Kordatos, the CPG is giving the Greek bourgeoisie “a dangerous weapon” to attack and slander the Party for being non-national and non-patriotic. This, he argued, will give the Greek bourgeoisie the

opportunity they need to fuel chauvinism and intolerance against the Greek element of “New Greece” and against the non-Greek peoples. By accepting such a policy the CPG will upset the Greek bourgeoisie and create conditions for introducing a dictatorial regime in Greece. (I. Kordatos, To ethniko zitima ke e efthini tis epitropis Puliopulu, “Rizospastis”, 18. II. 1927, p. 3.)

After a long and hard discussion for and against the policy of a united and independent Macedonia, the issue was put to a vote. Of the total 19 representatives who voted, 17 voted for accepting the Comintern policy. While the “minority” was against the acceptance of the policy, the “majority” voted for its acceptance. I. Kordatos and T. Apostolidis had no choice but to respect the will of the majority. The Third CPG Congress in 1924 was in fact the first time the CPG had to seriously deal with the Macedonian National Question.

The last imperialist wars and the peace treaties that followed not only did not resolve the Macedonian National Question, they further complicated it. The Macedonian people continued to be divided and occupied by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. On the one hand, the Macedonian people were exposed to national slavery by the bourgeoisie of those countries, and on the other, they were further aggravated by the antagonism between those states... Macedonia’s division between Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria further heightened the desire of the Macedonian people to unite their three parts of their crushed fatherland and to create a unified and independent Macedonia... The CPG Congress which adopted the slogans “United and Independent Macedonia” and “United and Independent Thrace”, proposed by the VI and VII Balkan Communist Advisory Council, were quite acceptable and truly revolutionary…” (To KKE, Episima kimena, tomos protos, 1918-1924, 1964, p. 114-115, s.1.)

With the decision taken during the CPG Third Extraordinary Congress, in relation to the Macedonian National Question, i.e. the “majority” imposed its views, but the views of the “minority” were rejected and characterized as Trotskian and opportunistic. (I. Kordatos, op. cit. “Rizospastis”, 17. II 1927, p. 3.) The Comintern, again through D. Manuilski, its representative, labeled I. Kordatos and T. Apostolidis’s views as “social-democratic”. (Ibid.)