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

4. THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF GREECE AND ITS POLICY OF “NATION WITHOUT A STATE” (1935-1940)

With the formation of the new CPG Central Committee in 1931, under Comintern intervention, which, besides Nikos Zahariadis, included Ianis Ioanidis, Stilianos Sklavenas, Ianis Mihalidis, Vasilis Nefeloudis, Leonidas Strindos and G. Konstantinidis, the CPG ended its “prehistoric” era and began a new “historic” period showing growing political practicality. Also, the proactive political realism experienced by the Comintern contributed to the CPG’s achievements and success in the Greek political elections, etc. A communist was elected mayor in Kavala in 1934 for the first time in Greece. Unfortunately, because the CPG’s new policy was imposed by the Comintern and the CPG again formally accepted it without question, it again found itself at odds with the Greek historical reality. Fortunately, but only by accident, the new CPG policy was a reflection and corresponded more closely than before to the objectives of the Greek historical reality on the ground. With this the CPG began to shape its agenda in accordance with the Greek historical reality, but without getting rid of its political dogmatism that would be present as a glorious political characteristic in its future. It will naturally contribute to its revival in 1968, when several Communist parties in Greece will be formed: the CPG, with a pro-Soviet orientation, the CPG with a Marxist-Leninist- Stalinist orientation, and the CPG Internal with an EU-Communist orientation. In other words the decisions made in January 1934, during the CPG Central Committee Sixth Session, were more realistic and closer to the Greek reality on the ground than before. It did better than expected given that Greece belonged to the group of countries which the Comintern characterized as countries with a medium degree of capitalism and development. (To KKE apo 1931 os…, p. 30.) The CPG Central Committee also came to the conclusion, given that Greece had an average level of capitalist development and belonged to the category of such countries where it was possible to move from a bourgeois-democratic system to a socialist revolution and where “a proletariat dictatorship did not need to be immediately imposed”, that it would need to make a transition from a democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants to a “socialist dictatorship of the proletariat” but not right away -sometime in the future. (Ibid.) In this way, the CPG rejected the leftist views of imposing a direct Soviet style government, of imposing a direct proletariat dictatorship, and so on.

The political realism that came from the Comintern, as well as the pressure that was expressed from within the Party for creating policies that, as much as possible, approximate the country’s historical reality, could not be expressed without referring to issues relating to the Macedonian National Question. The existence of the Macedonian nation was an undeniable historical reality which was impossible to ignore. The existence of the Macedonian nation definitely influenced CPG views regarding the Macedonian National Question. There were clashes every day between the Macedonian people and the authorities, during which the Macedonian people manifested and expressed their Macedonian national consciousness. The Macedonians even expressed these feelings through the “Rizospastis” newspaper, an organ of the CPG, which published articles on a daily basis about the difficult Macedonian national and social situation experienced on their ancestral soil in Greek occupied Macedonia. A number of articles were also published in

“Rizospastis” for the benefit of the Macedonian nation in the column entitled “Rizospastis among the Macedonians”. Included among the many articles published in the period between 1932 and 1934, were the articles entitled “With the Macedonians in Macedonia”, “Down with national oppression - Macedonians under the yoke of the Greek bourgeoisie”, “We are not Bulgarians or Greeks, we are Macedonians”, and so on, in which - the Macedonian national consciousness was clearly and uncompromisingly expressed. Macedonian national feelings were also expressed in letters the Macedonian people sent and were published in “Rizospastis” in the Macedonian language but with the Greek alphabet.

Strongly influenced by the growing declaration of a Macedonian national consciousness, the CPG decided to reject the theory that the Macedonian people were Greeks, Serbians, Bulgarians, Vlachs, etc., and recognized the Macedonian nation. The CPG concluded that “the Macedonian nation is neither Bulgarian, nor Greek, nor Serbian, but MACEDONIAN”. (“O Neos Rizospastis”, 24. XI 1932.) The CPG also concluded that the people in all (occupied) parts of Macedonia, be they under Bulgaria, Greece or Serbia, are neither Greeks nor Bulgarians, nor Serbians…, they are only Macedonians. This was confirmed by articles published in “Rizospastis” which appeared from time to time after the 1924 CPG’s Third Extraordinary Congress. But these articles were a result of the pressure exhibited by expressions of a Macedonian national consciousness... Unfortunately the Party, as well as the Comintern and other parties in the countries that occupied Macedonia did not recognize the existence of a Macedonian nation and definitely rejected the theory. The CPY, for example, within its “statehood and nationality” policy for Yugoslav nations within Yugoslavia, did not recognize the Macedonian nation until after 1939. Before that it rejected the CPG’s theory. One of the last Yugoslav advocates of the theory of Greeks, Serbians, Bulgarians, Vlachs, etc., living in Macedonia was Milovan Dzhilas. “But to be sure of that,” wrote ‘Rizospastis’, “all we have to do is pay them an ordinary visit at one of the places in the Macedonian mountains, perhaps in Kostur or Lerin Region, and we will quickly figure it out. You get your answer from the people’s customs and their nature which is not Greek, Bulgarian or Serbian at all... Their clothes have

something special and so does their language... Their language may resemble the Bulgarian, but it is not the same... By knowing the Macedonian language, of course, you can understand both the Serbians and the Bulgarians. Today, another 100,000 people are speaking that language as THEIR MOTHER TONGUE. The people there know no other language. There have been so many centuries, since the Macedonian people settled in Macedonia, so that today they don’t know anything more except that they are born in the place where they will die and that they are neither Greeks nor Serbians nor Bulgarians…” (Ibid.) It is worth mentioning at this point that the CPG experienced the brightest period in its history, from 1932 to 1935, in relation to the Macedonian National Question, after it recognized the Macedonian nation. Unfortunately, after 1935, the CPG decided to “suppress” the Macedonian National Question until it again needed the Macedonian people for “tactical” purposes.

Its recognition of the Macedonian nation, as well as the strong pressure applied by the Macedonian people, which was more pronounced after 1931, forced the CPG to allow the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (MRO United) to also be formed in Greek occupied Macedonia. The MRO (United), under a CPG initiative for minorities, organized a Conference in Solun in June 1932, which was attended by 4 delegates from Lerin Region, 2 from Kostur Region, and 1 each from Solun, Lagadina, Kukush, Drama and Voden Regions. This Conference was attended by eleven minority representatives as well as Sklavenas, a CPG representative. During the Conference it was decided to establish minority departments in all regional and district Party committees. Another Conference was held in September 1932 in Berovo and in 1934 the founding MRO (United) Conference for all of Greek occupied Macedonia was convened in Voden. This Conference was attended by 9 delegates representing the Macedonian people from the Lerin, Kostur, Voden and Enidzhe-Vardar Regions.

After reviewing the economic and political situation in Greece, the Conference adopted a decision to establish the MRO (United) in all parts of Greek occupied Macedonia and to appoint its political leadership. Among those appointed were Andreia Chipov, Secretary, Hristo Galabov, Deputy Secretary, Mihail Kleanev, responsible for

Lerin Region, and Aleko Tenekedzhiev, responsible for Voden Region. (Andreia Chipov, CPG and the Macedonian National Question, v. “Voice of the Aegeans”, III, No. 29, 30, 31, Skopje, 1953.) Solun was selected as the seat of MRO (United) where it began to publish the first fliers in the Macedonian language and the newspapers “Makedonsko Delo” and “Balkanska Federatsia”. (Ibid.)

After its formation, the MRO (United) political leadership began to organize its first groups in the territory of Greek occupied Macedonia. Two groups consisting of ten members and one commission consisting of three members were formed in the village Arsen in Voden Region, whose basic task was to form similar MRO (United) groups all over Voden Region. The newly created MRO (United) groups in the village Arsen took an oath that as Macedonians they would fight for Macedonia’s full independence from the “Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian yoke” and demanded from the CPG to allow the publication of a Macedonian newspaper “in the Macedonian mother tongue”. (This information was obtained from a letter written by the MRO (United) Macedonian groups from Arsen and sent to the newspaper “Rizospastis”, which was then published on 12. IX 1934.) Similar MRO (United) organizations were also formed in other parts of Greek occupied Macedonia. Two such groups were formed in Ekshi-Su, Kostur Region, with a total membership of 15 people. The main task for the Ekshi-Su groups was to prove “to the Greek master that we are neither Greeks nor Bulgarians nor Serbs”, but pure Macedonians and that the Macedonian people were committed to continuously fighting for their rights including the right “to speak our Macedonian mother tongue”. (This information was obtained from a letter written by the MRO (United) Macedonian groups from Ekshi-Su and sent to the newspaper “Rizospastis”, which was then published on 1. IX 1934.) At the same time the Ekshi-Su groups called on the Macedonian people from the villages Aitos, Zelenich and Liubenka to join the ranks of MRO (United) and to fight together for the right to publish a newspaper “in their native Macedonian language”. (Ibid.) A MRO (United) group was also formed in the village of Pateli whose basic goal was to “liberate the many tortured Macedonian people” from the unbearable Greek yoke of slavery. (This information was obtained from a letter written by the MRO (United) Macedonian

groups from Pateli and sent to the newspaper “Rizospastis”, which was then published on 1. IX 1934.)

The appearance of MRO (United) in Greek occupied Macedonia, as a left-wing Macedonian political organization, was received with great admiration by the Macedonian population and, as a result, “managed to organize bases in Kostur, Lerin, Voden, Solun, Lagadina, Kukush, Seres and Drama. In total MRO (United) established 17 cells with 893 members”. (Information obtained from a letter written by A. Chipov and sent to Dimitar Vlahov, Archive of Macedonia, Dimitar Vlahov Foundation, No. 21 (18).) MRO (United)’s first success in Greek occupied Macedonia was the founding of a Macedonian language newspaper. Members from the Lerin Region branch began to operate a Macedonian language newspaper called “Zemiodelsko Zname” (The agricultural flag). Another remarkable success achieved by MRO (United), of course, was the candidacy of Secretary Andreia Chipov in the 1935 parliamentary elections. In the electoral list, in place of writing his profession, Chipov wrote “Macedonian”. (Ibid.)

The CPG changed its policy in relation to the Macedonian National Question simultaneously with the recognition of the Macedonian nation and the establishment of MRO (United). Now, instead of calling for a unified and independent Macedonia, which was MRO (United)’s main political slogan since 1931, the CPG adopted a policy that called for full equality of minorities within the Greek state. This policy was quietly and formally adopted by the Party during the CPG’s Sixth Congress in 1935. (This information was taken from Nikos Zahariadis’s speech which he gave during the CPG Central Committee Seventh Extended Sitting at 11-14. II 1957.) The shift in the CPG’s policy towards the Macedonian National Question after 1931 was necessary because the policy of a united and independent Macedonia “was a political-sectarian mistake that we accepted for reasons of political expediency... and with the intention of helping the Bulgarians in the fight they were leading against MRO…” (Information obtained from Nikos Zahariadis’s speech given at the CPG Central Committee Plenum at 18-24. II 1957.)

The new policy to provide the minorities equal rights within the Greek state, which the CPG began to implement since 1931, stagnated the MRO (United)’s activities in Greek occupied Macedonia. Unfortunately, the policy for a united and independent Macedonia, which the MRO (United) was implementing, was in deep contradiction with the new CPG policy for minority equality within the Greek state, which the CPG was implementing since 1931. The CPG, however, did publish an article to the benefit of the politics of a united and independent Macedonia, but in practical terms it did not do anything to help the Organization. The political contradiction between the MRO (United) and the CPG had severe consequences for MRO (United) activities and stunted the Organization’s growth in Greek occupied Macedonia. According to information obtained from A. Chipov’s memoirs published in the newspaper “Glas na Egeitsite”, the CPG did not help MRO (United) and refused to allow Macedonian communists to join it.

The Party formally and officially adopted the policy for minority equality within the Greek state at the CPG Sixth Congress held in December 1935. But, in order to find understanding and support within the Comintern on the new Macedonian National Question’s political orientation, the CPG convened a meeting in Moscow, where it sought to persuade the Comintern leaders that there was need to urgently reject the policy for a united and independent Macedonia. With various statistics in their hands on the so-called “real ethnographic” population structure in Greek occupied Macedonia, produced after the settlement of the massive colonist population, the CPG delegates in Moscow persuaded the old Polish communist, Oskar Valetski, leader of the Balkan section, to carry forward the CPG resolution approved during the 1935 CPG Sixth Congress. In other words, by adopting the CPG’s new policy regarding the Macedonian National Question, the CPG was hoping to make MRO (United)’s policy of a united and independent Macedonia, null and void. (D. Nefeludi, N. Athina, Anamnisis 1930-1940, Athina, 1974, p. 79.) Oskar Valetski, however, did not support the CPG recommendation and, in fact, spoke against the CPG Sixth Congress decision at the Comintern Executive Committee Meeting, attended by D. Manuilsky, P. Toliati, T. Gotwald, G. Dimitrov, V. Peak and others. CPG representative Vasilis Nefeloudis, member of the CPG Politburo, supported by Ianis Mihailidis, Elektra Sideridis

and Vasilis Bargotas, representatives of the Greek Communist Youth in the Communist Youth International, defended the CPG’s decisions, insisting that they were right and that it was the right thing to do, which was in line with the Comintern’s global policy. According to Nefeloudis, all the participants at the meeting eventually accepted the CPG’s proposal. They agreed that the decisions made at the CPG’s Sixth Congress, held in 1935, were correct and that the policy for a united and independent Macedonia should be replaced with the policy of minority equality for all the minorities living inside the Greek state. Now looking back, a decade or so ago, at the arguments made in 1924, the so-called “majority” in 1935 was in full line with the so-called “minority” in 1924, in relation to the Macedonian National Question. It took 11 years for the “minority” to defeat the “majority”. But realistically speaking, the solution to the Macedonian National Question, as proposed by the “majority” in 1924, had already been defeated in 1924. The discussions that were led regarding the Macedonian National Question in the period from 1923 to 1927 in the ranks of the CPG, the views that were taken for or against the policy of a united and independent Macedonia, confirmed that the victory of the so-called “majority” was only formal and short-lived. Of the total 17 votes P. Puliopoulos received “for” the acceptance of the policy for a united and independent Macedonia, 8 withdrew their support immediately after the voting took place, and 2 opposed it during the voting itself. So, as it turned out, the “majority” was not really a “majority” but a minority because in reality Puliopoulos received only 9 of the 19 votes. This indeed was a “Pirian victory” for the “majority”. (I. Kordatos, op. cit. “Rizospastis”, 18. II 1927.) The same was also confirmed by P. Puliopoulos, representative of the so-called “majority”, who then wrote in the newspaper “Risospastis”: “Our victory proved to be a Pirian victory. We are victorious in practice but it is regrettable for the Party to have our eyes closed to such a reality...” (Pantelis Puliopoulos, op. cit., “Rizospastis”, 5. II 1927.) Puliopouls, even then, had predicted that the Party would ultimately accept the arguments of the “minority” when it came to the Macedonian National Question. The so-called “majority” admitted to having to accept the “minority” recommendation at the CPG Sixth Congress in 1935, as a rationale for replacing the policy for a united and independent Macedonia, was the acceptance of the arguments made by the “minority” that after the population

exchanges between Greece and Bulgaria and between Greece and Turkey, and after the settlement of the colonists in Greece, the Greek element in Greek occupied Macedonia was the majority and therefore there was no need for a policy for a united and independent Macedonia.

Opinions for the replacement of the united and independent Macedonia policy with the minority rights policy were even invited during the CPG Central Committee Sixth Regular Plenum, in the presence of 51 delegates representing various Party organizations in the country. This is how the CPG justified the new policy with regards to the Macedonian National Question, at the CPG Sixth Congress, held in December 1935:

“After the March Revolution, which was an attempted coup in Greece with an anti-monarchal character, it was said that instead of supporting a policy for a united and independent Macedonia and Thrace, the Party has opted for supporting full equality for minorities. Changing this policy does not mean denying the Macedonian National Question. The change was made because of the changes made to the national composition in the Greek part of Macedonia. It is in close connection with the changes made in the Balkans where there are revolutionary movements and is brought in line with our basic tasks – the anti-fascist struggle. Marxist theory has urged the Communist Party to base its policy on the true interests of the country.

The part of Macedonia held by Greece is inhabited by a Greek-Madzhir population. The population of the Greek part of Macedonia in its majority today is Greek. As a result, Leninist-Stalinist principles for subordination of peoples under today’s conditions, requires us to change the old policy... The policy change, however, does not mean that our activities in Macedonia among the national minorities will be weakened. Quite the opposite, we are committed to increasing our efforts to provide full rights for the minorities. The Communist Party will not stop speaking out about the Macedonian Question and plans to resolve it fraternally after the victory of the Soviet government in the Balkans, when it will abolish the shameful conventions for population exchanges and will take all practical measures to eliminate imperialist injustices. Only then will the

Macedonian people fully find their national establishment.” (To KKE apto 1931 os ..., p. 74.)

The basic argument put forward by the CPG to justify its view, was that after the settlement (1913-1928) of the large colonist population in Greek occupied Macedonia, the Greek element became a majority and a policy regarding the Macedonian National Question had to reflect the new reality. According to Nikos Zahariadis, CPG General Secretary: “This is the only opportunity to avoid mistakes, controversies and talks about Greek Macedonia, which is 90% inhabited by Greeks and therefore constitutes an inseparable part of the Greek state…” (Nikos Zahariadis, Silogi Ergon, 1953, p. 173, s.1.)

After the colonization of Greek occupied Macedonia, however, the Greek population was not the absolute majority of 90%, as claimed by the CPG. It was in the minority of about 45%, compared to all the various nationalities that lived in Greek occupied Macedonia after the massive colonization. For more information on this, see the tables in the beginning of this book. If that was not so, then what was the CPG’s “real motive” for changing the policy, in relation to the Macedonian National Question, at its Sixth Congress?