INVESTIGATOR: Who was in charge of the police personnel assigned to the meeting?
GENERAL: I cannot answer that question. As Inspector General of Police, I was not on duty that night. I am unable to tell you who was in charge.
INVESTIGATOR: I have here a copy of an order putting the Assistant Chief of Police in charge. But the Chief was also present at the meeting. Who then was actually in charge? The Chief or the Assistant Chief?
GENERAL: Insofar as the order was not rescinded by a new order from the Chief of Police himself, the Assistant Chief was responsible for maintaining order at the meeting, though this does not exclude the more general responsibility of the Chief as defined in police regulations, quite independent of his presence at the scene.
INVESTIGATOR: How could the order have been rescinded?
GENERAL: By a written or verbal order from the Chief of Police.
INVESTIGATOR: In view of the fact that the Chief of Police had not assumed full responsibility for maintaining order at the meeting, how do you account for his presence from the beginning to the end of it?
GENERAL: Indoor meetings, and such was the case that evening, are as a rule entrusted to the supervision of the Security Police and of the neighborhood precinct. Ordinarily a small police detachment is used. But I happen to know that when his duties leave him time the Chief of Police likes to look in on these meetings to appraise the situation. That is what happened on the evening of May 22. This does not justify the conclusion that the Chief of Police assumed responsibility for the maintenance of order. It is perfectly natural that he should have stayed all through the meeting, especially as a counterdemonstration had started.
INVESTIGATOR: If the situation is as you seem to describe it and this kind of meeting is ordinarily the sole responsibility of the precinct police station, how do you account for the fact that, pursuant to Order No. 39/25/8712, police headquarters alerted the following for the night in question:
1. Two captains of gendarmerie and forty privates of the First District of gendarmerie;
2. The full strength of the Second Police Precinct;
3. One captain, two lieutenants, and twenty privates of the Third District of gendarmerie;
4. The entire First Company of the Fourth Battalion of gendarmes.
GENERAL: As you must know, the owner of the Catacomb Club had definitely refused to rent his hall to the Friends of Peace. In view of Z.’s impulsive nature, it was to be expected that he would hold the meeting in the open air in defiance of the government’s prohibition. I presume that it was because of this eventuality, and in order to be able to break up any resultant demonstration, that such a large force was alerted.
There was a knock at the door. It was the General’s lawyer. The General took heart. Until then he had sat as though riveted to his chair. Now he relaxed and loosened his belt. The lawyer tapped on his briefcase to indicate that it contained an important document. The General asked permission to take the glass of water that was on the desk, put in an Alka-Seltzer, and drank the effervescent liquid in one gulp.
INVESTIGATOR: Let us recapitulate. You go to the meeting to pick up the Chief of Police. Once there, you decide it is your duty to stay and to give up the Bolshoi Ballet. So far so good. But how is it that your sense of duty did not impel you to find out who was responsible for maintaining order on this occasion?
GENERAL: I saw the Chief of Police giving orders to several officers with a view to barring the counterdemonstrators from the scene. On the other hand, the Assistant Chief of Police was not inactive; he too gave the necessary orders to his subordinates.
INVESTIGATOR: How is it possible that you have made no attempt, up to the present time, to find out who was in charge that night!
GENERAL: If I had been on duty, I would be able to answer your question. I was present as a mere observer.
INVESTIGATOR: And as a mere observer what did you observe?
GENERAL: To my astonishment I heard the Assistant Chief of Police declare that he was no longer in charge since the Chief of Police was present—though the latter had not countermanded his order. I believe he was acting in good faith but had misinterpreted the regulations. Objectively speaking, the presence of the Chief of Police at the scene of the meeting did not signify automatically that he assumed full responsibility for the maintenance of order.
INVESTIGATOR: In short, the Chief of Police was not objectively responsible, and the Assistant Chief—subjectively—did not regard himself as responsible either. Consequently, on the night of May 22 the police personnel at the scene were without a responsible commander. I should like to know what you did in the face of such a situation.
GENERAL: It was not until much later that I found out, in the course of a chat with the Assistant Chief, that he had not considered himself in charge. Moreover, I wish to repeat, I was in a position to observe on the spot that the Assistant Chief was not inactive, nor was the Chief or any other member of the police force. At no time did I observe the slightest passivity on the part of the police. Consequently, there is no justification for your assertion that the police force was without a commander. All the officers present were on the move, trying to ward off disaster.
INVESTIGATOR: Z. was wounded the moment he arrived, Pirouchas was also attacked; more and more counterdemonstrators were gathering, throwing stones, shouting, attacking the pacifists. In view of your wide experience in this field, did all this not strike you as symptomatic of an extremely serious situation?
GENERAL: If the situation had struck me as extremely serious, it would have been my duty, in line with article 9 of the Police Code, to assume personal responsibility for the maintenance of order. But symptoms such as you have listed are usual in demonstrations of this kind. To characterize the situation as extremely serious, I should have had to know that Pirouchas was going to be gravely wounded and that Z.’s injuries were fatal. But how could this have been foreseen? I own that I have seldom seen Red Cross ambulances attacked. I remember only a single instance of that kind, during the Civil War. I add that if I myself had been at the corner of Spandoni Street and if I had seen the pickup van start up, I should not have got out of the way. How could anyone have guessed any criminal intent? Such methods of political assassination are inconceivable at a time when man is preparing to conquer the moon and the depths of the ocean.
INVESTIGATOR: I am of the same opinion.
GENERAL: Consequently, if I had assumed responsibility for preserving order, I should have done no more than the Chief of Police.
INVESTIGATOR: Many persons believe, on the contrary, that if you, with your uncontested authority and wide experience, had been at the head of the police force, the meeting would not have had a tragic outcome.
GENERAL: That is not so. Flattered as I am by your remark, I must tell you in deference to the truth that experience depends chiefly on years of service. The Chief of Police has served five years longer than I. His experience is therefore greater. He has always been regarded as a magnificent officer; that is just what he is, even if he lost a battle that night. Moreover, he has great authority.
INVESTIGATOR: Were the motorized units of the police mobilized on the occasion of the meeting?
GENERAL: I do not remember.
INVESTIGATOR: When Z. was run over, did any member of the police force start in pursuit of the guilty party?
GENERAL: It was reported to me that several started in pursuit of the van, but who they were and where they went I do not know.
INVESTIGATOR: Did you know Yango before the crime?
GENERAL: It is highly probable that I had seen him, and not just his picture on his papers. I had done the man a favor. In this connection I wish to point out that I have always taken a broad view of my duties: I have always tried to help those in need. I can go so far as to say that my name has become an object of wide popular affection. In doing favors I have not concerned myself with the political opinions of the beneficiaries. I have helped leftists in the hope of bringing them back
to the right path; I have taken an interest in them, of which they were certainly not worthy, so proving that the state, one of whose most active forces I represent, looks with sympathy and understanding upon all its needy citizens.
INVESTIGATOR: Was Yango a member of the forces entrusted with the protection of General de Gaulle?
GENERAL: That is possible. We made use of all volunteers on condition that they were authentic anti-Communists.
INVESTIGATOR: And to reward them you treated them to a sumptuous dinner at the Aretsou Restaurant?
GENERAL: That is absolutely untrue; that dinner never took place. Yango boasted about it to make people think he was on friendly terms with a man holding a high position in our society and government.
INVESTIGATOR: And Autocratosaur?
GENERAL: Four years ago a National Resistance organization invited me to partake of an Epiphany cake with them. I thought it my duty to accept, because the gathering was held in Toumba, which, as you know, is a poor neighborhood where the Communists have a certain strength. Autocratosaur gained my sympathies by introducing himself as a captain in the National Resistance, of which I was a leader during the Occupation. Later he sent me a copy of his magazine Expansion of the Hellenes! It struck me as shamefully pro-German I ordered an investigation into his past and found out that he had been an officer in the Hitlerite militia of Poulos, which I fought throughout the war. He called on me several times at my office. Good manners forbade me to send him away, but my attitude toward him became increasingly cool.
INVESTIGATOR: Did you notice that stones were thrown at the building during the meeting?
GENERAL: No. I did not hear of that for several days, perhaps more. I then learned that paving blocks had been used.
INVESTIGATOR: According to your statements, the loudspeakers were perfectly audible. When Z. asked for protection from the authorities, calling on you by name, what was your reaction?
GENERAL: I was never notified of any such request. Moreover, I am convinced that it was never made. Knowing how brave and proud Z. was, I do not believe he would ever have uttered such an appeal even if he knew his life was in danger.
INVESTIGATOR: In your opinion, were the slogans broadcast over the loudspeaker sufficiently seditious to provoke a counter-demonstration?
GENERAL: The slogans were more than seditious. However, the counterdemonstrators may have assembled by previous plan or at the instigation of others.
INVESTIGATOR: Who could those “others” have been?
GENERAL: I cannot answer that question. I have no way of knowing.
INVESTIGATOR: Could orders have been issued by the various sections of the Security Police?
GENERAL: I do not know. Those are administrative questions that do not concern me. But it strikes me as impossible.
INVESTIGATOR: How do you account for the fact that press photographs show two plain-clothes men among the counter-demonstrators, shaking their fists at the Friends of Peace and threatening them?
GENERAL: In my opinion those policemen are guilty of a serious breach of regulations and acted on their own initiative. I cannot imagine that any of their superiors would have ordered them to behave in such a manner and to make themselves ridiculous.
INVESTIGATOR: Did you observe the presence of Mastodontosaur?
GENERAL: Yes, I saw him in plain clothes. But I don’t recall having spoken to him.
INVESTIGATOR: Was he on duty?
GENERAL: I don’t know.
INVESTIGATOR: In any case, his name is not on the list of officers mobilized for the demonstration. Why was he present?
GENERAL: He was free to go where he pleased if he deemed it proper to his functions.
INVESTIGATOR: What “functions”?
GENERAL: Information and the surveillance of persons.
INVESTIGATOR: One last question, General. I have fatigued you, but this interrogation was necessary. What is your explanation for all these events?
GENERAL: I am glad you have asked me that question. For many years I have taken an interest in astrological phenomena, and by studying the movements of the planets I have been able to predict events. A month before the events in question, taking the date of the reestablishment of the State of Israel as my point of departure, I noted certain troubling coincidences between a statement by Ben-Gurion about Christ and another statement by Khrushchev about the destruction of the Acropolis in case of nuclear conflict. These two facts between which I established a connection pointed to an offensive against Hellenic-Christian civilization. Under the influence of a conjunction of Aries and Saturn, and of planetary magnetism, a meeting was to take place in Salonika. I simply had to multiply the aforementioned date by 7 and divide the product by the age of the Virgin Mary and I saw the figure 22 rising from the depths of the sea. Then I connected the midpoint of the moon with the upper right-hand corner of the Great Bear to obtain the fateful number 10. Q.E.D. The event I had predicted did indeed occur at ten o’clock on the evening of May 22.
And, radiating bliss, the General rose. His lawyer sprang up with him, and they both left. Outside, reporters were waiting for them. The investigation had lasted seven hours. They were hungry for news. But the General and his lawyer went past them without uttering a word.
Night had slung its noose around the bay. Groups of peasants brandished posters bearing slogans in favor of the General. With a military gesture, he ordered them to disperse. Fireworks burst in the sky from the direction of the International Fair. At that very moment the most famous Greek stars were emerging from the National Theater, where the annual film festival sponsored by the Fair was being held. The General and his lawyer proceeded to the café, where the Chief of Police was waiting. When they were seated, the Chief asked what had happened. The General ordered a double cognac. They discussed their line of defense. Tomorrow was the Chief’s turn and their statements must coincide.
“Let’s get out of here,” said the General. “We shouldn’t be too conspicuous.”
The flash of a camera lit up the interior of the café. The Chief jumped to his feet and sprang toward the photographer, but the photographer had already disappeared into the night. The Chief ran outside, looking for him in the labyrinth of streets that twisted through the deserted neighborhood. Now and then the camera would flash, blinding the night with its glare and turning the silent buildings into visions of horror. The Chief searched frantically for the lightning, but never even found the thunder. Breathless, he returned to the café.
All night long, the anguished General tossed in his bed. The face of the Investigator caused him to shake, as if he’d received an electric shock. He was obsessed by the dark glasses behind which the Investigator hid his eyes. The General knew that such glasses are worn only by those who have something to hide, who are cowardly and full of complexes. What infirmity was the Investigator concealing? What was his Achilles’ heel? All night he felt torn by the hook he had swallowed. But he still did not suspect that in three days he’d be on his way to jail.
Chapter 2
The Chief of Police knew the one thing he lacked—in contrast to the General—was flexibility. The General was an eel; he himself, a squid. And the squid betrays itself by a film of ink. By the time he reached the Investigator, he had already developed an ulcer. For the first time he felt the absence of a faithful female friend. Such a sentiment had never before troubled his bachelor existence. But during the past days his loneliness had become intolerable. At last he appeared before the Investigator. Upon his arrival he was infuriated by a photographer who took a picture of him. Thinking it was the one who’d annoyed him the night before, he rushed at him, snatched his camera, and presented it to the Public Prosecutor, demanding that the film be confiscated because he’d been photographed without permission. “If I am judged and put in custody,” he stressed, “then print whatever photographs you like. Till then, however, not a single one; do you hear that, not one!” The thought that he might be found guilty made him shudder. He felt like an executi
oner who, put to death one fine day by another executioner, suddenly realizes what tortures his own victims have gone through.
The charges against him were about the same as those against the General. Five typewritten pages. He denied them all. Before beginning to set forth the circumstances, according to his lights, he stated that “he had completed his thirty-sixth year of service in the Police Corps, during which time he had performed his duty faithfully and scrupulously; but his chief ground for satisfaction was not so much the highly favorable reports of his superiors on each occasion, as the recognition of his work by society as a whole.” And he continued:
“Certainly, the unexpected incidents of the twenty-second of May filled me with bitterness, but the expressions of sympathy and consolation which I received from all sides more than compensated for this. Throughout my long years of service, I have always held key positions. I have had to confront many difficult situations, all of which I have dealt with successfully. I have faced massive political demonstrations or demonstrations of workers or students, and always by persuasion and by my own methodical measures I have managed to achieve the orderly disbanding of these meetings, without violence, ‘without causing one nose to bleed.’ It is doubtless thanks to these tactics dictated by my personal philosophy that I have been able to win the affection of all sections of society regardless of political convictions.”
With this, he proceeded to come to the point. He related the circumstances as they had occurred: the refusal of Zoumbos to rent the meeting hall, the visit to his office of the Peace Committee and of Z. himself, the technical difficulty presented by the Catacomb auditorium, the phone calls from Matsas, the order for the reserve force, the news of a counterdemonstration—the point at which he had decided to go and see what was happening himself. It was about 8:30 when he arrived. Over the loudspeaker he could hear the “Communist-inspired” slogans: “Close down the death bases! Down with Polaris! Peace! Amnesty!” and the answering shouts from the counterdemonstrators: “Butchers, have your peace! Bulgars! EDA in Bulgaria!” He saw the pacifists, who from windows and balconies hurled insults at the people massed below: “Informers, sell-outs, collaborators!” He saw the people in the street answer with bricks and paving stones; he felt that “the situation did not appear dangerous enough to require violent measures for the disbanding of the counterdemonstrators. There was nothing in particular to distinguish it from other similar meetings. As a precaution, however, he called for reinforcements, because even though the situation seemed well in hand, there was no telling what turn it might take.
Z, 50th Anniversary Edition Page 29
