CHAPTER ONE – Unilateral Civil War - Part 02

As was mentioned earlier, even the mildest mistakes made by the resistance movement were rejected. The CPG Central Committee 11th Plenum of April 1945 assessed that the Lebanon Agreement did not match the ratio of forces and therefore it did not promote the work of National Unity and did not provide normal democratic development. In other words, it wrongly assessed the forces utilized in the December clash and failed to use its opportunities to bring a more favourable settlement in Varkiza.

In his analysis Zahariadis places all the blame for the movement’s defeat on the foreign factor, on the British engagement. It is true that British interference and armed intervention were necessary factors in order for the political right to win. This assessment, however, does not provide answers for past mistakes and still less for an open perspective for the future, for the thesis “Greek vertebra” in imperial building, for the “Greek axis” in international relations and for the need of a British presence in Greece. Zahariadis did not, without underestimating the foreign factor intervention, seriously consider one’s own errors in the movement that led to the domination of the weak right wing forces, at the time, to extract valuable experience.

Thus, for example, he said that from the beginning to the end of the occupation EAM had, on these grounds, acted properly. Even if the Lebanon Agreement was worse on paper, he said it could not have affected the balance of power in the country. But he makes no mention of the Kazerta Agreement.

And exactly here lay the fundamental errors made by the CPG and EAM leaderships. EAM and PEEA, through the Lebanon Agreement, recognized and legitimized the Greek government in exile. They also allowed ELAS to be placed under the Greek government in exile and under Allied Command. Furthermore, by signing the Kazerta Agreement they agreed to territorialize the division of rule by ELAS, EDES and government forces and to create a national army. And most importantly, under the orders of Allied Command, ELAS was placed in the Middle East. It is true that the Agreements could not alter the given relationship in the forces but the Agreements did affect the course of the future, creating a legal position for the government in exile to return to Greece and, carte blanche, to act in the name of “the entire nation”, in the name of Greece and to work for its own selfish class interests.

A proper analysis of errors was needed in order to determine a correct line for the future, a correct orientation of the membership, a correct participation of the masses and a correct perspective for the struggle of the democratic forces in Greece. Unfortunately this was not done.

The opinions given by the CPG Central Committee leadership during the 12th Plenum, in fact, did not answer the fundamental question, namely whether there was a revolutionary situation in the country and what should be the course and basic form of struggle after the December events.

The CPG held its 7th Congress in Athens in early October 1945. This Congress was held ten months after the bloody events in December 1944, eight months after the signing of the Varkiza agreement and three months after the CPG Central Committee 12th Plenum was held, when the situation for the democratic forces in the country was increasingly worsening. It is therefore interesting to see how the Congress put things in motion.

Zahariadis presented his own political essay at the Congress. After two or three sentences of referring to the international situation, his first sentence about the internal situation began as follows:

“The violent armed Greek intervention in December 1944, which unexpectedly cut the average normal internal democratic development and brought to power the neo-Greek reactionaries, quislings and exploiters of the people, threw Greece into a deep political crisis. And today, ten months after the heroic resistance in December, our country has fallen into economic disaster, political chaos and anarchy.”

Then, referring to the “new Greek political problem” and to “the political crisis in Greece,” he said:

“The political crisis, in fact, that today eats away at our country has its roots in the violent British intervention in December in Greece, which took power from the hands of the people and gave it to the exploiters, quislings and traitors, creating hateful opposition between the majority of the people on one side and a clique of plutocrats who hold power on the other.”

The following was written in a report entitled “Relationship of the class forces in modern Greece”:

“Two political parties belonging to two separate camps and two separate streams are today essentially fighting for political supremacy in Greece. The first party is a group of plutocrats in whose ranks are gathered the quislings, the old guard, the old appointed mayors, the plantation owners and all the other exploiters of the people. They are led by the financial oligarchy as a ruling power. Politically this camp is fighting under the banner of Monarcho-Fascism, which still has some influence over remnant layers in towns and villages. As the primary means of achieving political supremacy, this group openly employs terror tactics through the Black Front, the SAN, the Ksitosi and other Monarcho-Fascist extremists. Almost the entire state apparatus including the police and military, led by special officers, are at its disposal to use for terrorist operations... From December onwards this regime has

waged a one-sided civil war against its opponents - popular democracy. It follows the following political line: the unchallenged fact that it does not have the support of the people and it never did. That is why it uses nonpolitical means to subdue a democratic nation.”

It is true that Greece in 1945 found itself in an “economic and political crisis and in chaos and anarchy”.

It is also true that there were “irreconcilable differences” and a “one-sided civil war” being waged. So, among other things, here is what was said about the aforementioned findings under the title “Unfriendly Opposition” and under the subtitle “New situation - new tasks – Britain’s responsibilities”:

“The new situation shaping before us has created a number of new tasks. There should be no doubt however, that in the centre of all political activities much effort must be made to achieve a peaceful development towards democratic elections.”

And what kind of elections were the officials preparing? One can only imagine what kind of elections were being prepared under conditions where the country was facing a unilateral civil war. But there was something said about the “upcoming elections” in a report. On page 8 of a booklet entitled “Marxist library”, dedicated to the 12th Congress, the following was written:

“But this does not exhaust the means of political supremacy which the Monarcho-Fascist reactionaries employ. British support has allowed forced isolation of the masses, terrorism, anti-democratic sentiments and other means of political supremacy. As we know, huge election fraud is being perpetrated. Today concrete forms of effort are being aimed in that direction. Everything that is boiled in London is applied here. Reconciliation between all bourgeois and other parties is achieved with British pressure. They have taken the crooked road to dividing the seats, and after December, to implement the “election” lists prepared by Bulgaris. In other words they are preparing Greece to triumph in parliamentary democracy without EAM! Unfortunately many of the democratic and socialist leaders, except for a small number who are honest, are participating

in these bargains. This is a shameless betrayal of democracy by all who lead Greece today.”

It is no wonder that the party line became blurred and illegible for the membership. Even though the political right waged an armed “one-sided civil war” against the democratic movement, the political left still insisted on following along the line of political struggle with parliamentary elections. By doing this the political left allowed the political right to destroy the flourishing democratic movement and the vanguard of the masses.

Following the Varkiza Agreement Aris Velouhiotis (Atanas Klaras), ELAS Commissar and first organizer of the partisan resistance in Greece, did not surrender his arms. In a speech he gave in Larissa, he openly condemned the political right’s shameless terrorist policy and told his audience that “he will not surrender his arms because he has not fulfilled the sacred oath he took and the promise he made to the people to bring them freedom and a happier life”. As a result he died for his ideals. Aris and a group of hundreds of fighters, who also did not surrender their arms, fled to the mountains and headed in the direction of (Greek occupied) Macedonia. In April 1945 when Aris arrived in Kostur Region in the village Kalevishta, he clashed with government troops. Not knowing the situation in the north: Koreshtata - Vicho and Kaimakchalan, he turned south towards a more familiar terrain where he acted during the German occupation. Aris wanted to know the political position of the neighbouring Communist Parties and for that reason he went to Albania. Unfortunately the authorities in Albania refused to see him and did not give him clear answers to his questions.

After Aris became active in the region around Konitsa and Dzhumerka during May and the beginning of June, he became a target for the National Guard. On June 10, 1945 the region was surrounded by two National Guard battalions and the next day, June 11, 1945, Aris and many of his close associates died fighting bravely. It is alleged that Aris shot himself to escape capture.

The destruction of Aris was a morale booster for the political right. The regional manager of Trikala immediately sent a telegram to notify the Ministry of the Interior of the “good news” in which he

wrote: “Good news, Aris’s band has been broken and destroyed. From early morning two heads are hung and publicly exposed in Trikala…”

Aris died and Greece lost the man who foresaw the consequences of the capitulary Varkiza Agreement, the man who saw the necessity in continuing the armed uprising to its triumphant end. It is interesting to note at this point that while the EAM leadership showed care for Aris, the CPG leadership condemned him. The CPG leadership was afraid (fatally frightened) of accusing the bourgeoisie in power of being “extremist”. The EAM leadership however, as it turned out, was in the right to “sanctify Aris” which was in line with the mood of the democratic masses and the new social forces in the country that were fighting for a new Greece. These new social forces, the proletarians of the city, the poor of the villages and all those resistance fighters who were subjected to cruel persecution at the hands of the counterrevolutionary forces were convinced that only an open, determined and armed struggle, and not the “Agreements”, would lead them to their final victory; While they confidently looked to their forces, the political line tied their hands.

The Varkiza Agreement gave authorities the right to arrest, and hold in prison for 6 months, all “criminals who participated in direct crimes”. Thousands of resistance fighters were arrested and tried using this motive. Aris too, had he not died, would have been arrested and tried by this motive. The dimension of these arrests and terror had taken such a swing that even the “bourgeois-democratic centre” was protesting. At least this is how the situation for July was described in the magazine “Communist Review” (a CPG Central Committee monthly political-theoretical organ) in its August 1945 issue, in the column entitled “internal review”.

“The most important event of the month is the prosecution of the movement of the national resistance. It was found that 20,000 combatants are being held in prison. Also, on account of the Varkiza Agreement, there are people detained and in custody for more than 6 months, motivated by trumped up and silly charges like ‘robbery’, charges that in fact are not explicitly covered in the Varkiza Agreement.”

The following was written in the CPG Central Committee 1952 edition “War Chronicle” regarding the situation in the country after Varkiza: “December 1945”: “Monarcho-Fascist terrorist organization in the entire country. Over 1,000 murders were committed in the first nine months after the Varkiza Agreement was signed. The number of detainees in custody has reached over 75,000 and there are warrants issued by the courts to arrest another 65,000 people...”

Are there any obvious facts about how the political right abused the Varkiza Agreement and whether there was a need to revise the tactics of “anticipation” in requesting a “coalition government” and “free elections”?!

Since the “collision” took place in Athens in December 1944 between ELAS and the political right, which consequently led to signing the Varkiza Agreement and to adding provisions for the then constellation and the relationship of forces in Greece, it was clear that conditions were excluded for “peaceful development”, conditions for “free elections” and conditions for “forming a coalition government”. Greece adopted the line of the political right and began to wage a cruel and shameful terror war against the revolutionary forces.

3. The bourgeois crisis in 1945

All political parties in Greece were disbanded after the fascist Metaxas dictatorship took power in 1939. In the five-year period of this dictatorship, and especially during the occupation, fundamentally the masses lost confidence and trust in the bourgeois parties. After the occupier was ousted the two bigger bourgeois parties, the Populist and Liberal Party, known from their earlier parliamentary games in Greece, had great difficulty coming back.

The populist and openly monarchist party, with help from the government, succeeded in gathering and consolidating the remnants of the fascist Metaxas dictatorship regime, the collaborators who assisted the occupiers and the neo-fascists. The Liberal party, on the other hand, broke up into several groups with the largest group being led by Sofoulis, followed by the group led by Stilianos

Gonatas and by the group led by Sofoklis Venizelos. Later these parties were reorganized and became known as Kafandaris’s Progressive Liberals and George Papandreou’s Social Democrats. Other parties that came onto the scene included Napoleon Zervas’s National Party of Greece and Panaiotis Kanellopoulos’s National Unionist Party.

Over the course of 1945 (actually since October 1944) the government in Greece was changed six times. George Papandreou’s government in exile came to Greece from Cairo on October 18, 1944. Five EAM coalition ministers served in that government. The government was reorganized on October 24, 1944. The EAM ministers resigned on December 1, 1944. After the bloody events in December, Nikolaos Plastiras took over and formed a government on January 3, 1945. This was the government that signed the armistice and the Varkiza Agreement. Less than two months later Plastira’s government, which pledged to implement the Varkiza Agreement, resigned because it supposedly could not rule a country full of such lawlessness. It would appear that King George II needed a government that would best suit his contemporary needs – to relentlessly take measures against the democratic forces in the country. Such a solution was found in the establishment of Petros Voulgaris’s “administrative government”. Petros Voulgaris was a maritime officer and his government was an organ of the extreme right, which unleashed the political far right to carry out a general attack against the democratic organizations. His extreme measures frightened everyone, even the Liberals who began to seek other solutions. On August 11 the Voulgaris government went through some reorganization but fell flat on October 17, 1945. The regent Archbishop Damaskinos took over. Georgis Kanellopoulos formed a government on November 1, 1945 and remained in power only until November 22, when Themistoklis Sofoulis took over.

Sofoulis was leader of the Republican Party, which in the period between the two world wars was affirmed anti-monarchist, and this was by no coincidence. Even though it carried much legitimacy, it is also important to know that, thanks to CPG leadership estimations, the Liberal Party was not representative of the crown but of the petty bourgeoisie, a part of the intelligentsia, and the bureaucracy. The CPG leadership was well-aware of the following facts:

1. The Liberals, led by Sofoulis during the 1935 political crisis in Greece, had failed to agree on parliamentary cooperation between the CPG and the liberals, paving the way for the restoration of the monarchy.

2. In 1936 the Liberal caucus, under the leadership of Sofoulis, by vote showed confidence in the government of General Metaxas and, in actual fact, legalized his power to be able to impose a fascist dictatorship.

3. The so-called “Liberal Sofoulis” refused all electoral collaboration with the CPG to prevent restoration of the monarchy in Greece.

4. It was the Liberals who requested from the regency to establish the 1936 Parliament in which the Fascists participated, during which the CPG had only a few Members of Parliament.

The liberal bourgeoisie in Greece in effect always took the inevitable road when the bourgeois society in Greece fell into a crisis and, at the most fatal moment, acted against the revolution. Here are Lenin’s thoughts as expressed in his paper entitled “Lessons of the Revolution” (referring to the 1905 first Russian revolution) which seem to describe Greek bourgeoisie behaviour perfectly:

“When the revolution reached the decisive battle with the king in the December uprising in 1905, the Liberals, all of them, entirely betrayed the freedom of the people and withdrew from the fight. This prompted the royal autocracy to use this betrayal to convince those who believed the Liberals to smash the workers who rose during the uprising. And when the proletariat was crushed, no Duma, no sweet words from the Cadets and no prior promises made kept the king from destroying all remnants of freedom”.

It seems that the CPG leadership had forgotten those truths. It had forgotten that the bourgeoisie and the Liberals, when it came to decisive calculations, always supported their own class position. And such decisive calculations did exist in Greece. That is why it

was no coincidence that the Liberals criticized the actions of the political far right so that it would not ignite a rebellion, the very thing that the bourgeoisie feared the most. That is why the Liberals were calling for “peace and order” and supporting CPG and EAM slogans, but only to make a “small” difference: so that EAM would not participate in the coalition government and so that the “centre” would then have the strongest voice.

After many resolutions made and articles written in hundreds of places, it was concluded that a “one-sided civil war” was raging in the country. The number of “casualties” kept increasing after the government was installed and let’s not forget the forged electoral lists that were being prepared. At the same time the CPG leadership was refusing to accept Sofoulis’s appointment as head of the government, unable to see that this was a successful manoeuver on the part of the united political right to cause problems. This is what was briefly said about the backroom deals made during the appointment of the government in the December issue of the “Communist Review” under the column “Internal Review”:

“The government of the Liberal leader Mr. Sofoulis in principle has the support of the left, this is in accordance with several short statements made and repeated in the past by the CPG and by the EAM.”

Further on the article said: “The government that Mr. Sofoulis is putting together will run into bitter reaction and open opposition from the Monarcho-Fascist political right: the Black Front, the SAN, the Ksitosites and others. The entire democratic world, the citizens and those who are now in the armed forces, are called upon to exercise their national rights by any means possible to prevent the Monarcho-Fascist political right from exacting a coup. Listen for and follow the directives issued by the Sofoulis Cabinet.”

There is more: “As for the Sofoulis government, the CPG Central Committee Politburo stated that it will support any measures the Sofoulis government will take which will go towards establishing equality, peace and order in Greece, with the ultimate goal of having free elections as soon as possible. Knowing that the economic situation in Greece was a catastrophe, the CPG Central Committee

Politburo stated that it will support government efforts for economic stability, up to election time, if the economic weight is evenly split, i.e. if the government makes the rich and wealthy exploiters pay. The CPG Central Committee Politburo concluded that the removal of the Bishop from the regency is an essential element to internal order and tranquility and to establishing moral order in political life, out of which so many have fallen during the Bishop’s regency. The CPG Central Committee Politburo has given directives to all party organizations to immediately comply with the spirit of this resolution...”

I think it was necessary to provide the above excerpts quoted from the CPG Central Committee Resolution because it expresses the CPG leadership’s attitude held in late 1945. We can see the attitude held towards Sofoulis’s cabinet, towards the Cabinet which ruled during the elections held on March 31, 1946, which legalized lawlessness and opened the way for the restoration of the monarchy and for the counterrevolution in Greece.