CHAPTER ELEVEN

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Opportunities and misadventures on the inside

1. A categorical moment

Personal ambitions and a struggle for supremacy are an accompanying occurrence in almost every movement. The difference between one case and another is the intensity…

This kind of phenomenon, personal ambitions and a struggle for supremacy, also existed in the ranks of our Macedonian anti-fascist liberation movement. I prepared a brochure entitled “NOF” (1947), with Keramidziev’s knowledge and some cooperation. The brochure was intended for the delegates of the 1st NOF Congress. In it I wrote about NOF’s ideological foundations and the struggle our people were leading alongside the Greek people. Mitrevski made an “objection” exactly on the same day the congress was held. Our Greek friends, understandably, were expecting that. It turned out that Keramidziev too was expecting it, and then accepted Mitrevski’s “objection”. Maybe I am wrong, but it looked to me like both of them were afraid that I was becoming too popular. The brochure was scrapped for allegedly having “nationalistic” content. In other words, it was not given out to the delegates and almost all the samples were burned by Kotsopoulos. In the brochure’s introduction I wrote:

“The Slavo-Macedonian National Liberation Movement is a reality. Its beginning is merging with the beginning of the national resistance movement of the Greek people.

Organizationally – the movement is forming under NOF.

Politically - its goals are formed in NOF’s political program.

Extremism, of course, is not absent - but it will be successfully eradicated in time.

Today the movement is imposed on the consciousness of all - even in the consciousness of our enemies. It exists, acts and puts its own

stamp on the situation here in Macedonia. ‘Elections’ and ‘referendum’ - these are confirming examples that appear before our eyes. Regarding the case of ‘election’ from 100% abstinence, they did not fall below 70% regionally. In the case of the ‘referendum’, the same percentage of people who had the opportunity to vote, voted with white (blank) ballots. This was all NOF’s work:

The movement has friends… the Greek democratic people are its friends.

The movement has its enemies - they are the enemies of democracy in Greece. But the movement has friends and enemies outside of Greece. They are the friends and enemies of Greek people abroad. But:

How did this happen? ... What are the causes?”

This was the introduction in the brochure. Then, immediately under number 1, the title of the next paragraph, was the answer to the question asked:

“IT EXPRESSES THE TRUE NEEDS FOR ADVANCEMENT IN THE SLAVO-MACEDONIAN PEOPLE!

The aforementioned struggle for supremacy had no relation to the character of our Macedonian anti-fascist movement. The movement itself was always clean, temperate and strong because it was universal and unique. This, indeed, was a very characteristic moment. The struggle for supremacy in NOF did not take place at the ground level with the participation of the masses, but mainly up at the top leadership level with the assistance of external factors such as the CPG and CPM leaderships. The first to take advantage of their differences was the CPG which hijacked the struggle for its own special purposes. The CPM too, skillfully dragged along and used it for its special purposes. Given my personal experience with both I have no doubt about this at all. The events themselves, as we experienced them, confirm this bitter truth about us...

In November 1946, NOF was placed under the CPG leadership while its military formations in the mountains Paiak, Kaimakchalan

and Vicho were placed under the command of DAG. This is what was said about this in the famous INI edition entitled “Aegean Storms”: “The NOF leadership in Voden Region was charged with having made an agreement with the CPG to betray the expectations of the Macedonian people. This was a ‘second Varkiza (betrayal) for the Macedonians’… The activists in Voden Region pointed out that this was a wrong move that would negatively affect the development of the Macedonian liberation movement and the struggle against the Monarcho-fascists in Greece...” (“Aegean Macedonia at the national liberation war”, vol. III, p. 378, 380 and 381, or document number 171.)

After all, let’s say that the events themselves speak about this...

2. Darkness

The crossing of the ELAS Macedonian battalions into Yugoslavia or more accurately into the People’s Republic of Macedonia, of course was an event of great historical and political significance. Above all, this was a Macedonian revolutionary act against the discrimination, suppression and hindrance perpetrated by the CPG leadership “patriots” against the Macedonian anti-fascist national liberation movement. But this was nothing new. The Greeks from the entire Greek political spectrum, on the one hand, have been oppressing the Macedonian people since Macedonia’s illegal invasion, occupation and partition in 1912, 1913. And ever since then, the Macedonian people, on the other hand, have been trying to re-gain what they lost. So, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Macedonian people trying to regain their independence and trying to reunite their Macedonia, which is an act of self-determination of a people clearly expressing a desire to live unified…. even if they have to live with the other Yugoslav nations.

The Greeks, of course, had no illusions about this Greek-Macedonian relationship. As early as 1945, my father received an official document from a Greek military court. It was my “death sentence”. I was accused and found guilty of “high treason” against the Greek state and sentenced to death.

One time, my comrades and members of NOF sent me copies of the Solun Greek newspapers “To fos” and “Makedonia” as well as a book entitled “The Macedonian Question From the Aspect of Events in Almopia” (the old Greek name of Meglen Region), in which my activities among the “native people” were deemed as high treason against the Greek state and nation.

Years later in Lerin, my father received another document with a new death sentence against me from another Greek military court. I was again accused of treason against Greece. It happened again later, for a third time...

This negative Greek attitude taken against me confirms that I was doing the right thing for the Macedonian cause and for the people, which gave me great pleasure and made me proud. It was recognition of my work and came directly from my opponent!

But, at the same time, I truly believe that my political, and possibly my physical liquidation, was planned here in Skopje. One of my neighbours from Lerin, going by the name Hadzhi-Iliev, was sent here to keep an eye on me… to provoke me into doing something I would later regret. It is too long of a story for me to tackle it all here so I will only say a couple basic things about it.

a) I spoke about him with Dimitar Aleksievski-Pekar, then head of OZNA for Macedonia. He said nothing! But then the person who followed me like a shadow, a constant companion, suddenly disappeared forever… just like that! And Pekar miraculously forgot about it…

b) One day Hadzi-Iliev approached me and told me something provocative. He said: “Because you are a good friend I will tell you something very important. A group of Skopje chemists from Afion are making hashish. You often cross the border and no one searches you. All you need to do is transfer some hashish to Voden. You know there is a channel that links Voden, Solun, Alexandria, Cairo. There is plenty of money… brother… gold! Kilograms of gold! For the organization (meaning for NOF), and some for yourself… What do you say, huh?”

Hadzi-Iliev was well-aware that I always gave my all to the struggle and I would have given even more if I had the chance. My wife Niki Kachorova was tortured in the ELAS camps together with the prostitutes, spies, and collaborators of the Italian, German and Bulgarian fascists. She did not endure and died before her time… Our son also died a little earlier. I lost them both and here I was still fighting in the struggle. In other words, I was not in this struggle for myself and for profit. Of course he emphasized that the “gold” would be for NOF, however he couldn’t help himself but say that “some of it would be for me!”

It was a very interesting proposal! I told him I would think about it and get back to him later...

But, instead of getting back to him, I went straight to Pekar and, low and behold, Hadzi-Iliev disappeared...

I was shaken and deeply offended. Apparently I had a powerful enemy who had the power to influence OZNA...

3. Consequences

I went from Enidzh-Vardar, through Gevgelia, to Kostur Region where I attended a NOF leadership meeting. While passing through Gevgelia, Aleko Kiaev, head of the local OZNA, told me that the people in Skopje were looking for me and wanted me to get in touch with OZNA in Skopje. But I did not want to meet with those people so I asked Aleko to convey my message and tell them that I wasn’t going to Skopje, I had no work there. In other words I defied their orders. THAT WAS THE FIRST INCIDENT when the “blackness” in our ranks directly affected my actions.

In October 1949, on Zahariadis’s orders and on those of the CPG and DAG leaderships, I was arrested as a Yugoslav agent. Vlantas, then a member of the CPG Central Committee Politburo and a DAG General, gave me half a pad of paper and three newly sharpened pencils and said:

“Write! Write down your betrayals from the start, from the time when you became Tito’s agent in Skopje!”

I barely wrote two and a half pages. I focused mainly on the following three most fundamental things in my life:

a) Doing my work. I worked with my heart all the time, to organize our people en masse to become involved in the joint struggle with the Greek people against the reactionaries and their foreign patrons.

b) Being in the field. I felt free and at home among our people… but not when I was wasting my time in Skopje.

c) Being in Skopje. In Skopje I was treated like an alien, a suspicious element, for which I have material evidence. In other words I saw for myself that I was an undesirable element, which had to be removed, even by some insidious manner, if necessary. And so on and so forth, in that spirit...

Of course what I wrote was completely unnecessary. But what Vlantas said to me rubbed me the wrong way. And so, this was the SECOND INCIDENT, when the “blackness” in our ranks directly affected my actions.

Back in Skopje I did nothing to expose the provocateur or those who sent the provocateur after me, and neither did I abandon what I was doing for our Macedonia. The provocations and provocateurs were just another occurrence in my everyday life with the movement. I continued with my active participation in leading our people in the revolutionary struggle, as if nothing had happened…

Something else also happened worth noting at this point. At different times and under different circumstances it was pointed out to me by a couple of comrades, that the “Security Services” allegedly and “in an official capacity” needed to “conduct security checks” on the various cadres. So, I ask myself, was this done to find dirt on them and prepare them for their grave if necessary…? This cannot be dismissed. I find this humiliating to have to point it out… but I am forced to.

As I mentioned earlier my enemies sentenced me to death three times… I am assuming here for working for our movement’s interests, which was contrary to our enemy’s interests.

The crossing over of the ELAS Voden Macedonian Battalion to the People’s Republic of Macedonia, i.e. to Federal Yugoslavia, was an act of great political and historical significance and it was carried out under my command and initiative.

My activities as a member of the NOF top leadership and one of its founders, without a doubt have their value and importance...

These values, I mention here, have been perceived even by our opponent, and yet here I am having been set aside and accused of wrong-doing, of things I have not done… invented things. They created a trap for me and tried to push me into it. Who needed this trap and why was it necessary? The provocateur, who also had influence in OZNA, kept trying to get rid of me and by doing so allowed me to find out for myself that I was being politically liquidated, i.e. removed. As it turned out, there were some comrades who believed I too had the “dangerous” weakness just like the many comrades like Ilia Dimovski-Gotse, Lazo Oshenski, Naum Peiov, Dzhodzho, Turundzov, Trifko Popov, Naum Shupurkovski-Leon, etc., who had been removed from our Macedonian national liberation movement. In particular, it turned out that, as they had, I also managed to see Mitrevski’s true character and, as a consequence, without hesitation, “I was allowed” to have different opinions from his, that is, to oppose him...

Let the events themselves speak about this...

4. In the name of personal ambitions

Leading the Voden battalion I arrived in Bitola at the end of October 1944. The Political Commission for Aegean Macedonia had already been established and was headed by Paskal Mitrevski.

I did not know Mitrevski and I had not heard anything about him. The fact that he had the trust and authority of Tito’s people, that is, the governing factors here in Macedonia raised him high in my eyes.

The fact that the CPM (CPY) leadership recognized and appointed Paskal Mitrevski as the top leader in our movement said a lot to me but, at the same time, I knew nothing about him. A little later Vera gave me an overseas newspaper with an article about Mitrevski in which he exclusively talked about himself and his involvement in matters in which he was never involved. Dzhodzho was the most important Party figure among us. Dzhodzho was appointed second secretary of the CPG District Committee and member of the CPG Bureau for Macedonia and Thrace (in the widest composition). There was not a word about Dzhodzho in the article... So I thought to myself for a person to act this way, to credit himself with everything, especially with the work of others, this person must lack dignity and good principles.

I then found out that Mitrevski wanted to remove some “objectionable” activists who were inclined to support Peiov and Keramidzhiev. Being seen as “neutral”, in the summer of 1946, I was sent to investigate matters on the ground. There I met with the “objectionable” activists who Mitrevski wanted to remove and found them to be competent, responsible and respected by the people. The only mistake they made was to show their care for Peiov and Keramidzhiev which apparently Mitrevski did not like and figured they were working against him.

After this I too became “objectionable” for Mitrevski.

There was also the case with his brother-in-law Mincho Fotev. Fotev’s biographical note, which was to be submitted to the CPM Central Committee, was supposed to be signed by all NOF Central Office members. But, even though some of us did not agree with all the things written in the note, Mitrevski insisted that the note remain as is. There were a number of things in the note that were simply not true. For example, the note said that when Fotev was a child he was a mature revolutionary and performed important and courageous deeds. I openly demanded that the “autobiography” be rewritten and made more modest because otherwise I was not going to sign it. Fotev found out about this, of course, and I believe never forgot this “injustice” that I had committed against him and never forgave me for it.

I felt uncomfortable pleasing people and did not want or ask anyone to please me, and I did not want anyone to distort the truth. But, that’s not how Mitrevski worked… he constantly demanded to be pleased. One evening while we were dining alone in the “Moscow” restaurant (it was later destroyed by the earthquake) I decided to ask him if I could speak with him frankly. The fact that he was the “number one” figure in our movement has always been the object of our attention. As his associate and comrade, I thought that I should be open with him and tell him what I thought was negative about him. Of course, I wanted to help him with this, not turn him into an enemy. I said: “If you are prepared to listen to me without getting angry, I will start!” He sat there quietly and calmly as he assured me that he would listen with interest and would not get angry. That evening I tried to convince him that he needed to act much more convincingly as the leader of our movement. I told him that he needed to stop putting his own alleged interests and his own career above the interests of the movement. I gave him examples of what I meant and what he was doing wrong. That evening I brought up the name Machiavelli in our conversation for the first time. I told him that he had no principles… And that the only single principle he had was to ignore the principles of his people. I told him that morals and honesty for him seemed like foolish things. I told him that he honoured nothing and no one. I told him he needed to show deep respect and modesty in front of his people even if he had to act while doing it. I told him that his inability to be convincing and persuasive was harmful to our movement. I told him that because of that capable comrades and leaders like Ilo Dimakov-Goche, Naum Shupurkovski-Leon, Lazo Oshenski, Naum Peiov, Trifko Popov, Dzhodzho Turundzov and others were alienated. I told him that he constantly strived to surround himself with people who thought like him, etc… He calmly listened to me without saying a word. In the end he shook my hand and thanked me. He looked frank. But I knew he was acting...

Nothing changed after I had my talk with Mitrevski at the “Moscow” restaurant. His attitude towards his people remained the same. But, as his uncompromising associate, I felt it was my duty to defend the interests of the movement. I decided to write a summary report about the “shortcomings in our movement” and forwarded it

to the CPM Central Committee. The Central Committee (Tsvetko Uzunovski-Abas), however, rejected it and informed me that the summary report would have to be reviewed and accepted by our leadership bureau before anything could be done. At a glance it seemed like it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately no action was taken to “correct” the situation. This, by itself, tells me that Mitrevski was occupying a privileged position which allowed him to influence the leadership in Skopje. When the issue finally surfaced, Mitrevski naturally repented with much sincerity and self-criticism, which I believe was just an act and seized the opportunity to put it to rest. And, while still playing the role of my sincere comrade, he found ways to provoke me.

5. Masterful intrigue

The problems that Greece was experiencing at the time were under consideration at the UN. The Soviet delegation had proposed reconciliation, general amnesty and general elections. One evening when we went for a walk Mitrevski asked me: “What do you think will happen to NOF if there is reconciliation, if we are given a general amnesty and if we are allowed to go back home?”

“There can be no reconciliation if NOF is liquidated!” I replied.

“But what if NOF is recognized as a democratic organization and then they find reasons to dissolve it!”...” he said.

“What reasons could they possibly find after they recognize it…?” I asked.

“They will accuse all the NOF cadres of being agents of OZNA and spies. They will make claims that NOF is not a democratic organization but a spy ring, etc. They will then find someone who will admit to that…” Mitrevski explained.

I couldn’t disagree.

During one of our meetings, in the presence of Nikola Minchev, we asked if we could request from OZNA not to convert NOF’s

apparatus into its own, but to orient itself towards the creation of a special apparatus.

At the next Bureau meeting I spoke about this and some other issues. Mitrevski did not say anything about this. Later he apologized...

I was not called in to provide an explanation. Obviously my “suspicious” loyalty or, more precisely, my “disloyalty” was self-evident. Or perhaps instead of me, Mitrevski himself, under his own authority as head of the Bureau, gave them enough of an explanation…

One more example:

I worked with the local residents collecting information on the Macedonian population for a long time, which included how many Macedonian families lived in each village, in each district and so on, in Greek occupied Macedonia. When I was finished and after I had the information systematized, I had to travel to Belgrade and hand it over to the Yugoslav authorities as well as answer questions if required.

One day Mitrevski came to the bureau office. I was on duty sitting there. He looked around for a bit and then went out. It seemed to me like he was checking to see if I was there. About half an hour later he came back and told me to go and see Kolishevski, he was waiting for me.

I went immediately. His office was about three hundred metres away.

Kolishevski was not happy to see me. He was angry and yelled at me in a high tone of voice. He said he had been waiting for me for a long time... But he had no right to behave like that and humiliate me. But I grinned and kept quiet. To his question if the material was ready…I said: “Yes!” Unfortunately someone else was sent to Belgrade to take credit for my work.

There isn’t and there can be no doubt that with this kind of masterful intrigue, which must be recognized, Mitrevski managed to draw and use the CPM leadership to remove many of our capable comrades from their positions. As for me, I was just stunned, but not completely knocked out...

With these examples given above there is sufficient information to show that a masterful intrigue was at play here with which the CPM factors were influenced.

I don’t know the specifics of how Mitrevski managed to politically remove Ilia Dimovski-Gotse, Naum Peiov and the others but he failed to remove me, that is, to politically liquidate me.

But he kept working on it...

6. Abuse of responsibility

As I mentioned earlier, after my visit with Leonidas Stringos, member of the CPG Politburo, my isolation in the agitation and propaganda department ended. Then, I believe it was at the end of March 1947, at a NOF Executive Committee meeting I proposed the following which were later adopted:

That we immediately organize an all front Conference to include all NOF-AFZH-NOMS activists and members of the district and regional leadership.

That we initiate a campaign to find 20 young girls ages 14-16 to form a cultural and artistic group as part of the agitation and propaganda department.

Before that, I would say since November 1946, after we had the meeting in Turie to establish “unity”, the NOF Secretariat consisting of Keramdzhiev, Rakovski and Vera became detached from Paskal Mitrevski, then NOF National Bureau instructor. Mitrevski went to Skopje and stayed there while maintaining contact with the Greek CPG representatives at home. I have no idea what he was doing for more than half a year. However, Mitrevski did not break his connections with the field. After our decision to convene an all front

Conference of activists, Mincho Fotev, together with Lambro Cholakov, came in contact with him. In his capacity as NOF instructor, Mitrevski, among other things, gave them the following directive:

“At the all front Conference you are to reorganize the NOF leadership as follows: You are to remove Rakovski and Vera as members of the Secretariat and replace them with Mincho Fotev and Urania Iurukova…” I don’t remember what position Poplazarov was holding but Mitrevski instructed that he be removed and replaced with Lambro Cholakov.

Clearly, by doing this, Mitrevski was abusing his position of power. He ordered the removal of Rakovski, Vera and Poplazarov, without explaining why. He ordered the appointment and promotion of Fotev, Iurukova and Cholakov knowing full well that they were not qualified for those responsibilities. By attempting to do this, Mitrevski, in effect, caused a split in the group. The secretariat could not agree.

Fotev, in his endeavours to implement Mitrevski’s directive became vocal and abrasive forcing Keramidzhiev to go outside of the group and bring the problem to the attention of Petris (Georgios Eritriadis), CPG Bureau Organizational Secretary.

“This is just Mitrevski’s wish” replied Petris, “it has nothing to do with Provincial Bureau policies... If Fotev is in the way, you either tolerate him or you remove him…!”

Fotev was removed from his post as NOF representative, that is as NOMS representative in the Bureau of EPON for Macedonia, and remained hanging “at its disposal”.

Instead of myself accepting the position as NOF organizational secretary, during the May 20, 1947 Conference, I proposed appointing Vangel Aianovski-Oche, which was then accepted. I consulted with Keramidzhiev about this first and convinced him that the movement’s interests would be better served if I devoted my entire effort to the agitation and propaganda department, running the central Macedonian press and developing a Macedonian-cultural-

educational movement by organizing a Macedonian teachers’ course, opening Macedonian schools, preparing and publishing Macedonian textbooks, forming Macedonian cultural and artistic groups (central and regional) and the like, and let Oche take care of the organizational issues.

But after my proposal was accepted, and Oche was appointed NOF organizing secretary, Keramidzhiev surprised me when he said:

“I don’t understand... why you would want to elevate someone else above you?!”

“It would be in the interest of our struggle!” I replied.

Keramidzhiev just shrugged his shoulders and said nothing.

But Oche’s appointment as NOF organizing secretary was brief. A month later, at the end of June 1947, when Mitrevski came back, he had Oche suspended. I never did find out the real reason for this but I suspect that he was suspended because I recommended him for the position. Mitrevski must have figured Oche was “my man” on the inside, which is not true at all. I have never thought of creating my “own” group, that is, my own faction. By doing this Mitrevski undermined the power of the movement from within, destroying its cohesion. Looking at this another way, Oche never did like me. On the contrary, it was hard for him to bear the fact that, here in Voden Region, an “outsider” like me, not a person from Voden Region, stood at the head of the Voden Region movement, “leading” the people of Voden Region. As mentioned earlier, Oche came to the Voden ELAS Macedonian Battalion the last day before the battalion was retired in the People’s Republic of Macedonia…

Anyway, the old secretariat remained intact, that is, I remained in the Secretariat. And Mitrevski did not succeed in his attempts to do what he wanted to do… this time...

7. Greek supremacists

One January evening in 1948, Mitrevski and the NOF Executive Council secretariat held a meeting in one of the Prespa villages to make preparations for the NOF 1st Congress.

Everyting was going well except we could not agree on the composition of the governing bodies (Secretariat, Executive Council, Central Council, etc.). Mitrevski demanded that Kochopoulos join the Secretariat, whom he was now calling Kochev. He also insisted that the Executive Council include Gusiopoulos (Makis), Vainas, Koithis (now Koichev), Malios and some others, a total of seven people.

We could not let this happen! So I decided to speak out. I said:

Does that mean that an equal number of proven NOF activists will be cast aside from the leadership? This is unfair…! More than unfair… it is dangerous. We are not talking about changing a bunch of shepherds here. Our people are well-aware of what kind of people these Kochopouloses and Gousiopouloses are. NOF’s self-proclaimed enemies cannot be its leaders. It is okay to include these “kind” of Macedonians who are members of EAM, AKE, EA, EPON, etc., in NOF but that’s not the point. If our Greek comrades respected the unity of the Macedonian people, they would not have established these Greek national organizations (EAM, AKE, EA, EPON, etc.) in the Macedonian villages. They would not have, for years, led an open hostility against the Macedonian anti-fascist national liberation movement. Unfortunately, the facts are such that the Macedonian revolutionary national liberation movement was developed not with the help of our Greek leadership comrades, but by struggling against them and by defending itself from Greek attacks.

I can understand that they have now embraced NOF so that we can establish “unity”. The motive for this, in the public eye is clear and sends a message that unity is necessary in the struggle against our common enemy - the Greek reactionaries and their foreign interventionists. However, the fact remains that they embraced NOF only after it became clear that they had not achieved anything by an

open frontal struggle against NOF. Obviously, they are not honest about this. I was barely able to extract the agitation and propaganda department, and myself, from their isolation. For more than a year now, after “unity” was established, they have systematically prevented the emergence and spread of a central Macedonian press. Until now we have barely managed to publish NEPOKOREN only five times. The first time we printed only 100 copies in small format. The second time we printed 70 copies, of which 20 we sent to Voden where they were seized and destroyed by Gousiopoulos. The third time we printed 200 copies, the fourth time 300, and the fifth time 400 copies. That was it! Despite all the persistent effort we made to achieve something more. In fact, we still don’t have a central press… and this is because of them. Let us not be naïve here. Today these “Greek supremacists” are infiltrating the NOF leadership in the name of “unity”. Tomorrow they will replace us all…!

This is what I counter-proposed:

Let us open vice-president and president positions in the NOF district boards and offer them to the people of EAM. Let us give them the opportunity to work for NOF for some time while we monitor their activities. Let them demonstrate and prove to us that they are trustworthy before we give them wider membership in NOF. Then accept one of them in the NOF Presidency in accordance with their merit. I also wrote my counter-offer in a letter and sent it to Ioanidis who then was member of the Politburo and CPG Central Committee secretary. When I made my counter-offer at our meeting, I also said that this way we all gain some time and the opportunity to examine Zahariadis’s true intentions.

But, after all that, nothing happened. We held three more meetings without an agreement. While Keramidzhiev and Vera accepted my counter-proposal, Mitrevski continued to insist on following the “Party line”.

Following what “Party line”? Each one of us knew very well that there was no “Party line”. Surely this was done to “get rid” of NOF as was pre-planned all along. Some time ago the “Party line” was the dissolution of SNOF, as well as the planned liquidation of the

ELAS Macedonian battalions and now the “Party line” was to liquidate NOF. I said all this to Mitrevski but he refused to accept it. He was told what to do by the Skopje leaders and he accepted; now he was told what to do by the Greek leaders and that too he accepted, without question. But, I guess he figured that with Kochopoulos-Gousiopoulos around him, he could achieve what he really wanted. He ignored the fact that these Macedonian speaking “Opouloses” did not have the best interest of our people in their hearts.

But, it seems to me, this has been Mitrevski’s attitude all along.

I couldn’t help myself but accuse him of being blind and emphasizing to him that the CPG’s real intention was to dismantle and destroy NOF from the inside and that he was helping the CPG do this. Mitrevski then accused me of being an “anti-Party” and an “anti-people” element, and therefore was committing treason. Our argument was so heated that we almost had a fist fight. During the extreme tension, Keramidzhiev and Vera yielded to Mitrevski’s will and embraced the “party line”, which for me was anti-Party and provocative. I was left alone...

8. You were right!

As I mentioned earlier, Mitrevski managed to ban my brochure entitled “NOF” during the 1st NOF Congress in January 1948. All the samples were destroyed, and my candidacy for membership in the Presidency, that is, in the NOF Executive Council Secretariat was dropped, “while Ioanidis and the Party were reviewing my case”.

However, as much as it was true that the Politburo compiled the list of candidates and included my name in it, it was also true that the Politburo, I have no doubt, had me removed from the list. It was the Politburo and not Mitrevski who removed me. Mitrevski only made their work easier. Ioanidis, pretending that Mitrevski was the culprit for my removal, was simply “hoping” that I would work against him. He was simply trying to heat up the battle between the “nationalists”.

Everyone was working for their own aims. In my case the Greek leaders and Mitrevski were helping each other first to neutralize me as a dangerous “nationalist”, and second to get rid of an uncompromising and therefore inconvenient co-worker.

But that was not all. Deprived of the easy victory against me, Mitrevski soon turned to taking care of Keramidzhiev. He produced a letter written by a woman named Lenche from the village Dobrolishta, Kostur Region, in which she claimed that Keramidzhiev was planning to physically liquidate the Greek leaders Kochopoulos and Koitsis. Apparently, Mitrevski decided that the moment was right to settle the score with Keramidzhiev by officially making the letter public during the NOF Central Council 1st Plenum held on August 8, 1948.

However, this time Greek plans did not follow Mitrevski’s plans. Before Mitrevski had a chance to make a “splash” with his letter Ioanidis and Stringos, Politburo members who attended the Plenum, had a resolution of their own, compiled by Zahariadis. They “proposed” the following which was then accepted by raising of hands:

“...The factional struggle between Keramidzhiev and Paskal (Mitrevski) has the sole goal of personally appointing themselves leaders of the Slavo-Macedonian people, each striving for egoistic, personal, political and material benefits, now and in the future. These comrades, counting themselves as irreplaceable and natural leaders of the Slavo-Macedonian people, proved to be irreconcilable factionists who have caused damage to NOF and the democratic movement.

Therefore the NOF Central Council Plenum has to put an end to this factional struggle without principles... by suspending comrades Paskal and Keramidzhiev from the Secretariat and electing a new Secretariat...” (NEPOKOREN number 12, August 23, 1948)

And this is how the top “new NOF leadership” was grafted.

Only Vera remained a member of the old Secretariat. This brave Macedonian woman, who usually considered the “tailoring” of

politics as the work of her older comrades, was now there with a special function; to make NOF still look like it was Macedonian from the outside. With her in the new group the “new leadership” was able to “externally” preserve NOF’s Macedonian national colour. Vera was there to hide and cover the “supremacist” and treacherous character of NOF’s “new leadership”.

One time, by chance, I happened to be standing next to Mitrevski when, with a tone of resentment and remorse in his voice, he began talk to me. Among the things he said were the words:

“You were right…!”

Yes, I predicted that we all would be removed from NOF and indeed we were. As it turned out everything in that drama was staged.

First Mitrevski was “encouraged” to reorganize NOF’s immediate leadership, that is, to remove Rakovski, Vera and Poplazarov and replace them with Fotev, Iurukova and Cholakov. Then when we couldn’t agree on the re-organization, Petris “encouraged” the Secretariat, that is, Keramidzhiev, Rakovski and Vera, to remove Fotev from all functions. Then when Mitrevski agreed to bring Kochopoulos, Gousiopoulos, Vaines and the others into NOF’s top management body, Petris “assured him” that the CPG leadership and the CPG Politburo were behind him all the way. But instead of supporting him, the CPG threw him out.

This was “divide and conquer”… pure and simple! The stronger ruling over the weaker! In our case this attack was directed primarily against the Macedonian people, that is, against the Macedonian national ideal… in order to defeat it and destroy it. Pure genocide! It is true that, here and now, this was not a physical extermination of the Macedonian people but it was a form of profound inhumanity: the destruction of the Macedonian soul… which is still a form of genocide...

9. Party loyalty and vigilance

There are some people who refuse to see things the way I have described them. They are totally against reaching such conclusions.

These people say that it is “wrong” to say things like that about the Party. The Party cannot be compared to the Greek bourgeoisie, who waged a war against the Macedonian people and against its revolutionary movement and committed genocide against the Macedonian people in this part of Macedonia. It is absolutely “wrong”…!

It is clear to me that these people refuse to see the reality of the situation… they lack understanding…

I did not write this book to blame the workers’ movement, its avant-garde struggle or the Party’s Marxist and Leninist principles. The Party and its principles are not to blame for the political right’s opportunism or for the “mistakes” and “betrayals” the various CPG leaders committed against the revolutionary struggle they led.

It is well-known that, on an international level, various “Marxists” or “Marxologists” have long tried and tried, to overthrow and destroy Marxism in the name of Marxism and with the help of Marxism. There is nothing strange about the fact that, under these conditions, here at home there were “Marxists”, that is, “CPG communist leaders” who, in the name of the workers’ movement and in the name of the people’s revolution, tried to destroy the revolution. With their help the tide was turned in favour of the domestic and international reactionaries where they successively destroyed the people’s revolution twice.

Similarly there is nothing strange about “communist leaders” leading a struggle against the Macedonian people, their natural ally and reserve in the workers’ movement and in the revolution in the Greek state, in the name of the workers’ movement and in the name of the people’s revolution.

Being in favour of the Party, as my critics are, is not synonymous with being apathetic and blind. It is a sign of being vigilant, meaning, being in an active relationship with everything and everyone. I am not here to challenge anyone’s Party membership. But I am here to demand the truth be revealed. I am here to reveal the truth… to reveal the real names of those leaders who committed betrayal against the Party, against the people’s revolution and

against the Macedonian people. I am here to reveal the serious crimes they committed against the Party and the against the workers’ movement while being in their service.

It seems to me that something has happened to my critics. Consciously or not, deliberately or not, they are placing the workers’ movement and the Party, its avant-garde, alongside the leading figures who “sinned” and committed treason.

What can we do! This is how people are. Everyone has their own way and, for their own special reasons, understands the world a certain way...

Skopje, 1978.