Thursday, September 27, 2007

The three versions of Nikos Zachariadis' death

This article was published for the first time in the newspaper "Anasintaxi" issue 232 (August 2006), in Greek, as addendum to an article of c. Nikandros Kepesis entitled "The murder of Nikos Zachariadis"

The three versions of Nikos Zachariadis' death

A. The first two versions

In the first days of August 1973, when the Soviet authorities and the Khruschevian Florakis leadership announced that Nikos Zachariadis died, two different versions of his death were immediately formulated. The first and the official one was presented by his executioners, the social-democratic Brezhnev-Florakis leadership: “On the 1st of August Nikos Zachariadis died from heart attack at the age of 70” (Announcement from the CC of “K”KE). The second one was supported by the overwhelming majority of Greek communists (more than 95%) who rejected at once the version according to which Nikos Zachariadis died from “heart attack”, regarding it as a KGB fabrication, and believed that he was murdered by the Khruschevian revisionists (Soviet and Greek) in Sorgut, Siberia, his place of exile.

B. The third version, of “suicide”, or how the soviet revisionists and the social-democratic clique of Florakis-Tsolakis-Koukoulou et al. contradict themselves

Seventeen years after the initial “announcement” of the Soviet authorities, Alexander Petrushin, a KGB Colonel, sent a note to the newspaper “Tiumenski Izvestia” in which he contradicted the original version and presented a third one, that of “suicide”: “the General Secretary of the CC of KKE, Nikos Zachariadis, did not die from heart attack, as it has been known until now, but he committed suicide by hanging himself on the 1st of August of 1973 in Sorgut, Siberia, where he was in exile under the name of Nikolai Nikolayevich Nikolayev” (“Rizospastis”, 9/12/1990).

It is obvious that these two versions of Nikos Zachariadis’s death, the one of “heart attack” and the other of “suicide”, are mutually exclusive and, therefore, false.

The treacherous social-democratic cliques of Brezhnev-Florakis, the actual executioners of Nikos Zachariadis, flatly contradict themselves. When were they telling the truth, in 1973 or in 1990? In both cases they were, obviously, lying in order to cover the crime they committed, that is, the murder of Nikos Zachariadis, a crime that even the Nazis did not dare to commit.

The Khruschevian revisionists’ second version, the one of “suicide”, is anyway without a basis because: a) communists do not commit suicide and under no circumstances would Nikos Zachariadis, as a communist leader, do such a thing because his philosophical outlook was that of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, i.e. the militant philosophy of revolutionary class struggle and, moreover, he had never advised any communist to kill himself but to fight until the end sacrificing their very life for the interests of the working class, the cause of the proletarian revolution and socialism-communism; b) Nikos Zachariadis “committed suicide” exactly like our people’s hero, the leader of the trade-union association, Dimitris Paparigas whose own murder was presented by the Greek State Security as a suicide committed allegedly using his pyjamas’ cord.

C. The murder of Nikos Zachariadis

The overwhelming majority of Greek communists correctly reckoned, and still reckons, that the Soviet revisionists were the ones who murdered Nikos Zachariadis following an agreement with and a demand from the treacherous clique of Florakis-Loules-Tsolakis-Koukoulou et al. in order to maintain the existence of the social-democratic “K”KE whose presence and action served, on one hand, the foreign policy of the revisionist-capitalist Soviet Union and, on the other, the interests of the indigenous reactionary bourgeois class acting as its agency in the ranks of the Greek working class movement.

It was not a coincidence at all that the heinous crime of Nikos Zachariadis murder was committed on the eve of political “change” in Greece. The Soviet revisionists, due to their collaboration with the American imperialists, were aware that a political “change” is imminent in Greece, namely the replacement of the military-fascist dictatorship by a bourgeois “democratic” government. If the new government wanted to maintain its democratic faηade, it had not only to legalise the revisionist “K”KE but, also, to allow the repatriation of the communist political refugees, the former DAG partisans, from the revisionist countries. However, it was known to both the Greek and Soviet revisionists that the great majority (about 85%-95%) of the Greek communists were staunch supporters of Zachariadis and, upon their return to Greece, would immediately raise the issue of his liberation from exile employing all possible means including daily demonstrations in front of the Soviet embassy and an international campaign. Under such pressure, the Soviet revisionists would be compelled to set him free and let him return to his homeland.

Consequently, under these circumstances that were beyond their control, and aware of the great authority Nikos Zachariadis enjoyed among the Greek communists, the Soviet revisionists of the Brezhnev anticommunist clique decided to murder the great communist leader and former member of the EC of the Third International in accordance with the agreeable opinion and demand of the social-democratic Florakis leadership. The reasons behind this decision were directly linked with the consequences the return of Nikos Zachariadis to Greece would have: a) the inevitable downfall of their instruments in the country, that is the liquidation of the two social-democratic parties “K”KE and “K”KE-in due to great influence he had on Greek communists b) the reorganisation of the communists and the formation of the revolutionary massive KKE, guided by revolutionary Marxism, that is of Leninism-Stalinism, and the concomitant preservation of the antifascist, anti-imperialist EDA party (that was liquidated by the revisionists and replaced by, the harmless to the interests of the bourgeois and the imperialists, PASOK) c) the prospect of a revolutionary KKE in alliance with the socialist Albania would be very dangerous, at that time, to the fate of Kruschevian revisionism in Europe, to the existence and activity of the Soviet and European revisionists.

In addition to the above, what shows that the third version of Nikos Zachariadis death, i.e. the one of his murder, is correct and convincing are the following:

First, the statement-confession made by Stavros Zorbalas, the director of the Centre of Marxist Studies, in 1980: “How could there be a Party (meaning the revisionist “K”KE) if Zachariadis would come to Greece?” (D. Vyssios: “Open letter to Boris Nikolayevich Panomariov, former head of the Department of International Relations of the CC of CPSU) but, also, by Panos Demetriou: “at any rate, only a KGB report can solve the riddle concerning his death” (“Ethnos”, 29/12/1990).

Second, the very important testimony of the journalist Vera Kuznechova in her interview: “I brought G. Mauros (Greek journalist) in contact with competent persons like Zachariadis’s guard and the forensic doctor who, under pressure, wrote falsely in his report that Nikos Zachariadis died from heart attack. When I talked to him, he admitted that he had diagnosed assassination, no heart attack

Third, the statement made by Natalia Tomilina, the director of the Russian State Archives, in the spring of 2000: “Not all evidence pertaining Nikos Zachariadis has been published and, especially, the documents related to the circumstances of his death. These documents have been classified as top secret and no access to them is allowed until they are declassified.” (Lefteris Apostolou “Nikos Zachariades”, p. 15, Filistor, 2000).

But the fundamental question arises here: if the case of Nikos Zachariadis death was drawn to definite close with the establishment of the “suicide” version, why, then, the part of the Archives related to the circumstances of his death is not published? Why the documents about the circumstances of his death are, still, classified as top secret and no access to them is allowed?

It is evident that the anticommunist Khruschevian revisionists and their fascist secret services, even after more than three decades (1973-2006) and despite continuous “editing”, cannot render their Archives plausible as to the second false version of Nikos Zachariadis death, the one of “suicide”.

The above statement of the director of the Russian Archives makes the version of adopted by the exiled Greek communists even more convincing. According to this version Nikos Zachariadis was murdered by the Kruschevian-Brezhnevic leadership having secured the consensus of H. Florakis who “even if he did not ask for this himself”, as the veteran communist Nikandros Kepesis wrote: “at any rate, H. Florakis was the instigator of Nikos Zachariadis’s murder”.
Read More »

Friday, September 21, 2007

TASHKENT September `55 – the beginning of the struggle of all the world communists against Krushchevian revisionism

Nobody could have ever imagined that in the middle of the `50s of the previous century, a small and unknown city was destined to go down in history of the world communist movement as the birthplace of resistance against the Krushchevian revisionism and the beginning of international struggle against this treacherous counter-revolutionary trend; this small city is Tashkent, the capital of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Uzbekistan, “lost” in the depths of Asia, alien for the Greek and world proletariat.

Nobody could have ever imagined that a handful of revolutionaries - members of a Communist Party of a small country - would be the first ones to stand up against Krushchevian revisionism. The party of this small country is the revolutionary KKE and the handful of revolutionaries were the heroic, battle-hardened partisans of the Democratic Army of Greece (DA), members of the Tashkent Party Organisation (KOT) living then in the faraway Asian city as guests of Stalin’s Soviet Union. Their struggle against Krushchevian revisionism passed into the history of the Greek and world communist movement as the “Tashkent events” (September 1955).

Earlier - shortly after the prevalence and strengthening of his treacherous faction in CPSU – as the renegade and agent of imperialism, Nikita Hruchev, was making approaches to the secretaries of the Communist Parties, he found out that the Secretary of KKE, Nikos Zachariades was not willing to abandon the revolutionary Stalinist line. He requested that he revise his attitude in three fundamental questions of the world communist movement: 1) to consider the capitalist Yugoslavia a “socialist” country, 2) to turn against Stalin by writing articles in Pravda on the “cult of personality” - the infamous, Krushchevian myth of idealist origin, and 3) to assent to the liquidation of Comniform. The reply given by the great and unwavering communist leader on all the above requests was negative.

When later the Krushchevian revisionist clique became sure that this kind of pressure will not have any effect, it proceeded with the formation of a faction in the Tashkent Party Organisation, but there a was a lack of support for it save for a few opportunists. The Party leadership unmasked the faction and removed the factionists.

Nikos Zachariades, delivering a speech in a Party cadres meeting in the theatre Mu Ki Mi in Tashkent, said the following among other things: “comrades, several speakers launched an attack on Demetriou and more or less they consider him the head of the revisionists. Demetriou, comrades, is only the end of the tail of a very clumsily camouflaged elephant. The serious and historic duty allotted to all of us is to pull this tail so that the whole world will see the elephant, that is, Hruchev” (K. Karanikola, Mia lefki selida tou KKE, p. 59).

When even the formation of a sizeable faction failed, the Krushchevian revisionist group, employing a few Greek opportunists, organised on the 9th of September 1955 “the open provocation against the delegation of the CC of KKE: the violent and gangster assault on the offices where the delegation was based and injury of three of its members” (5th Plenum, December 1955). On the 9th of September, about 200 opportunists, under the direct guidance of the soviet revisionists, headed by Ipsilantis, Demetriou, Barbalias and others, carried out an assault on the offices of the Tashkent Party Organisation, but they failed to capture them. This act raised an outcry among the thousands of party members who rushed immediately to defend the KOT offices. What followed were violent clashes with the factionists, the police and the army. Many hundreds of Greek communists were arrested and thrown into jail.

At the end of December of `55 (26-28.12 1955) the 5th historic Plenum of the CC of the KKE was convened. It was historic because: 1) it condemned the anti-communist Krushchevian revisionist intervention in KKE and 2) it was the last convened body of our heroic party before its final liquidation.

Next year, in the middle of February 1956, during the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the show trials of the Greek communists began in Tashkent. In this travesty of justice, battle-hardened DA veterans, like Giorgos Kalianesis (general), Demetres Vyssios (lieutenant-kernel) and others, were tried for hooliganism and vagrancy. Following their convictions, they were exiled to Siberia and, in fact, into concentration camps “that were intentionally adjacent to concentration camps of German war criminals sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment, the maximum period according to the Soviet criminal law. The Germans didn’t work because of their ‘prisoner of war’ status, and, apart from having the meals of a Soviet soldier, they received parcels of medicine and foodstuffs by the West German Red Cross every ten days. The sentenced refugees were fed with rotten potatoes and mouldy crushed grain. This “diet” was followed under conditions of heavy and exhausting labour” (D. Vyssios: “Open letter to M. N. Panomariof, former Head of the Department of International Relations of the CC of CPSU, January 1991).

The opposition of the Greek communists to Krushchevian revisionism was expressed en masse. The overwhelming majority (95%) of the members of the Tashkent Party Organisation came out against the Krushchevian intervention in KKE and defended the revolutionary party line and the CC headed by Nikos Zachariades showing a stunning decisiveness and unparallel courage. The opposition of the captive communists in jails and concentration camps was similar.

It was exactly this overwhelming opposition by the Greek communists (ranging from 85% to 95% in Tashkent and in the People’s Republics) that prevented KKE from being transformed into a bourgeois party of social democratic type.

When, a few months later, the renegade Hruchev set up the infamous “International Committee”, Nikos Zachariades, addressing its “president” Georgiu Dez, said the following regarding his interference in KKE internal affairs: “who granted the right to examine the problems of heroic KKE to you, who slept in August of 1944 under fascism and woke up next day under People’s Republic, brought by the Red tankists from Stalingrad when they crashed the fascist Romanian Division and offered it to you as a present. What experience do you have to judge the struggle of Greek communists who, to their credit, through their struggle, did not allow not even a single Greek citizen to fight in the Eastern Front against USSR” (K.Karanikola, p. 70-71).

The revolutionary KKE is the only communist party of a capitalist country that was never transformed into a counter-revolutionary, bourgeois, social democratic party. This fact compelled the Krushchevian revisionists to create a completely new party that replaced the old liquidated one. They summoned an illicit party body, the so-called “6th Plenum”, that decreed the arbitrary removal of the lawfully elected Party’s leadership, the arrest of Nikos Zachariades and massive expulsions of dissident members. In ideological-political level, the 6th Plenum adopted the counter revolutionary, social democratic line of the 20th Congress (“peaceful” transition to socialism, etc). The new party took the false name of “K”KE (shamelessly usurping the name of the revolutionary KKE) and it has been, from the very beginning, a bourgeois social democratic party that bears no relation whatsoever with the revolutionary KKE because the latter was guided by the revolutionary Marxism, i.e. Leninism-Stalinism, while the former - by the counter-revolutionary trend of Krushchevian revisionism, a variant of bourgeois ideology.

The overwhelming and militant opposition of the Greek communist political refugees, headed by Nikos Zachariades against the Krushchevian clique in September 1955 in Tashkent, was chronologically the first in the history of the international communist movement’s struggle against Krushchevian revisionism, and, also, a culmination of the revolutionary KKE (1918-1955) heroic struggle. If one takes into account the unheard-of disaster that inevitably followed the enforcement of Krushchevian revisionism to the communist parties (destruction of socialism and restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, breaking-up of the capitalist Soviet Union, liquidation of the communist parties), it can be said that it was not just a culmination of the long struggle of the stalinist-zachariadist KKE, but was at the same time a great and unique moment in the struggle of the international communist movement (Komintern-Komniform) against the new counter-revolutionary treacherous trend of Krushchevian revisionism which emerged in its lines in the mid-1950s: it was precisely this moment that marked the beginning of the most fierce ideological-political struggle against Krushchevian revisionism in international level, a struggle that has been going on for half a century now, is still going on and it will be going on in the future until its final victory.

From the above, it becomes obvious that the “Tashkent events” of 1955 assume a triple historical importance:

First, they constituted the first open and brutal intervention of the Krushchevian revisionists in KKE internal affairs aiming at its liquidation.

Second, they marked the beginning of the resistance and struggle of the Greek communists against Krushchevian revisionism before its emergence as a complete ideological-political trend in the 20th Congress of CPSU (February 1956).

Third, they raised the banner of struggle of the communists of all countries against this counter-revolutionary trend. The rising and battle of the Greek communists in Tashkent, in September of 1955, ushers in the period of struggle against Krushchevian revisionism on international level.

But what is the reason for the resolute opposition of the Greek communist political refugees (95% in Tashkent and 85-90% in the other People’s Republics) against Krushchevian revisionism, of people who had been brought up in a spirit of deep trust and devotion to the Socialist Soviet Union?

First of all, it is the guiding and decisive role played, in this extremely difficult struggle, by the courageous, unyielding and uncompromising revolutionary Nikos Zachariades, in order KKE not to abandon its revolutionary line. Besides his opposition to the Krushchevian group, in the beginning of 1956, he replied thus to some Greek revisionists, members of the CC of KKE, when they asked him to resign: “I won’t grant you this favour now, I won’t allow you to convert KKE into a bourgeois party” (D. Votsika: Portreta koryfeon stelexon tou KKE”, Athens 1999, p.21)

Secondly, it is the fact that the members of KKE were battle-hardened partisans who had given everything to the armed revolutionary struggle against the indigenous monarchist-fascist reactionary forces and the imperialism, having almost a decade (1940-1950) of armed struggle to their credit. This long revolutionary experience helped them to show the necessary political-ideological maturity, firmness, consistency and decisiveness in this critical moment.

Comrade Nikos Zachariades had predicted the disaster that would come in case Krushchevian revisionism dominated, and it is this prediction that allows for his historical eminence as a great communist revolutionary leader to be assessed: “watch out comrades, these are international provocateurs, they are going to cause a great damage to the world’s communist movement and their Greek collaborators will cause great damage to our country” (Tashkent, September 1955).

Not only did he predict the disaster, but he was the first in the world’s communist movement who stood up and fought against the counter-revolutionary trend of Krushchevian revisionism, a fight for which he paid with 17 years of exile and finally with his own life: he was murdered by the treacherous social-democratic clique of Brezhnev-Florakis in August of 1973 in Sorgut, Siberia, the place of his exile.

Thus, without a doubt, Nikos Zachariades, through his revolutionary struggle, rises to eminence as a giant revolutionary, Bolshevik and great communist leader, as “one of the most important figures of the world’s communist movement” (Niyazof, Tashkent 1955) and remains until the end of his life a devoted disciple of Joseph Stalin who, during the proceedings of the 19th Congress of CPSU (1952), had said about him: “Do you see this one? He is a great leader. He will start the revolution not only in Greece but also in Europe” (P. Demetriou, “Ek vatheon”, Athens 1997, p. 202-203).

The revisionist group of Hruchev-Brezhnev quite naturally saw him as a serious, capable, powerful and very dangerous ideological-political opponent whom therefore they had to forcefully remove from the leadership of KKE at all costs, and to destroy politically and physically; so dangerous was he considered, that one of Hruchev’s fervent supporters, the French poet Louis Aragon, saw fit to mention him in his two-volume “History of the Soviet Union”: “The charge for personality cult resulted in the removal of Nikos Zachariades from his post as General Secretary of KKE” (L. Aragon, “History of the Soviet Union”, v. 2, p. 268, Athens 1963).

Read More »

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Incendies : qui est responsable ?

Incendies : qui est responsable ?

L’Organisation pour la Reconstructrion du Parti Communiste de Grèce nous livre son analyse.

“Cet été, la Grèce a connu le plus grand désastre écologique de son histoire moderne. Depuis juin, plus de 3 000 incendies ont eu lieu, avec comme résultat des milliers d'hectares de forêts brûlés et la mort de 78 personnes.

Les feux qui ont pris dans tous les coins du pays durant les dix derniers jours d’août furent le point culminant de cette tragédie écologique : pour ces seuls dix jours, ce sont 300 000 hectares de forêt et de terres agricoles qui ont brûlé.

Les conséquences de ces incendies désastreux ne sont pas seulement écologiques. Le nombre de morts durant les derniers incendies s’élève à 67. En tout, plus de 120 villages ont été entièrement détruits, et beaucoup de personnes sont aujourd’hui à la rue. Cela donne une idée du bilan du désastre qui, selon les estimations, s’élève à 350 000 hectares de terres arables brûlés et 80 000 animaux morts. Des milliers de familles vont avoir de grandes difficultés à survivre, car la majorité de la population des zones sinistrées vivent de l’agriculture.

Le gouvernement, terrifié par l’extension des destructions et sa propre incapacité à gérer la crise, a tenté de masquer sa responsabilité en répandant la rumeur attribuant les incendies à des terroristes. Cette hideuse affirmation devint plus tard une partie de la thèse officielle sur les causes des incendies. Le gouvernement a dit que le pays était actuellement face à une “assymetric threat” (menace inégale), usant volontairement de l’expression utilisée par l’impérialisme américain pour se référer à un acte terroriste. Les militants se réclamant de certaines idéologies comme l’anarchisme, ou affiliés à certains partis politiques, ont été désignés comme les principaux suspects. Tout cela montre l’objectif du gouvernement qui est de démarrer une chasse aux sorcières et de procéder à une série de persécutions fascistes. Cependant, toutes leurs tentatives pour créer une situation de terreur hystérique n’aboutirent pas du fait d’un total manque de preuves pour accréditer leurs affirmations.

L’attitude des révisionnistes du Parti communiste de Grèce est tout à fait révélatrice de sa réticence à pointer la part de responsabilité du gouvernement, tout en parlant en même temps des “responsabilités historiques” prises par les précédents gouvernements et en adoptant la thèse selon que les incendies font partie d’un plan organisé, malgré l’absence de preuves. De fait, le PCG essaie, un fois de plus, de couvrir la responsabilité de l’aile droite du gouvernement, comme cela a déjà été le cas par le passé.

Le Mouvement pour la Reconstruction du Parti Communiste de Grèce 1918-1955 est convaincu que le gouvernement est seul responsable de l’ampleur des destructions.

C’est un gouvernement qui n’a pris aucune mesure pour la prévention des incendies et la protection des forêts. Bien plus, le manque d’équipement et de personnel dans les brigades de pompiers ont joué un rôle décisif. Malgré l’énorme taux de chômage dans notre pays, il manque près de 3 000 postes dans ces brigades. Mais ce qui a encore augmenté l’ampleur du désastre, c’est l’absence totale de coordination entre les unités et les services civils en charge d’éteindre les feux. Pour toutes ces raisons, le gouvernement est le premier responsable.

L’irresponsabilité de l’Etat bourgeois qui encourage les incendiaires est aussi à blâmer. L’absence d’une politique planifiée de prévention des incendies, ainsi que les changements répétés du statut des forêts et des tentatives de réviser l’article 24 de la constitution réglementant la protection des forêts, ont aiguisé les appétits du capital. L’Etat bourgeois place les profits au-dessus des hommes et de la nature… stoppons-le !” H
Read More »

Wer ist verantwortlich für die Waldbrandkatastrophe in Griechenland?

Eine Erklärung der Bewegung für die Wiedergründung der KP Griechenlands 1918-1955 (Anasintaxi)

In diesem Sommer hat Griechenland das größte ökologische Desaster in seiner modernen Geschichte erlebt. Seit Juni sind über 3.000 Waldbrände ausgebrochen, tausende Hektar fruchtbares Land wurden verbrannt, 78 Menschen starben.

Die Waldbrände, die in fast jedem Winkel des Landes in den letzten zehn Tagen des August ausbrachen, waren der Höhepunkt dieser Umwelttragödie. Danach waren 3.000.000 Hektar Wald und fruchtbares Land verbrannt, jungfräulicher Forst zerstört.

Die Folgen der verheerenden Brände sind nicht nur ökologischer Art. 67 Menschen wurden allein in den letzten Waldbränden getötet. Außerdem wurden über 120 Dörfer vollkommen zerstört. Die Menschen standen buchstäblich auf der Strasse. Es ist bezeichnend für das Ausmass der Katastrophe, dass schätzungsweise 350.000 Hektar fruchtbares Land verbrannt wurden und 80.000 Tiere verschwanden. Tausende von Familien werden hart um ihr Überleben kämpfen müssen, denn in den betroffenen Gebieten lebt die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung von der Landwirtschaft und Viehzucht.

Erschreckt durch das Ausmass der Zerstörung und ihre eigene Unfähigkeit, die Krise zu meistern, hat die Regierung das Gerücht verbreitet, dass die Brände von Terroristen gelegt worden seien. Sie hat so versucht, von ihrer eigenen Verantwortung abzulenken. Diese widerliche Behauptung wurde später Bestandteil der offiziellen Regierungserklärungen über die Gründe für die verheerenden Brände. Hohe Regierungsbeamte erklärten, das Land stehe vor einer akuten „asymmetrischen Bedrohung“. Sie benutzten damit absichtlich den Begriff, den die amerikanischen Imperialisten benutzen, wenn sie sich auf einen terroristischen Akt beziehen. Menschen und politische Parteien, die bestimmten Ideologien wie z.B. dem Anarchismus nahe stehen, wurden als Hauptverdächtige für die behaupteten terroristischen Akte benannt. All das zeigt, dass die Regierung mit einer Hexenjagd beginnen will um dann zu einer Reihe von faschistischen Verfolgungen überzugehen. Aber alle ihre Versuche, eine Terror-Hysterie zu erzeugen, scheiterten, weil es auch nicht den Schimmer eines Beweises für ihre Behauptungen gab.

Die Haltung der revisionistischen so genannten Kommunistischen Partei Griechenlands ist ziemlich entlarvend, weil sie zögert, die Verantwortung der Regierung anzuerkennen und gleichzeitig über die „lange Jahre zurückliegenden Verantwortlichkeiten“ aller früheren Regierungen redet. Außerdem sympathisiert sie mit der Meinung, dass die Brände nach einem organisierten Plan gelegt worden seien, obwohl es dafür keinerlei Beweis gibt. Auf diese Weise versucht die sogenannte KP Griechenlands die Verantwortlichkeiten der rechten Regierung zu vertuschen – so, wie sie es in der Vergangenheit schon häufiger getan hat.

Die Bewegung für die Wiedergründung der KP Griechenlands 1918-1955 meint, dass die Regierung allein für das Ausmass der Zerstörung verantwortlich ist. Sie ist eine Regierung, die überhaupt keine vorbeugenden Massnahmen gegen die Brände und für den Schutz der Wälder ergriffen hat. Mehr noch. Für das Ausmass der Zerstörungen spielten die Kürzungen an Ausrüstungen und Fachkräften bei den Feuerwehren eine entscheidende Rolle. Trotz der immer weiter anwachsenden Arbeitslosigkeit in unserem Land, wurde das Personal der Feuerwehren um fast 3.000 Personen gekürzt. Aber was das Ausmass des Desasters noch vergrößert hat, war das totale Fehlen jeder Koordination zwischen den verschiedenen Einsatzkräften. Für all das trägt die Regierung die Hauptverantwortung.

Getadelt werden muss auch die unverantwortliche Haltung des bürgerlichen Staates, die die Brandstifter ermutigt hat. Das Fehlen einer planmäßigen Politik der Brandprävention, die wiederholten Veränderungen des Rechtsstatus bewaldeten Landes und der Versuch, den Artikel 24 der Verfassung zu ändern, der den Schutz der Wälder vorsieht – all das hat den Appetit des Kapitals angeregt. Der bürgerliche Staat stellt den Profit über die Menschen und die Natur – lasst ihn uns stoppen!
September 2007
Read More »

About the fires in Greece

This summer Greece went through the greatest ecological disaster in its modern history. Since June, more than 3000 fires have broken out and as a result thousands of hectares of green land were scorched and 78 people died.

The fires that broke out in almost every corner of the country during the last 10 days of August were the culmination of this environmental tragedy. The aftermath was the scorching of 3,000,000 hectares of forest and arable land and the destruction of virgin forests.

The consequences of the disastrous fires are not only ecological. The number of dead from the last fires has reached 67. In addition, more than 120 villages have been totally devastated leaving many people on the streets. It is indicative of the scale of the disaster that, according to estimates, 350,000 hectares of arable land were scorched and 80,000 animals perished. As a result, thousands of families will have to fight hard for their survival since the majority of the population in the afflicted areas lived from agriculture and husbandry.

The government, terrified by the extent of the devastation and its own inability to handle the crisis, made an attempt to cover up its responsibility by spreading the rumour that the fires had been the work of terrorists. This hideous claim later became part of the official governmental statements on the causes of the disastrous fires. Top government officials said that the country is actually facing an “asymmetric threat”, not accidentally adopting the term which the American imperialists use when they refer to a terrorist act. People affiliated with certain ideologies, such as anarchism, as well as political parties were pointed as primary suspects for these alleged terrorist acts. All this shows the government’s aim to start a witch hunt and to proceed to a series of fascist persecutions. However, all their attempts to create a situation of terror-hysteria came to nothing due to the complete lack of any evidence that could back up their claims.

The attitude of the revisionist so called “C”P of Greece, is quite revealing because of its reluctance to acknowledge the government’s share of responsibility while talking, at the same time, about the “perennial responsibilities” held by all the previous governments and embracing the opinion that the fires broke out on the basis of an organised plan despite the lack of evidence. In this way, “C”PG is trying, once more, to cover up the responsibilities of the right-wing government, as it has done in many cases in the past.

The Movement for the Reorganisation of the CP of Greece 1918-1955 believes that the government itself is solely responsible for the size of the destruction. It is a government that has not taken any measure for the prevention of fires and the protection of forests. Moreover, the shortages of equipment and staff in the fire brigade played a decisive role. Despite the ever increasing unemployment in our country, the fire brigade’s shortages in personnel reach almost 3000. But what augmented the scale of the disaster, was the total absence of coordination between the units and civil services in charge of putting out the fires. For all this, the government bears the prime responsibility.

The irresponsibility of the bourgeois state that essentially encourages the arsonists is also to blame. The want of a planned policy of fire prevention accompanied by the repeated changes of status of forest land and the attempt to revise the article 24 of the Constitution that provides for the protection of the forests, have whetted the capital’s appetite. The bourgeois state places profits above men and nature…let’s stop it!

September 2007
Read More »