The Guardian link doesn't provide much on the way of answers to anything; a little economic narrative strung together by a lot of snide name-calling. When the article starts off with stuff like "elites all across the western world were gripped by austerity fever, a strange malady that combined extravagant fear with blithe optimism", you know you're not going to be getting an objective analysis.
It doesn't mention the relative size of the Greek bureaucracy - it certainly doesn't outline any alternative path Greece may have chosen.
Fundamentally, Greece was always going to fail, no matter what happened. It's economy isn't depressed because it just happens to be in the "bust" of a boom-bust cycle - it's been driven into the ground by entrenched, endemic over-spending. Throw all the money you want at it, it's not going to recover until the systemic issues have been addressed.
Even Keynesians agree that you can't keep spending into deficit eternally - at some point, you have to reduce debt, even if its just so you have some credit left for the next down-turn. Sure you can run deficits during the lean years, but during the good years, you need to reign it in. Incidentally, this is the problem we have in Australia - unlike the rest of the world, we've been booming economically, thanks to our mining and China's consumption. But the politicians have kept running deficit budgets, because spending money wins votes, and "austerity" (that is, stopping the bread and circuses) doesn't.
Keynesians stimulus is supposed to be a short-run thing to counter the natural economic cycles of a healthy economy - a one-time shot-in-the-arm to get the economy back up and running quicker than it would otherwise. If the economy wouldn't naturally recover, throwing more money at it isn't going to help. Greece has to reform it's public spending, or it will crash - either by running out of money, if it stays in the Eurozone, or reverting to the drachma, and continually devaluing it to service its debts.
Remember, not all public servants are equal. Privatization will cut the count of "public servants", but can actually increase the cost of the service for a net loss to the economy.
What unique services was Greece's government offering that justified a 700% greater headcount that comparable countries? They could cut half positions without removing services, and they'd still have services staffed by three times as many people as we have here (although I realise privatisation of some services was a requirement of the IMF).