CHAPTER ONE – Unilateral Civil War - Part 01

CHAPTER ONE – Unilateral Civil War

1. The situation after the Varkiza Agreement and moves made by the political Right

When the fighting was raging on in Athens and at the time the Varkiza Agreement was being signed, ELAS was still master of the situation in the country. It had established order everywhere and was in the process of disarming the armed collaborators. However, after the Agreement was signed, while ELAS was disarming the collaborators at one end, the government was arming them at the other, unleashing furious terror against the unarmed population. There was overwhelming chaos in the country. Here is how the situation was described by the press.

About the tragedy that took place in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, on June 15, 1945 the newspaper “Rizospartis” ended its story with the following words: “The prisons in Alexandroupolis, Ferron, Soufli, Didimotiko and Orestiada are full of prisoners arrested without having committed any crimes. Village committees often visit the Directorate of Police and the National Guard to complain about their intolerable situation. The District Governor of Thrace, who was aware of the visits, arrested the commissions in Alexandroupolis and Komotini and placed them in jail while their petitions were torn up by members of the National Guard.”

On July 13, 1945 “Rizospartis”, the same newspaper, wrote: “One hundred and fifty armed gangs consisting of 18,000 armed monarchists today are running the state.” Ironically the newspaper also quoted comments made by Damaskinos about “the great freedom in Greece” and revealed the following interesting information: “More than a hundred and fifty such armed gangs are supporting King George II’s government in all regions of the country.” Here are the names of some of the members in the King’s gangs:

“1. Peloponnesus: Papanousis, Papapanos, Karalis, Goumenos, Pilitopoulos, Dorovitsas, Christakis, Papatanos-Gorentis, Lazanis, Zorvas, Papanastasopoulos, Tsalbouras, Papadakos.

2. Rumeli: Kouzelis, Katranzis, Galouzis, Vourkalis, Lasias, Papandonis, Gerandodimos.

3. Ksiromero: Veridos, Floren, Bourvovilas, Karabekios.

4. Kefalonja: Papadimakos.

5. Thessaly: Sourlas, Tsandoulas, Bidzhis, Mermanis, Koukoudisis, Vlatiokostas, Veletas, Kalagritsas, Kalias.

6. Epirus: Pentazis, Katsos, Baloumis, Voidares, Karabinis, Makas.

7. Macedonia - Thrace: Chaoush Andon, Captain Katas, Kepetan Vangelis, Kondakos, Zisis, Prionis, Darvelas, Moumtsis, Sakas, Tsakiris, Romandas, Kostandinidis, Koukas, Koukouvanis, Harapoulos, Swan, Iliadis, Zagronis, Stefanidis, Pentazis, Zevgie, Kimeridis, Manasi, Patsouris, Zagranis, Topouzoglou, Karapanoiotis.”

Later on the newspaper provides data on the number of gangsters existing in certain areas, the means by which they are armed and how their activities assist the government army and the police.

On June 17, 1945 the newspaper “Laiki foni” wrote under the heading “Fascist members of National Guard and armed gangsters have plagued the people in Macedonia. They have raped 12-year-old girls and women over the age of 60.”

Among other things the same newspaper also wrote: “Around midnight on June 7, 1945 the former collaborator Koskinas, now an officer of the National Guard, went to Kukush and visited the widow in the home of an Albanian front victim named Nikopolitidou and tried to frighten her, with his rifle, into going with him.

Voden. The terror in that city and in that district exceeded every limit. Members of the National Guard, the British forces and the irregular forces carried out blockades and arrested many democratic citizens. Anyone caught reading a leftist newspaper was arrested and beaten to listlessness by members of the National Guard. The

shopkeepers who sold leftist newspapers were intimidated and threatened with violence if they sold such newspapers.

Leftist newspapers were forced out of circulation for more than a month…”

On June 1, 1945 the Solun newspaper “Makedonia”, organ of the Liberal Party, published an “open letter” written by Ioanis Mihail, former MP of the Solun Democratic Union, in which, among other things, it said:

“To the Minister and Governor of Macedonia, Manager of Central Macedonia and Commander and public prosecutor of the city of Solun,

Serving in the village Koufalia, in Solun Region is Lieutenant Ioanis Dragoumis, commander of the National Guard unit stationed there whose mission is to provide order and security and to keep the villagers and their properties safe. But since the day this officer was put in charge, his actions have been less than tolerable from the fear that he has unleashed on the population.

Many peasants who hosted the occupiers, but had nothing to do with the occupying forces, were arrested, intimidated and severely beaten. These peasants feared that if they reported these beatings to the authorities they would be beaten again and even worse. When those who suffered and when the village authorities did complain to Military Command and to the Public Prosecutor, Military Command sent a senior officer to investigate, but so far there have been no results. The Public Prosecutor has informed that he has no authority to intervene. And so, thanks to the indifference of the government senior officer sent to investigate, atrocities continue to be committed and the villagers are dismayed by the severe actions the government has undertaken. Even the strict orders given to the senior office by Military command seem to have no effect. Just yesterday an honest peasant named Hristos Fokas was brought to the municipal hospital in a difficult position with broken ribs from the beating he received just because he appeared as a witness to the protector and reported what had been done to two of his fellow villagers who were released by the judiciary.

I am publicly putting blame on the shameful work done by Lieutenant Ioanis Dragoumis and I am directly asking that these allegations be investigated by the relevant competent authorities, as there is no other means left to protect the rights of our citizens.

Sincerely,

Ioanis Mihail, former MP of the Democratic Alliance.”

The newspapers, at that time, were full of stories like these.

The Greek political right which, after the December events, had its hands on the legitimate government of Greece was fully aware that its authority was far from being assured and that further effort would be required in order to choke the democratic movement in Greece and to fully consolidate its power.

The international situation at the time would not tolerate solutions such as the one the Greek political right offered when it found itself in a political crisis before World War II, i.e. the introduction of the Metaxas fascist dictatorship. Exactly because of that the Greek government had to plan parliamentary elections and decide to return the King to Greece by plebiscite. At the same time the Greek bourgeoisie was well aware of which way the Greek masses were leaning. Regardless of its weaknesses, the people of Greece had developed a massive liberation movement along the lines of a people’s popular front, which was totally against fascism. Therefore the Greek bourgeoisie had to create the “right conditions” before these elections and the plebiscite could take place. Conditions that would ensure the elections were won by the “right political side” and would put a “legitimate” government in Greece.

For exactly that reason it was first necessary to suppress the EAM movement, then establish, strengthen and consolidate power in the country. The political right needed to have its own state apparatus, its own armed forces and its own armed police units. Unfortunately the Greek political right had no one to rely on for this except to rehabilitate and gain the support of the collaborators of the occupiers. And that’s exactly what it did. It opened the doors to

known collaborators to continue their terror against the people in the same manner that had been done during the occupation. That measure was designed to inflict the first blow against the democratic movement. The government was counting on intimidating and frightening the masses into giving it their support. This is how public and political life was in Greece all throughout 1945.

Outside of the above mentioned terror instigated by the various armed groups, another form of terror was waged against the people. This was “legal” terror waged by the very government authorities themselves, which grew depending on how it spread and widened in power from the centre to the periphery. So in no time at all the number of arrested and jailed resistance fighters in 1945 reached ten thousand. In addition to the terror waged by the government authorities and the armed gangsters, the police and the military incited right-wing elements to join the political consolidation of forces by forming various youth, professional and other organizations and various alliances.

Furthermore, the government began to intensively strengthen the police and the general state apparatus with the most chauvinistic elements in the country, consisting mostly of former members of the Metaxas police force. The government did the same in the formation of the military. The first government act was to purge the entire army of its democratically minded officers. Every military unit was placed under military police control. Mobilization was carried out through a system of referrals which allowed the government to populate the military with its own people. But in spite of all the precautionary measures taken, some democratic elements did filter into the army. These elements were labeled “suspicious” by the military police and were disarmed and used in the auxiliary services or were interned in Makronisos and other Aegean islands.

The Greek bourgeoisie, in the implementation of the above stated measures, had comprehensive material and moral support from the British military forces which, at that time, were occupying Greece. The task of organizing the Greek police and the Greek military was given to British officers. UNRA was also used abundantly for political purposes in Greece, more so than in any other country.

As a result of this one-sided civil war in Greece, which the Greek political right waged against the democratic forces in 1945, the country landed in economic chaos. There were no steps taken, not even the most basic steps, to rebuild the country and increase its production. The people survived mainly on the assistance of food and consumer goods donated by UNRA.

The Greek bourgeoisie, however, had the necessary skills to manipulate the situation in the country and turn it to its favour, at least during the first half of 1945, while the Second World War was still active and during the immediate period that followed. Every effort was made to expand terrorist tactics including waging war on the democratic forces in the country, accusing them of being “traitors” and working against “national interests”.

Once again the Greek bourgeoisie demonstrated its drastic annexation appetite towards its neighbours when, after World War II, it began to fuel the masses with the decades old chauvinistic mood for a “Greater Greece”, systematically poisoning the political atmosphere in the country.

The most important thing in the country for the political right, as demonstrated by their slogan, was “national requirements”. There was no rally, demonstration, or meeting held where the slogan “Tirana-Sofia-Moscow” was not used. Daily newspapers and special publications printed articles based on the theme “national aspirations”, filling the heads of the masses with annexation appetites. Here is the translated title page of a brochure:

“By Georgi N. Vassiliou e.e. m Lieutenant Colonel of Engineering”

The Greek problem (The way it is understood by the Northern Greeks) Our national requirements

Call From the Greek people From the Congress of Peace And our territorial claims”

The original brochure, written in Greek, contains tabled data which the author claims provides information about a “Greater Greece”, its territory and population.

The tabled data, without any doubt, lays claim to lands belonging to Albania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Italy and England. It also lays claim to Italian and British colonies in Africa. And finally, it makes demands that one and a half million Slavs be evicted from Greece. According to the lieutenant colonel’s opinion, the author of the brochure, Greece, according to a 1940 census, covers an area of 129,879.8 square kilometres and has a population of 7,335,672 people with 56.5 inhabitants per square kilometre. But if Greece were to be expanded as outlined in the brochure, then it would become a great country with an area of 1,745,413.5 square kilometres and with a population of 21,763.926 people, with 12.5 inhabitants per square kilometre.

A so-called “Congress for National Rights” was held on October 28, 1945 in Solun during which time two professors, Kiriakidis and Vogiazidis, submitted papers in order to explain Greek “historical” and “scientific” aspirations towards Greece’s neighbours.

Among the several speeches made during the “Congress for national rights” was also General Lumbas’s speech, who in 1946 published a brochure entitled “Necessary strategic reforms to the Greek borders”. Lumbas’s speech began with the words:

“Our border to the north has been decided by the Bucharest, Neuilly and Florence Agreements. This determination was made without taking into consideration the general principles of providing favourable conditions for the security of the interested parties.”

After the General explained the “need” for border changes in order to “secure the Greek border”, he offered the following: “The Albaniaн border, according to the above, should go as follows: island Sasho, the line that separates the waters of rivers Shkumbata and Arian up to elevation 1425, where it meets our above mentioned line for our security against Albania”.

The Greek-Yugoslav border, according to the general, because of the existing gorges and obstacles between the current borders at Solun in Kosturino and Demir Kapia, slightly away from Solun towards the Lerin-Kozheni highlands, where there is no natural barrier and security line “towards Yugoslavia”, should be as follows:

“Along the northern upland approaches of Suva Gora and Karadzitsa, north of Veles, north of Shtip. Along the River Bregalnitsa confluence and its tributary River Zletosvska, to the Tsarevo Selo vicinity.”

There is no doubt that if the Greeks had the courage to seek border “corrections” with Albania and Yugoslavia that they would also seek border corrections with Bulgaria.

After itemizing the “arguments” for his thesis, the general concluded: “Because of the aforementioned reasons, our border security is insignificant in the districts between the Struma and Mesta Rivers and no trace of border security exists in the area between the Mesta and Maritsa rivers. Because of this, it has becomes an indispensable strategic necessity for us to erect our border with Bulgaria in such a way so as to prevent annexation claims against us in the future. We can only succeed in this by a general acquisition of the Pirin and Rhodopes mountain ranges because these mountain ranges, on the one hand, represent very serious natural obstacles for intrusive operations from Bulgaria against us and, on the other, by this means we will acquire the necessary depth of our endangered environment for keeping a defensive struggle”.

Another “welcomed” speech, given at the “Congress for national rights” on October 28, 1945 in Solun, was made by Lieutenant General Dimitrie Kakavos who, soon afterwards, published a special edition article entitled “Macedonia in the last 40 years and our national rights”. In this article he attempted to legitimize recent views on Macedonian history by looking at it through the prism of megalomaniac, Greek glasses and mourning that Greece was not rewarded as it should have been.

“Our frontiers pass near a branch of Mount Pirin, which is also a branch of the Rhodopes and Hemus Mountains. So, if we want a fair share of the military advantages in that territory it is important, of course, that we reach the Hemus and from there extend the line west to the Black Sea.

But if our emphasis regarding these ‘fair requirements’ is, possibly, interpreted as chauvinistic and not as taking necessary measures for the security of our state, then the only option that could be available to us is to restrict our boundary line to the upper Rhodopes, hence through Gabrovitsa, along the railway line Plovdiv-Sofia, through Panagiurishte and end at the Black Sea. Thus the area divided by Maritsa together with recently developed Greek centres Plovdiv, Stanimah, Kavakli, Burgas, Sozopol and Agatopol will become our national area.”

After briefly and falsely interpreting the two Balkan Wars, the author turned to making territorial claims against Yugoslavia (Republic of Macedonia). He said: “Considering what I said earlier, our border along the Rhodopes should pass through the Pirin and Arvin mountain ranges and run along Malesh and from there end above on the heights of Lake Ohrid so that all the mentioned Greek centres, including Strumitsa, Doiran, Gevgelia, Prilep, Krushevo and Bitola are to become Greek which, despite boosting our military security, which is pretty satisfying, these regions along with the Pelagonian valley, will also provide an economic boost to our country.”

And finally, before rounding off Greece’s imaginary border extending to the Adriatic Sea, Kakavos said: “And today, determining the extent of our border towards the Adriatic Sea, we think it should extend to the north of Lake Ohrid towards the mouth of the Skumba River so that southern Albania, which is properly called Northern Epirus, along with the developed Greek centres, the heroic Humara, Avlona, Girokastro, and Korcha, would become part of our Greek national territory”.

These are the kinds of nationalistic and megalomaniac ideas that were being spread in Greece by the Greek chauvinists after the most frightening war ended, ideas which are remembered by humanity to

this day. Given all this, what kind of relationship would one expect this government to have with the ordinary peaceful workers and peasants who were fighting for their bare existence? The bourgeoisie in Greece was set up to fall. It was set up to fall with help from imperialist forces from abroad. But when it managed to stand up again, it thrust itself ten times more cruelly against the working class and peasant labour. This is the only way one can explain the events that took place in Greece after the occupiers were ousted.

Personally, I believe that the organizers of the “Congress for national rights” and the speakers who participated in it, at least those who had some measure of understanding the reality of what they were doing, could not believe what they were doing because this was pure madness; to have such aspirations at the expense of their neighbours and to voice them openly during a peace conference. One thing was certain, however, these people were incorrigible chauvinists. The social crisis in Greece came to the fore before the Second World War started but was suppressed by the introduction of the bloody 1936 Metaxas fascist dictatorship. It then was ignited during the occupation, expressed by the National Liberation Struggle and after that it was only a matter of question. Was Greece going to transform itself or go back to its old ways? Were the new social forces going to take power or were the old powers going to return? But as we all now know, the old powers were restored in Greece with the help of foreign intervention, of course. But in order to do that, it was necessary to create a certain foundation among the people. And exactly this foundation, through propaganda, was going to be based on “national rights”. They wanted to mislead the masses with alluring slogans, to think about expansion towards fertile territories that supposedly “historically” belonged to Greece.

In 1945 the entire year was spent preparing for holding the parliamentary elections and for the plebiscite and deciding on how these would be held. Unfortunately the elections were being planned during a time of endless anarchy reigning in the country. This is when the Voulgaris administrative government was in power, which was responsible for preparing the voters lists and for the unprecedented massive fraud that followed.

After Voulgaris’s administrative government did its part, in early 1946 it was replaced by the Liberal Party led by Temistokles Sofoulis. This change was of no little tactical importance, as we shall later see. It was perpetrated by the Greek bourgeoisie in its effort to create violence and fraud in order to strengthen its authority in the face of world public opinion and to be presented as a “lawful” institution.

2. CPG leadership opinions

The CPG Central Committee 12th Plenum was held on June 25, 1945 during which, among other things, the following resolution was reached:

“The CPG Central Committee Plenum has found that serious deterioration in the internal situation has taken place from the 11th Plenum to this day. The government has proved unable to establish internal order and has not shown that it is mature enough to handle today’s critical moments. The right-wing terrorists, headed by the Military Alliance, who act in favour of the bourgeoisie and are deliberately tolerated by the government and certain circles from abroad, are supporting state authorities (the National Guard, the gendarmerie, the city police, etc.) and are ready to commit a fascist coup d’état and establish a fascist dictatorship. They are preparing for an international armed adventure. They have identified tens of thousands of democratic citizens to be killed during the first night of the coup.

Greece is the only country in Europe in which the victors are fascists, collaborators, traitors and quislings who are again stifling democracy. The resistance movement is in cruel exile. Hundreds of people have been killed and are continuously been killed. Tens of thousands are in jail. Hundreds of thousands are in exile. This is the hallmark of political adventurism in which the country is pushed towards internal and external disaster.”

In a statement entitled “Salvation of the People” the Plenum said:

“The CPG Central Committee Plenum ascertained that only the democratic world coalition in the country, by taking into its hands

and managing the lands, can save the situation. The EAM political coalition of parties, which represents the largest and most democratic group of the people, should raise the flag high and resolutely fight to fit all democratic forces in an acceptable program that will protect and establish democratic order in the country. The Plenum would like to stress that, by refusing to allow former democratic and political members to participate in the most elementary democratic cooperation and to make concrete efforts that seem separated from their individual factors in order to break the democratic organizations is basically a violation of democratic principles and outside of the moral norm. Only reactionaries use these kinds of tactics and, even now, provide support and encourage insolence. We would like to emphasize that the same tactics were used in the fall of 1935, which led to a coup and to the Kondilis “plebiscite”, to the return of Gligzburk, to Metaxas taking power, to August 4th, to the betrayal and capitulation. The same danger is an obstacle again directly as a result of the dismantling of the democratic forces, which will serve Gligzburk’s return.”

After the above mentioned Plenum resolution was made, the three Great Powers (Russia, the US and Britain) made requirements of Greece that the Yalta Agreement be immediately implemented and with their intervention, by a coalition government consisting of all the parties that did not cooperate with the occupier and fight against fascism. This government was to establish political and trade union freedom, democratic order and tranquility and, within four months at most, hold free elections for a Constituent Assembly by a proportional representation system.

Later, after the above proposal for a “coalition government of all parties” was made, certain tasks, such as the government to prepare elections, were added to the Resolution.

This is how the situation in the country was at the outset. This is the position in which the resistance movement and its members found themselves. These were the means by which the democratic movement was struggling against the political right which was in power and in control of the state apparatus, the police and the military.

Tasks set by the Plenum:

“In particular, the Plenum has underlined the following tasks:

a) That it is imperative to organize a massive self-defense campaign against the murderous terrorist activities of the political right. Every democratic man, woman and child in the entire country must break the hand of the murderers and fascists every time they pick up arms.

b) That the primary act of the people nationwide in the mass struggles in all layers of the working people and in all the democratic masses in general (protests, strikes, meetings, demonstrations, closing of the bazaars) is to prevent specific terrorist acts perpetrated by the reactionaries.

c) That massive countrywide political strikes be enacted and used as decisively popular weapons in order to prevent terrorist and fascist manifestations.

d) That all democratic people must be ready to defend their lives and to oppose every fascist coup by any means possible. The people must be vigilant.”

The central motto that arose from the moment the Varkiza Agreement was signed and the first bout of the political right against the democratic masses and their vanguard, the veterans of the resistance, was the slogan “People defend yourselves by all means”. But because they could achieve what they wanted by “all means” they not only condemned the democratic movement in Greece, but also condemned the armed struggle, they in fact surrendered the fate of the democratic movement in the country and left it at the mercy of the reactionaries who in turn attacked it by “all means”, primarily by violence and force of arms. And in this lies one of the major mistakes the CPG leadership made in the period after Varkiza.

As is evident from the CPG Central Committee 12th Plenum Resolution, a bloody war was actually waged by the political right against the democratic forces in the country.

Decisions made during the CPG Central Committee 12th Plenum, as mentioned above, were officially put on a report by the then CPG General Secretary Nikos Zahariadis. Zahariadis condemned those who were against disarming the armed resistance against the political right and against foreign interventions. In his report Zahariadis wrote the following:

“The change in tactics from a war of liberation to a struggle for a Republic, after December, sent our entire movement around the corner. A new situation appeared and demanded rapid adaptation in our line, tactics, methods and slogans. Even though we here talk about a crisis for which we blame the other side, it seems we have found ourselves ideologically unprepared, something which has led us to this mess. Many of our members and staff may not be able to immediately grasp the situation but we need to seek new conditions. This confusion has resulted in some parochial squabbling within the party. Some of them, like Velouhiotis, could be dangerous but the party must act consistently.

As long as such manifestations are not directly challenged our enemy will continue to manipulate us, exploiting our ideological weaknesses. For example, some comrades do not understand that the December Varkiza Agreement was a consequence of defeat for the partisan movement, but some people want to transfer our “light” partisan struggle into a massive political struggle. They want to keep the guns and continue the guerilla warfare (Zahariadis called it “klevtopolemos” a thief’s war). This means that we want to use yesterday’s ticket today. The Party was against such thinking because it feared it would lead to catastrophic consequences for the entire struggle. Unfortunately the Party has quickly overcome all these doubts and has decisively thrown itself into a new struggle with new tasks.”

Statements made by Zahariadis are significant because they reveal the political approach taken. They reveal the correct assessment of the situation, particularly the condemnation of the emergence of the armed resistance. However, if we analyze the need for an armed resistance in light of the situation present in the country, we should be able to clear one basic question. Was the situation after Varkiza a revolutionary one or not and what form of struggle was carried out?

What was the situation and balance of power after the December events and after the Varkiza Agreement was signed in 1945?

In his own report, which he recorded during the CPG Central Committee 12th Plenum in June 1945, Zahariadis made the following assessment regarding the basic political situation in the country:

“The position taken by the reactionary right, and those who follow, support and tolerate it, was determined by the foreign aid provided and by the actions taken during the December events:

a) To spread wild terror that goes beyond any precedent in the history of our country. To force people to bend their heads down and stop resisting.

b) To initiate a libelous campaign of unprecedented falsification in order to isolate the CPG and the people’s vanguard from the people. To vilify the Party membership as “murderous traitors” in order to isolate and destroy them.

c) To divert the people’s attention from their internal problems to external problems with a single chauvinistic blow in order to place the entire weight of the anti-popular economic policy on the people and to continue the same old misery and hopelessness.”

Zahariadis’s conclusion was accurate. It clearly stated that during the December events and the signing of the Varkiza Agreement the struggle was a unilateral civil war. Therefore we need to ask the question: “What should have been done in a situation such as this?” The fatal mistake the CPG leadership made was to oppose what was happening by political means only, excluding armed resistance. When the political right waged a relentless and destructive war against the democratic forces in the country with aims at breaking the democratic organization, primarily by military means, the political left continued to resist by political means only.

However, what was actually practiced in mid-1945?

Here is an assessment of the December events according to the 12th Plenum:

“The December uprising closed one page and opened another in our history. It was a turn, a bend, a crisis. The uprising did not succeed and the movement was not defeated. This is basically what happened during the December uprising.”

This is true and confirms the fact that the Varkiza Agreement was signed after the December uprising, which removed the resistance movement as the unconditional master of the country. But the political right was well-aware of its own limited power. Namely, the resistance movement was very strong and the only way to master it was by defeating it. This is why the political right signed the Varkiza Agreement “promising” democratization of the country. The political right needed time and space to manoeuver and the Varkiza Agreement gave it exactly that.

Meaning, the CPG leadership error was made when the CPG limited the December uprising to Athens only and did not extend it across the country. And after the uprising in Athens failed, instead of withdrawing from Athens and continuing the struggle outside the CPG marched straight to Varkiza and capitulated with no guarantees, not even for the most basic safeguards that would ensure the survival of the democratic development in the country.

The second mistake the CPG made was that it ignored its first mistake and did not take timely measures to avoid the catastrophic consequences of signing the Varkiza Agreement, which in reality was a great victory for the political right. But instead of recognizing that it made an error, the CPG leadership, in fact, declared the signing of the Varkiza Agreement to be a great victory for the people.

Another error the CPG made, after it signed the Varkiza agreement, was that it failed to organize the armed resistance in the country. It had enough experience to have known that, even as a second measure, the armed resistance should have been ready to act. But instead of looking at the reality of the situation, the CPG filled the

heads of its membership with illusions of a political struggle and denounced those who called for an armed resistance, calling them “provocateurs”. Thanks to this kind of “attitude” on the part of the CPG, the political right was able to achieve its objectives.

Even after the Varkiza Agreement was signed, the government had no power base outside of Athens and everything else it held, such as the major centres in the country, it held with British forces support. It was only after the Agreement was signed and after ELAS surrendered its arms that the government made an effort to mobilize its forces. Then, after the government took over the prison camps managed by ELAS, it freed and armed prisoners who collaborated with the German and Italian occupiers and pinned them against the unarmed resistance movement. The government then recruited the Greek nationalist units which came back from Africa, the remnants of Napoleon Zerva’s formations and other nationalist groups, and turned them into its future army. The government spared no effort to organize itself politically and militarily at all costs. In establishing its military units the government employed the system and conduct of independent National Guard battalions. These battalions were formed on a territorial basis and staffed with selected and trusted proven anti-democratic officers. These battalions were later tied together organizationally to create larger formations. This was during 1946.

By mid-1945 the government in Athens managed to establish itself in the city districts and in the larger communities. But unfortunately it was unable to efficiently manage them, particularly the provinces, with its weak military and police forces and with its destroyed road and railway infrastructure. However, as was mentioned earlier, the government used the former collaborators to do its bidding in the provinces.

Simultaneously, while the government was establishing itself and expanding its power, the former collaborators spread their terror and took measures to suppress the democratic movement, especially in the villages. In order to have legitimate representation, the government in Athens, more or less, quickly consolidated its authority as a counter-revolutionary force. In order to understand why it did that we need to consider the following points:

1. During the war Greece was a fascist dictatorship, a consolidated fascist state with fascist state organs, for a period of five full years. The rehabilitated former collaborators gave the government what it needed, devoted people who were determined to take down the democratic movement and who saw the communists as traitors.

2. The CPG was against an armed resistance and subordinated itself to the government. If the CPG’s position had been different, for example if it had an active army, it would have been difficult for the government to successfully accomplish its purpose in terms of creating its military formations.

It was a fateful time and every member of the Party, EAM and every supporter and participant in the resistance movement was under attack. The impact of the devastating terror hung over their heads like the sword of Damocles. These people had had enough and were prepared to resist. It became obvious, even to ordinary members, that resisting by “political means” did not work against the devastating terror. But as far as the CPG was concerned that was their opinion and its leadership had made its position clear. The masses were well-aware of their size and strength should they be called upon to take a defensive course and organize an armed resistance in the country.

In order to clarify this we need to have a closer look at what else had been discussed during the CPG Central Committee 12th Plenum on June 25 to 27, 1945, examine the CPG attitudes adopted during the 7th Party Congress held in October 1945 and review some of the activities in which the CPG leadership participated in 1945 while attempting to consolidate its authority.

The 11th CPG Plenum was held before Zahariadis returned to Greece from exile (CPG General Secretary Zahariadis was arrested by the police when the Metaxas regime was in power and jailed during World War II. After Greece was occupied he was handed over to the Germans and taken to the Dachau camp in Germany) during which time a change was made in the way the struggle was conducted (NOD) but no serious analysis was done to find out the errors that had led to the movement’s defeat. The 11th Plenum was held in early

1945 when Zahariadis was still in prison. The entire CPG membership expected that when Zahariadis returned from prison he would have decisive influence in the correction of mistakes that the previous leadership had made. As mentioned earlier, no serious analysis was done during the 11th Plenum to determine the mistakes the movement had made that led to the political right’s victory. This is what was said during the Plenum about this under the title “Who is guilty”:

“...But who then is to blame? With this question we arrive at the junction. Let us take a realistic look at Greece during the years of occupation. EAM in fact governed on the inside, which resolutely fought against the occupier. EAM attracted the majority, the decisive majority of the people. Other groups such as EDES, with respect to its impact on the masses, played a secondary role. Politically these other groups were isolated from the people. Gligzburg and his government, which called itself “the Greek government in exile”, did not represent the people by any means and existed outside of Greece with no connection to the People’s Liberation Movement and to the nation that fought against the occupiers. The former politicians who led Greece were either refugees in the Cairo court or collaborators working for the interest of the occupiers inside Greece.

Effort was made to achieve unity between EAM and the Greek government exiled in Cairo which ended in the signing of the Lebanon Agreement, which then allowed EAM to take part in the creation of an EAM government but headed by PEEA. EAM in fact was the real government because it had strength and power in Greece. The Greek government exiled in Cairo, in which EAM took part, had no real power. This was especially true after the military uprising in the Middle East, which resulted in an almost complete dispersion of armed forces abroad.

According to this inner-Greek relationship of forces, the problem of governing Greece would have been essentially solved, if the Greek factor was the only factor involved in this game. When the Red Army was advancing towards the Balkans and ELAS was fighting the Germans inside Greece, the Germans began to retreat and flee. This was the time when governance in Greece automatically and

naturally fell into the hands of EAM. If things remained the way they were, the internal Greek problem would be solved quickly, much easier and more democratically than any other country in Europe, without the need of any foreigners. The return of the Greek government from exile would have changed nothing. The only thing that would have been needed was reorganization of the government to reflect the true will of the nation. Had things stayed the way they were, elections would have been held within 2-3 months and the internal problems would have been fully solved. There was law and order inside Greece, there were police, a people’s militia, strong discipline, tested triumph, solid leadership and an armed resistance. It would have taken 3-4 months for the military to consolidate its power.”

“So, where then does the fault lie? Where did things go wrong? Those who are trying to uncover the causes of the small mistakes made by the People’s Liberation Movement are working in vain. Such errors are inevitable in a large scale wide and genuine effort such as this. But these errors did not affect the absolute right baseline. As highlighted above, EAM stayed on the right track from the beginning to the end of the occupation. It did nothing wrong. Neither is the Lebanon Agreement to blame. Things could have been worse but the Agreement fundamentally changed nothing. There was no shift in power in the country at that time.”

“So, where then does the blame lie?” asked Zahariadis after speaking about EAM’s difficult task “to properly set up the movement in an international framework” and then said:

“Let us now try and put Greece in an international framework. Economically and politically Greece is significantly dependent on foreign capital, mainly British capital. Economically, geographically as well as politically, Greece belongs to the Balkans and to Europe and it cannot live and grow outside of its natural environment. Naturally Greece’s economic content is located in the Balkans and Europe. It cannot remain alien and unaffected by the economic, political and social transformations in the Balkans and in Europe. It would be unnatural if it does and will result in isolation with many economic and political consequences. And today when the winds in the Balkans are blowing towards republics, and republics forming in

southeastern Europe became a creative influence of the great socialist republic from the north; such isolation will create serious intrigue, danger and decline in Greece. But placing Greece in today’s international arena does not end here. Our country extends into the Mediterranean almost down to the African coastline and is master of the western and eastern Mediterranean, located on the road that connects Britain with the oil in the Middle East, the Suez and India and further on with China and the Pacific. Our country is located at a strategic, neuralgic and significant point, one of the most traveled arteries of the British Empire.

These arteries will exist as long as the British Empire exists and Britain will do everything in its power to keep them that way. Twice it fought to keep this artery, in 1914 and in 1939, because this artery is a pillar that holds its world. Our country is a disc in that pillar. If you deprive them of that disk it will bring down the whole pillar. We need never forget this. Besides, we must never forget that we are basically still dependent, economically and politically, on British capital.”