Notes On The Historiography of The Legion FINAL VERSION 06-24-2020 CLIO

Clio în doliu:
Reflections on Some Issues Regarding the History and Historiography

of the “Archangel Michael” Legion1
Eugen Costa Beşeneanţu Boia
“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it,

so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late;
the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect . . .”
(Jonathan Swift [1667–1745])2
“This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
(The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance [1962])
Abstract
A deplorable situation exists in the literature on Legionarism. A series of distortions of
historical facts have been perpetrated and perpetuated in published works, whether
directly on the Legionary Movement or indirectly covering the overall interwar scene in
Romania and Europe or on “generic fascism”. This is especially the case in the new
genre of information, the cyber media (the internet) on this subject. This essay attempts
to shed some light on the historical facts related to the subject of Legionarism and at
least in part clarify the historical record by analyzing some of these sources in question.
Keywords: “Archangel Michael” Legion (Legiunea “Arhanghelul Mihail”), Legionarism, Iron
Guard (Garda de Fier), Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Liga Apărării Naţional-Creştine (LANC),
Romania, European fascism, historiography
Prologue
The above quotations from the seventeenth century Anglo-Irish writer Jonathan Swift (1667-
1745) and from the great 1962 western film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance aptly reflect the
1
“Clio în doliu” [“Clio in mourning”]: reference to Clio, the muse of history, one of the nine muses of the
arts in ancient Greek mythology. The sources used for this work represent but a small sample of studies
on the history of the Legionary Movement available in print and the cyber media (the internet), reflecting
the issues analyzed in this essay. Moreover, many of these sources contain additional factual inaccuracies
and questionable interpretations which are not the focus of, and thus not highlighted in, this study which
had been in the writing stages over some period of time. This paper was often placed in abeyance as a
consequence of personal disillusionment with the claims professional historians made in their writings.
The origins of this essay go back to 1975 when, as an undergraduate student, I was apprised of the
publication of Alan Cassels’ study on fascism in that year, and mystified of the errors it contained.
2
Jonathan Swift, “Political Lying” from The Examiner, in Henry Craik, (ed.), English Prose. Selections
with Critical Introductions by Various Writers and General Introductions to Each Period. Vol. III:
Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan Company, 1894), 408.
E. C. B. Boia: Reflections on the “Archangel Michael” Legion 2
apparent consequences and attitudes of some academics and other “expert” scholars when
writing about certain historical developments in interwar Romania. Because of the plethora of
inaccurate assertions contained in these writings, this essay is an effort in fact-checking and
correcting some of the most glaring errors found in such works on the history of Legionarism.3
To some, the “Archangel Michael” Legion (Legiunea “Arhanghelul Mihail”)4 has been
anathema in the history and historiography of Romania since shortly after its inception in June
3
In an essay published in 2014, Lucian Tudor writes the following: “. . . the Legionary Movement’s
doctrine and history are oftentimes distorted, misrepresented, or discussed only superficially, even in
scholarly works” (“The Romanian Iron Guard: Its Origins, History, and Legacy,” The Occidental
Quarterly, 14, 1 [Spring, 2014]: 65) (emphasis added). While Tudor asserts that scholars can also err, he
proceeds to give a general overview of Legionary Movement’s history in an effort to set the record straight
instead of highlighting and correcting those errors. He does point out, however, that ‘“the Iron Guard,’
more properly called the ‘Legionary Movement,’ was a unique Romanian nationalist political group” which
“embedded itself into the nation‘s memory as an essentially positive force which aimed to create a better
Romania.” Heretical views to those unnamed scholars since some of the errors in question were more than
likely not accidental while others were the consequence of disinterestedness or outright bias!
While Tudor states that “the Iron Guard” is “more properly called the ‘Legionary Movement’,”
Oliver Jens Schmitt refers to the organization as “the so-called Legionary Movement” (aşa-numita
Mişcare Legionară)! (“Clerul orthodox şi extrema dreaptă în România interbelică,” Archiva Moldaviae
VIII [2016]: 95 [Romanian translation of an earlier German-language study published in 2014]).
Among those having animus toward the “Archangel Michael” Legion, commonly referred to as
the Legionary Movement, the perception appears to be that it should be called what its opponents and the
uninformed prefer instead of the one its founders and most members used! When the Iron Guard was
established in 1930 as a parallel political group, the name became the one better known in the West (and
elsewhere), a name which opponents of the Legion have been using ever since, although the government
permanently banned the group (and thus the name as well) in December 1933. Is this a similar case to the
origins of the name Little Entente as it came to be accepted in Europe’s interwar period? Briefly, “Little
Entente” was a derisive term first used by Hungarian newspapers to refer to the bilateral treaties
concluded between Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovens; the name
was finally accepted officially by its constituent members in a formal organization in February 1933.
4
The organization’s original Romanian name, as used by its founders, the elite leadership, and most of the
members, is “Legiunea ‘Arhanghelul Mihail’” (as opposed to “Legiunea Arhanghelului Mihail”). The
latter translates as “The Archangel Michael’s Legion” while the former is the “‘Archangel Michael’
Legion” or “The Legion ‘Archangel Michael’,” that is, it is not the archangel’s legion but the legion
called Archangel Michael, the emphasis being that it is named for the archangel and the role he played
against Lucifer and the forces of darkness (Revelation 12: 7-9). This point regarding the proper usage of
the name is made by the late Liviu Brânzaş, (priest), in “Horia Sima, Comandantul. Scrisoare deschisă
către dr. Şerban Milcoveanu” [Horia Sima, the Commander. Open letter to Dr. Şerban Milcoveanu], in La
1927. It evoked (and still evokes) a great deal of emotion among members, sympathizers, victims,
and opponents alike. Moreover, various milestone events in the stormy saga of what is known
commonly in Romania and elsewhere as the Legionary Movement5 (Mişcarea Legionară) have
been extremely distorted by proponents and opponents alike, whether intentional (willful disregard
for accuracy) or through sheer lack of knowledge or understanding. Whether the Legionary
Movement was a fascist6 organization is discussed only briefly in this essay – it is the subject of
an ongoing scholarly and political debate whose analysis will be the focus of a future study.
răscruce, no. 3/1998 (Cluj: Asociaţia 2, Acţiunea Creştină Arhanghelul Mihail), passim. Available at
www.fgmanu.net/istorie/BRANZAS.PDF.. The late Milcoveanu was a vociferous critic of Sima.
One of the few works on the Legion’s history to use properly its name is Armin Heinen, Die
Legion “Erzengel Michael” in Rumanien. Soziale Bewegung und politische Organisation: Ein Beitrag
zum Problem des internationalen Faschismus (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1986). The second
edition of the Romanian translation has the title as Legiunea “Arhanghelul Mihail.” Mişcare socială şi
organizaţie politică: o contribuţie la problema fascismului international, 2nd ed. (Bucureşti: Editura
Humanitas, 2006). Often, however, it is erroneously cited as Legiunea “Arhanghelului Mihail . . .”
In his English translation of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu’s Pentru legionari, vol. I (Sibiu: Editura
“Totul pentru Ţară,” 1936) under the title For My Legionaries (The Iron Guard) (Madrid: Editura
“Libertatea,” 1976), Dimitrie Găzdaru translates the name as “The Legion of Michael the Archangel”
(211, passim), among other errors in translation.
It appears as the Legion of Saint Michael the Archangel or the Legion of Archangel Michael in a
translation of a book attributed to Horia Sima, The History of the Legionary Movement (Liss, Hampshire,
England: The Legionary Press, 1995), 38, passim. There is no information provided on the translator or
on which previously published edition it is based, the Romanian one, Istoria Mişcării Legionare
(Timişoara: Editura Gordian, 1994) or the earlier French-language version titled Histoire du Mouvement
Légionnaire, 1919-1937 (Rio de Janeiro: Editura Dacia, 1972).
5
British historian Martin Blinkhorn refers to the Legionary Movement simply as the “Romanian Legion”
in his Fascism and the Right in Europe, 1919-1945 (London: Routledge, 2000), passim. On the other
hand, UCLA sociology professor Michael Mann in his Fascists (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2004) writes that in 1927 “the Legion of the Archangel Michael (which he [Codreanu]
had initially formed within the LANC as its youth movement)” broke from Cuza and that “In turn this
generated the Iron Guard (open to all ages [?!?]) in 1930. From then on the two organizations were
virtually synonymous. I simplify by referring to them both as ‘the Legion’” (265) (insertions added).
6
The Parliament of Romania in July 2015 passed a modified law “banning extremist organizations and
symbols, and the cult of personality of those guilty of infractions against peace of the world.” Among
those banned under the “Emergency Ordinance” were “organizations, symbols and deeds with fascist,
legionary, racist or xenophobe character . . . ” This ordinance added “legionary” to the list of banned
organizations and symbols which had been absent from the previous “Emergency Ordinance” Law No.
107/2006. Does this imply members of parliament in 2015 made a distinction, from a political and not a
scholarly perspective, between “fascism” and “legionarism” as two different ideologies, something which
in their earlier foray into “legalistic scholarship” did not exist in 2006? Why? Why not? What has
transpired since? What new “evidence” came to light by 2015? Was there a real or perceived
requirement in order to be given the final approval for Romania to be admitted into the European Union?
The new ordinance does not clarify the decision to curtail freedom of association and expression it
imposed. See Parlamentul României, “Legea nr. 217/2015 pentru modificarea și completarea Ordonanței
de urgență a Guvernului nr. 31/2002 privind interzicerea organizațiilor și simbolurilor cu caracter fascist,
rasist sau xenofob și a promovării cultului persoanelor vinovate de săvârșirea unor infracțiuni contra păcii
și omenirii,” at https://lege5.ro/Gratuit/g4ztmnjxga/legea-nr-217-2015-pentru-modificarea-si-
completarea-ordonantei-de-urgenta-a-guvernului-nr-31-2002-privind-interzicerea-organizatiilor-si-
simbolurilor-cu-caracter-fascist-rasist-sau-xenofob-si-a-promov [accessed 15 June 2019].
In listing “organizations, symbols and deeds with fascist, legionary, [. . .] character, . . .,” the
parliamentarians provided an explanatory note only further confusing their muddled thinking. Their
explanatory addition to Article 2 states: “f) prin Mișcarea Legionară se înțelege o organizație fascistă din
România care a activat în perioada 1927-1941 sub denumirile de «Legiunea Arhanghelului [sic!]
Mihail», «Garda de Fier» și «Partidul Totul pentru Țară»" [“by Legionary Movement is understood a
fascist organization in Romania which was active during the 1927-1941 period under the names of the
‘Legion of the Archangel Michael’, ‘Iron Guard’ and ‘Everything for the Country Party’”]. So, on one
hand fascist and legionary organizations represent two separate ideologies but on the other hand the
Legionary Movement was/is a fascist organization! That is, fascist and legionary represent two
ideologies which are . . . really one!? It appears the Parliament of Romania stumbled into a scholarly
debate on a topic on which there is little consensus even what “generic fascism” is and who/what made
the “membership” list or lists which academics have put together from time to time and stubbornly insist
on the existence of this Fata Morgana and to which they need to hold on to this “domain” of theirs for as
long as it is possible like the lords and vassals of feudalism or Cervantes’ Don Quixote.
Elsewhere, the law makes reference to the 1945 International Military Tribunal (at Munich)
neglecting the historical reality of the fact that the Legionary Movement (or Iron Guard) was not tried
during its proceedings! Thus Article 6 (2): Negarea, contestarea, aprobarea, justificarea sau
minimalizarea în mod evident, prin orice mijloace, în public, a genocidului, a crimelor contra umanității
și a crimelor de război, astfel cum sunt definite în dreptul internațional, în Statutul Curții Penale
Internaționale și în Carta Tribunalului Militar Internațional înființat prin Acordul de la Londra, la data
de 8 august 1945, și recunoscute ca atare printr-o hotărâre definitivă a Curții Penale Internaționale, a
Tribunalului Militar Internațional înființat prin Acordul de la Londra, la data de 8 august 1945, a
Tribunalului Penal Internațional pentru fosta Iugoslavie, a Tribunalului Penal Internațional pentru
Rwanda sau a oricărui altui tribunal penal internațional înființat prin instrumente internaționale
relevante și a căror competență este recunoscută de statul român, ori a efectelor acestora se pedepsește
cu închisoare de la 6 luni la 3 ani sau cu amendă. Therefore, the 2015 law only discusses the issue of
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, as defined by the various international institutions, to
which the European Union has direct involvement.
Undoubtedly, the Parliament of Romania will continue to tweak its law on the extremist
organizations but more than likely the dystopian ideological nightmare of Communism will be missing
from such legal or official condemnation and, therefore, not held responsible for the thousands of
Romanians killed during the 1945-1991 period!
The history of this Romanian extreme-right nationalist organization (or, as already noted,
some argue a “fascist movement”) is a history which is controversial, while the historiography
on this movement is highly subjective. Consequently, it is unlikely that anyone would be right
about the history of the “Archangel Michael” Legion, but it is important “that we should from
time to time change our way of being wrong.”7 This essay is an effort in that direction about
certain historical facts, distortions, and various deliberate omissions by authors who are either
favorable, unfavorable, or “objective” concerning the subject.
“Meetings,” “Journeys,” and “Events”
The issue is not whether the Legionary Movement’s doctrine and its practices were right
or wrong, subjective values and not the focus of this essay, but rather to serve as a foundation for
future objective research into and writing about Romania’s interwar political past and to actually
read the existing documentary sources, to sift fact from fiction and not manipulate the historical
evidence through distortions and the selective process of omission of factual information or
unsupported assertions. Clearly, evidence needs to be verified rather than perpetuated without
any factual proof. For example, in 1995 British scholar Roger Griffin asserts that Spanish
Falange leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera (1903 – 1936) had met with Corneliu Zelea
Codreanu (13 September 1899 – 29/30 November 1938),8 one of the founders and principal
leader of the Legionary Movement. Yet, Griffin does not present any verifiable evidence to
7
Paraphrasing T. S. Eliot on Shakespeare studies: “About anyone so great as Shakespeare, it is probable
that we can never be right; and if we can never be right, it is better that we should from time to time
change our way of being wrong.” See his 1927 essay “Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca” in T. S.
Eliot, Selected Essays, 1917-1932 (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1932).
8
Roger Griffin (ed.), Fascism (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 185.
support this assertion, nor when or where the alleged encounter occurred, and no such meeting
has been documented independently prior to this claim.9 Did the Falangist leader visit Romania?
Did the Legionary leader visit Spain? Since such a meeting would have considerable historical
significance, and if it had occurred in secret (?), this assertion should not only be properly
documented but also given the well-deserved attention. This, however, is exactly what is lacking
in the historical record on Legionarism because . . . the meeting never happened!
Continuing the discussion about “meetings,” “journeys,” and “events” asserted by
scholars but which never took place, mention should also be made of Olimpiu Matichescu’s
claim that Codreanu was on a visit in Italy at the beginning of July 1934 where he met with the
reporters of the Oriente news agency.10 Perhaps Matichescu should have been aware the trial
concerning the assassination of Prime Minister I. G. Duca had just ended in early April, a trial in
which Codreanu was one of the defendants accused of complicity, but was acquitted, and
undoubtedly the authorities would not have given him a passport to leave Romania, even on a
short foreign journey. But regardless of this claim, this visit did not happen and more than likely
9
One would assume Horia Sima, Codreanu’s eventual successor as head of the Legionary Movement,
would have mentioned this “meeting” in his essay Dos movimientos nacionales: José Antonio Primo de
Rivera y Corneliu Codreanu (Madrid: Ed. Europa, 1960), but alas no such reference is made! Moreover,
considering that Sima lived in Spain in the post-World War II period until his death in 1993, this would
be a very significant omission in light of the fact that the remnants of the Legion in Spain and Falange
representatives have held joint commemorations in the town of Majadahonda, the site where in January
1937 two legionaires died during the Spanish Civil War.
10
Olimpiu Matichescu, Opinia publică internatională despre Dictatul de la Viena [The International
Public Opinion Concerning the Vienna Dictate] (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1975), 21-22; Idem, Istoria
nu face paşi înapoi! (Logica istoriei împotriva Dictatului de la Viena). [History does not take steps back!
The Logic of History against the Vienna Dictate] (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1985), 70-71. In both
volumes, Matichescu relies as source for this assertion on Direcţia Generală a Arhivelor Statului
(Bucureşti), Arhiva Istorică Centrală, fondul Ministerul Propagandei Naţionale, Agenţii, dosarul nr. 11,
filele 5-9. Clearly a case of either official misinformation or Matichescu’s personal misreading which he
repeated a decade later! Or, is this a case of lack of intellectual curiosity?
it was a meeting with the Italian newspapermen in . . . Bucharest! Instead, Matichescu is more
focused on criticizing Codreanu’s admiration for Mussolini (as if at that time Codreanu was the
only leader of different political persuasion in Romania or Western Europe or the United States
to admire the Italian Fascist leader, individuals who, along the way, had a change of mind), and
in questioning the Legionary leader’s Romanian origins (an ongoing charge, then and now) than
making certain to be historically and factually accurate.
In addition to Matichescu’s claim, attention should be given to Zeev Barbu’s off-hand
assertion in his contribution to the collection of articles published under the title Who Were the
Fascists?. In it he writes: “As late as 1929, on the eve of his departure for Germany to meet
Hitler, C. Z. Codreanu, the leader of the Iron Guard, boasted that he could teach Hitler a few
things on how to be a fascist.”11 Nowhere in the essay does Barbu state whether such a journey
and meeting occurred, in 1929 or any other time, nor does he cite any source for such bombastic
and unaccredited assertion! Granted, in the fall of 1922 Codreanu went to Berlin to continue his
studies, the Legionary leader writes, and it was then that he heard of Adolf Hitler for the first
time and, although he did not meet or give the Nazi leader any lessons on fascism, Codreanu
does note that he had discussions about anti-Semitism with some of the German students (who
were no doubt probably Nazis in the 1930s!).12 To make a correction to this psycho-historical
perspective, the name Iron Guard was introduced in the political lexicon only in April 1930!
11
Zeev [Zevedei] Barbu, “Psycho-Historical and Sociological Perspectives on the Iron Guard, the Fascist
Movement of Romania,” 379-394, in Who Were the Fascists? Social Roots of European Fascism, Stein
Ugelvik Larsen, Bernt Hagtvet, and Jan Petter Myklebust, eds. (Bergen - Oslo –Tromsø:
Universitetsforlaget, 1980; Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York), 380 (emphasis added).
12
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Pentru legionari, vol. I (Sibiu: Editura “Totul pentru Ţară,” 1936), 70-72;
Idem, For My Legionaries, 50-52. Găzdaru’s translation in the English-language edition is: “I had many
discussions with the students at Berlin in 1922, who are certainly Hitlerites today, and I am proud to have
Assertions such as Barbu’s may be at the base of confusions which have been perpetuated
in works by scholars on generic fascism. For example, Roger Eatwell writes that Codreanu
“heard Hitler speak while a student in Germany,”13 although in his own brief account of his time
in Berlin, the Legionary leader only wrote that he heard of Hitler “for the first time around the
middle of October 1922. I had gone to a worker in North Berlin with whom I established a good
relationship, who was making ‘swastikas.’”14
In an earlier essay, Barbu also considered the student activism period of 1920-1923 as the
activities of the “Iron Guard” made up of “student groups organized outside of official unions”
which were not recognized by the university administrations.15 During the 1919-1927 period,
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and his associates were active as students and later as members of A.
been their teacher in anti-Semitism, exporting to them the truths I learned in Iasi.” (51) (emphasis added).
Găzdaru uses the term Hitlerite, a term favored by communists, while Codreanu used the term Nazis in
the Romanian-language edition!
In May 1926, while in France continuing his studies, Codreanu traveled by train across Germany
to Romania to participate in the general elections, which he lost. And again, there was no meeting with
Hitler (See Codreanu, Pentru legionari, 269-274; Idem, For My Legionaires, 193-197).
Early in 1938, when King Carol II proclaimed his dictatorship and banned political activity,
Codreanu accepted the situation and announced his plans of traveling to Italy for a month to oversee the
translation of his Pentru legionari book into Italian and French, and to finish the second volume of his
memoirs. In April, however, Codreanu was arrested and thus such a trip neither took place nor a second
volume written. See the announcement in Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Circulări şi Manifeste, 1927-1938,
5th ed. (München: Colecţia “Europa”, 1981), 274 (Circulara Nr. 148, Bucureşti, 21 Februarie 1938).
13
Roger Eatwell, “Fascism and Racism,” Chapter 29: 573-591, in The Oxford Handbook of The History of
Nationalism, John Brueuilly (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 586. (emphasis added). He
does not cite Barbu in this essay and thus it is unclear if he was influenced by Barbu’s assertion.
Regardless, does this imply Codreanu was present at a Nazi rally or a listener of a Hitler speech on the
radio?
14
Codreanu, For My Legionaries, 51. In 1922 Hitler was still in Munich while, during his stay in
Germany, Codreanu was only in Berlin and, early in February, in Jena before returning to Romania!
15
Z. Barbu, “Rumania,” 146-166, in S. J. Woolf (ed.), European Fascism (New York: Vintage Books,
1968; London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., 1968), 154; also published as Zev Barbu, “Rumania,” 151-
170, in S. J. Woolf (ed.), Fascism in Europe (London & New York: Methuen, 1981), 159.
C. Cuza’s Liga Apărării Naţional-Creştine (LANC; the League of National-Christian Defense)
established in 1923. It is these activities Barbu attributes to the as yet to be established “Iron
Guard”! Cuza would certainly have been shocked to find out that he was a “legionarie” or, as
some “experts” prefer, an “Iron Guardist”!
To place Barbu’s historically inaccurate use of terminology in context, attention should
be given to the fact that the two names and organizations, the “Archangel Michael” Legion or
Legionary Movement and Iron Guard, to some have been interchangeable since the early 1930s.
The Iron Guard term has become the boogeyman of Romanian extremism to many scholars and
politicians who have set aside commonsense in making any effort at historical accuracy and
honest assessment based on factual evidence. Joseph Rothschild writes the following regarding a
possible clarification on the confusion about the names in question (provided that such an effort
is attempted): “The Right-Radical Iron Guard (or Legionary) movement founded in 1927 . . .
functioned under different names at different time and was frequently banned but always
reemerged . . .,”16 but with Codreanu as leader or Căpitanul (the Captain), as his followers had
begun early on to use this appellation. Clearly, not only was the Movement functioning under
different names at different times (although always known to its members as the Legionary
Movement [Mişcarea Legionară] and the members themselves known as, and calling
themselves, legionaries [legionari])17 and thus creating some confusion, but individuals writing
16
Joseph Rothschild, East Central Europe between the Two world Wars (A History of East Central
Europe, Volume IX) (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1974/1977), 307.
17
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Cărticica Şefului de Cuib [The Nest Leader’s Manual], 11th ed. (Műnchen:
Colecţia “Omul Nou”, Traian Golea, 1971; after 6th ed. Bucureşti: “Bucovina”, I.E. Torouţiu, October
1940), 114-115, Punctul 88.
about it, then and now, have, for the most part, failed to be historically (and factually) accurate!18
In fact, even Legion members made claims in public pronouncements which were unsupported
by actual historical facts. Thus, during Codreanu’s treason trial in May 1938, the defense
witness Dimitrie (or Dumitru) Popa, an attorney, reportedly declared that he had been member of
the Iron Guard and of the Totul pentru Ţară political party since 1929,19 although neither were
yet in existence, the first established in the spring of 1930, the second in December 1934!
Dead or Alive, Present at the Creation (Years Later!), Leaders?!
Taking the path of either playing loose with, or being uninformed of, historical facts a
step further, Alan Cassels has written in his 1975 survey of European fascism that “Horia Sima
was probably killed in combat in the closing weeks of the war, but, like [Martin] Bormann, his
precise fate remains somewhat cloudy.”20 This “probably” is an unfortunate and sad example of
“cloudy” knowledge about Romanian “fascism” by an authority on the history of fascism since it
is an undisputed fact that, unlike Bormann, the Commander of the Legionary Movement had
18
Or, as Michael Mann solved the dilemma, he simply refers to the groups as “the Legion” (Fascists,
265), while Martin Blinkhorn, as already pointed out above, adopted the “Romanian Legion” term
(Fascism and the Right in Europe, 1919-1945, passim).
19
Mişcarea Legionară, Adevărul în procesul Căpitanului [Miami, FL, USA]: Colecţia “Omul Nou,”
Traian Golea, 1980/1981 (1st ed. August, 1938), 131-132. A different account is actually found in the
archival sources on the trial which, however, one needs to remember it is not an actual verbatim or
stenographic transcript but a summary by the official notetaker. Thus, regarding Popa’s testimony, there
is the following: “În acelaşi sens dispune martorul [sic!] Dumitru Popa şi Traian Herseni.” [In the same
sense testified the witness (sic) Dumitru Popa and Traian Herseni]. (“Testimony of 24 May 1938,
afternoon session,” Corpul Detectivilor, Secţia I-a, Dela Tribunalul Militar, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne,
Arhiva Operativă, Dosar Ancheta Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, P 011784, Vol. 4 [old Dosar Nr. 110237,
Vol. 4], 26). An expanded version of his testimony is found in Arhiva Operativă, Dosar Ancheta
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, P 011784, Vol. 6 [old Dosar Nr. 110237, Vol. 6], 270-271, 273-274.
20
Alan Cassels, Fascism (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1975), 334 (emphasis and insertion
added).
been living, writing, and publishing openly under his name in Franco and post-Franco Spain
from the second half of the 1940s until his death in 1993.21
Sources alone, apparently, do not assure understanding of factual historical evidence. One
should consult a relatively recent dissertation by Roland Clark for an example of carelessness in
reading actual sources resulting in erroneous assertions, or totally ignoring pertinent information
in order to make a claim contrary to actual evidence. Thus, Clark affirms the old charge that Ion
I. Moţa murdered22 Aurelian Vernichescu, one of the students involved in the October 1923 plot.
Vernichescu turned out to have been a police informant and due to this collaboration, the plotters
21
Since becoming head of the Legionary Movement in 1940, Sima had been known as “Comandantul”
(the Commander). See, among the many publications all prior to 1975, and with which Cassels should
have been familiar, Memoriu Regelui (1949); Omul Nou. Elemente de doctrină legionară (1949); El
Hombre Nuevo. Elementos de doctrina legionaria (Salamanca, 1950) O Homem Nôvo. Elementos de
doutrina legionaria (Rio de Janerio: Ed. Dacia, 1968); Destinée du Nationalisme (Paris: P.E.G., 1951);
Mişcarea Legionară şi Democraţia (Salzburg: Col. “Omul Nou”, 1955); Europe at the crossroads: war
or capitulation? (Munich: Verlag "Vestitori," 1955); La crisis del mundo libre (Madrid, 1958); Dos
movimientos nacionales: José Antonio Primo de Rivera y Corneliu Codreanu (Madrid: Ed. Europa,
1960); Cazul Iorga-Madgearu (Madrid: Editura “Carpaţii”, 1961); Histoire du Mouvement Légionnaire,
1919-1937 (Rio de Janeiro: Editura Dacia, 1972).
Horia Sima died in 1993. See Liviu Vălenaş, Convorbiri cu Mircea Dimitriu, Mişcarea
Legionară — între adevăr şi mistificare [The Legionary Movement – Between Truth and Mystification]
(Timişoara: Editura Marineasa, 2000), 74.
22
Roland Clark, “European Fascists and Local Activists: Romania’s Legion of the Archangel Michael
(1922-1938),” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Pittsburgh, 2012), 149. One source on which he relies is
the National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives, Bucharest, Romania (CNSAS), Fond
Codreanu, Corneliu Zelea, P. 013207, Vol. 1 (formerly No. 111041, Vol. No. 1), f. 103v.
The dissertation was published as Holy Legionary Youth: Fascist Activism in Interwar Romania (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 2015).
To expand on this general statement about the old charge of “the murder,” not all sources make
that assertion. In fact, Eugen Weber writes: “. . . Codreanu and his followers were arrested for planning a
murder campaign by which to clear the country, less of the Jews than of their corrupt protectors.
Denounced, they would be imprisoned for five months. After a sympathetic trial all were released but
one, Ion Moţa, who had managed to shoot their denouncer on the very day of the trial and who had to
await another acquittal at a later date.” Varieties of Fascism. Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth
Century. An Anvil Original [New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1964], 98 [emphasis added]. It is
not clear whether Weber believes the denouncer was killed, or only that he was shot, just as it it not clear
why the culprit Moţa “had to await another acquittal” for his deed, especially if murder was committed.
were arrested and incarcerated in the Văcăreşti prison. Discussing the events concerning this
plot and subsequent trial, Clark cites Pentru legionari for some of his information, without
noticing that Codreanu infers that Vernichescu survived the shooting!23 More importanly, the
archival source upon which Clark bases his conclusion concerning the “murder,” contains the
following: “The traitor, who did not have the courage, as Judas did, to admit his guilt by
throwing the silver coins away, and place the noose around his neck, escaped safely [a scăpat
teafăr], while Moţa is waiting, still not tried.”24 That Vernichescu escaped safely is not quite the
case since he was wounded, but it is a far cry from having been “murdered.” Thus, there is the
same ad nauseam claim of murder instead of attempted murder, and in fact Clark does not cite
23
Granted, Codreanu is not very clear about it. See Codreanu, Pentru legionari, 190-191; Idem, For My
Legionaries, 135:
“In the morning we were taken to the office for our families to see us. [ . . .] Shortly,
Vernichescu came in. Moţa took him by the arm as if he wanted to tell him something and both
went into a nearby room.
Several minutes later we heard seven gun shots and shouts. [. . .] Moţa had shot Vernichescu to
punish him for his betrayal.
[. . . ] When the commotion subsided we were immediately taken away and put in separate cells.
Through little windows we could see Vernichescu carried out of the infirmary on a stretcher on
the way to a hospital.”
With this, Codreanu’s account about the shooting and Vernichescu’s fate comes to an end.
On the other hand, Horia Sima is quite clear on the incident in question. In his version of the
history of the Legion, he writes that Moţa “seriously wounds him [Vernichescu]” (Sima, The History of
the Legionary Movement, 19). In Sima’s French-language edition of his history of the Legion, on which
Clark relies in his dissertation (page 469), the account is the following: “A la veille du procès, une
tragédie éclate dans la prison de Vacaresti. Ion Mota tire plusieurs conception de feu sur Vernichesco, le
traître, et le blesse grièvement.” [“On the eve of the trial, a tragedy broke out in Văcăreşti prison. Ion
Moţa fires several shots on Vernichescu, the traitor, and seriously injures him.”] Horia Sima, Histoire du
Mouvement Légionnaire, 1919-1937 (Rio de Janeiro: Editura Dacia, 1972), 31 (emphasis added).
24
Part of this flyer reads as follows: “Trădătorul, care n’a avut curajul, ca Iuda, să-şi recunoască greşala
şi să arunce arginţi vânzărei, punându-şi apoi ştreangul de gât, a scăpat teafăr [he escaped safely], dar
Moţa stă încă nejudecat.” See the flyer by Studenţimea Universitară Română, titled “Către toţi Românii!”
and backside “Pedepsirea Trădătorului Vernichescu,” in CNSAS, Fond Codreanu, Corneliu Zelea, P.
013207, Vol. 1 (formerly No. 111041, Vol. No. 1), f. 103v. (the words in bold are in the original source)
(emphasis and insertion added).
the much earlier claim Z. Barbu made on this incident25 (although he includes Barbu’s 1968
article in his bibliography26).
Furthermore, while relying extensively on Stelian Neagoe’s 1977 Triumful raţiunii
împotriva violenţei, Clark ignores the reference to Moţa’s acquittal for the “unsuccessful crime
of murder” of Vernichescu.27 Moreover, Clark also frequently cites Armin Heinen’s 2006
Romanian-language edition of his 1986 German-language work and who, however, only
mentions the shooting incident without providing specific information on its outcome.28 Lastly,
his dissertation advisor’s book, Irina Livezeanu’s Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, also
serves as source for information. On this incident, however, Clark does not cite her account
(published 20 years prior to his dissertation) in which she claims that “Moţa assassinated the
young man who had betrayed the plot,”29 but does not elaborate. Does assassinated mean he
was only shot . . . but survived or that he died?! What is the historical evidence on this incident
25
Z. Barbu, “Rumania,” in European Fascism (1968), 154-155; Idem, “Rumania,” in Fascism in Europe
(1981), 159 and note.
26
Clark, “European Fascists,” 471.
27
Stelian Neagoe, Triumful raţiunii împotriva violenţei (Viaţa universitară ieşeană interbelică) [The
Triumph of Reason Against Violence (Life at Interwar Iaşi University)] (Iaşi: Editura Junimea, 1977),
269: “este achitat” . . . “pentru crima cu omorîre neizbutită [unsuccessful] . . .”
28
Armin Heinen only writes that the “concerned parents of one of the conspirators” in the plot betrayed
them and that Moţa, during the court session [?!], shot the suspected “traitor” Vernichescu. See Armin
Heinen, Die Legion “Erzengel Michael” in Rumanien. Soziale Bewegung und politische Organisation:
Ein Beitrag zum Problem des internationalen Faschismus (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1986), 123;
Idem, Legiunea “Arhanghelul Mihail.” Mişcare socială şi organizaţie politică: o contribuţie la problema
fascismului international, 2nd ed. (Bucureşti: Editura Humanitas, 2006), 109-110.
29
Irina Livezeanu, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: Regionalism, Nation Building, & Ethnic
Struggle, 1918-1930 (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1995), 280 (emphasis added).
and the possible “murder” on which she relies? These sources are Codreanu’s and Sima’s books
which, as already noted above, do not contain the claim that the victim was murdered!30
On this, as with other episodes in the history of the future legionaries’ activity in the
student movement and LANC and in the Legion itself, the details do not appear to be important
to the scholars, as long as they get the basic storyline right. This is reminiscent of the running
sentence in the great 2003 action/mystery thriller film Basic with John Travolta and Samuel L.
Jackson (directed by John McTiernan): “All we got to do is tell the story right.” The focus of the
story was the same: deception in order to entrap their suspect, only the details varied based on
who was telling the story. This appears to be the running theme in many of the sources
discussed in this essay, namely that some scholars already reached the conclusion: all they
needed was the “supporting” evidence which involves a great deal of dissembling, as in Basic.
Although mentioning the shooting, scholars fail to disclose (out of ignorance, or . . .) that
Vernichescu actually survived the shooting, albeit severely wounded and hospitalized, and who
eventually recovered. While he lived in political obscurity after the Văcăreşti incident,
Vernichescu was executed on 2 August 1949 in Pădurea Verde, Banat, as member of armed
resistance groups fighting in the region’s mountains against Bucharest’s Communist regime.31
Other studies, published more recently, provide a different account of the incident in
question. Five years after Clark’s dissertation, in a 2017 study on Moţa’s international anti-
30
On this, see Livezeanu, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, 280: Codreanu’s Pentru legionari (168-
174 and 187-192) and Sima’s Histoire du Mouvement Légionnaire (28-32). The shooting, however, is
discussed in those sources on following pages: Codreanu, Pentru legionari, 190-191; Idem, For My
Legionaries, 135, and Sima, Histoire du Mouvement Légionnaire, 1919-1937, 31.
31
See the note at https://www.activenews.ro/cultura/Timisoara-Omagiu-adus-detinutilor-politici-ucisi-la-
Padurea-Verde-121620 (accessed 5 October 2018).
Jewish activity, historian Raul Cârstocea writes that the future Legionary leader “shot and
severely wounded Aurel Vernichescu, the student who had revealed the plot to the police . . .”
For this attempted murder, however, Moţa was acquitted months later.32 In other words, it was a
plotter, and not the parents of one, as Heinen writes, who informed the authorities.33
There is also the puzzling assertion the late Leon Volovici34 made concerning Vasile
Marin, one of the two legionaries killed in the Spanish Civil War in battle at Majadahonda in
January 1937 (the other being Ion I. Moţa, one of the five founders of the Legion). In his 1991
work on anti-Semitism in 1930s Romania, Volovici has engaged in a strange case of historical
gymnastics by identifying Legionary commander Vasile Marin as “a founding member and

35
leader of the [Legionary] movement . . . .” Yet some six pages later, Volovici asserts the
following:
During the election campaign of 1932, Codreanu engineered an important change among
the “young intellectuals in the capital city” [Bucharest]–the young people affiliated with
the [short-lived] review Axa36 (Mihai Polihroniade, [Ion Victor] Vojen, [Alexandru]
32
Raul Cârstocea, “Native Fascists, Transnational Anti-Semites: The International Activity of Legionary
Leader Ion I. Moţa,” Chapter 8: 216-242, in Arnd Bauerk mper and Grzegorz Rossoli ski-Liebe (eds.),
Fascism without Borders: Connections and Cooperation between Movements and Regimes in Europe
from 1918 to 1945 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2017), 220. (emphasis added).
33
Heinen, Die Legion “Erzengel Michael” in Rumanien, 123; Idem, Legiunea “Arhanghelul Mihail,”
109.
34
Professor Leon Volovici (1938-2011) was an historian of modern anti-Semitism and Jewish cultural life
in Romania and at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
35
Leon Volovici, Nationalist Ideology and Antisemitism. The Case of Romanian Intellectuals in the
1930s. Translated from the Romanian by Charles Kormos (New York: Pergamon Press, Published for the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism [SICSA], The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, 1991), 65 (insertion and emphasis added).
36
The review is not connected to the Rome-Berlin Axis agreement between Italy and Nazi Germany on
25 October 1936, since the publication appeared four years before this historic accord! Axa was banned
in late 1933 and would not reappear until the National-Legionary regime of 1940-1941.
Constant), as well as the poet Radu Gyr, and others [such as?] now joined “the ranks of
the Legion.”37
As source for his information, Volovici cites Corneliu Zelea Codreanu’s 1936 Pentru legionari.
Among the “others” who joined in 1932 and are not listed by Volovici, but found on the cited
page in Codreanu’s book, is the name of . . . Vasile Marin!38 It is quite a performance of
historical impossibility for “a founding member” of the Movement established in 1927 to have
joined it five years after its inception! Only Volovici could have shed light on what is a blatant
falsehood assertion: is it a deliberate omission of an important historical fact (in his study) or
carelessness influenced by his myopic obsession of destroying dead peoples’ reputation in
interwar Romania’s cultural scene by ascribing pejorative labels of anti-Semitism on most
nationalist intellectuals? This foolhardy assertion can easily be verified by anyone familiar with
the Legion’s past and has access to the cited source, a source which in pre-1989-1991 Romania
was housed in the special collection of forbidden materials in the Library of the Romanian
Academy, with restricted access which may have ended in 1991, the year Volovici’s opus was
published in English translation.39 Old habits die hard, do they not?
Just plain confusing (and certainly open to discussion) can be said about the information
contained on “The History of the Jewish People” website maintained by Eli Birnbaum. In the
entry for “1937 Romania” there is the following assertion:
37
Volovici, Nationalist Ideology and Antisemitism, 71 (insertions and emphasis added). So, they joined
the Legion and not the Iron Guard?!
38
Codreanu, Pentru legionari, 438. See also the English-language edition, For My Legionaries, 325.
39
A Romanian-language edition appeared some four years later as Ideologia naționalistă și
„problema evreiască”. Eseu despre formele antisemitismului intelectual în România anilor '30
(București: Humanitas, 1995).
King Carol, though previously a supporter of the National Peasants [sic!] Party (led by
Julius Maniu) which fought against anti-Semitism, appointed Octavian Goga to form a
government. Goga was a former leader in the fascist Iron Guard. His government lasted
only seven weeks.40
Even if this would be reference to A. C. Cuza,41 Goga’s co-leader of the National Christian Party
(Partidul Naţional Creştin) founded in 1935, it would still be an erroneous assertion. Cuza and
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, the actual leader of “Archangel Michael” Legion, were active together
in LANC from 1923 until 1927, when the latter seceded with a small group of followers and
established their own organization, thus neither of the National Christian Party leaders could
ever have been leaders in the Iron Guard, itself established in 1930. This, however, appears to
be a practice of sowing additional seeds of disinformation to the already existing confusion,
propagated by scholars suffering from bias or myopia concerning the history of the Legionary
40
“Jewish History 1930-1939" at http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/history.php (accessed on 2 October
2007) (emphasis added).
Perhaps its author was influenced by the reference in Eugen Weber’s chapter on “Romania,” 501-
574, in Hans Rogger and Eugen Weber (eds.), The European Right: A Historical Profile (Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1965; paper-bound ed. 1966, 2nd printing 1974). Weber
states: “A certain amount of confusion always existed in the public mind concerning different national
[nationalist?] groups, and this was perhaps deliberately maintained [by whom?], as when the Bulletin
périodique (September 9, 1936) referred to ‘the Iron Guards of Mr. Cuza’ . . .” (554) (insertions and
emphasis added).
In fact, three years prior to the publication of the Bulletin périodique, the Jewish Telegraph
Agency reported from the Romanian capital on 27 September 1933 that
“The monster anti-Semitic demonstration scheduled for the beginning of October at
Bucharest by the Iron Guard organization headed by Professor Cuza, and in which fifty thousand
are expected to participate, is causing considerable anxiety among the Roumanian Jews.
“Jewish representatives have approached the government to take measures to insure
peace if the demonstration is not to be prohibited.”
See “Roumanian Jews Ask Govt. To Ensure Peace Menaced By Iron Guard Assembly,” Jewish Daily
Bulletin (New York), vol. X, no. 2657 (Thursday, Sept. 28, 1933), 1 (emphasis added).
But why would the government prohibit such a demonstration, whether of Codreanu’s Iron
Guard or Cuza’s LANC? The report does not provide an explanation! Apparently, the concept of
democracy is to be applied only for the select and worthy few.
41
See the quote in the preceding footnote regarding the Iron Guards of Mr. Cuza.
Movement and interwar Romania, totally delusional in their self-assuredness of being absolutely
accurate (or no one fact-checking their claims)! To place in perspective all these errors
regarding leaders of the various extreme-right nationalist organizations in interwar Romania, the
tendency is to paint them all with the same “fascist Iron Guard” brush!
Same Photographs, Different Narratives
Perhaps this tangled relationship might be at the core of the assertion in the caption below
a photograph in Stanley G. Payne’s A History of Fascism. It reads: “Iron Guard militiaman
exhibiting the swastika armband sometimes worn in the Rumanian movement.”42 The militiaman
also has a lancet on his left side of his diagonal belt. Coincidentally, the same photograph of the
militiaman also appeared a decade later in Mihai Chioveanu’s 2005 manual titled Holocaustul:
un avertisment al istoriei (The Holocaust: A Warning of History). The image in this instance has
the following caption below it: “Lăncier [Lance-bearer], member of the Cuzist paramilitary
formations.”43 Considering the two formations often clashed before and during the electoral
campaigns, it would be quite a chameleon performance to be lăncier and “Iron Guardist” at the
same time! Moreover, from every indication at this time, Chioveanu’s assertion appears to be
historically accurate since it was the lăncieri who sported the swastika armband and the lancet in
42
Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press,
1995), 283 (emphasis added). The credited source for this photograph is Editorial Planeta, Barcelona,
Spain.
43
The Romanian language caption is: “Lăncier, membru al formaţiunilor paramilitare cuziste.” See
Mihai Chioveanu, Holocaustul: un avertisment al istoriei (Bucureşti: IRIR, 2005), 72. This source is also
available online at http://www.idee.ro/holocaust/manual.html (accessed on 7 January 2008).
Interestingly, Chioveanu did not notice this discrepancy, although he is familiar with Payne’s book. See
his article published a year earlier in 2004, Mihai Chioveanu, “Emergenţa şi natura contagioasă a
fascismului” [The Emergence and Contagious Nature of Fascism], Sfera Politicii XII, 108 (2004): 26-32.
His article may also be considered in part as a roundabout review of Payne’s book as well.
public.44 If the image were in color, then there would have been no doubt since LANC’s
uniform was blue while the legionaries wore the green color.
44
Although, to be factually accurate, the first issues of the Legion’s review Pământul Strămoşesc (The
Ancestral Land) featured the swastika on the front page above the image of the map of Greater Romania
or that of the archangel. Also, on his wedding day on 14 June 1925, Codreanu and his bride wore
wedding crowns with the swastika used by LANC, of which the groom was a prominent leader of its youth
section at that time. Some wedding images are available on the internet
[https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Ilinoiu_Codreanu (accessed 18 May 2018)] but only one front-cover
image of Pământul Strămoşesc is published in the collection of photographs titled Legiunea în imagini,
albumele Traian Borobaru (The Legion in Images, Traian Borobaru Albums) (Madrid: Editura Mișcării
Legionare, 1977). 18. The same front-page image is published in Horia Sima, Histoire du Movement
Legionnaire, 1919-1937 (Rio de Janeiro: Editura Dacia, 1972), 46.
In Pentru legionari, Codreanu writes that on 8 November 1927, for the oath ceremony, the first
legionaries marched to the church in national costume and “a swastika [pinned] on the right side above
the heart.” (341) [insertion added]. See also his For My Legionaries (249), and Cărticica Şefului de Cuib
(1971), 84, Punctul 82.
A factually incorrect assertion and source citation is Radu Ioanid’s claim that LANC adopted the
swastika in 1932! (Radu Ioanid, The Sword of the Archangel: Fascist ideology in Romania [Boulder, CO:
East European Monographs, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1990], 54: “as for the
bonds mentioned between A. C. Cuza and Hitler, it was no accident that the swastika became the symbol
of the League in 1932, an occasion that affirmed the Aryan origins of the Rumanian people.” He cites the
article “Svastica” A. C. Cuza published on 10 January 1932 in Svastica, a National-Christian publication.
Svastica, however, has been an Apărarea Naţională publication since 1922!) In making this inaccurate
claim, Ioanid cites as source Gheorghe T. Pop, Caracterul antinaţional şi antipopular al activităţii
Partidului Naţional Creştin (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1978), 80-81.
The problem with Ioanid’s assertion is that the only reference to the “swastika” in the book’s
cited pages is the fact that during a visit to Germany, which ended in April 1933, A. C. Cuza and his
second in command in LANC, his son George (or Gheorghe) Cuza, were awarded the highest Nazi order,
that of “Commander of the Order of the Swastika” [Comandant al ordinului svasticii] [?!?] which, Pop
explains, was a decoration worn only by “Hitler and eight of his leaders” (81). This is a far cry from the
decision on the part of LANC to adopt the swastika in 1932, although the invitation to visit Germany was
made in August of that year (when Hitler was not yet in power)! Thus, LANC’s use of the swastika was
independent of and predated Hitler and German National Socialists ascent to the echelons of state power.
Moreover, if Ioanid had carefully consulted the section in Codreanu’s book about the May 1925
Turnu Severin trial (for Manciu’s killing in October 1924), he would have read that when the jury walked
in the courtroom to announce their verdict of acquittal, they were all wearing the tricolor lapel ribbons
with the swastika, the symbol of LANC! This is seven years before Ioanid’s claim that LANC adopted
the swastika because of Hitler. See Codreanu, Pentru legionari, 248; Idem, For My Legionaries, 178.
Furthermore, in the “Chronology” section of his The Sword of the Archangel, there is the
following entry for the year 1922: “A. C. Cuza and N. C. Paulescu created the National-Christian Union,
a violently anti-Semitic organization, having for its emblem the swastika. The NCU establishes ties with
‘Consul,’ the Munich terrorist organization.” (283) Are we to believe that when it was organized in
Another distorted claim associated with the origins of Legionarism is the erroneous and
factually inaccurate description of the well-known historical photograph (and also used for
propaganda purposes at the time, including as postcards) taken during the 1924 trial of a group of
six individuals dressed in Romanian national folk costumes. They were the plotters charged in
the fall of 1923 with planning to assassinate some of the members of government and influential
individuals in Romanian public life, including bankers and newspaper publishers (mostly
Romanian Jews), during the national debate concerning the new constitution and the proposed
change of the infamous Article 7 which placed restrictions for non-Christians in becoming
citizens (while not directly mentioned, mainly affecting Jews).45 The six individuals in the
photograph46 were arrested and incarcerated in Bucharest’s Văcăreşti prison (formerly a
monastery). They were: Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Ion I. Moţa, Corneliu Georgescu, Radu
Mironovici, Ilie Gârneaţă, and Tudose (Theodosie) Popescu. Frequently, this same image is
featured in publications as representing the founders of the “Archangel Michael” Legion.47 In
March 1923, LANC decided to forego the use of the swastika but then in 1932-1933 the Cuzas were
influenced or talked into adopting it AGAIN when they visited Hitler?! If he had only read Codreanu’s
1925 pamphlet of letters from prison, Scrisori studenţeşti din închisoare, Văcăreşti, 9 octombrie 1923-30
martie 1924, Biblioteca “Generaţia Nouă” no. 7 (Iaşi: Tipografia “Libertatea” Orăştie, 1925), while he
was awaiting the trial for Manciu’s killing, Ioanid would have observed the large swastika emblem
between Codreanu’s name and its title! This pamphlet was housed in the Library of the Romanian
Academy’s section containing forbidden material which did not open up to the mere mortals until after
1989-1991 period. Oh well . . . one researches a subject and someone else researches a topic . . .
Question is, who is searching for the truth and who is pursuing a particular agenda? Is this in the interest
of serving Clio or pursuing perceived “loftier” goals?
45
Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera, The Green Shirts and Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and
Rumania (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1970), 255.
46
Legiunea în imagini, albumele Traian Borobaru (Madrid: Editura Mișcării Legionare, 1977), 17.
47
See, for example, Constantin Iordachi, “Charisma, Religion, and Ideology: Romania’s Interwar Legion
of the Archangel Michael,” Chapter 1: 19-53, in Ideologies and National Identities: The Case of
Twentieth-Century Southeastern Europe, John Lampe and Mark Mazower (eds.) (Budapest: Central
European University Press, 2006); online edition http://books.openedition.org/ceup/2418?lang=en
Codreanu’s Pentru legionari account, Tudose Popescu’s name is absent from those who met on
24 June 1927 in Iaşi and laid the foundation of the “Archangel Michael” Legion.48 Why? Is it
(accessed 4 February 2018). Thus, under the referenced image is the following caption: “The
Văcăreşteni. The founding members of the Legion, generically called the ‘Văcăreşteni,’ soon after their
acquittal by the Turnu Severin jury in 1924 following their participation in a student plot. Later named
‘The Knights [?!?] of the Annunciation,’ [Commanders of the Annunciation (in Romanian as Comandanţi
ai Bunei Vestiri) a much more appropriate and accurate translation since the term for knights in
Romanian translates as cavaleri] they formed the charismatic nucleus of the movement, preserved their
influence on the decision-making process, and were held in high esteem by the Legionaries. In the center
is Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, with Tudose Popescu at his right and Corneliu Georgescu at his left. In the
upper row, Ilie Gârneaţă on the left, Radu Mironovici center, and Ion I. Moţa on the right.” (insertions
and emphasis added).
Except for Codreanu and Moţa, however, the others are misidentified. Moreover, as a point of
clarity, not all six Văcăreşteni laid the foundation of the Legion in 1927. Thus, Tudose Popescu is the top
center figure who, although part of the “Văcăreşteni” group, was not a founder of the Legion, and not a
commander, not a legionaire. Oh well, facts should not stand in the way of a good story!
Unexplainably, Raul Cârstocea also uses the terminology of “Knights” instead of “Commanders”!
See “Native Fascists, Transnational Anti-Semites: The International Activity of Legionary Leader Ion I.
Moţa,” Chapter 8: 216-242, in Arnd Bauerk mper and Grzegorz Rossoli ski-Liebe (eds.), Fascism
without Borders: Connections and Cooperation between Movements and Regimes in Europe from 1918 to
1945 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2017), 218.
48
Codreanu, Pentru legionari, 295-298 (on the 24 June 1927 event); 341-344 (regarding the oath of all
those who have taken it on 8 November 1927, including five Văcăreşteni). Codreanu’s book (Pentru
legionari, 342-344; For My Legionaries, 250) contains 27 names of individuals who have taken the oath:
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Ion I. Moţa, Ilie Gârneaţă, Corneliu Georgescu, Radu Mironovici, Hristache
Solomon (who presided at this solemnity), G. Clime, Mille Lefter, Ion Banea, Victor Silaghi, Nicolae
(Niculai) Totu, Alexandru Ventonic, Dumitru Ifrim, Pantelimon Statache, Ghiţă Antonescu, Emil
Eremeiu, Ion Bordeianu, M. Ciobanu, Marius Pop, Mişu Crişan, Popa, Ion Butnaru (or is it Popa
Butnaru?), Budeiu, I. Tanasache, Ştefan Budeciu, Traian Cotigă, and the high school student Mihail
Stelescu. Precision regarding names in Romanian is a problem . . .
In Codreanu’s Cărticica Şefului de Cuib (1971) Stelescu’s name is inexplicably left out, perhaps
reflective of his actions leading to his 1934 expulsion from the Legion, and his brutal killing in July 1936
by ten legionaries, while other names are added (but are not found in Codreanu’s memoirs!), such as
Guriţă Ştefănescu and Paul Mihăiescu, identified as “dezertor” [?] (deserter) (81, Punctul 82: Scurt istoric
legionar). On the other hand, Nicolae Roşca, in his Ce este Frăţia de Cruce: origine/organizare/doctrină
[What Is the Brotherhood of the Cross: Origin/ Organization/ Doctrine] (Timişoara: Editura Gordian,
1996), has the same list as found in Pentru legionari which also includes Stelescu (21). Why this
inclusion/exclusion of Stelescu and others on the list of those present during the oath ceremony? Is it an
effort on the part of some legionaries to change documentary evidence in plain view?!
Şerban Milcoveanu (1913-2009), between 1937 and 1940 president of UNSCR (Uniunea
Naţională a Studenţilor Creştini Români = National Union of Romanian Christian Students), member of
the Legionary Movement holding the rank of Legion Instructor, and close to Corneliu Zelea Codreanu,
that by this time Tudose Popescu (born in 1898) was too ill to continue political activity and died
of cancer on 16 November 1931, or that he would not take sides and was no longer politically
active? There is little known information on Popescu after 1927. Did he remain in LANC?
To conclude this cycle of analysis of historical photographs, Josif Constantin Drăgan,49 in
one of his volumes on Marshal Ion Antonescu, identifies an image of the military leader and
head of state (known as Conducătorul) as taking part at a memorial ceremony rewarding the
parents and widows of the country’s fallen soldiers on the Eastern front,50 as allies of Germany.
In the initial Axis attack on the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 hundreds of Romanian soldiers
lost their lives. Yet, some four decades before Drăgan’s publication, the 1942 Britannica Book
of the Year contains the same photograph with the following inscription: “To widows of
wrote that Tudose Popescu was one of the founders of the “Archangel Michael” Legion, a claim
unsupported by known published sources; he also lists several other individuals who have taken the
November 1927 oath (and some perhaps later) as “founders,” although not defining the term itself. See
Şerban Milcoveanu, “190 Introducere la Studierea Mișcării Legionare,” 256-257, in Învierea, 4 (1994):
257. (Inside title page has the following: Nr. 4 Octombrie-Decembrie 1993!)
49
A Romanian ex-patriate who made a fortune in post-World War II Italy and had done well in post-1989
Romania. He was born in 1907 in Lugoj, Banat (Austria-Hungary, now in Romania) and died in Spain in
2008. Allegations concerning him are that he sympathized with the “Iron Guard” in his youth, admired
General/Marshal Ion Antonescu in the post-war period, and collaborated with the Communist regime of
Nicolae Ceauşescu, a relationship which resulted in access to, at that time, the closed archives,
culminating in Drăgan’s volumes of documents on Antonescu.
On the allegation of Drăgan’s membership in the Iron Guard, see A Fascist Century: Essays by
Roger Griffin. Edited by Matthew Feldman, with Preface by Stanley G. Payne (Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008): 173 (Part III, 7: Europe for the Europeans: Fascist
Myths of the European New Order 1922–1992): “In Romania, for example, the periodical Europa is
published by a Europa Nova publishing trust, headed by Iosif Constantin Dragan – former member of the
Iron Guard and advocate of the ultra-chauvinist aspects of the Ceaçescu [sic!] regime.” “Ceaçescu” [sic!]
also misspelled on page 174. Moreover, it is refreshing to see Ceauşescu was only an ultra-chauvinist
and not a repressive communist dictator . . . oh, well . . .! [emphasis added, with levity of course!]
50
Josif Constantin Drăgan, Antonescu, Mareşalul României şi răsboaiele de reîntregire 2 Vols.
(Cannaregio Veneţia: Editura Nagard, 1986, 1988), 2: bottom image facing page 40. The Romanian-
language caption is: “Mareşalul Ion Antonescu răsplăteşte pe părinţii eroilor şi pe văduvele de răsboi.”
Rumanian troops killed during the uprisings [sic!] of Jan. 21-23, 1941, Premier Ion Antonescu
personally distributed rewards at a ceremony in Bucharest.”51 It should be noted that it has been
reported that a handful of Romanian soldiers lost their lives in the events of January 1941. 52 In
fact, taking a closer look at the table in front of Antonescu, there appear to be a few hundred
envelopes! This same image (unsourced) is also in Ioan Dan’s book on Antonescu’s trial with
the following caption: “Rewarding worthiness, devotion and sacrifice for those who fell for the
ancestral land, after the conquest of Odessa.”53 Therefore, the opposing explanations of what
this one photograph represents cannot both be factually accurate.
51
1942 Britannica Book of the Year. A Record of the March of Events of 1941 (Chicago, Toronto,
London: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1942), 581 (insertion and emphasis added).
52
According to one source 21 Romanian army personnel died in the event. On this, consult The
Romanian Jewish Community, “2. The Massacres Before the War,”
http://www.romanianjewish.org/en/cap2.html (accessed 4 February 2018). Nagy-Talavera, Green Shirts
and Others (327), gives the same figure for military dead, while also mentioning 53 military wounded,
and “374 dead and 380 wounded among civilians,” as listed in the official report. He also states that the
same report listed 118 Jews killed, while Bucharest’s Jewish community organization “identified 630
Jews dead and 400 missing.” (327 note). It is not clear whether the latter figures are only for Bucharest or
for the entire country. One may also consult the work of Matatias Carp, General Secretary of the
Federation of Jewish Communities (before the war), and General Secretary of the Union of Romanian
Jews (after the war). Carp writes: “During the three days of the rebellion, 120 Jews were killed. Most of
the murders were done in the Splaiul Unirii zone, in front of the communal abattoir, on the Fundeni
highway, the Pantelimon highway, in the Bucurestii Noi area, in the street or in private houses.” See
Matatias Carp, The Black Book. The Sufferings of the Jews from Romania, 1940-1944. Preface by Dr.
Alexandru Safran Chief Rabbi of the Mosaic Religion from Romania. Vol. I: The Legionary Movement
and the Rebellion, Translated from Romanian by Gerda Tanner (Bucharest: The SOCEC & Co. S. A. R.
Publishing House, 1946), 159. Carp’s book is available online. For a different number, see The
International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania: Final Report, Elie Wiesel, Chairman (Bucureşti:
Poliron, 2004), 114, which gives the figure of 125 killed in Bucharest. This source is also available at
http://www.1.yadvashem.org (accessed on 18 July 2007).
53 Ioan Dan, “Procesul” Mareşalului Ion Antonescu. Ediţie revizuită şi îmbunătătiţă [Marshal Ion
Antonescu’s “Trial”. Revised and Improved Edition] (Bucureşti: Editura Lucman, 2005), 372. Online
edition: https://www.academia.edu/10239177/Ioan_Dan_-_Procesul_Maresalului_Ion_Antonescu
[accessed 4 July 2019]. The original Romanian caption is: “Răsplătirea vredniciei, a devotamentului şi a
jertfei celor care au căzut pentru pământul strămoşesc, după cucerirea Odesei.”
“Historical” Developments “Too Complex” for Some
In a general history of Europe, with chapters authored by different historians, in his
contribution to this collection, Kevin Passmore makes the following assertion that is, quite
frankly, beyond comprehension, an example of over-compression of complex historical
developments. “In Romania,” he writes, “Carol II intervened in 1920 to evict a government
perceived as too favourable to national minorities, and again in 1937-8 against the danger
represented by the fascist Iron Guard. Carol established a government under the patriarch of the
Romanian Orthodox Church, who introduced a corporatist state.”54 The historical facts are as
follow: Carol II became king on 8 June 1930 (and ruled until 6 September 1940); the passage
provides no clear understanding which government was considered too favorable to national
minorities and when it was in power (1920?!? 1930?); in the 1937-1938 period the evicted
government in February 1938 was the Goga-Cuza right-wing (or, according to some “experts,”
fascist) minority government, in power for seven weeks and which enacted a series of anti-
Semitic legislation. Therefore, it follows that it was this perceived danger of the growing
influence by the “fascist” Iron Guard which Carol II used to establish a royal dictatorship! It
was feared that if elections were held in early 1938 the Legion would win. If the “fascist and
anti-Semitic Iron Guard” represented a “danger” to the country, the fact that Carol II gave the
mandate to “the fascist and anti-Semitic” right-wing National Christian Party of Octavian Goga
and A. C. Cuza to form a minority government following the late December 1937 elections (a
54
Kevin Passmore, “Politics” Chapter 4: 77-115, in Julian Jackson (ed.), Europe 1900-1945. Short
Oxford History of Europe series (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 102. One
would think Oxford University Press would do a bettern job in fact-checking . . .
period Passmore unexplainably ignores) requires a more nuanced explanation than the cryptic,
confusing, and simplistic narrative. Thus, the argument is that in order to forestall the coming to
power of the fascist and anti-Semitic Iron Guard, King Carol II appointed a fascist and anti-
Semitic right-wing National Christian Party to form a minority government . . . ! In fact, one
historian argues that “through the establishment of an extreme nationalist and anti-Semitic
regime” King Carol II hoped “to steal some of the thunder of the Iron Guard.”55
Passmore’s Fascism: A Very Short Introduction, also published in 2002, contains a more
expanded narrative, although still questionable concerning omissions, “facts,” and “conclusion.”
Thus, in this version, there was “a royal coup d’état” in May 1920 but the monarch is nameless!
For the record, Ferdinand I was king in 1920 and one would be hard pressed to find any
historical evidence of such a royal action, whether in 1920 or 1930!?! This so-called “coup,”
Passmore continues, “prevented a peasant government from taking office,” which meant that
“authoritarian ‘liberal’ governments” ruled Romania for the following eight years. “These
administrations discriminated against non-Romanians in the economy and education and
pursued a policy of economic modernization financed by high taxes on the peasantry” who were,
however, in majority ethnic Romanians. This situation changed in 1928, Passmore continues,
which is two years before Carol’s return and assumption of the Romanian throne, when due to
the peasant discontent the National Peasant Party (NPP) won the election
with a mandate to restore constitutional government and give land to the peasantry. In
fact the NPP achieved little. Now that both parties had failed, power slipped back into the
55
Antony Polonsky, The Little Dictators: The History of Eastern Europe since 1918 (London, Boston,
and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), 89.
hands of the monarchy [when: 1930? 1937?], while Codreanu’s Legion of the Archangel
Michael (the Iron Guard) provided the main opposition to the royal regime.56
The question is, however: when did this opposition develop, and why? One should keep in mind
the legionaries were monarchists and, while Carol’s accession on the throne in June 1930 was
initially welcomed, the legionaries soon came to oppose his lifestyle and governing behavior.
Continuing his analysis, Passmore writes that in the December 1937 general election,
“the Legion gained 16% of the vote” and thus Carol II responded by forming “a frankly
dictatorial government under Orthodox patriarch Miron Cristea. In 1938 the Legion was banned,
and Codreanu was killed.”57 In his eagerness to attack the Romanian Orthodox Church,
Passmore continues to omit any reference to the Goga-Cuza minority government period of 28
December 1937-10 February 1938! Sowing seeds of confusion to a very muddled political scene
in interwar Romania is not helpful; in truth, it is most egregious to the actual historical record (if
56
Kevin Passmore, Fascism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press,
2002), 83 (insertion and emphasis added).
57
Passmore, Fascism, 83. The official figures for the vote the legionaries won has been given as 15.58%.
For the official results of the participating parties in these elections, see Florea Nedelcu, De la
restauraţie la dictatura regală [From Restoration to Royal Dictatorship] (Cluj: Editura Dacia, 1981),
238–39. While Nedelcu does not mention it, historians question these “official” numbers. For example,
Philip Morgan writes in his Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945 (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group, 2003), that “police reports” indicated that “the actual, rather than the officially recorded
vote for the Iron Guard was probably nearer 25 per cent of the total” (83). This, however, is unsourced
information. Rebecca Ann Haynes writes that German Minister in Bucharest Wilhelm Fabricius reported
that “All for the Country polled more than 23 per cent of the vote in Bucharest.” See her “Reluctant
Allies? Iuliu Maniu and Corneliu Zelea Codreanu against King Carol II of Romania,” The Slavonic and
East European Review (SEER), 85, 1 (January 2007):120, note 86. Moreover, she points out that
Constantin “Argetoianu’s diary entries reveal that it was the legionary movement which emerged as the
most popular of the nongovernment parties. On 21 December, the day after the election, Argetoianu was
woken at 6 a.m. by a friend at the Ministry of the Interior with the election results thus far. The
government (Tătărescu’s Liberals) had polled 32 per cent of the vote, with the National Peasant Party at
18 per cent and the Legion (All for the Country) at 22 per cent of the total vote. The following day, 22
December, Argetoianu recorded that the government had not published the election results at 5 p.m. on 21
December, ‘as promised’, or on the morning of 22 December.” (120, note 85) Haynes’ source is
Argetoianu, Însemnări zilnice, vol. 3, pp. 295–97, 21–22 December 1937.
that means anything at all?!). Moreover, in February 1938 Carol II banned all political parties,
not just Legionary Movement’s “Totul pentru Țară.”
“Four Prime Ministers in a Row” Or . . .
To consider another cryptic, confusing, and truly simplistic narrative, one need not search
any further than Philip Morgan’s 2003 Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945. Because of the royal
government’s action taken against the Legion in 1937-1939, he points out, the legionaries “were
still capable of the revenge assassination in September 1939 of the Prime Minister responsible
for the mass cull of the movement, also killing his successor, in 1940. It was the fast changing
international situation which brought better times for the Guard.”58 And, on the fate of several
high-ranking sitting and former officials during King Carol II’s rule, Morgan also writes the
following:
Between 1933 and 1940, the Legion managed to assassinate four Prime Ministers in a
row. It was little wonder that the Iron Guard alternated between a legal and illegal
organisation in the 1930s, nor that Carol eventually concluded that the only way to deal
with such a violently disruptive political party was to do away with all political parties.59
Morgan’s assertion is truly uninformed and quite erroneous: claiming that the legionaries
assassinated four prime ministers in a row can only mean that when killed, they were in and held
office one after the other. This, however, is a factually inaccurate statement! I.G. Duca and
Armand Călinescu were indeed sitting prime ministers during the time they were assassinated,
the former on 29 December 1933 and the latter on 21 September 1939. Two others were former
58
Morgan, Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, 84 (emphasis added). The reference to “the fast changing
international situation” (over the span of 8-9 months?!) is to the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and
the Soviet Union in September 1939 and the Nazi Blitzkrieg in the West in the spring of 1940.
Apparently the Sitzkrieg or Phoney War period of relative inactivity in the West was fast paced?!!
59
Morgan, Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, 83 (emphasis added).
prime ministers, Nicolae Iorga and Gheorghe Argeşanu, killed on 27 November 1940. This
means that both were out of office, the first having served from 19 April 1931 to 6 June 1932 and
the second between 21 and 28 September 1939. Therefore, while it sounds dramatic, the four
did not hold office one after the other, thus they were not assassinated in a row! In view of the
above factual information, what is the historical reality regarding these assassinations in a row?
In September 1939 Armand Călinescu, the prime minister in office, was assassinated, and
General Gheorghe Argeşanu immediately succeeded in that position. Although only a short
week in office, 21-28 September, it was an impactful time for Argeşanu to preside over the
government reprisals by carrying out a series of extrajudicial executions of most of the
influential legionaries held in administrative detention since the mass arrests of April 1938.
Therefore, he was out of office after 28 September 1939, until his own arrest shortly following
the establishment of the National-Legionary State in September 1940, and was awaiting trial at
the time of his execution. The legionaries feared that the sitting Prime Minister General Ion
Antonescu may be planning to release Argeşanu and many others who have been arrested for
what the legionaries considered the repression under King Carol II.60 It was in this context that
several detainees, including Argeşanu, were killed at the Jilava military prison on 26/27
November 1940.61
60
Whether it was real or not, this was the perception (see the discussion on the Jilava incident of
November 1940 below). See Horia Sima, Era Libertăţii. Vol. II: Statul-Naţional-Legionar [The Era of
Liberty. Vol. II: The National-Legionary State] (Madrid: Editura Mişcării Legionare, 1986), 171-172.
61
To continue with the list of prime ministers and their fate so the “experts” can understand the historical
developments, what follows is the list of all those who held this office until 1945 when, for all practical
purposes, Romania became “a people’s democracy” (although officially it was inaugurated in late 1947-
early 1948): Argeşanu was succeeded by the following individuals as “prime ministers in a row”:
In his assertion that “The Iron Guard thrived on official persecution and ‘martyrdom’,”62
Morgan appears to have accepted the notion that “official persecution” existed but is he
questioning whether “martyrdom” occurred? He certainly does not mention any government
killings of legionaries, only that Prime Minister Armand Călinescu, before his assassination in
September 1939, was “responsible for the mass cull of the movement . . .”63 Morgan does not
specify what exactly occurred regarding violence and killings in Romania only that the
legionaries were violent and thus, it appears, official government persecution was justified
Constantin Argetoianu, who served from 28 September to 24 November 1939 (on the morning of 6
May 1950, he was arrested by the Securitate and died in the infamous Sighet prison five years later, 6
February 1955). He was followed by
Gheorghe Tătărescu, in office from 25 November 1939 to 4 July 1940 (arrested on 5 May 1950, he was
held in the notorious Sighet prison, until released in 1955, and died in Bucharest on 28 March 1957).
Ion Gigurtu succeeded to the office and served from 4 July 1940 to 5 September 1940 (during the night
of 5-6 May 1950, he was arrested together with other former dignitaries of the monarchical period, and
sent to Sighet prison; on 24 November 1959 he died at Râmnicu Sărat penitentiary). Gigurtu was
replaced by
General (later Marshal) Ion Antonescu in office from 6 September 1940 until 23 August 1944 (when,
deposed by the royal coup, he was imprisoned in Bucharest, Moscow, and finally tried and executed by a
military firing squad on 1 June 1946 outside Bucharest’s Jilava prison). Antonescu was replaced as
Premier with
General Constantin Sănătescu, who presided over a national coalition government from 23 August to 2
December 1944 and died on 8 November 1947 at the age of 62.
General Nicolae Rădescu succeeded in office on 7 December 1944 and was replaced on 1 March 1945
(died in exile in New York City on 6 May 1953 at the age of 79).
Added to this list should be individuals who held the office of prime minister prior to 1939 and
were also arrested under the Communist regime:
Alexandru Vaida-Voevod, served on several occasions, the last time between 14 January and 14
November 1933. He was arrested on 24 March 1945, then was placed under house arrest in 1946 and
died on 19 March 1950 in Sibiu.
Iuliu Maniu served on several occasions, each for a short time, the last between 20 October 1932 and
13 January 1933. On 14 July 1947, Maniu was arrested; he was tried and sentenced to life in prison,
where he died on 5 February 1953 in the Sighetu Marmaţiei penitentiary, at the age of 80.
62
Morgan, Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, 83 (emphasis added).
63
Morgan, Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, 84.
although the Iron Guard thrived on the fact that its members were being killed by the
government!?
Religious Beliefs, Heretical Practices?
Another issue of academic factual distortion centers on the subject of religion. One of the
most egregious and nonsensical assertions on Legionarism and religion is that, while in prison in
1923 “for a conspiracy to kill politicians from the governing party, he [Corneliu Zelea
Codreanu] claimed to have a vision of the Archangel Michael, the patron saint [?!] of Romania’s
past national wars, who told him to dedicate his life to God, the Romanian Orthodox God.”
Consequently, the claim is that Codreanu had a “religious sense of being on a special and
personal divine mission.”64 It appears Morgan’s source for the religious vision rests on Z.
Barbu’s claim that Codreanu had his first vision in 1923 when”the Archangel Michael came to
him and urged to dedicate his life to God as revealed by the Rumanian Christian tradition.”65
Thus, Barbu’s original claim is a far cry from Morgan’s nonsense claim! Regardless, neither
Morgan nor Barbu cite the sources for their claims. Furthermore, although Morgan does not
mention it (or may not even be familiar with it), in 1939 the brothers Jérôme and Jean Tharaud
64
Morgan, Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, 43 (insertion and emphasis added). The conspiracy was to kill
various influential individuals—politicians, newspaper publishers, and businessmen—viewed as
responsible for the change of the Romanian constitution granting equal rights to all citizens (including
Jews), hardly politicians of the government party! Is this “Romanian Orthodox God” a reference to the
1989 song “Personal Jesus” by English electronic music band Depeche Mode of which Morgan may be a
fan?!
65
Z. Barbu, “Rumania,” 146-166, in S. J. Woolf (ed.), European Fascism (New York: Vintage Books,
1968; London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., 1968), 155; also published as Zev Barbu, “Rumania,” 151-
170, in S. J. Woolf (ed.), Fascism in Europe (London & New York: Methuen, 1981), 160. See also the
excerpted version of Barbu’s original 1968 essay as “Romania: the Iron Guard,” 195-200, in Aristotle A.
Kallis (ed.), The Fascism Reader (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2003),
197 (emphasis added).
published their L’Envoyé de l’Archange,66 but they do not make the claim that Codreanu had an
actual encounter with the Archangel Michael! The only possible source for such information is
Codreanu’s own writings, but one would be unsuccessful in finding in them any reference to
such a foolhardy assertion!
Does Morgan (or any reader) see how truly foolish this is to have Barbu’s “as revealed by
the Rumanian Christian tradition” comment (whatever it may mean) become a “Romanian
Orthodox God”? How insulting to all believing Romanian Orthodox this really is? Are we to
understand Morgan is a “theologian” on Christianity, in general, and Romanian Orthodoxy, in
particular? That some fringe and extreme elements in a society hold such radical views
(although he does not provide any evidence connecting this to Codreanu or any of the other
legionaire leaders) only demonstrates his complete bias or ignorance or both, and this passed the
publisher’s fact-checking?! Or, to add levity to this, any Romanian Orthodox Christian should
be grateful to Phillip Morgan for their salvation by informing them of the existence of their very
own “Romanian Orthodox God”! Granted, there were intellectuals such as Nae Ionescu (1890-
1940) who argued that to be Romanian meant to be Orthodox,67 but this is a far cry from the
“Romanian Orthodox God” assertion.
On this “vision” issue, what do original sources say? In his Pentru legionari, Codreanu
writes that, while in the Văcăreşti prison, he was preparing plans for a youth organization within
66
Jérôme Tharaud and Jean Tharaud, L’Envoyé de l’Archange (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1939). Legionaries
viewed the Tharauds as “no friends of the Legion.”
67
Nae Ionescu, Îndreptar Ortodox. Texte alese, ordonate şi adnotate de D. C. Amzar (Wiesbaden: Frăţia
Ortodoxă, 1957), 75-81, especially the article “Noi şi catolocismul” [Us and Catholicism], 31 Octombrie
1930 (78-81), in particular page 80. The idea rests on the argument that the Romanian nation was born
Orthodox Christian.
LANC “for educating the youth and for struggle.” His father informed him that the altar’s
iconostasis in the church had, on its left door, an extremenly beautiful icon of Archangel
Michael. Codreanu wrote the following about his experience in the church of the Văcăreşti
prison, on the 8 November 1923, the feast day of the Saints Michael and Gabriel the Archangels,
and of discussing the possible name of the planned youth organization:
. . . Moţa, Gârneaţă, Corneliu Georgescu, Radu Mironovici, Tudose and I went to look at
it and we were truly amazed. The icon appeared to us of unsurpassed beauty. I was never
attracted by the beauty of any icon. But now, I felt bound to this one with all my soul and
I had the feeling the Archangel was alive. Since then, I have come to love that icon.
Any time we found the church open, we entered and prayed before that icon. Our
hearts were filled with peace and joy.68
Clearly, Codreanu does not claim to have had “vision” of, or any conversation with, the
Archangel Michael and to have received his “personal divine mission,” in spite of “feeling the
Archangel Michael was alive.” Therefore, one has to question the “experts” on fascism (or are
they now also “theologians” on Romanian Orthodoxy as well) regarding the source for their own
“factual assertions.” Since Codreanu is not the source,69 it appears that the source for their
claim can only be . . . the Archangel Michael himself who, apparently talked with them, right?!
Since when did feelings become visions? Less forceful on this issue is (the Rev. Fr.) Alexander
F. C. Webster, priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States and Canada. He
writes: “The Legion began formally after Codreanu had a religious experience, reportedly by a
68
Codreanu, Pentru legionari, 179; Idem, For My Legionaries, 126. The quote is from the English-
language edition.
69
At the time of his “treason trial” in May 1938, during his imprisonment in April-June at Jilava,
Codreanu wrote a series of notes about his thoughts, dreams, and “hallucinations” of dead legionaries, but
one would be hard pressed to find any reference to an appearance by and conversations with the
archangel! (Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Însemnări de la Jilava [(Salzburg): Colecţia “Omul Nou”, 1951],
passim).
vision, relating to an icon of St. Michael the Archangel, under whose protective patronage
Codreanu placed his organization.”70 As a priest of the Orthodox Church, Webster acknowledges
the importance of icons in Orthodoxy and not some nonsensical apparition claim.
Continuing our discussion regarding faith, Stanley G. Payne writes that the Legion’s
religious practices place it outside Christianity, even being heretical. That is to say it “was not
merely its maniacal insistence on violence but its biological concept of the nation, whose essence
supposedly lay in the blood of the Romanian people.”71 Payne also claims that “to obtain
membership” in the Legion, “new affiliates in each cuib (nest) participated in a grisly ceremony
requiring that they suck blood from slashes in the arms of other members. They swore to obey
the ‘six fundamental laws’ of the cuib: discipline, work, silence, education, mutual aid, and
honor.” This, the argument runs, was followed up by inductees writing “oaths in their own
blood, pledging even to kill when so ordered.” Furthermore, “Members of the Legion’s direct-
action units, appropriately termed echipa morţii (death squads [sic!]), in turn, each contributed
some of their blood to a common glass, from which all drank, uniting them in life and death.” 72
70
Alexander F. C. Webster (Rev. Fr.), The Romanian Legionary Movement – An Orthodox Christian
Assessment of Anti-Semitism.The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Studies No. 502
(Pittsburgh, PA: Center for Russian and East European Studies, University of Pittsburgh, February 1986),
9 (emphasis added). This is one of the many pamphlets the Center has published over the years.
71
Payne, A History of Fascism, 281.
72
Payne, A History of Fascism, 285 (emphasis and insertion added). If it makes a difference: echipa
morţii translates as death team (one unit) while echipele morţii would be death teams (several
units).
Payne does not cite the source for his version of this “practice” in the “history of Legionarism.”
By the “all drank” claim, are we to understand that only each of the members of the echipa morţii
“contributed some of their blood to a common glass . . .”? Quite a high level of nonsense this is, is it not?
And the “scholars” writing this nonsense actually believe in their own words? What kind of magic potion
did they mix with their blood in a common cup from which they have taken a sip? Is this an allusion to
the assassins of a Nizari Isma'ili sect of Shia Islam who lived in the mountains of Persia and in Syria
As evidence that such unverifiable and unsourced assertions are perpetuated by other historians,
one should only consult Kevin Passmore’s short introductory book on fascism. He, too,
characterizes the Legion’s religion as “a heretical sect” which
was closely coupled to the romantic nationalist myth of Romanian rebirth long popular in
intellectual circles, and was displayed through bizarre rituals which had little to do with
organized religion (except as a form of grotesque mimicry – members of the Legion’s
death squads ritually drank each other’s blood). Codreanu rejected the notion that
religious principles should govern political behaviour.73
between 1090 and 1275, who smoked hashish before going on a mission, thus becoming known as
hashashins.assassins? Really? This claim, while not credited, from a logical perspective can only be
found in the Nest Leader’s Manual. In fact, Payne has already referred to the “six fundamental laws” of
the Legion (Cărticica Şefului de Cuib, 6-7), although the claimed blood-letting event is totally missing
from it! See also Codreanu, For My Legionaries (246), on the six laws.
73
Passmore, Fascism, 83 (insertion and emphasis added).
Passmore’s reference to Codreanu’s rejection of religious principles in politics is not sourced.
Although more nuanced, Codreanu’s position is enunciated in the speech he gave on 3 December 1931 in
the Romanian Parliament in which he declared that he favored the death penalty for corrupt politicians
who cause irreparable harm to the country. Mention should be made that Romania did not have capital
punishment at this time. Claiming to be speaking for the youth, he presented several proposals/demands:
“WE DEMAND the exclusive introduction of death penalty for fraudulent manipulators of public
money. (Applauses on several benches).
Deputy V. G. Ispir: Mr. Codreanu, you call yourself Christian and speaker of Christian ideas. I
remind you - I am a professor of theology - that to support this idea is anti-Christian. (Applauses).
Deputy Corneliu Zelea-Codreanu: Mr. Professor, allow me to reply to you: when it is the question
of choosing between death, the disappearance of my country and that of the thief, I prefer the
thief’s death and I am a better Christian if I do not allow the thief to ruin my country and lead it
to destruction. (Applauses on several benches). [It is to this Passmore appears to allude.]
WE DEMAND a review and confiscation of the fortunes of those who have robbed their country
poor. (Cries of "Bravo!")
WE DEMAND criminal accountability for all politicians who will be proven that they worked
against the country, having supported inappropriate private business activity. (Applauses on
several benches).
WE DEMAND future prevention of politicians to serve on administrative council of different
banks or enterprises. (Applauses on several benches).”
(Codreanu, Cărticica Şefului de Cuib [1971], 106: Point 85 [insertion and emphasis added]).
Passmore, too, could not resist labeling the Legion “an extremely violent organization” whose
“members’ willingness to fight to the death was matched only in the SS, in which occult ideas
were also present.”74 Somehow the legionaries’ collection and mixing of soil from national
historic sites, such as battlefields and grave sites of national figures (political and cultural),
which they used to fill small leather bags they wore around their necks,75 became the mixing of
blood and drinking it from a common cup (an academic allusion that is a form of mockery of the
New Testament’s Last Supper event, thus making it possible to assert that the Legion was . . .
heretical?). But the mixing of blood and drinking it from a common cup was done only by
members of the echipa morţii, or so the argument runs. But which of the echipe: all, one, the
most “ferocious” of them? Which one would that be? Was the entire Legion made up of these
various echipe (actually cuiburi = nests)? Does it even matter when claims are not based on
facts? This is quite a claim to a “blood-letting” ceremony worthy of a Hollywood production
and, if we are to accept Bram Stoker’s vision of Dracula (Vlad III Ţepeş; Vlad the Impaler), it
74
Passmore, Fascism, 83. But how violent of an organization was the Legion? What standard definition
is used to determine its violence? Is there a definition for the government’s violence, or . . .? And it
appears the Legion’s religious beliefs were really “occult ideas,” just as those of the SS?! Is Passmore of
the belief that the SS were . . . Christian? There is no denial by reasonable people that the legionaries
claimed to be and were Christian, despite what some “experts” argue. One sided presentation of the issue
of violence is not scholarly but biased; context should also be considered.
75
See Codreanu, Cărticica Şefului de Cuib (1971), 85-93.
Or, as Z. Barbu notes, a “primitive ceremony”? Barbu mentions the ritual of wearing “around
their necks a tiny bag of Rumanian soil and that there was nothing in the world which they would not do
at the sight of it” (Z. Barbu, “Rumania,” 146-166, in S. J. Woolf (ed.), European Fascism [(New York:
Vintage Books, 1968; London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., 1968], 156, 157; also published as Zev
Barbu, “Rumania,” 151-170, in S. J. Woolf (ed.), Fascism in Europe [London & New York: Methuen,
1981], 160, 162). Really? They were so fanatical that . . . they would do anything, including . . . murder?!
But, when was the drinking/sucking of blood discovered by the scholars that Barbu seems to have
“ignored” or was unaware? Moreover, it appears that what normal people consider “traditional”
apparently some “scholars,” who have “evolved” in their views, consider “primitive”? Would “archaic”
have been a less judgmental term?!
follows that all the legionaries were . . . vampires (and thus the justification of the charge of
occult ideas due to blood orgy)?! Indeed, now we are in a different discipline than history,
certainly not dealing with reality (literally and figuratively). Apparently, this fictional reality
passes for scholarship and is perpetuated without honest and healthy dose of intellectual
skepticism! Or, can this emphasis on ceremony involving blood be a misreading of the reference
that the collected soil from the battlefields where Romanians died fighting their enemy had been
stained with their blood, and thus . . .?
Factual Errors, Distortions, Misinformation, Disinformation?
Since scholars have made questionable assertions regarding the Legionary Movement,
then it is no surprise the cyber media is fraught with distortions (based on the works by these
scholars). The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, in its English-language entry on I. G. Duca’s
period as head of the government (14 November-29 December 1933) and his actions taken
against the “Archangel Michael” Legion, has the following:
In November 1933, King Carol II asked Duca to head the government as prime minister
in preparation for the December elections. In this capacity, Duca worked to keep the
rising support for the Iron Guard, also known as The Legion of the Archangel Michael, a
fascist movement led by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, in check, even outlawing the All for
the Fatherland-party,76 which was their political arm. What followed was a time of
violence when police on orders from Duca sometimes attacked Iron Guard-members
(which led to the deaths of some of the members) and jailed thousands of them. Shortly
after these events and the release of many of the Iron Guard-members from jail, Duca
was shot to death, as a form of revenge, on the platform of the Sinaia train station by
76
For the sake of clarity and historical accuracy, let us entertain the following question: How can it be
possible for a party which was established in late 1934, “Everything for the Country” Party, to have been
outlawed by I. G. Duca who was assassinated in December 1933! It is probably a reference to the Iron
Guard . . . At least the contributors of this entry mention the police violence as government policy.
Nicolae Constantinescu accompanied by two other persons. All three of them were
sentenced to jail for the murder.77
The above is a perfect example of how ignorance and misinformation are perpetuated by the
unknown authors of this and other entries in the cyber media, assertions rooted, however, in
similar factual inaccuracies found in the writings of the academics and “experts” on the history
of “generic fascism” and of the Legionary Movement.
This is a great example why many in the academia have misgivings on relying upon
Wikipedia in schools because of the posting of unverifiable and often factually erroneous
information. This essay’s raison d’être is, however, that academics/scholars have done exactly
the same, making claims unsupported by factual evidence or outright disinformation, and
continue to do so with greater frequency! Or, has this changed post-1989, as Marius Turda
claims in a 2005 review essay stating that the new crop of scholars are now free from the old
ideological restraints which existed in the pre-1989 era? But what influences have been at play
since 1989? Do the articles and other studies since then have anything in common concerning
any form of influence instead of being true to Clio?78
77
“Ion G. Duca,” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_G._Duca [accessed 4 September 2018]) (insertions
and emphasis added). The Romanian language entry is more balanced and factual (“Ion Gheorghe Duca,”
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Gheorghe_Duca).
78
See Marius Turda, Review Article, “New Perspective on Romanian Fascism: Themes and
Options,” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 6, 1 (June 2005): 143-150. He reviews the
following: Constantin Iordachi, Charisma, Politics and Violence: The Legion of the ‘Archangel Michael’
in Interwar Romania. Trondheim: Trondheim Studies on East European Cultures and Societies, 2004;
Radu Ioanid, ‘The Sacralised Politics of the Romanian Iron Guard’, Totalitarian Movements and Political
Religions–Special issue on Political Religions 5/3 (Winter 2004): 419–453; Valentin Săndulescu,
‘Fascism and Its Quest for the “New Man”: The Case of the Romanian Legionary Movement’, Studia
Hebraica 4 (2004): 349–361.
Such information needs to be brought into the realm of factual reality. The government
justified its action as being necessary in order to remove a threat to the state security. By its
action, however, the government also prevented the Legion from participating in the legal
elections! On the other hand, when the arrested legionaries were released shortly following these
elections without having been charged with any “alleged crimes” for which they have been
arrested in the first place, this decision must be placed in the proper context of cause and effect:
how was the perceived threat to state security removed without any of the legionaries having
been charged with and tried for any “subversive crimes” which threatened the state (other than
those who were killed in the procees of being arrested)? Was the government’s sole purpose for
its action only to prevent an opposition political group it disliked (or worse) from legally
participating in the elections? To assert that I. G. Duca was assassinated “as a form of revenge”
raises further questions. If it was just “revenge,” for what exactly would it have been? Was it
for Duca government’s heavy-handed policy of preventing the legionaries from participating in
the elections? Was it for the deaths of several legionaries and the mass arrests during the
enforcement of the dissolution order? In other words, was it retaliation? Moreover, was the 9
December 1933 decree even constitutional?
A truly unfortunate series of factual errors one finds in several entries in a Romanian
encyclopedia published in 2011, which may have influenced others into perpetuating them.
Thus, there is the assertion that in 1924 the “Legiunea Arhanghelului [sic] Mihail” was founded
by the five Văcăreşteni, while in 1932 Corneliu Zelea Codreanu established partidul “Totul
pentru Țară” which, according to the author, “was involved in the assassination of Prime
Minister Gheorghe Duca (1933) and of the journalist Mihai Stelescu (1936).”79 In a separate
entry for the journalist Stelescu, however, his Legionary past is mentioned, as well as the
possibility of having been a Romanian Secret Service agent. 80 On the other hand, in the entry for
Ion I. Moţa, 1927 is given as the year in which the Iron Guard (Legiunea Arhanghelului [sic!]
Mihail) was established!81
In an English-language world history encyclopedia entry titled “fascism,” author Justin
Corfield managed to construct this following gem, a great example of over-compression (in the
same vein as the above quote from Wikipedia) of a series of complex historical developments
over the course of 15 years by presenting the Iron Guard as the umbrella movement of groups
which came before and after its establishment:
Romania also had its own fascist movement, known as the Garda de Fier (Iron Guard),
which also operated under the names the League of Christian Defense, the Legion of the
Archangel Michael, and All for the Fatherland. These groups, led by Corneliu Codreanu,
were disbanded in 1938, with Codreanu himself arrested in the following year.82
79
“Zelea-Codreanu, Corneliu,” in Ecaterina Ţarălungă, Enciclopedia identităţii româneşti. Personalităţi
(Bucureşti: Litera Internaţional, 2011), 844 (emphasis added). The author uses the hyphenated name
“Zelea-Codreanu” rather than the common usage of Codreanu, in an apparent effort to demonstrate the
alleged “foreign origins” of the Legionary leader. This practice is frequently employed in other
publications, including Armin Heinen and others. Questioning Codreanu’s origins is a common practice
among many writers who selectively use some facts while ignoring or distorting others – this issue,
however, is not the focus at this time. Suffice it to point out, as clarification and perspective, one should
consider his 1925 pamphlet of letters from prison in which the hyphenated name is used, but the only
time. On the other hand, Stelian Neagoe, in his Triumful raţiunii împotriva violenţei (passim), is
consistent in his emphasis of using Zilinski throughout his opus, except when citing directly from the
sources . . .
80
“Stelescu, Mihail,” in Ţarălungă, Enciclopedia identităţii româneşti, 730.
81
“Moţa, Ion I.,” in Ţarălungă, Enciclopedia identităţii româneşti, 524: “A fost unul dintre fondatorii
Gărzii de Fier (Legiunea Arhanghelului [sic!] Mihail), 1927.”
82
Justin Corfield, “fascism,” in Encyclopedia of World History: Crisis and Achievement, 1900 to 1950,
Vol. V, Marsha E. Ackermann, Michael J. Schroeder, Janice J. Terry, Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur, Mark F.
Whitters (eds.) (New York, NY: Facts On File, Inc., An imprint of Infobase Publishing, 2008), 102-103.
While other “experts” on ”generic fascism” asserted erroneously (as already discussed above)
that Octavian Goga or A.C. Cuza were leaders or members of the Iron Guard, Corfield made
Codreanu the simultaneous leader of Cuza’s the League of [National] Christian Defense (which
he, Codreanu, left in 1927) and of the other three organizations he lists and which all functioned
at the same time and were all dissolved in 1938, but that Codreanu also was arrested in the
following year. This last point means only that the year of his arrest was 1939, which was a
year after his actual arrest and execution on government orders!
As previously noted, significant historical inaccuracies of fact in scholarly and other
sources, that is in the print (the “old”) and the cyber (the “new”) media, present quite a challenge
to the interested readers as well as reviewers. Some reviewers appear to have either not given
due importance or to have been unaware of the factual errors contained in the studies they were
reviewing since they bestowed lavish praise upon these works and their authors and their
customary conclusions reached (based, however, on factual inaccuracies). Anyone with
rudimentary knowledge of (or academic honesty regarding) the history of the Legionary
Movement would not have made such grievous errors as the ones discussed above, but this
seems to be acceptable practice in which numerous scholars and other writers on “right-wing”
and “fascist” organizations engage, many of whom also give a perfunctory historical survey of
the “Archangel Michael” Legion.83 And, it appears, sadly, that in this case such scholarship is
83
For illustration see, among others, Morgan and Passmore’s works cited above on the many factual
inaccuracies.
Moreover, the following works and reviews are significant examples of the issue of historical
errors:
not approached with necessary critical perspective, illustrating the danger of uncritical
acceptance of like-minded views or foregone conclusions.
Back to Basics:
Questions on Primary Sources, Translations, Publishers
Moreover, Anglophone scholars asserted at times the alleged lack of writings by
Codreanu and other members of the Legionary Movement available in the English language.84 If
this implies an existence of paltry number of Legionary primary sources in English issued by
Bertram M. Gordon, review, “Alan Cassels, Fascism,” The History Teacher 9, 3 (May 1976):
493-494; Charles S. Maier, “Some Recent Studies of Fascism,” Journal of Modern History 48, 3
(September 1976): 506-521.
Eugen Weber, review, “Leon Volovici, Nationalist Ideology and Antisemitism,” Reshaping the
Past: Jewish History and the Historians. Studies on Contemporary Jewry, An Annual X, ed. Jonathan
Frankel (Institute of Contemporary Jewry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1994), 298-301.
Roger Griffin, review, "Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914–1945," The Journal of
Modern History 70, 2 (June 1998): 448-451.
Vladimir Solonari, review, “Clark, Roland, Holy Legionary Youth: Fascist Activism in Interwar
Romania.” H-Romania, H-Net Reviews. March, 2016. (accessed on 27 August 2019).
The above few examples demonstrate that often experts on the history of fascism give glowing
reviews to works on fascism, although there is great deal of debate and lack of consensus on the definition
of what constitutes “generic fascism”. For an earlier study on this issue, see Gilbert Allardyce, “What
Fascism Is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept,” American Historical Review 84, 2 (1 April
1979): 367–388. Since then, other studies have been published, many containing very elaborate
definitions (or typologies) which appear to have been customized in order to include every nationalist,
anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, right-wing movement/party/regime in interwar Europe (and other parts of
the world). Among others, see Roger Griffin’s note and his efforts of resuscitating the field of “generic
fascism” studies with his “palingenetic ultranationalism” theory. See his note “Debate on Fascism: What
fascism is not and is. Thoughts on the re-inflation of a concept,” Fascism 2 (2013): 259–261; Fascism, 4,
and https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/ideologies/resources/griffin-the-palingenetic-core/
84
See, for example, Stephen Fischer-Galați, “Codreanu, Romanian National Traditions and Charisma,”
Totalitarian Movements and Political Religion 7, 2 (June 2006): 250, note 3. Romanian-born Fischer-
Galați writes the following: “Little of Codreanu’s writings have appeared in English, though selections
can increasingly be found on (often sympathizing) websites such as www.codreanu.ro/engleza.htm.”
That by this point in time all the major works by Codreanu have been translated into various foreign
languages, including English, and this fact is relatively unknown to scholars on the subject, is certainly
astonishing, to say the least!
what apparently scholars view as “acceptable” or “respectable” publishers, then that may be
“factually accurate”; if the claim is that “little . . . writings have appeared,” then knowledge of
the subject is seriously deficient.85 But then there is also the case of Alexander E. Ronnett’s
brief pro-Legionary pamphlet published originally by the Loyola University Press in 1974 and
85
Beginning with the late 1970s, a series of Legionary primary sources in the Romanian language were
published in English translation by “Editura Libertatea” in Madrid and distributed in North America by
Liberty Bell Publications, Reedy, West Virginia. Some titles are also available for purchase online from
Amazon.com and other internet web sites (to which Fischer-Galați has referred, as quoted above, but only
as “selections” rather than the entire works of prominent members of the Legion, including his brief
selections which he translated from Pentru legionari [Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, “A Few Remarks on
Democracy,” 327-330, in Stephen Fischer-Galați (ed.), Man, State, and Society in East European History
[New York-Washington-London: Praeger Publishers, 1970]. Since the start of the 21st century, a plethora
of editions in the English language of writings by several legionaries and about the history of the Legion
appeared, distributed by several organizations.
Should the “academics” continue their myopic view and ignore sources with which they
fundamentally disagree, even primary sources?! Such sources will not go away and have, for better or for
worse, only multiplied. For example, there had been an aversion on their part to consider sources in the
Journal of Historical Review, yet it published in English at least one article on the Legion written by
legionaries, namely, Alexander E. Ronnett and Faust Brădescu, “The Legionary Movement in Romania,”
Journal of Historical Review 7, 2 (Summer 1986): 193-228; also at https://www.historiography-
project.com/jhrchives/v07/v07p193_Ronnett.html (accessed 20 March 2006). Alexander E. Ronnett
(1920-2001), Romanian-born Chicago dentist, had a very close association with the Legionary
Commander Horia Sima. Faust Brădescu (1912-2000), Ph.D. in law, lived in Brazil and France, was one
of Horia Sima’s close collaborators and an ideologue of the Legion following the war. While not a
legionaire, there is also the controversial article by Şerban Andronescu, “Romanians and the Holocaust,”
Journal of Historical Review 3, 2 (Spring 1982): 211-223); also at https://www.historiography-
project.com/jhrchives/v03/v03p211_Andronescu.php (accessed 20 March 2006).
For a criticism on the reliance on online sources (or conducting research online), see Roger
Griffin’s note “Debate on Fascism: What fascism is not and is. Thoughts on the re-inflation of a concept,”
Fascism 2 (2013): 259–261, especially 260. Ironically, this article of his was accessed on brill.com/fasc
by pure chance, action and result reminiscent of the perusal of the old-fashioned card catalog in every
library of days gone by. I suppose Griffin would quip that individuals like myself are in that category he
so smugly noted as “amateurs masquerading as ‘experts’ on the strength of a few Google-hours of
surfing.” The reality is “Google-hours” alone are not sufficient for research on this special “domain”
Griffin et al. have appropriated to themselves and are jealously protecting it and constantly attempting to
re-invent and clarify “what fascism is not and is,” still being in the discovery stages after a century since
Benito Mussolini’s March 1919 rally in Milan, Italy. In the end, whether one spends “a few Google-
hours of surfing” or several years of reading/studying sources in print, one can still “masquerade as
expert,” as presented in the analysis of sources discussed in this essay and the factual errors, distortions,
misinformation, disinformation some of these works by “experts” demonstrate.
Sherman David Spector’s harsh criticism of this reputable press for publishing this essay.86
Spector’s opening sentence is very revealing of his animus toward everything associated with the
subject: “Why a scholarly publisher, in this case Loyola University Press, issued this polemic is
incomprehensible unless this press has been forced into vanity publishing.” Apparently, the
concept of publishing different perspectives one considers “polemical” and “incomprehensible”
when in conflict with one’s understanding of the “facts” is problematic!? At the same time,
Spector later on makes the point that “Ronnett’s qualifications to analyse the Iron Guard are
limited to his membership.” Indeed “membership” and thus . . . primary source!? What
academic fully believes a primary source to be completely objective anyway? Perhaps Spector
should have been aware of Ronnett’s close association with Sima at that time. One wonders
about the reviewer’s point (unless it is the publisher’s error) when he states that Ronnett’s is an
“effort to rehabilitate Romania’s Legionary Movement, more familiarly known as the «Iron
Cross».”!? Moreover, Sherman David Spector recommends that “Ronnett should have given his
opus to the John Birch Society whose «Western Publishing Company» once printed the memoirs
of Mihai Sturdza . . . .”87 Academics cannot lament the alleged dearth of primary sources
86
See Sherman David Spector, review, “Alexander E. Ronnett, Romanian Nationalism: the Legionary
Movement,” in Balkan Studies 17, 1 (1976): 169-170.
As a contextual reference, one should consider the fact that in the midst of the Second World
War, the American publisher Houghton Mifflin Company of Boston published in 1943 an English
language translation of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf! Polemical tract? Propaganda tool? Yes, clear to
everyone and published by a reputable publisher nonetheless!
That the late Sherman David Spector (1927-2008) had taken such a position in his review is
bewildering considering that he is the author of an excellent study on Romania’s participation at the Paris
peace conference in 1919-1920. See his Rumania at the Paris Peace Conference. A Study of the
Diplomacy of Ioan I. C. Brǎtianu (New York: Bookman Associates Inc., 1962).
87
Spector, review, “Alexander E. Ronnett, Romanian Nationalism: the Legionary Movement,” in Balkan
Studies 17, 1 (1976): 169 (emphasis added).
available in the English language and lambast the publisher when it publishes one! In Alexander
F. C. Webster’s case, he is apparently unaware of Ronnett’s membership in the Legion since he
writes that he was “unabashedly pro-Legion. His pamphlet is essentially an apologia.”88
It also appears to be confusing to some scholars (or their graduate assistants) the various
foreign language editions of Codreanu’s Pentru legionari. Thus, in his A History of Fascism,
1914-1945, Stanley G. Payne has Codreanu’s Spanish language edition, Guardia de Hierro
(Barcelona, 1976), listed under primary sources, while the German edition Eiserne Garde
(Berlin, 1939) is listed under secondary sources!89 Apparently, in some warpped reversal of
foray into alternate reality, it is not the author but the language that makes a work primary or
secondary source! What would, let us say, the existing French (La Garde de Fer [Pour les
Legionnaires], 1938) or Italian (Guardia di Ferro [Per I Legionari], 1938) or the original
Romanian language editions have been (should be) listed under?
To continue the discussion regarding the issue of primary sources and documentation, Z.
Barbu informs the reader that his study was
written by someone [Barbu himself] who witnessed [really?! lived during the time?] most
of the events to which it refers. [. . .] The re-reading of the political and autobiographical
Just to clarify: the Legionary Movement was “more familiarly” known in the West as the “Iron
Guard,” never as the “Iron Cross”! For those unfamiliar with all this, the Iron Cross reference makes no
sense at all! Is it reference to the Arrow Cross Party of Ferenc Szálasi in Hungary? Or to the Iron Guard
symbol of three overlapping crosses (symbolizing the bars to prison windows)?
88
Webster, The Romanian Legionary Movement, 62-63, note 12.
89
Payne, A History of Fascism, 526, 531.
Is this an example of the practice and a dangerous pitfall in relying on graduate students to do the
research and word processing and proofreading for an erudite scholar who does not verify his own work?
While in elementary school in what was Yugoslavia, I learned the differences between primary and
secondary sources, especially if the author is the subject of the study. If that author’s work is available in
multiple languages, that work in translation is still a primary source just as the original one is. But then
those teachers were Communist and thus, perhaps, they had different standards or definitions . . .
works of the leaders of the Iron Guard, Codreanu and Motsa, added considerably to my
understanding of some of the most characteristic traits of Rumanian fascism. As far as
primary sources are concerned, however, it must be said that most of the studies
published so far in Rumanian or other languages, are on the whole under-documented.90
Apparently to Barbu the political and autobiographical works of Codreanu and Moţa are not
documented primary sources! Granted, in the late 1960s there were only a handful of studies in
the English language on the “Archangel Michael” Legion, while there were also others in other
foreign languages, besides Romanian, which have been published since the late 1930s but
difficult to locate (but not impossible for those with intellectual curiosity and in spite of limited
availability).
Since the momentous changes of 1989-1991 in eastern Europe, attempts at more balanced
studies on the subject appeared in Romania.91 In addition, several monographs, biographies,
90
Z. Barbu, “Rumania,” European Fascism (1968), 150; also published as Zev Barbu, “Rumania,”
Fascism in Europe (1981), 154-155 (insertion and emphasis added).
91
See, for example, such articles in Bucharest’s Erasmus and Arhivele totalitarismului reviews, among
others. In fact, when the floodgates opened, there has been a plethora of post-1989 publications in
Romania of articles and books mostly in the Romanian language by proponents and opponents of the
Legion, both in print and on the internet.
There are also English-language studies of different scholarly degrees which have been published
by authors in, and from, Romania. See in particular Marius Turda, Review Article, “New Perspective on
Romanian Fascism: Themes and Options,” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 6, 1 (June
2005): 143-150.
For a review of the historiography by opponents of the Legion prior to 1989, see Radu Ioanid,
The Sword of the Archangel, 1-23. For the trends in the historiography since 1989, see the essay by
Bogdan Murgescu, “The Romanian Historiography in the 1990s,” in Romanian Journal of Political
Science 3, 1 (Spring 2003): 30-59. For a review of publications on Romanian “fascism” prior to mid-
1970s by historians of the communist regime and those in “exile,” see Bela Vago, “Fascism in Eastern
Europe,”Chapter 6: 229-253, in Walter Laqueur (ed.), Fascism: A Reader’s Guide. Analyses,
Interpretations, Bibliography (Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press,
1976), especially 233-241.
For an extensive list of sources on the history of the Legionary movement, see Răzvan
Codreascu, “Mişcarea Legionară: Dosar bibliographic,” posted on 4 September 2009 on http://razvan-
codrescu.blogspot.com/2009/09/miscarea-legionara-dosar-bibliografic.html (accessed 31 January 2019),
which is an expanded version to the bibliography published in his În căutarea Legiunii pierdute [In
memoirs, and collections of archival material have been published in the Romanian language.
The challenge some of the works in the English language demonstrate is the poor quality of
translation, to the point that often passages are unintelligible, thus rendering the study in question
almost useless. In fact, the order of words and sentences in some of the published translations
are reminiscent of Jackson Pollock’s canvases!92 This holds true for studies on the Legionary
Movement as well as on Romanian history in general, a legacy inherited from the “golden era”
Search of the Lost Legion] (Bucureşti: Editura Vremea, 2001). Some consider Codrescu as representative
of right-wing extremism in Romania.
92
See, for example, Zigu Ornea, The Romanian extreme Right. The Nineteen Thirties (Boulder, CO: East
European Monographs, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1999), passim. But even
Radu Ioanid’s The Sword of the Archangel leaves a lot to be desired. It appears that the translator/s
and/or editor/s could not decide whether the subject was “Romania” (as in the book’s title) or “Rumania”
or “Roumania” (excluding direct quotations) used throughout the book. Moreover, the flowery Romanian
prose does not translate well into English unless one has at least rudimentary familiarity with the subject.
Credit for the translation of Ioanid’s work is given to Peter Heinegg. Further proof that too many
individuals had a role in this project, the author of the index has the name of Legionary commander
Vasile Marin as Nicolae Marin (322) whereas it is correct in the text itself, or the different (and
imaginative) ways of spelling A. C. Cuza throughout this opus, . . . as well as other names! In other
words, the translation is consistent in its inconsistency.
A truly problematic translation (assuming it is a translation of the Romanian original which,
hopefully, is a clearer narrative text) is Adina Babeş, “Prelude to assassination. An episode of the
Romanian Holocaust,” Holocaust. Studii şi Cercetări, III, 1(4) (Bucureşti: Editura Curtea Veche, 2011),
no pagination. See https://www.academia.edu/21452216/Prelude_to_assassination._ An_episode_of_the_
Romanian_Holocaust [accessed 30 May 2020]. The article had a promising start . . . Adina Babeş-
Fruchter is senior researcher with ‘Elie Wiesel’ National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Romania.
See also Ilarion Ţiu, “Terrorism as Political Tool. The Assassination of Romanian Prime-Minister
Armand Călinescu by Legionnaires: 21st of September 1939,” in Cogito – Multidisciplinary Research
Journal V, 3 (September 2013): 61-69; Idem, “Romanian Fascism During World War II. The National-
Legionary Government (September 1940-January 1941),” in Cogito – Revistă de Cercetare Ştiinţifică
Pluridisciplinară VIII, 1 (March 2016): 34-49; Cristian Alexandu Groza, “The Fascist Phenomenon.
National Legionary State between laws, journals, memoirs, and the Jewish repression between 20-23
January 1941,” Transgression, Journal of Education Culture and Society, 1 (2014): 61-78.
On an unrelated subject, but illustrative of problems in translation and a challenge in following
the narrative, much to my disappointment since it is a subject of special personal interest, see Florin
Anghel, “Within the Axis: Toward a New Little Entente, 1941-1943,” Annals of the Academy of
Romanian Scientists, Series on History and Archeology, 3, 3 (2011): 47-56; this is a translation of his
longer original Romanian language variation, “O alternativă de colaborare în interiorul Axei. Spre o nouă
Mică Înţelegere, 1941-1944,” in Revista Istorică, 3-4 (1996): 233-257.
of “socialist realism,” when officially sanctioned works in Romanian were also published in
several different foreign languages authored by several individuals exemplifying “group think.”
During that same pre-1989 period some of the authors whose works are cited in this essay have
become experts as students of history and established a reputation in the post-1989 era.
Do Certain “Facts” Matter? Should Those “Facts” Matter to Our “Experts”?
In light of the preceding, another task of this essay is to bridge the gap between facts and
misrepresentations found in works published in Romania and elsewhere. For example, whatever
one’s point of view might be, factual distortions regarding such events as the founding on 24
June 1927 of the Iron Guard (at times also known as the Legion of Archangel Michael); the
killing of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and 12 or 13 or 14 other Legionary leaders on the night of
29/30 November 1938; the detention and execution of 63 or 64 or 65 or 84 former leaders of the
Royal Dictatorship or political opponents of the Legion at the infamous Jilava military prison on
26/27 November 1940; and many other factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies, are in need of
correction, especially in works by specialists on Romanian, east European or general European
history, or history of fascism. By undertaking the task of redressing these and other inaccuracies,
scholars would elevate the reputation of, and respect for, their profession as a noble one rather
than fulfill a particular political ideology or agenda, and thus enhance rather than diminish their
credibility as historians, in general, and objective observers of the Legionary phenomenon,93 in
particular. If that were to become reality, chances are perhaps Clio would be satisfied.
93
It would be an exercise in futility to list all the works containing factual inaccuracies, as opposed to
interpretations which represent one’s point of view (albeit often based on inaccurate factual information).
After all, focusing on the issues covered in this essay, the question is whether facts matter
for those in academia when it comes to the history of Legionarism. Interpretations of certain
information are one thing, distortions of facts are a totally different matter. Personal animus or
sympathy toward Legionarism, however, may be an insurmountable undertaking. For the novice
to the subject, and at the risk of being redundant, the “Archangel Michael” Legion was
established on 24 June 1927, while the Iron Guard was set up on 12 April 1930 (and was banned
for the third and last time on 9 December 1933);94 the 13 other legionaries killed together with
94
Does the date really matter, in the long run? Perhaps not, but if that is the case, what else would not
make a difference, and who would make that ultimate decision?! For the date of 12 April 1930, see the
Legionary-published “Cronologie privind istoria Mişcării legionare [Apărută în Almanahul “Cuvântul”
din 1941]” [Chronology Regarding the History of the Legionary Movement (Published in the Almanac
“Cuvântul” of 1941], at http://www.miscarea.com/cuvantul41.html (accessed on 28 June 2006).
Codreanu (in Pentru legionari [377] and For My Legionaries [277]) does not give a date for the founding
of the Iron Guard (Garda de Fier), not even the month! Perhaps an indication of the lack of undue
importance given to this organization by Codreanu in light of the fact how in the Legionary calendar the
dates of the founding of the Legion (24 June, feast day of St. John the Baptist) and its name day (8
November, Saints Michael and Gabriel in the church calendar) are prominently featured and
commemorated. In fact, in the short history of the Legion in Cărticica Şefului de Cuib (1971), for the
events of 1930, conspicuously absent is any reference to the establishment of the Iron Guard! (82, Punctul
82. Scurt istoric legionar).
Iron Guard origins are confusing even to some legionaries. For example, in their article on the
Legionary Movement, Ronnett and Brădescu write:
“June 1930: Codreanu decides to launch a new national organization for combating the
communist propaganda in Bessarabia. This was to be an organization inclusive of the Legion of
the Archangel Michael and other youth groups not affiliated with any political party. His appeal
had as its main goal a peaceful march and demonstration against the communist influence in
Bessarabia.
“At a meeting with his co-workers the formation and name of the new organization was
discussed. Mr. Granganu proposed the name of the organization to be The Iron Guard. (The Iron
Guard later became the political party of the Legionary Movement.)” [emphasis added].
See https://www.historiography-project.com/jhrchives/v07/v07p193_Ronnett.html (accessed 20 March
2006). The Iron Guard was banned in December 1933, to be replaced in 1934 with the “Everything for
the Country” Party (partidul “Totul pentru Ţară”) as the Legion’s political party.
On the other hand, some scholars, such as Armin Heinen, give the date for the Iron Guard
foundation as 13 April 1930 (Armin Heinen, Die Legion “Erzengel Michael” in Rumänien. Soziale
Bewegung und politische Organisation (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1986), 506. Other historians
Codreanu were not all leaders (i.e., ranking members) of the Legionary Movement;95 and the 64
detainees held at Jilava prison (an incident discussed further below) were politicians, generals
and other military officers, policemen, and gendarmes, under investigation for extrajudicial
executions of legionaries during Carol II’s rule (mostly during the 1938-1940 royal dictatorship
period).
Granted, the Legion is better known in the West as the Iron Guard, and sometimes even
members used the two terms interchangeably. The Iron Guard was established initially as a
parallel political group to the Legionary Movement to engage in propaganda against communists
in Bessarabia and open to other nationalist and anti-Communist individuals or organizations,
although legionaries were members of both groups.96 Generally, the members of the two
have embarked on some wild escapades, stating that it was established in 1934. On this point, see
Aristotle A. Kallis, “The ‘Regime-Model’ of Fascism: A Typology,” European History Quarterly 30, 1
(2000): 82. That is, Kallis confuses the Iron Guard with the “Everything for the Country” Party.
95
Besides Codreanu, the 13 other executed legionaries were the three (Nicadorii) who assassinated Prime
Minister I. G. Duca on 29 December 1933 (two of them, who did not fire the fatal shots, the Macedo-
Romanians Doru Belimace and Ion Iancu Caranica, were elevated to the honorary positions of Legionary
commanders on 13 January 1937 while still in prison) and the group of ten (Decemvirii) responsible for
the brutal assassination of Mihail Stelescu on 16 July 1936, a former Legionary commander, who became
a vocal critic of Codreanu and the Legion, and was even accused of plotting Codreanu’s assassination.
Although aware who were the others killed with Codreanu, Ovidiu Ţârlea still refers to the “14
Legionary leaders” [14 şefi legionari] in a 1967 publication of the Legionary Movement! See Ovidiu
Ţârlea, “Revoluţia legionară în Teleorman,” 187-209, in Mărturii despre Legiune: Patruzeci de ani dela
întemeierea Mişcării Legionare (1927-1967) (Rio de Janeiro: Editura Dacia, 1967), 195. He was in 6th
grade in 1936 in T. Măgurele when he became a sympathizer of the Legion (187).
96
See Codreanu, Pentru legionari, 377; idem, For My Legionaries, 277. See also the Ronnett and
Brădescu article cited above.
There are scholars who, ignoring contemporary sources and pursuing a particular narrative, assert
that the Iron Guard (Garda de Fier) was established as “a paramilitary wing” of the Legion, while its
members were known as legionaries (apparently at the beginning of the 21th century the Guardist term
was no longer in vogue for the experts on “generic fascism”). See Kallis, “The ‘Regime-Model’ of
Fascism,” 82.
organizations referred to themselves as legionaries and comrades (legionari and camarazi),
rarely as “guardists,” and perhaps never (?) as “fascists.”97 Additional mention should be made
Yet, Codreanu signed his circulars and manifestoes as the leader of the “Archangel Michael”
Legion and of the Iron Guard from [June] 1930 to 10 December 1933. Afterwards, his circulars were
signed only as the leader of the Legion. See Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Circulări şi Manifeste 1927-1938,
5th ed. (München: Colecţia “Europa”, 1981), 2-4, 17, passim. On the other hand, during the Stelescu
affair in 1934, Codreanu refers on several occasions to “the Guard,” and to himself as “the undersigned,
leader of the Iron Guard,” although the circular itself is signed as “C.Z.C. 25 Septemvrie 1934” (Ibid, 18).
Granted, the iron guard prison bars symbol was used by the Legion during its short-lived period of shared
power with Antonescu in 1940-1941.
To place the “paramilitary wing” label in historical context of Romania’s interwar political scene,
the National Peasant Party of Iuliu Maniu also had its units called Gărzile Iuliu Maniu (Iuliu Maniu
Guards), while the Cuzists had their Lăncieri (Lance-bearers). This, in spite of the April 1934 law
banning paramilitary formations! See Doc. 7. 2. 6. “Legea pentru apărarea ordinii în stat (7 aprilie 1934)”
[The Law for the Defense of State Order], in România intre anii 1918-1940: documente şi materiale, Ioan
Scurtu (coordinator), Theodora Stănescu-Stanciu, Georgiana Margareta Scurtu (Bucureşti: Editura
Universităţii Bucureşti, 2001), 112-114.
Legionaries published local/regional newspapers with Garda de Fier name in their titles or in
poems while generally calling themselves legionari. And, in 1951, the priest Ştefan Palaghiţă published
his anti-Sima book titled Garda de Fer: Spre Reînvierea României [The Iron Guard: Towards Romania’s
Resurrection] (Buenos Aires: Editura autorului, 1951).
Also, foreign-language translations of Codreanu’s book titled Pentru legionari invariably would
be translated as the Iron Guard, either as the main title or as its subtitle (To sell more copies of the book?
To make it sound more ominous?). See the English edition For My Legionaries (The Iron Guard),
translation by Dimitrie Găzdaru (Madrid: Editura “Libertatea,” 1976); the Spanish language edition
Guardia de Hierro (Madrid, 1941), the German edition Eiserne Garde (Berlin, 1939), the French edition
La Garde de Fer (Pour les Legionnaires) (Paris, 1938), and the Italian (Guardia di Ferro [Per I
Legionari], 1938).
See also Faust Brădescu’s French-language book discussing the subject of Iron Guard’s terrorism,
titled La Garde de Fer et le terrorisme (Madrid: Editura “Carpaţii”, 1979).
97
Stanley G. Payne, in his magisterial work, A History of Fascism, writes that “Legionnaire leaders . . .
occasionally used the term fascist to refer to themselves” (138). The sources for this assertion are Armin
Heinen, Die Legion “Erzengel Michael” in Rumänien. Soziale Bewegung und politische Organisation
(Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1986), 119-150, and Radu Ioanid, The Sword of the Archangel: Fascist
ideology in Romania (Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, Distributed by Columbia University
Press, New York, 1990), 1-23.
But do the referenced sources contain the information which Payne claims? In Heinen’s study,
the cited pages 119-150 are part of the section which starts at page 114 as Chapter V (Studentischer
Antisemitismus, LANC, die Legion “Erzengel Michael”) which discusses student anti-Semitism, LANC,
and the “Archangel Michael” Legion, with subchapter C (130-150) on the Legion itself, and covers the
first three years of its existence and the social structure. The discussion on LANC does cover the activity
concerning the electoral symbol of the Partidul “Totul pentru Ţară” (“Everything for the
Country” Party) in 1937: it used a square with two horizontal dots, although the contemporary
press and public referred to it as the Iron Guard, reflecting their frequent imprisonment by the
authorities, and thus the running arguments of a “reconstituted [sic!] Iron Guard” under different
names. Therefore, from an historical perspective and with a desire for clarity, accurate use of
these terms is of paramount importance and a desired goal. Moreover, one should question the
reason for the translation of the feminine term “ţară” in the Romanian language into the
masculine term “fatherland” rather than “motherland” or the more neutral “country” in English.
The term "fatherland" has been and is associated with Nazi Germany in the popular mind (and it
seems to be favored by Nazi sympathizers and proponents of “generic fascism” alike and
individuals not quite familiar with or deliberately ignoring the grammar rules for translating into
the English language). Those who are likely to use the feminine term "motherland" to refer to
their country include the Russians and other Slavs, the French, and other speakers of Romance
of Codreanu and other future legionaries within that organization. It also covers the various other
nationalist/extreme-right groups with different names, including “fascist,” groups which LANC
eventually absorbed. Apparently, to Payne’s graduate students, all the various nationalist groups in
interwar Romania, especially in the northern province Moldavia, and which used the term “fascist” in
their name, ipso facto became not only “fascist” but legionaries “who occasionally referred to themselves
as fascists.”
The referenced pages (1-23) in Ioanid’s work, form its first chapter titled “The Phenomenon of
Rumanian Fascism in Contemporary Historiography. Methodological Points,” and one would be hard
pressed to find in those pages the assertion that Legionary leaders called themselves fascist at times!
Moreover, just as Heinen’s referenced chapter, Ioanid’s study does not deal exclusively with the
Legionary Movement (as the title implies) but also with other right-wing extremists in interwar Romania,
including some organizations which clearly adopted the term fascist as Ioanid lumps them all in his vision
of “Rumanian fascism” in order to finally reach the culmination point of the book’s raison d’être: the
killings of Jews by Romanians with assistance from German forces during the second world war. Perhaps
in this lies the confusion on the part of scholars who looked at Ioanid’s book in haste (or maybe their
graduate students who had conducted the research and word processing and proofreading for an erudite
scholar overwhelmed by his many responsibilities to verify the accuracy of his own work)!
languages, Romanian being one of those languages. The noun “country” would be more
appropriate in the case of the political party “Totul pentru Ţară.”98
The preceding listing of errors and factual distortions concerning key events and episodes
in the Legion’s history may appear to be an effort at splitting hairs, or simple trivialities but, to
an objective observer, would such a view be justified? Minor errors of factual information are
just that, minuscule. Viewing the examples enumerated above in their collective entirety,
however, they are not that irrelevant99 and, while some may regard them as derisive or
98
Dennis Deletant, in his Hitler’s Forgotten Ally: Ion Antonescu and His Regime, Romania, 1940–44
(Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), has it as “All for
the Country” (31).
“All for the Fatherland” Party is used in a translation of a book attributed to Horia Sima, The
History of the Legionary Movement (Liss, Hampshire, England: The Legionary Press, 1995), 141, passim.
In his 2012 dissertation on the Legionary Movement, Roland Clark gives the following reason for
using the term Everything for the Fatherland Party: “Totul pentru Ţara literally means ‘Everything for
the Country,’ but I follow the translation of Ion Moţa, who rendered it in French as ‘Tout pour la patrie.’
Ion Moţa, Corespondenţa cu Welt-Dienst (1934-1936) (Munich: Colecţia Europa, 2000), 45.“ (Clark,
“European Fascists,” 2, note 4). But . . . “patrie” is feminine in both French and Romanian!
Perhaps one might conclude that this point regarding the translation of the party’s name may be
considered another trivial issue. While that may be a legitimate concern to some, one should still place it
in its proper context. The late Eugen Weber of UCLA, in his first major work on the subject of European
fascism, had A.C. Cuza’s organization Liga Apărării Naţional-Creştine [LANC] translated as the Anti-
Semitic National Christian League, rather than the accurate National-Christian Defense League. See
Eugen Weber, Varieties of Fascism. Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century. An Anvil
Original (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1964), 98. That LANC was anti-Semitic is no denial;
that it called itself anti-Semitic and to be translated as such is egregious, just to have the Romanian
acronym correspond to that of the erroneous English translation (instead of the Romanian word Apărare
as Defense)! Subsequent editions of this work did not correct this error in spite of the fact that the
appropriate translation (the National Christian-Defense League) was made in his follow-up study
“Rumania,” 501-574, in Hans Rogger and Eugen Weber (eds.), The European Right: A Historical Profile
[Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1965; first paper-bound ed. 1966, second printing, 1974],
519. In both studies, however, Weber is not clear whether the LANC was Cuza’s inception or that of
Codreanu and the latter’s friends/followers!?
In his English translation of Codreanu’s book, Găzdaru has the order of Romanian name LANC
as “The League of National Christian Defense” (For My Legionaries, 81, passim).
99
In fact, they are proof that some of these errors have been perpetuated in other publications. For
example, the name of Mihail Stelescu, the victim of the Decemviri in July 1936, is given as Nicolae
inconsequential (errors of careless proofreading), they are issues of quite significant factual
information in the history and historiography of Legionarism, facts which need to be addressed if
objectivity and historical accuracy is the ultimate goal.
As previously noted, the Legionary Movement was an extreme-right Romanian
nationalist organization of the interwar period, at times exhibiting fiery display of nationalism;
and while it may have been deplorable at times, one must put it in its proper perspective and, in
the words of the late Romanian-American academic Vasile Bârsan, “remember that such a spirit
is an indispensable factor in national survival,”100 especially when faced with powerful and
violent adversaries as well. In a violent political environment, the legionaries resorted to
violence. Of course, having noted this, it does not excuse the excesses committed in the name of
the “Archangel Michael” Legion or Romanian nation nor, for that matter, should we ignore or
gloss over the government’s outright infractions101 of the legislation it was lawfully sworn to
Stelescu by Iván Tibor Berend, in Decades of Crisis: Central and Eastern Europe Before World War II
(Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998), 337. He uses Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera’s 1970
study The Green Shirts and Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Rumania. In it, Nagy-Talavera
erroneously gives Stelescu’s first name as Nicolae (292). Berend takes his one and only source for
granted to be accurate, instead of consulting additional supporting sources. In a 2001 edition, Nagy-
Talavera rectified the error. See The Green Shirts and Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and
Rumania [2nd ed.] (Iaşi/Oxford/Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2001), 408.
100
Vasile Bârsan, translator’s introduction, in Alexander E. Ronnett, Romanian Nationalism: The
Legionary Movement, [1st ed.] (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1974), xii. Fiery nationalism
phrase is Bârsan’s.
101
On this point, see Z. Barbu, “Rumania,” in European Fascism (1968), 159; also published as Zev
Barbu, “Rumania,” in Fascism in Europe (1981), 163-164. He mentions that, from personal eyewitness
experience, it was the legionaries who were the instigators, well adept at violence/terror, and only later in
the 1930s did the government resort to some violence. This in order to make the questionable point of
initial government support or at least inaction and only when the Legion became a threat and/or could no
longer be used as their tool did the authorities turn against it. But the question is: when was that turning
point? In fact, there is no consensus among the proponents of this supposition (if they even gave it any
thought), which negates the supposition of a government’s turning point to violence when, arguably, it
could no longer use the legionaries for their interests . . .
enforce in the first place, a reality in which law enforcers became law breakers! It appears,
however, that the Legion is held to a higher standard of legal and honorable behavior while
generally overlooking the regime’s actions concerning the use of violence against its national
political adversaries. Consequently, the perception (rightly or wrongly) is that some scholars
tend to simply ignore or justify extrajudicial violence, a policy the regime apparently pursued in
the name of law and order and “state security.”102 Since the official fall of communism in
eastern Europe, Jewish organizations, Western and Romanian scholars and the Parliament of
Romania appear to be preoccupied with the rise of radical right, or neo-fascism,103 while at the
same time choosing to minimize the crimes of the communist period,104 especially in the
historiography on the crimes committed by communists throughout the twentieth century and the
unhinged reaction on the part of those on the progressive left. On the latter point, one should
102
On the government’s abhorrent violence, see Nagy-Talavera, The Green Shirts and Others, 255, 302,
303-304. Nagy-Talavera himself, as a youngster, was an eyewitness to some Legionary gatherings.
103
See footnote number 6 above. The parliament also addressed the issue of the “cult of personality,” a
clear indication that it bowed to international pressure from certain quarters fearful of the rise in or
continued popularity of Marshal Ion Antonescu. In January 2007 Romania officially joined the European
Union.
On the concern about the “reappearance of the Legionary Movement,” deemed “a real threat to
the Romanian democracy,” and the support favoring the decision of the Iaşi City Council to stop “the
laying of the bust of Marshal Ion Antonescu . . . ,” see “The Federation for the Jewish Communities from
Romania – deeply concerned about the phenomenon of the reappearance of the Legionary Movement – a
real threat to the Romanian democracy,” http://www.romanian jewishorg/en/anti-
Semitism_in_romania_01.html [accessed 27 December 2007]. It references the following: “Realitatea
Evereiască” 2000, and Reading the Daily Press, especially “Adevarul” of 24 April 2000.
104
At the beginning of the twenty first century, two Presidential commissions were established in
Romania to investigate the crimes of the Holocaust in Romania and the Communist era and their
“findings” were eventually released. See The International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania:
Final Report, Elie Wiesel, Chairman (Bucureşti: Poliron, 2004), also available at
http://www.1.yadvashem.org (accessed on 18 July 2007); and Comisia Prezidenţială pentru Analiza
Dictaturii Comuniste din România: Raport Final, Vladimir Tismăneanu, Chairman (Bucureşti, 2006),
also accessible at http://www.presidency.ro/static/ordine/RAPORT_FINAL_CADCR.pdf (accessed on 16
October 2007).
consult The Black Book of Communism (originally published in the French language) and, in
particular, Martin Malia’s brief “Foreword” reviewing the reaction to this collective book.105
Is One’s Perception . . . Historical Reality?
As things are at this stage concerning Legionarism, we have a deplorable situation in the
literature on the subject. Both sides have perpetuated a series of distortions in published works
as well as in the new source of information, the cyber media (the internet). This essay would
have achieved its goal if it succeeds in shedding some light on the historical facts related to the
subject of Legionarism and at least in part clarified the historical record. To set the record
105
Martin Malia, “Foreword: The Uses of Atrocity,” ix-xx, in The Black Book of Communism: Crimes,
Terror, Repression, Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel
Bartošek, and Jean-Louis Margolin; Trans. by Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer; Ed. by Mark Kramer
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), especially xiv-xv.
For a critique from Marxist/Trotskyite perspective, see Paul Flewers, Review, “Black Book of
Communism,” https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol7/no4/flewers.html [accessed 11
June 2020]. Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line: Revolutionary History, Vol. 7 No. 4 (Winter, 2000–
2001). Flewers cannot help himself but to take a written swipe at Malia, writing that this “book is
suitably introduced by the leading conservative Sovietologist Martin Malia, who believes that any attempt
to go beyond capitalism will inevitably come to grief.”
On the debate regarding the crimes of the two totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century,
fascism and communism, one should also consult Kristen Ghodsee, “Tale of ‘Two Totalitarianisms’: The
Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism,” History of the Present: A Journal of
Critical History 4, No. 2 (Fall 2014): 115-142. Her article covers several issues.
In a 2014 essay, Ştefan Grosu (Academia Română?!) provides a moral equivalency argument
between Communism and Legionarism (“Violenţa în perioada statului naţional legionar,” Administraţia
românească arădeană. Studii şi comunicări din Banat-Crişana 9 [2014]: 213-229). In his opening
sentence, Grosu equates the Communist dictatorship with the “Legionary regime” (sic!) and concludes
that Romania was a huge penitentiary: “Atât dictatura comunistă cât şi guvernarea legionară s-au impus
prin forţă şi au guvernat prin teroare. . . . Se poate spune că în vremea regimurilor communist şi legionar
[?!], România a fost un imens penitenciar . . .” [ Both the communist dictatorship and the legionary
government imposed themselves by force and ruled by terror. . . . It can be said that during the communist
and legionary regimes [?!], Romania was a huge penitentiary . . .] (213). The 5 months of National-
Legionary Regime is equal to 40 years of Communist dictatorship? And this sounds very logical for
Grosu who conveniently also ignored that the Legion shared power with the military, and thus not a true
Legionary Regime?! This is not an issue of semantics but reality of fact.
straight, however, requires a great deal more than just an essay – needed are an open mind and
the passage of time for one to be removed far enough from the period and events in question in
order to manifest objective thought. Detaching oneself from the subject is considerably more
difficult to achieve than it is otherwise thought, especially for those directly affected by it. It is
an emotional issue for the Jews who were the focus of attacks (literally and figuratively) by
extremists in interwar Romania (as well as elsewhere). It is also an emotional issue for the
nationalists who perceived their country, rightly or wrongly, to be dominated and/or threatened
by what they believed to be anti-Romanian forces just as most Romanians were for the first time
under one centralized government in one unified Romanian state: the Greater Romania (România
Mare) of 1918-1940 period.
Placing the issue in historical context does not imply justification of extremist behavior,
only an explanation of such action. But if the perception is to be accepted as a measure of fact, it
should equally well be applied across the board. On this point, consult the late Zvi Yavetz’s
reflections on the history of the Legionary Movement (and in a roundabout way a critique of
Armin Heinen’s 1986 book). Yavetz, who was professor of ancient history at the Tel Aviv
University, and who grew up in Cernăuţi (Czernowitz) in interwar Romania, points out that
Heinen, and other historians,
prove that a good deal of money was sent from Germany to the National Christian Party
of [Nationalist poet Octavian] Goga [and A. C. Cuza], and not to Codreanu. This is what
the documents show, but not everything that is in documents actually occurred in real
life. Documents can never reproduce an atmosphere . . .,106
106
Zvi Yavetz, “An Eyewitness Note: Reflections on the Rumanian Iron Guard,” Journal of
Contemporary History, 26, nos. 3-4 (September 1991): 606 (insertions added). Also published a year
later as “An Eyewitness Note: Reflections on the Rumanian Iron Guard,” Chapter 13: 243-256, in Jehuda
Reinharz and George L. Mosse (eds.), The Impact of Western Nationalisms. Essays dedicated to Walter
underscores Yavetz. Taking the point to its foregone conclusion, he stresses that the “man on the
street was convinced, erroneously, as historians can now show, that the Iron Guard, more than
any other group in Rumania, was fully supported by the Third Reich.”107 To support this
assertion, Yavetz cites numerous examples as he interprets them of how through propaganda
Codreanu and the Legion managed to convince the Romanians of the “great support” the
Movement received from Berlin and other influential quarters in Romania. Thus, Yavetz implies
that perception is, if not more important than, at least just as significant as reality. Would this
argument also hold true for the other side’s perception and largely actual reality that Romania,
certainly its economy, was dominated by foreign and anti-Romanian elements (erroneously and
exclusively identified as Jews and their “lackeys”)?108 Or, as he points out, the Legion cannot be
cleared of racism, as Heinen and other scholars try to do, since
If necessary, the Legionnaries could easily have turned into racists because they were
basically just as pragmatic as the partisans of Goga. True, some Rumanian intellectuals
who joined the Iron Guard, like Nichifor Crainic, opposed racism because they saw in it a
secular religion which might undermine Rumanian Orthodoxy. But the thousands of
Z. Laqueur on the occasion of his 70th birthday (London, Newbury Park, New Delhi: SAGE Publications,
1992), 252 (insertions added).
107
Yavetz, “An Eyewitness Note,” (1991): 606; (1992): 252.
108
On the overall economic domination by foreign elements in Romania and their “uncompromising
hostility” to the Romanian state in the interwar period, see Nagy-Talavera, The Green Shirts and Others,
255, 258-259 and note (the phrase is Nagy-Talavera’s).
See also Rothschild, East Central Europe: “Excluded, and excluding themselves, from
assimilation, the Jews appeared as sinister and exploitative outsiders to the Romanians, and much anti-
Semitism was really a variant of xenophobia. Their readiness to appeal for international intervention
against Romanian anti-Semitic legislation that violated the Minorities Protection Treaty of 1919 only
deepened their reputation as seditious foreigners. And since they represented commercial and capitalist
values, which were alien to the peasant’s inherited life-style, much of the latter’s anti-Semitism expressed
the reaction of tradition against modernity” (289)
people who joined the Iron Guard and voted for it in 1937 hardly needed a theoretical
foundation for racism.109
Are we to understand that all Romanians who joined the Legion and voted for it in December
1937 were outright “pragmatic racists”?! Would this last point by Yavetz complement the
109
Yavetz, “An Eyewitness Note,” 608; Idem, Chapter 13: 254 (emphasis added). He is espousing the
old argument that anti-Semitism, religious or economic, equates with . . . racism.
Moreover, from the sentence structure, it is difficult to ascertain whether Nichifor Crainic (1889-
1972), literary name of Ion Dobre, is said to have been a member of the Iron Guard or one of those
intellectuals who opposed racism. Although he had influence on the legionaries and others in interwar
Romania, Crainic was a founding member of the National Christian Party in 1935; during the National-
Legionary government he served as Secretary General of Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Arts; and
became minister of propaganda under Antonescu after January 1941. During the 1947-1962 period, he
was in the Văcăreşti and Aiud penitentiaries.
Would one be justified in questioning Yavetz’s perception of Romanian people’s “racism”? Are
we expected at least to understand it? Conversely, is there Jewish anti-Romanianism and can it be called
racism as well? On this point, see above Nagy-Talavera, The Green Shirts and Others, 255, 258-259 and
note.
On this issue, consult Rabbi Hyam Zvee Sneersohn of Jerusalem who in the 1870s had expressed
his reverence for such “noble scions of the House of Israel” as “the eminent Albert Cohen” and “the
eloquent Adolphn Cremieux” and “the illustrious Moses Montefiore” and viewed Romanian Prime
Minister Ion C. Brătianu as “the monster Bratiano” and referred to the Romanians as “ignorant and
intolerant”! And, he continued: “the Roumanian people – if such a mongrel mob of Sclaves, Russians,
Poles, Italians and Turks may be called a people – have neither shown themselves capable of self-
government or worthy of liberty.” See Rabbi H. Z. Sneersohn, Palestine and Roumania. A Description
of the Holy Land, and the Past and Present State of Roumania, and the Roumanian Jews (New York:
Hebrew Orphan Asylum Printing Establishment, 1872), 132, 144 (emphasis added). What does this
emphasis on racial purity indicate about those who advocate it?! How are we to understand The
New York Times’ Arno Press publishing Sneersohn’s book in 1977? Or Wentworth Press in 2016? Cui
Bono? Yet republishing writings by Codreanu and Sima are verboten?! In spite of Sneersohn’s view that
the Romanians were not worthy of liberty, during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, Romania’s
participation in this conflict resulted in its international recognition of independence.
One cannot or should not disregard Sneersohn for holding such views as just another ignorant
racist. He was most influential in Washington D.C., considering that he managed to get an audience with
President U. S. Grant. This audience resulted in the American authorities’ appointment of Benjamin F.
Peixotto, of Cleveland, Ohio, as the first U.S. consul to Bucharest with the stated mission to pressure the
Romanian government on its Jewish policy! See Cyrus Adler, E. A. Cardozo, “Peixotto” in Jewish
Encyclopedia.com (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11993-peixotto [accessed on 25 October
2019]). The online unedited full-text orginal article is from the 1906 edition of the encyclopedia.
And, since the discussion is about ambassadors, apparently the Romanian government appointed
Radu Ioanid as Ambassador of Romania to Israel, an assignment which began on 31 March 2020. See
https://telaviv.mae.ro/en/node/386 [accessed 27 June 2020].
“humanistic method” Randolph L. Braham advocates in his article on right-wing extremism in
post-1989 Romania criticizing the decisions made to publish in Romanian Hitler’s Mein Kampf
and to republish “the viciously anti-Semitic works of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and Horia
Sima,”110 because the “ignorant” Romanian people prone to racism do not have the intellectual
110
Randolph L. Braham, “Romanian Nationalists and the Holocaust: The Drive to Refurbish the Past,” at
www.ceu.hu/jewishstudies/pdf/01_braham.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2007). On this point, one needs to
address the following question to Braham (and others): should the Romanians remain ignorant and not
read in translation such foreign (and domestic) sources, just as they did not have access to the collected
works of Marx and Engels, V. I. Lenin, I. V. D. Stalin in Romanian translation? Oh, my error, they did
and have been translated (as well as being available for purchase in the original language at the Russian
Bookstore on Calea Victoriei in the 1980s)! Did Braham and company criticize such decisions?
Doubtlful, but is it not the concept that one should know one’s opponent?
Thus, the argument is that publishing the works of those one sees as “viciously anti-Semitic,” is
part of the “Drive to Refurbish the Past”? Conversely, the solution is . . . to suppress such publications, a
policy reminiscent of the communists who until the late 1980s-early 1990s controlled east European
countries (some argue the point that they still do but in different fashion) and scrubbed the past with
which they disagreed and were dedicated to international communism against the national interests of
such countries as Romania, etc.! And where does the publication or re-publication of such as the above-
cited Sneersohn’s opus fit in all of this . . .?
In an essay published in 2004 (“The Sacralised Politics of the Romanian Iron Guard,”
Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 5, 3 [Winter 2004]: 419–453), Radu Ioanid is very
indignant of writings and positions espoused by “Iron Guards/Legionaries,” especially for “refusing the
masses ‘any dynamic role’” or the ability to think on their own since the legionaires’ desire was to reduce
the masses “to mere tools to be manipulated” (429). Ioanid cites Vasile Marin’s “Naţiunea împotriva
statului de import,” originally published in Axa on 5 February 1933. In fact, Ioanid’s 2004 article
contains a great deal of information from his 1990 book The Sword of the Archangel. The quote in
question is from Vasile Marin’s Crez de generaţie, 2nd ed. (Bucureşti: Tipografia “Bucovina” I. E.
Torouţiu, 1937; 4th ed., Munchen: Colecţia Europa, 1977), 205. In his 1990 work (134), Ioanid uses
Marin’s 3rd ed. of 1940 (which has different pagination). The following completes the quote in question:
“Deaceea, în cadrul generaţiei noastre, toată străduinţa în lupta pe care am angajat-o a stat în
perfecţionarea crescândă a minorităţii care şi-a înţeles chemarea.” [Therefore, within our generation, all
the effort in the struggle that we engaged was in the increasing perfection of the minority that understood
its calling.] Marin’s essay was an opposition to “the foreign concept of the state.”
But if the legionaries saw themselves as the “elite” leading the masses, making decisions for
everyone, how does one understand the position held and criticism made by scholars such as Ioanid,
Braham and others, who appear to be of the opinion that the masses are unable to read on their own
“vicious anti-Semitic” works without their minds being contaminated and, thus, believe they have
embarked on some “noble mission” to . . . save the ignorant masses? This view is reminiscent of
Sneersohn’s 1870s conclusions about the Romanians being “ignorant” and “intolerant” and a “mongrel
mob”! Who in this situation is to be the arbiter in deciding who qualify to be these “enlightened”
capacity to differentiate on their own between good and evil? Would this mean that in Romania
(and other former “people’s democracies”) censorship of the “Golden Era” should be
reintroduced (by Braham and other like-minded scholars – that is, the intellectual elite, foreign
and domestic?!?) for a higher goal: the protection of the “backward people” of the area “from
themselves” by self-appointed enlightened scholars who are “well qualified” to determine the
proper material these “simpletons” would be permitted to read? 111 Apparently the American
individuals, the same masses which were “mere tools” manipulated by the communists and about which
“experts on fascism” and “racism” lament to have been denied voice by such legionaries as Vasile Marin?
Ioanid’s criticism of the Legion’s views on the masses, or at least Marin’s, as being anti-
democracy reminds one of the U.S. Constitution written by the Founding Fathers who have also
established a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. Apparently, to follow Ioanid’s
argument, would the Founding Fathers be categorized as opponents of democracy and thus . . . precursors
of fascism! Is this a leap? Of course, but then most other claims mentioned in this essay and made by
esteemed authorities from the academia, scholars, and experts, have been exactly this. Does this mean
Ioanid disagrees with V. I. Lenin’s position that the party is to be the “vanguard of the proletariat” until
its final victory over the bourgeoisie? On this “new elite,” see V. I. Lenin, What Is To Be Done?
(originally published in 1902), 347-529, in V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 5, May 1901-February
1902 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1960), especially 440-443, 450-457, 462, and in particular 464-465.
111
Would this not be a return to the failed communist experiment carried out at a high cost in human life
in post-war eastern Europe until 1991? It was the “New Class” (to use Milovan Djilas’s term) which
made the decisions for the rest of the people during the 1944-1991 period, and it is the beneficiaries of
that system and their scions and sycophants who since 1989-1991 have exerted considerable influence in
society in some of the countries in the region or have become “esteemed professors” at universities in
Romania, the United States, and elsewhere. After all, they have the proper education and hands-on
experience to be the intellectual or political elite/leaders in society, right?! Enlightened reforms and
decisions imposed from above? Why this longing to return to the failed and criminal totalitarianism of
the past? The Parliament of Romania has taken this stand against certain extremist groups on several
occasions, last time in 2015 when its members, in their unbound wisdom passed a law banning extremist
organizations and symbols, and the cult of personality of those considered guilty of infractions against
“peace of the world.” Among those banned under the “Emergency Ordinance” were “organizations,
symbols and deeds with fascist, legionary, racist or xenophobe character . . .” Omitted from this
enumeration of extremist groups/ideologies is Communism since, after all, it was For a lasting peace, for
a people's democracy!, as the organ of the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties
was named, the brainchild of that “democrat of socialism,” I. V. D. Stalin. See Parlamentul României,
“Legea nr. 217/2015 pentru modificarea și completarea Ordonanței de urgență a Guvernului nr. 31/2002
privind interzicerea organizațiilor și simbolurilor cu caracter fascist, rasist sau xenofob și a promovării
cultului persoanelor vinovate de săvârșirea unor infracțiuni contra păcii și omenirii,” at
https://lege5.ro/Gratuit/g4ztmnjxga/legea-nr-217-2015-pentru-modificarea-si-completarea-ordonantei-de-
(and other Western, including the German112) people have evolved and are by now sufficiently
enlightened (or are well led by scholars) and sophisticated to be able to understand extremist
publications, including Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, without
experiencing undue impact on their thinking. Quite a patronizing, elitist, and, dare we conclude,
racist attitude!
To reiterate, the expectation of this analysis is to achieve clarity and accuracy in
presenting factual historical information concerning the Legionary Movement’s past (warts and
all). There is nothing more disconcerting than studies on the Legionary Movement, the history
of Romania, or European “fascism”, fraught with factual inaccuracies in their attempt to convey
a certain point of view. This holds true for anti-Legionary as well as pro-Legionary works (as
noted in this essay). The works of legionaries express their views concerning their experiences
and by definition are biased. But that holds true for everyone who had written an account of
their life’s accomplishments or failings (the latter generally ignored, minimized, or glossed
over).
Only Sympathetic to, or a Member of, the Legion?
One of the major challenges in dealing with the history of Legionarism is the availability
of basic factual information and the existence of a great deal of vagueness and conflicting
information. This is the case even in the pro-Legionary or Legionary sources113 just as they are
urgenta-a-guvernului-nr-31-2002-privind-interzicerea-organizatiilor-si-simbolurilor-cu-caracter-fascist-
rasist-sau-xenofob-si-a-promov [accessed 15 June 2019].
112
An annotated edition of Mein Kampf was published in Germany in January 2016, the first since 1945.
113
The late Stephen Fischer-Galati in his “The Iron Guard: Its Place in Romanian History,” Chapter 11:
131-141, in Leo Schelbert and Nick Ceh, eds., Essays in Russian and East European History. Festschrift
in Honor of Edward C. Thaden (Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, Distributed by Columbia
vague and contradictory about the circumstances under which some of the individual
sympathizers and men of letters “joined” the “Archangel Michael” Legion. Part of the
explanation for this omission is found in the factual reality that every government “repression”
(the legionaries used the prigoană term) of the interwar period (1931, 1932, 1933-1934, 1938-
1939, 1941) resulted in the confiscation and/or destruction of Legionary archives and
correspondence found anywhere at local and national levels (nest, county, and national
organization),114 and contributed to their semi-secret existence until the fall of communism in
University Press, New York, 1995), highlights the deliberate and necessary secrecy among the
legionaries, listing the obvious reasons: the Legion is, “and has always been, among the most secretive
political organizations and for good reasons. The rulers of interwar Romania, and for that matter even of
wartime Romania after the destruction [?!?] of the Guard, were determined to ferret out the leaders and
infiltrate the units [cuiburi?] which comprised the Iron Guard. Of course, the mystical-fraternal pattern of
organization and behavior expected of all members of the Guard precluded divulgence of data to anyone
but the most trusted members of the hierarchy. After World War II, the legionaries [. . .] have, as a matter
of course, declined to reveal any information to researchers or other individuals concerned with the study
of the fascist movement in Romania.” (131) (insertions and emphasis added).
And yet, in his memoirs, the late Mihail Sturdza (1886-1980), member of the famous Romanian
aristocratic family, diplomat in the interwar period, and foreign minister during the National-Legionary
government, asserts that Eugen Weber of UCLA had contact with Horia Sima and other legionaries in
Spain and elsewhere, but did not mention it in his works on the Legion (Eugen Weber, Varieties of
Fascism. Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century. An Anvil Original [New York: D. Van
Nostrand Company, 1964], Idem, “Rumania,” 501-574, in Hans Rogger and Eugen Weber (eds.), The
European Right: A Historical Profile [Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1965], and Idem,
“The Men of the Archangel,” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 1, no. 1 [1966]: 101-126). See “The
European Right and Professor Weber’s Special Assignment,” Chapter 1: 25-41, in Michel [Mihail]
Sturdza, The Suicide of Europe. Memoirs of Prince Michel Sturdza, Former Foreign Minister of
Rumania (Boston: Western Islands Publishers, 1968), 31: Eugen Weber “has met and spent long hours
with Horia Sima.” Oddly enough, in the earlier Romanian-language edition, this chapter is not included.
See Mihail Sturdza, România şi Sfârşitul Europei. Amintiri din ţara pierdută (Rio de Janeiro and Madrid:
Editura “Dacia”, 1966). In his defense, Weber makes an allusion of direct contact with one of the exiled
leaders in post-war Italy when, discussing the social make-up of the Legion, he refers to “a nominal roll in
the possession of Constantin Papanace . . .” (“The Men of the Archangel,” Journal of Contemporary
History 1, 1 [1966]: 107). Papanace was a Macedo-Romanian member and leader in the Legionary
Movement and lived in Italy since the end of the war until his death in April 1985.
114
The legionaries regard government extralegal and violent actions against the Legionary Movement as
“repression” (prigoană). For the 1933 banning, consult the document published in România intre anii
1918-1940: documente şi materiale, Ioan Scurtu (coordinator), Theodora Stănescu-Stanciu, Georgiana
eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the momentous 1989-1991 period. Current Legionary
sources enumerate a host of prominent individuals of the interwar era as having been members of
the Legion, yet providing very little evidence to support such inclusion, in an apparent effort to
demonstrate the viewpoint that it was a “Legionary generation era.”115
Others in Romania are engaged in a campaign to “prove” that, in spite of their
sympathies, prominent Romanian intellectuals (and others) of the interwar period have never
been members of the Legionary Movement. Indeed, the argument runs that since one published
articles favorable to the Legion it demonstrates not only sympathies for the Movement or its
party, but also proof of membership on the writer’s part. And it appears that agreement with
some positions/ideas makes one ipso facto a member, but this only applies for those on the Right,
not for those on the Left: for the former it is dishonor, for the latter a badge of honor and positive
accomplishment. Moreover, did one have to be more than just a sympathizer to have been on the
Margareta Scurtu (Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii Bucureşti, 2001), 108-110 (Doc. 7. 2. 4. “Jurnalul
Consiliului de Miniştri din 9 decembrie 1933 privind dizolvarea Gărzii de Fier”) [The Council of
Ministers Journal of 9 December 1933 Concerning the Dissolution of the Iron Guard]. See especially
“Art. II. Localurile de întrunire ale membrilor acestor grupări vor fi închise, iar arhivele şi orice
corespondenţă vor fi ridicate de autorităţile respective, oriunde s-ar găsi.” [The meeting places of the
members of these groups will be closed, while the archives and any correspondence will be taken by the
respective authorities, wherever they may be.]
115
See on this point Răzvan Codrescu, “Poezia lui Radu Gyr sau Testamentul unei generaţii” [The Poetry
of Radu Gyr or the Testament of a Generation], in Rost, revistă de politică şi cultură creştină, nr. 14-15
(aprilie-mai 2004) – online edition at http://www.romfest.org/rost/apr_mai2004/gyr_testament.shtml
(accessed 18 September 2006). See also Chapter 7 “The Generation of 1922: From Student Movement to
Iron Guard,” in Livezeanu, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, 245-296.
Ironically (and perhaps unintentionally), it appears that Radu Ioanid, in his 1990 study The Sword
of the Archangel: Fascist ideology in Romania, agrees with this Legionary position. After all, what other
explanation would there be for a work on “fascism” in interwar Romania which discusses various
groupings and ideologues (besides the legionaries), but is titled The Sword of the Archangel, arguably as
reference to the “Archangel Michael” Legion?
electoral lists116 of the Legion’s political party Totul pentru Ţară (“Everything for the Country”)
in the December 1937 elections? In other words, the effort is to remove the “negative stigma” by
disclaiming that illustrious intellectuals were openly sympathetic or active members of the
“fascist” “Archangel Michael” Legion.
On the other hand, communist sympathies or membership in the Communist party appear
to serve as “favorable” reputation or having proper pedigree (or, to use the language of the era,
possessing “healthy origin” = origine sănătoasă) for promotion in the institutions of post-1989-
1991 society (just as they benefited before the 1989 era). This in spite of the atrocities to which
members and sympathizers have been complicit or have actually committed in the name of
communist ideology during their period of power against Romanian citizens from all walks of
life and political and religious affiliations. Apparently the view is that the tens of thousands of
killings communists and their sympathizers committed pale in comparison with the hundreds of
deaths carried out by legionaries (or attributed to legionaries, and/or anyone who had committed
acts of hooliganism or murder), before and during their short-lived coalition regime of
116
Perhaps one did not need to be member of the Legion or its party to be on the electoral list. See the
testimony of Professor Gheorghe Pantazi of Bucharest’s Școala Politehnică, a defense witness in the
Codreanu treason trial in May 1938, who testified that although he was not a member of Partidul Totul
pentru Ţară, he was asked to be a candidate on the party’s lists during the election of 1937. As such he
participated in the electoral campaign in Oradea, Bihor judeţ, Codreanu recommending only that he not
talk about any other political party. (“Testimony of 24 May 1938,” Corpul Detectivilor, Secţia I-a, Dela
Tribunalul Militar, Miniterul Afacerilor Interne, Arhiva Operativă, Dosar Ancheta Corneliu Zelea
Codreanu, P 011784, Vol. 4 [formerly Dosar Nr. 110237, Vol. 4], f. 25). See also Mişcarea Legionară,
Adevărul în procesul Căpitanului [Miami, FL, USA]: Colecţia “Omul Nou,” Traian Golea, 1980/1981 (1st
ed. August, 1938), 131.
A similar situation is that of Iosif Frolo, attorney and professor, active before the war in Nicolae
Filipescu’s Conservative Party but ceased to be politically active after 1918, until 1937! Frolo was
candidate for the senate in the Roman and Bacău counties, although not a member of Partidul Totul
pentru Ţară. See “Testimony of 24 May 1938, morning session,” in Arhiva Operativă, Dosar Ancheta
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, P 011784, Vol. 6 [old Dosar Nr. 110237, Vol. 4], 197-207.
September 1940-January 1941, since any one could don the legionary green shirt during the
National-Legionary government period.117 Curiously, some sources attribute post-January 1941
killings in Iaşi118 and other places to the legionaries (or “Guardists” or “Iron Guards” “once
again under government protection” – really?!), purposely ignoring or truly ignorant of the fact
that many legionaries have faced firing squads, or were either in exile, languishing in jails, or
conscripted into the sacrificial Sărata battalions119 following the official abolition of the
National-Legionary government in February 1941.
Legionaries and “Dignitaries”:

Extrajudicial Executions, Premeditated Vengeance, Retribution?
Another significant challenge in ascertaining factual information is the official
government censorship. Newspapers, for example, had to be submitted to the censor a day in
117
On this point, see Carp, The Black Book, Vol. I: The Legionary Movement and the Rebellion, 45:
people in authority who have committed many acts of terror relying on “a whole army of mercenaries,
and professionals” have, “irrespective of whether or not they wore green-shirts, grandiloquently called
themselves legionnaires and committed their savage deeds in the name of the ‘Legionary Movement’.”
118
Nora Levin, The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933-1945 (New York: Schocken
Books, 1973 [copyright 1968]): “On June 24, there was a heavy Russian [sic! Soviet] air attack on the city
and Iron Guards, once again under government protection, denounced Jews for signaling to Russian [sic!
Soviet] planes. . . . On June 28, the Guardists faked a Jewish machine-gun attack on Romanian soldiers
from the Salchana synagogue. That night, the Iron Guard broke into Jewish homes and began a roundup
under cover of an air-raid alarm. In the early morning all the Jews of Jassy were arrested in the Prefecture
square. The Romanian police allowed women and children to leave but some women followed their
husbands.” Levin notes that in this Jassy pogrom, an estimated 14,000 Jews were murdered. Moreover,
“Five hundred were executed for allegedly signaling to the enemy and firing on troops. Cattle cars
awaited the rest. . . .” (569)
119
The sacrificial “Sărata battalions” phrase is used by legionaries. These units were staffed with
legionaries freed from prisons by the Antonescu regime (having appealed to their nationalism) and sent
into the front lines as cannon fodder. A Legionary book on the subject of the “Sărata battalions for
rehabilitation” is Nicolae Roşca, Sărata (Madrid: Biblioteca Documentară “Generaţia Nouă,” 1978). For
those not familiar with the Romanian language, consult Alexander E. Ronnett, Romanian Nationalism:
the Legionary Movement, [1st ed.], Translation and Introduction by Vasile Bârsan (Chicago, IL: Loyola
University Press, 1974), 50-51.
advance of their publication date120 and thus information deemed “sensitive” or “secret” was
suppressed. This was the case with the country-wide executions of legionaries following the
assassination of Prime Minister Armand Călinescu in September 1939. While the immediate
execution of the assassins (known to the legionaries as Răzbunătorii – the Avengers) on the site
of their deed was sensationalized in the newspapers, it appears the Office of the Censor had
initially suppressed any reference to the summary executions of 2-3 legionaries in every county
(judeţ) in Romania and of the legionaries held in concentration camps, over 250 individuals. In
fact, the Romanian press reports on the executions are all dated/ published beginning with 23
September 1939 rather than with the date of 22 September, the day after the assassination (and
no same day evening editions were published).121
120
The censorship regime increased and remained in force following Duca’s assassination in December
1933. See Ioan Lăcustă, Cenzura veghează (1937-1939) [The Censorship is Vigilant] (Bucureşti: Editura
Curtea Veche, 2007).
See also Ioan Comşa’s reminiscences published online, “Serviciul C. 2A,”
http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1999/current6/mi60.htm [accessed 29 September 2007]. Comşa
states the Serviciul Cenzurii Militare C.2A [Corpul 2 armată] was established in early January 1934,
following Duca’s assassination. Comşa was attached to it and served until 15 December 1934. His
responsibility was to review the foreign press in the English language and “to signal any references about
King Carol II, Elena Lupescu, the Iron Guard [Garda de fier], and Corneliu Zelea Codreanu.” In his
conclusion, he makes the following point: “Cu neîsemnate intermitente, creioanele cenzorilor au
continuat totuşi să taie, până la revoluţia din decembrie 1989, când cenzura şi-a dat obştescul sfârşit.
Nădăjuim că nu va învia” [With insignificant intermittencies, however, the censors' pencils continued to
cut, until the revolution of December 1989, when censorship came to an end. We hope it will not rise].
On the situation in the wake of Călinescu’s assassination, see Derek Patmore, footnote below.
121
On the executions in the counties and concentration camps, see Ronnett, Romanian Nationalism, 46.
Figures vary between 250 and 400 on how many legionaries perished in this government-
sponsored extrajudicial bloodletting. The figure of 400 legionaries having been massacred country-wide
is found in Sturdza, The Suicide of Europe (liii). It is not clear whether this claim is Sturdza’s or that of
the editor and/or the author of the chronological list of events!
The list of 252 names of legionaries summarily executed during 21-22 September 1939 is found
in Legiunea în imagini (11-14).
For these extrajudicial acts were held most of the 64 detainees at Jilava prison when a
group of legionaries summarily executed them on the night of 26-27 November 1940.122 As R.
In spite of this press quarantine on the information concerning the barbarous repression, the
bodies were displayed publicly in town centers, some hanging from lampposts for a few days following
their summary executions. Nagy-Talavera, in The Green Shirts and Others, discusses these macabre
scenes throughout Romania (304).
Journalist Leigh White, in his The Long Balkan Night (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1944), describes only the crime scene at the square where the bodies of the assassins were publicly
displayed (68).
Derek Patmore, British war correspondent for the News Chronicle, writes about the blackout on
the news in Bucharest during the Călinescu assassination and the gruesome retribution by the government
throughout Romania (albeit he does not provide any specific numbers of those executed). See his Balkan
Correspondent (New York: Harper, 1941), 58-64. The foreign news blackout was lifted after six thirty in
the evening of 21 September and the foreign correspondents were given the approval to report on the
assassination and the government retribution. Patmore writes the following on the Romanian press’
reports: “The morning following the murder the whole Rumanian press devoted long editorials to the
dead man’s patriotism and published a communique issued by the government which declared that the
nation was so indignant about the assassination that it demanded that even the families and relatives of the
Iron Guardists involved should be punished. By issuing this last statement the government showed that it
lost its head. People were already sickened by the unending tales of executions . . . .” (63). Was the
government communique published “the morning following the murder”?! It appeared in the press on 23
September 1939, for example in Universul (see Doc. “8. 11. Comunicatul oficial privind asasinarea lui
Armand Cãlinescu, preşedintele Consiliului de Miniştri, la 21 septembrie 1939,” Universul, din 23
septembrie 1939, in România intre anii 1918-1940: documente şi materiale, Ioan Scurtu (coordinator),
Theodora Stănescu-Stanciu, Georgiana Margareta Scurtu [Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii Bucureşti,
2001], 139-140).
Nagy-Talavera, The Green Shirts and Others (304, note), references a similar proposal/demand
from the “public” citing Népszova, a Hungarian-language newspaper of 25 September 1939. This, he
writes, was expressed in letters read over the Romanian state radio!
122
One source mentions the following: “On November 26 and 27, 1940, sixty-three Romanian politicians,
senior military officers, and policemen accused of complicity in the arrest and execution of Corneliu
Zelea Codreanu were executed by Legionnaires in Jilava Prison near Bucharest.” See The Romanian
Jewish Community, “2. The Massacres Before the War,” http://www.romanianjewish.org/en/cap2.html
(accessed 4 February 2018) (emphasis added). The 64 detainees were not complicit only “in the arrest
and execution of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu” but of many other legionaries during the Carolist regime!
During 27 November, the well-known historian and politician Nicolae Iorga and the economist
Virgil Madgearu, vocal opponents of the Legion, were also brutally murdered by a group of legionaries,
although, according to Sima not on his orders. On this point, consult Horia Sima, Cazul Iorga-Madgearu.
Colecţia "Carpaţii", Nr. 14 (Madrid: Editura "Carpaţii", 1961), passim. In fact, Iorga in particular was
held culpable for Codreanu’s 1938 arrest and trial, which culminated with his execution in November.
G. Waldeck recalls in her Athene Palace, published in 1942, the National-Legionary regime took
time in issuing an official version concerning the event. This she dismissed out of hand with
rather weak arguments that an unnamed “Guardist dignitary” “proud of his own murder record”
informed her that the Legionary leadership had planned this act of vengeance. 123 Evidently, in
Waldeck’s view, an official investigation124 does not require any “time” for an event of this
nature, except perhaps “to hide the truth” as inferred in her account.
See also the online article by Tudor Marincu, “Asasinarea lui Nicolae Iorga,” at
http://www.rostonline.ro/2015/11/asasinarea-lui-nicolae-iorga/ (accessed 29 May 2018), and the multiple
commentaries by several readers. The website has an “interesting debate” on the responsibility for the
executions, the timeline, and speculations on the motives behind these events.
According to Florea Nedelcu, the Jilava incident took place during the night of 25-26 November.
See his De la restauraţie la dictatura regală, 426. Since Nedelcu does not explain why the date is given
as one day earlier than when the incident took place, it must be assumed it is a proofreading error.
123
R. G. Waldeck, Athene Palace (New York: Robert M. McBride and Company, 1942), 281-283.
Given that the book was published at least a year after the event in question; given that the
legionaries were no longer in the government (in fact they were being hunted by the Antonescu regime);
given that many “murderous Guardists” had been executed; given that the author was no longer in
Romania, therefore, there is no plausible explanation for not exposing the unnamed “Guardist dignitary”
“proud of his own murder record.” Why protect a murderer? Did this unnamed “Guardist dignitary”
even exist? Was he even a “Guardist”? A possible answer is found in the acknowledgement page, where
Waldeck explains the following concerning her sources: “In a book which in any way deals with
totalitarian politics and conditions, it is not polite for the author to acknowledge his sources. Therefore, I
can only express anonymous gratitude to the people . . . whose conversations provided so important a part
of my material” (7). This, however, comes up short, especially the “not [being] polite for the author to
acknowledge his sources” assertion, if the person is a murderer and one expresses gratitude!?
Surprisingly, British scholar Dennis Deletant seems to give credibility to Waldeck’s claim. See
his Hitler’s Forgotten Ally: Ion Antonescu and His Regime, Romania, 1940–44 (Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 61: “Sima himself
professed ‘shock’ at the murders, although Waldeck reported an Iron Guard source having told
her that this reaction was contrived.”
124
It appears that Waldeck’s notion of a model official investigation of a crime was the one following the
Tâncăbeşti executions of Codreanu and the 13 other legionaries, when in the span of a few hours, their
garroting was followed by their “shooting while trying to escape,” which was followed by the
“investigation,” followed by the secret burial on the premises of the Jilava prison, followed by the release
of the official communique that same evening which, due to the censorship, was published when it was all
over. See Doc. 8. 10. “Comunicatul Parchetului Militar al Corpului II Armată cu privire la uciderea lui
The same theme of premeditated vengeance American historian Larry L. Watts presents
in his work on Antonescu. He writes the following about the incident at Jilava: “. . . . on
November 26-27, 1940, in a carefully-planned series of vengeance murders for the death of their
‘Capitan,’ Iron Guard members took over Jilava prison and murdered 65 members of the former
regime interned there, among them, Mihail Moruzov.”125 Who, however, had “carefully planned”
these acts of vengeance? According to Waldeck’s unnamed “Guardist dignitary,” it was the
“Legionary leadership” and, although Watts does not make this assertion, he completely omits
the important factual information that, preceding this act, a rumor was circulating that General
Ion Antonescu, head of the government, planned to release or transfer some of the incarcerated
group held in the Jilava prison guarded by legionaries and not, as Watts claims, that “Iron Guard
members took over Jilava prison.” Granted, Aurică Simion writes that a military guard was to
remove the Legionary guard from inside the prison, but that was to take place on 27
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu (30 noiembrie 1938), ‘Universul’, din 2 decembrie 1938” [Communique of the
Military Prosecutor's Office of Army II Corps Concerning the Killing of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu], in
România între anii 1918-1940: documente şi materiale, Ioan Scurtu (coordinator), Theodora Stănescu-
Stanciu, Georgiana Margareta Scurtu (Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii Bucureşti, 2001), 137-138. Note
the date of the publication of the communique, due to the official censorship in force at the time.
125
Larry L. Watts, Romanian Cassandra: Ion Antonescu and the Struggle for Reform, 1906-1941
(Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, distributed by Columbia University Press, 1993), 266
(emphasis added). Moruzov was the head of King Carol II’s secret police and who the Legion held
responsible for the summary executions of legionaries.
Shortly after the Antonescu regime’s official account of the events in November 1940 and
January 1941, under the title of Pe marginea prăpastiei (On the Edge of the Abyss), the United Rumanian
Jews of America published a pamphlet based on these volumes. On the subject of who guarded the
prisoners, one reads the following account: “The political prisoners of Fort 13 in the penitentiary at Jilava
were guarded in their 19 cells by a group of legionnaires which changed shifts daily at about 9 P.M.” See
“Blood Bath in Rumania: First authentic account based upon official documents,” The Record – News
Bulletin, Vol. IV, No. 6-7 (July and August 1942): 17.
The Record also claims that the Nazi regime was behind the Legionary violent actions, that Berlin
funds were given to the Legion, although Antonescu is also made responsible for the January “massacres”
due to his initial inaction (5, 9, 7).
November.126 In his account of the National-Legionary State period, published ten years after
Simion’s book, Horia Sima also stressed that Antonescu decided to replace the legionaries
guarding the cells of the detainees at Jilava with military guard, a decision which was unknown
to him, although he was vice-president of the Council of Ministers. This order, Sima stresses,
caused consternation among those at Jilava, especially the group involved in the exhumation of
the bodies of Codreanu and the other 13 individuals killed on 29/30 November 1938. Was the
execution of the detainees a premeditated act or was it spontaneous which, according to Sima,
was provoked by Antonescu’s order which appeared to the legionaries that the detainees they
held responsible for the executions of their comrades during the Carolist regime were now to be
released without ever being brought to trial?127 This perception culminated in the execution of
the 64. Would this perception be that same “reality” Yavetz espoused (and discussed above)?
Since the official fall of communism in 1989-1991, there have been numerous works
published on the Legionary past written from multiple and divergent perspectives. And while
new information has come to light, old taboos and deliberate distortions persist. Even verifiable
factual information is still presented as if public records and archival sources do not disprove
such dubious conclusions (or perhaps because access to archival material can be and has been
restricted and controlled by sycophants of the pre-1989 regime holding decision-making
126
Deletant, Hitler’s Forgotten All, 60-61; A. Simion, Regimul politic din România în perioada
septembrie 1940-ianuarie 1941 [The Political Regime in Romania Between September 1940 and January
1941] (The (Cluj-Napoca: Dacia, 1976), 103.
127
Horia Sima, Era Libertăţii. Vol. II: Statul-Naţional-Legionar [The Era of Liberty. Vol. II: The
National-Legionary State] (Madrid: Editura Mişcării Legionare, 1986), 171-172. It is possible Sima had a
role in the incident and does not admit to it, but is it probable? Due to actual lack of incontrovertible
evidence, it only continues to be speculation and not fact.
positions in the post-1989 period). For example, the members of the prestigious Elie Wiesel128
Commission in their 2004 final report on the Holocaust in Romania assert that acts of “revenge”
for Codreanu’s murder “were directed against leaders of the Royal Dictatorship and against
Jews. As a result, sixty-five former leaders of the Royal Dictatorship were murdered in their
Jilava prison cells.”129 That all 64 were leaders of the Royal Dictatorship is quite a stretch – low
128
Eliezer "Elie" Wiesel was Romanian-born American Jewish writer, professor, political activist, Nobel
Laureate, Holocaust survivor, and member of Irgun. On the official website of The Elie Wiesel
Foundation for Humanity, the following is asserted: “Elie Wiesel was born in 1928 in Sighet,
Transylvania, which is now part of Romania”?!? See http://eliewieselfoundation.org/elie-wiesel/
(accessed 16 May 2018).
Such an assertion is very disingenuous considering that in 1928 Sighet (or Sighetu Marmației)
was in the Romanian region of Transylvania and not an independent Transylvania! Transylvania has been
part of the Romanian political state since the end of the First World War, not post-1928 period, although
when Wiesel was deported to the Auschwitz concentration camp that part of Transylvania had been under
Hungarian control since the fall of 1940 due to the Vienna Accord decision!
On his involvement with the “terrorist group” Irgun (others refer to it as an “underground
organization”), see https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/elie-wiesel (accessed 22 October 2018).
129
International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania, Final Report, Elie Wiesel, Chairman (Iaşi-
Bucureşti: Poliron, 2004), 110. This source is also available in full at http://www.1.yadvashem.org
(accessed on 18 July 2007) as well as in separate chapters such as The Report of the International
Commission on the Holocaust in Romania, Chapter 5, “The Holocaust in Romania,” at
http://www.1.yadvashem.org (accessed on 18 July 2007) (emphasis added).
Comisia Internaţională pentru Studierea Holocaustului în România, Raport final, Elie Wiesel,
Preşedintele comisiei (Iaşi-Bucureşti: Poliron, 2004), 108.
It appears this “Final Report” may be, with some exceptions, a summary “report” of the
historiography of pre-1989 publications (mostly during the Communist era), selective in emphasis of
certain information while ignoring others without explanation. For example, the odd assertion of “sixty-
five former leaders of the Royal Dictatorship” murdered at Jilava the authors/editors of the report make.
Yet, on its previous page they cite A. Simion’s Regimul politic which they evidently use for information
other than for the Jilava executions since he mentions that there were 64 detainees killed (Simion,
Regimul politic din România, 102-103). Later on, according to Simion, these detainees became
“numerous former officials, among them leaders of the Naţional Țărănist and Naţional Liberal parties”
(186). Moreover, Simion’s book itself does not have over 400 pages as the citation note 9 on the Final
Report’s following page indicates (English ed., 111; Romanian ed. 109); it rather has 327 numbered pages
plus a few additional pages of images.
For their names and functions the 64 held prior to their incarceration and execution, based on the
official documents of the Antonescu regime, see “Blood Bath in Rumania: First authentic account based
upon official documents,” The Record – News Bulletin, Vol. IV, No. 6-7 (July and August 1942): 16-17.
ranking policemen and gendarmes can hardly be viewed as “government leaders” no matter how
one has arrived at such a wild assertion! Incidentally, for the less informed (or curious), there
were others who were held at Jilava but were spared for various reasons and different
circumstances.
To continue with the Jilava incident, a slight variation is presented by a legionaire who
writes that the legionaries exhuming the bodies of Codreanu and the other 13 assassinated
together with him were “unable to contain themselves at the sight of the mortal remains of their
great leader and the other martyrs. In a legitimate outburst of rage, they execute the 64 members
of the previous political regimes who are imprisoned at Jilava and who had tortured and
massacred Legionary youth for ten years.”130 A few dozen pages later, Ronnett identified the 64
Are all these errors due to poor proofreading habits or the fact of outright deception regarding
certain sources? Have they even read these sources which they cite in the first place? If they cannot
correctly get right the statistics for Jilava - 64 individuals – how can they get it right when it comes to
other statistics, more complex and numerous?! Numbers are not open to interpretation, are they? This is
not George Orwell’s 2 + 2 = 5 Big Brother brainwashing deal, or is it?
130
Alexander E. Ronnett, Romanian Nationalism: the Legionary Movement, 2nd ed. (Chicago, IL:
Romanian-American National Congress, 1995), 108-109 (emphasis added).
The same assertion of “indignation” on the part of those exhuming the bodies at Jilava is found in
priest Palaghiţă’s 1951 book (Ştefan Palaghiţă, Garda de Fer: Spre Reînvierea României, 126).
Palaghiţă, however also mentions that “84 authors of the massacres” were killed on 27 November. In the
list of corrections of printing errors at the end of his book (381-382) this number is not corrected, thus one
is led to conclude that the author believes the figure to be accurate and not a typographic error! His main
focus was to discredit Horia Sima, his animus being found throughout his opus. And, thus, this might be
the reason his book has been given undue attention . . .
In his The Black Book, Carp writes the following on the issue: “On the eve of the events prepared
by the legionnaires on the occasion of the ‘Captain's day’ (inhumation of the assumed remains of
Corneliu Codreanu) the legionary terror reaches its highest level . . . The legionnaires organized a
juridical circus, which rehabilitated the memory of the killer Codreanu at the Court of Appeal[s];
afterwards, at night, they started to murder the dignitaries who were imprisoned in the Jilava
penitentiary.” (102) (insertion and emphasis added). To Carp, Codreanu was a “killer,” although not
convicted as such in the courts, while those killed at Jilava were “dignitaries,” who held different
positions in the government and the police and, according to the court testimonies of some of them (or
“juridical circus” according to Carp), they were instrumental in carrying out the brutal repression under
specifically as “politicians and executive agents held at Jilava” who “had led the entire anti-
Legionary campaign, and they had approved the coercive measures taken against the Movement.
They ordered or executed the massacres of September 21-22, 1939, when in the space of 24
hours more than 300 Legionaries were assassinated in concentration camps and Romanian
prisons–simply as reprisals”131 for the assassination of Prime Minister Armand Călinescu earlier
on 21 September. The dilemma appears to revolve around the question: just how important were
the roles the 64 individuals (and there were exactly only 64 persons) played in the various
regimes prior to the fall of Carol II’s dictatorship in September 1940? From the Legionary
perspective, the 64 were held responsible for the planning and implementation of repressive
measures of the Carolist dictatorship and summary executions. From the anti-Legionary view,
the fact that some of the 64 held high ranking ministerial positions during the Carolist regimes,
all became ipso facto “leaders of the Royal Dictatorship,” including the members of the
execution squads!
What all this means is that there is still a great deal of difficulty dealing with historical
reality and factual evidence – there is the existence of bias of omission or exaggeration of
information. There is a myopic view that “our side” is the “side of good” and “their side” is the
“side of evil”– an unrealistic black and white view of interwar Romania, in general, and the
Legionary Movement, in particular. Most of the works – specific and general – discussing the
Carol II, especially in the killing of Codreanu, although he was not sentenced to death. Moreover, as he
points out, Carp even doubts that the remains were those of Codreanu’s.
131
Ronnett, Romanian Nationalism, 161, 162 (emphasis added). Earlier in his pamphlet, he gives the
number of 250 individuals (46).
The phrase “executive agents” may be implying not administrators in positions of authority but
rather agents who carried out their superiors’ orders for the execution of legionaries – thus a case of
erroneous translation from Romanian into English, an issue touched upon above in footnote 92.
Legionary Movement portray the members as having been from the marginalized sectors of
society, from social classes trying to benefit from the post-World War I Romanian state. Since
they failed to achieve their goal, the argument runs, they joined the extremist Legion which made
unrealistic and unattainable promises.132
132
On this point, see Yavetz, “An Eyewitness Note,” 599.
Multiple sources place special emphasis on the idea that Codreanu was not of Romanian origins.
There are too many such works making this claim that it would be unnecessary to even list them. For the
Legionary perspective, suffice it to refer to the genealogy defense attorney Lizeta Gheorghiu presented in
court on the third day (25 May) during Codreanu’s “treason trial” of May 1938. See Mişcarea Legionară,
Adevărul în procesul Căpitanului [Miami, FL, USA]: Colecţia “Omul Nou,” Traian Golea, 1980/1981 (1st
ed. August, 1938), 143-150.
The actual birth certificate from the archives in Iaşi has been published online by, yes, legionaries
– so what? The fact still remains the fact regardless of the transmitting source if truthfully presented with
uncontested documents. Moreover, the document in question also indicates the addition of Zelea before
the Codreanu name (not the reverse order of names as it is often asserted), the official act having been
made on 17 March 1902. This is the date on which some writers insist on in their accounts that the father,
Ion Zelea Codreanu, Romanianized his name from Zilinski! See marturisitorii.ro/2018/03/22/premiera‑
arhivele‑nationale‑publica‑actul‑de‑nastere‑al‑capitanului‑miscarii‑legionarecorneliu‑zelea‑codreanu
‑extras‑din‑registrului‑starii‑civile‑iasi‑din‑septembrie‑1899‑document/ [accessed 7 August 2018].
But why such adamant and truly irrational insistence on the purity of one’s ethnic/racial origins
from those who insist to be beyond racism and accuse others of what in appearance they themselves
actually practice? Perhaps special mention should be made of Stelian Neagoe’s 1977 opus Triumful
raţiunii împotriva violenţei, in which there is an irrational insistence of referring to Corneliu Zelea
Codreanu throughout as Corneliu Zilinski and provides a rather confusing genealogy (page 91) of the
family whose members’ first names are actually Romanian and only the last names are “non-Romanian.”
Neagoe deliberately fails to explain that the region of Bukovina (Bucovina in Romanian) from which the
Zelea Codreanu family hails, had become part of Greater Romania of the interwar period only in 1918!
Prior to that year, the practice was to give non-Romanian names to Romanians in the Dual Monarchy of
Austria and Hungary, a policy also implemented in other states neighboring Romania. Moreover, the
Orthodox Church had been under Slav hierarchy which Slavicized non-Slav names, the official language
used in the liturgy being old Church Slavonic. In the Magyar part of the Dual Monarchy the practice was
to Magyarize whenever possible non-Hungarian names. In the Austrian part of the empire, non-German
names were Germanized as well. Other writers’ works also have, at least in the indices, the listing of
Codreanu as “Zelea-Codreanu, Corneliu” for whatever unexplained reason and, at the same time, for the
non-Romanian names of individuals on the left who Romanianized their names such emphasis if carefully
avoided! (This topic should be revisited in a future essay.)
One should also be cognizant of the following facts regarding some of the leaders of the
Legionary Movement and their birth places:
Ion I. Moţa, was born in 1902, in Orăştie, Oltenia, which was under Austria-Hungary.
Epilogue
By way of conclusion, one should note that some of the works cited above, which contain
several factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies, are examples of the authors’ desire to provide
flowing general accounts of very intricate and complex historical developments. These works are
examples of speculation and over simplification, whose authors suffer from the bias of omission
(ignoring contradictory evidence or historical facts on the subject). Consequently, the general
assertions the authors made are too selective in their use of “historical evidence,” coming up
short of capturing the essence of historical reality, just as some of the “historical facts” are not
even remotely close to the factual history of the “Archangel Michael” Legion, no matter the
Radu Mironovici, was born in 1899, Arbore, Bukovina, in Austria-Hungary; currently in Suceava
county.
Corneliu Georgescu, was born in 1902, Poiana Sibiului, Austria-Hungary.
Ilie Gârneață, was born in 1898, in Iaşi, being one of the two Văcăreşteni born in Romania.
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, was born in 1899, in Huşi, Moldavia, in Romania.
Although not a legionaire, Tudose Popescu was born in 1892, in Cernăuţi, Bukovina, under Austria-
Hungary.
Constantin Papanace, was born in 1904, in Selia, Macedonia, the Ottoman Empire, presently Greece.
Horia Sima, was born in 1906 or 1907, in Făgăraş, Austria-Hungary; other Legionary sources affirm
Bucharest as the birthplace. Therefore, the year and place of birth appear to vary in different sources.
But one should also know that Iuliu Maniu, one of the political leaders of interwar Romania,
admired in Romania and the West, was born in 1873 in Bădăcin, Transylvania, Austria-Hungary! This is
also the case with the nationalist poet and politician Octavian Goga, who was born in 1881, in Răşinari,
Austria-Hungary.
Mention should also be made of Bishop Ioan Inocențiu Micu Klein (1692-1768), an important
figure in the struggle for rights for the Romanians in eighteenth-century Transylvania. The surname Micu
in Romanian is translated into German as Klein, both meaning “small.”
Moreover, the world-renowned historian and Romanian nationalist Nicolae Iorga (1871-1940)
was of Greek descent! So, too, was the Duca family! So were all the Ghicas and Rosettis and
Cantacuzinos and Sturdzas and Hurmuzakis and Mocionis (Aromanians) . . . and all of them made
important contributions to the history of the Romanian nation and culture; all of them identified as
Romanian!
valiant efforts made in order to fit them into their narrative but flawed version of the history of
Legionarism.
That assertions as the ones discussed in this essay are made at this time only prove how,
the more is being published on Legionarism, the more convoluted the “story” has become in
some the more recent accounts. One shoul note that since the momentous changes of 1989-1991,
efforts at real objective research on the history of the Legion have increased. At the same time,
however, a great number of publications containing nonsense claims had also been on the rise
and perpetuated in various forms of media. Does the fact that reputable and up-and-coming
writers have made and continue to make questionable assertions, such as the ones discussed
throughout this essay, give the impression of lack of seriousness or animus towards their
subject?133
The American cable company “History Channel” on its website under “This Day in
History” feature has the following entry for 27 November with the heading “1940: Iron Guard
massacres former Romanian government”: “Two months after General Ion Antonescu seized
power in Romania and forced King Carol II to abdicate, Antonescu’s Iron Guard arrests and
executes more than 60 aides of the exiled king, including Nicolae Iorga, a former minister and
acclaimed historian.”134 While the author of this entry uses the qualifier phrase “more than 60
133
Would it be extreme to view this as the behavior of schoolchildren who have not fully completed their
homework and, thus, are just “schoolboys in disgrace”? The use of this phrase was not initially deliberate
and thus no direct reference to the 1975 Kinks underrated but great album Schoolboys in Disgrace but, in
hindsight, appropriate nevertheless. For those unfamiliar with the album, it is worth looking up Mickey
Finn’s art cover for a light moment.
134
The History Channel, “This Day in History,” at http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/iron-guard-
massacres-former-romanian-government (accessed 30 December 2017) (emphasis added). Again, the
erroneous assertion that the executed were, to reiterate, members of the “former Romanian government,”
all those “more than 60 aides . . .” Besides, most of them were arrested in September-October!
aides,” it claims erroneously that Antonescu seized power when in actual fact the king appointed
the general on 5 September to head the government and who, when faced with street
demonstrations and pressures from some in the palace and the general, abdicated in favor of his
son Mihai (former king from 20 July 1927 to 8 June 1930). If indeed Antonescu “seized power”
in September 1940 and took the title Conducătorul (the Leader), then it follows that in January
1941 he also “seized power” from the Legionary Movement, his partner in government during
the National-Legionary State of 14 September 1940-14 February 1941!135 Besides, if it was
“Antonescu’s Iron Guard” which arrested and executed Carol II’s aides in November 1940, does
it follow then that in January 1941 Conducătorul carried out a military coup against his own Iron
Guard government, in spite of the narrative that it was the Iron Guard which carried out a
“rebellion” at this time? Did the Iron Guard carry out a “rebellion”. . . against itself?!
Confusing, is it not? So, regarding 1940 and 1941 Romania, where do we stand on who did what
to whom, when and how and why? Do we have a firm grasp of anything at all? What is the
political reality on the developments during this period of a few months? Or, do we make our
own reality no matter what the historical evidence may be, that is, facts be damned?136
135
The formal dissolution of the Legionary Movement (Mişcarea Legionară), occurred by the Decree-
Law No. 314 of 14 February 1941. Therefore, while a new government was established on 27 January
1941, one which did not include any legionaries, we can argue that the National-Legionary State itself
was officially dissolved only on 14 February 1941.
136
On the latter point, the selective account or questionable understanding of the January 1941
developments, consult Lucian Turcescu’s essay “Fascists, Communists, Bishops, and Spies: Romanian
Orthodox Churches during the Cold War,” 343-360, in Paul Mojzes (ed.), North American Churches and
the Cold War (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018). He is critical
of a study on Archbishop Valerian D. Trifa (Gerald J. Bobango, Religion and Politics: Bishop Valerian
Trifa and His Times [Boulder: East European Monographs; distributed by Columbia University Press,
New York, 1981].) University student Viorel Trifa served as President of the National Union of
Romanian Christian Students during the National-Legionary State. As bishop (later as archbishop since
March 1970) of the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in America, Trifa had been hounded by different
individuals and groups and, in spite of Turcescu’s “analysis” discussed below, one would do well to read
Bobango’s writings (not perfect, but certainly far superior in scholarship to those of his critics).
Thus, considering Turcescu’s allegations concerning Bobango’s very problematic interpretations
of the Legionary Movement and Trifa’s distortions: what are the facts on these two points? Turcescu
asserts that Bobango “presented some very problematic interpretations of the Legionary Movement and
its anti-Semitic, profascist policies, in order to make the case that Trifa was not a fascist and that his
leadership position in the movement and his speech on the eve of the Legionary rebellion of 1941 had no
major significance.” (350) [emphasis added]. To begin with, what is problematic is Turcescu’s pretzel-
like twisting of historical facts in the following “analysis”:
Bobango claimed that the Iron Guard and its successor, the Legion of the Archangel
Michael (or Legionary Movement), were not anti-Semitic or fascist organizations specifically, but
only generally xenophobic; that Trifa was not a card-carrying Legionary member, although he
was very sympathetic to the Legion’s policies; that due to his position as head of the National
Union of Christian Students, ‘he was considered ex officio a “member” or “associate” of whatever
party held power in the state at that moment’; and that his January 20, 1941, speech was prepared
by Sima and had no effect on the events that followed during the rebellion. (350 [emphasis
added]; cites Bobango, Religion and Politics, and pages 32-33).
But nowhere on those pages does Bobango make such a claim regarding the Legion’s name! In
fact, it is much later in his study that Bobango provides a short survey on the history and historiography
of the Legion (Bobango, 61-67). He certainly does not refer to the Iron Guard as having been succeeded
by the “Archangel Michael” Legion (or Legionary Movement) since he writes: “. . . few writers bother to
correct the usage of ‘Iron Guard’ where ‘Legionary Movement’ is meant . . .” (Bobango, Religion and
Politics, 67), something Turcescu seems to be doing as well. Actually, Turcescu conflates the two
separate groups! One should see above in this essay the discussion on the misuse of the names and other
similar distortions of fact. Moreover, for whatever reason, Turcescu also states rather insultingly that
Bobango had “been influenced by Trifa’s attempts to distort the truth about himself in order to hide his
fascist past” (343-344, note 3) [emphasis added]. In other words, leaving aside whatever “fascist” may
mean, the assertion is that Bobango accepted Trifa’s claim “that his January 20, 1941, speech was
prepared by Sima and had no effect on the events that followed during the rebellion.” Whatever the
“effect” of the speech may have been, it is not the subject of this discussion, but the authorship of the
speech in question is. (On the effect, see Bobango, Religion and Politics, 176-177). As for influence,
Turcescu is accurate in noting that Bobango had been influenced but he was influenced by the
documentary evidence from all sides and made an informed conclusion, something on which Turcescu
comes up short.
Perhaps Turcescu would have done well to consult (if for no other reason at least out of
intellectual curiosity) Sima’s account of the event, which he published in 1986 (thus after Bobango’s
published work but before Trifa’s death on 28 January 1987) and in which he does take credit for having
written the manifesto, whose text was also the speech given that evening (whether it was the original or
the alleged altered text, according to Sima, I have no evidence presently, but does not diminish my point).
On the text’s paternity, see Horia Sima, Era Libertăţii. Vol. II: Statul naţional-legionar [The Era of
Liberty. The National-Legionary State] (Madrid: Editura Mişcării Legionare, 1986). Sima’s account, in
Romanian, is as follows: “Ȋn grabă am redactat un manifest, care trebuia semnat de Trifa şi difuzat în
cursul manifestaţiei, pentruca publicul Capitalei să ia act de protestul studenţimii contra nedreptăţii
săvârşite Generalului Petrovicescu” (321; emphasis added). After this, Sima includes the actual text in
Finally, some afterthoughts on the disappointing conclusions about scholars and
journalists discussed above. Based on the information presented in this essay there are historians
who appear to have gone so far afield from historical facts that one may come to the realization
that this essay has been an effort in futility. This review of errors which expert historians have
made raises the following question: why this careless and cavalier approach to this subject? For a
possible explanation, one should perhaps remember two prominent individuals of nineteenth and
twentieth century Europe and their assessment of the importance of east European-Balkans
region for their own citizens during periods of crises in Europe. On possibility of German
involvement in a war in the Balkans in late 1876, and the need to stay out of it, German
question, (321-322) with Trifa’s name at the bottom. Sima points out that there were two alterations or
additions to his text, but believes they were added when at the printer’s for distribution of the flyer on the
evening of 20 January and not authored by Trifa. (Sima, Era Libertăţii. Vol. II: Statul naţional-legionar
322).
On the other hand, five years prior to Sima’s book, Bobango writes (presumably based on Trifa’s
memory and assumptions, although no source citation is provided for this) the following on the paternity
of the speech: Sima handed Trifa “a ‘manifesto’ of some 300 words which had Trifa’s name at the bottom
and had already been sent to the printing office to be reproduced. It had been written by Traian
Borobaru.” (174). Borobaru served as Sima’s private secretary during this period. It is this account
Turcescu labels as “distortion” on Trifa’s part, without presenting compelling counter evidence!
On the manifesto’s authorship and its contents/effect, British scholar Dennis Deletant adds more
to the confusion by writing the following: “A manifesto signed by Viorel Trifa, the head of the Romanian
Christian Students’ Union, was circulated shortly after Petrovicescu’s dismissal. Together with a similar
appeal by Dumitru Groza, the leader of the Legionary Workers’ Union, it constituted a call for action and
the institution of a legionary government . . .” Deletant, Hitler’s Forgotten Ally, 65. A long quotation
from the manifesto follows, its text being from Evreii din România între anii 1940–1944. Vol. III, Part 1,
doc. 113, p. 167 (Deletant, Hitler’s Forgotten Ally, 299-300 note 72). Was this Trifa’s or Groza’s [or is it
Grozea’s] “manifesto” from which he quotes? In the same footnote, Deletant gives a muddled synopsis
of Trifa’s life, including his “membership” in the “Iron Guard” and the standard charge that Trifa gained
entry in the United States “on the basis of a false declaration that he had never been the member of a
Fascist organization.” (300) [emphasis added]. Born in “1915” and died on” 24 January 1987” [sic!
actually he was born on 28 June 1914 and died on 28 January 1987], Trifa was thus to turn 16 years old
two months following the founding of the Iron Guard in April 1930 and was 19 when it was outlawed by
the government in December 1933! As for the definition/understanding/declaration of what is a “Fascist
[sic! not fascist?] organization,” this is to be the focus of an essay on “generic fascism” and the Legion.
Chancellor Otto von Bismarck declared that the region was “Not worth the healthy bones of a
single Pomeranian grenadier.”137 The other prominent figure in history is British Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain who, six decades later, in speaking of the absurdity of British soldiers dying
for Czechoslovakia during the September 1938 Sudeten crisis, said: “How horrible, fantastic,
incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here [in London]
because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.”138
Perhaps one may see reflected in the above quoted words of Bismarck and Chamberlain (who
have placed the interests of their nations first, albeit for a short time only since, when war did
start, Bismarck stayed out of it, while Chamberlain did not) the indifference or careless
affirmations on the part of some historians writing about Legionarism.
In the context of the region’s importance and the lack of interest and/or knowledge on the
part of people and journalists in the interwar era and some historians, then and now, writing
about the Legionary Movement, many appear to be less inclined to factual evidence than to their
own biased views based on pre-existing conclusions (by way of interpretations or factual
distortions or omissions). In other words, to quote from John Ford’s 1962 classic western movie
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, with John Wayne and James Stewart, when the reporter
interviewing Senator Ransom “Ranse” Stoddard (played by Stewart) realizes that the senator’s
reputation as the one who shot bad guy Liberty Valance (played by Lee Marvin) was based on a
myth, he throws his notes away in frustration and quips: “This is the West, sir. When the legend
137
Otto von Bismarck - Speech to Reichstag, 5 December 1876, at https://izquotes.com/quote/otto-von-
bismarck/not-worth-the-healthy-bones-of-a-single-pomeranian-grenadier-391513. [accessed 02 January
2019).
138
27 September 1938 Statement to the Press, in Neville Chamberlain, The Struggle for Peace (London:
Hutchinson & Co. [Publishers] Ltd., [1939]), 275 (insertion added).
becomes fact, print the legend.” Indeed, logic in a fictional film to which many scholars appear
to have subscribed regarding the history of Legionarism without much forethought for actual
facts based on evidence!
Perhaps there should be a different perspective added to the preceding and consider
Thucydides, the first historian of the Great Peloponnesian War, generally viewed as the father of
“scientific history,” one who sifted fact from fiction (or did he?!), unlike Herodotus (the “father
of history” or at least the father of history in Western civilization) who included references to the
roles of deities (as some writers on Legionarism have done, as noted above) in his history of the
Persian Wars. On the speeches made during the Greek conflict and the truthfulness of his
narrative which he includes in his account, especially the famous speeches, Thucydides makes
the following trenchant admission:
As to the speeches which were made either before or during the war, it was hard for me,
and for others who reported them to me, to recollect the exact words. I have therefore put
into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I
thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavoured, as
nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said.139
VINCIT OMNIA VERITAS
139
Thucydides, edited and translated into English, with Introduction, Marginal Analysis, Notes, and
Indices by B. Jowett, 2 vols. (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1881), 1: 15.

Notes On The Historiography of The Legion FINAL VERSION 06-24-2020 CLIO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes On The Historiography of The Legion FINAL VERSION 06-24-2020 CLIO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clio în doliu:

Reflections on Some Issues Regarding the History and Historiography

“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it,

favorable, unfavorable, or “objective” concerning the subject.

“Meetings,” “Journeys,” and “Events”

in the historical record on Legionarism because . . . the meeting never happened!

Continuing the discussion about “meetings,” “journeys,” and “events” asserted by

making certain to be historically and factually accurate.

In addition to Matichescu’s claim, attention should be given to Zeev Barbu’s off-hand

relationship, who was making ‘swastikas.’”14

C. Cuza’s Liga Apărării Naţional-Creştine (LANC; the League of National-Christian Defense)

some “experts” prefer, an “Iron Guardist”!

To place Barbu’s historically inaccurate use of terminology in context, attention should

Dead or Alive, Present at the Creation (Years Later!), Leaders?!

article in his bibliography26).

Furthermore, while relying extensively on Stelian Neagoe’s 1977 Triumful raţiunii

gymnastics by identifying Legionary commander Vasile Marin as “a founding member and

page in Codreanu’s book, is the name of . . . Vasile Marin!38 It is quite a performance of

carelessness influenced by his myopic obsession of destroying dead peoples’ reputation in

interwar Romania’s cultural scene by ascribing pejorative labels of anti-Semitism on most

published in English translation.39 Old habits die hard, do they not?

entry for “1937 Romania” there is the following assertion:

be a practice of sowing additional seeds of disinformation to the already existing confusion,

Same Photographs, Different Narratives

a photograph in Stanley G. Payne’s A History of Fascism. It reads: “Iron Guard militiaman

photograph46 were arrested and incarcerated in Bucharest’s Văcăreşti prison (formerly a

featured in publications as representing the founders of the “Archangel Michael” Legion.47 In

To conclude this cycle of analysis of historical photographs, Josif Constantin Drăgan,49 in

this one photograph represents cannot both be factually accurate.

“Historical” Developments “Too Complex” for Some

In a general history of Europe, with chapters authored by different historians, in his

frankly, beyond comprehension, an example of over-compression of complex historical

developments. “In Romania,” he writes, “Carol II intervened in 1920 to evict a government

administrations discriminated against non-Romanians in the economy and education and

not just Legionary Movement’s “Totul pentru Țară.”

“Four Prime Ministers in a Row” Or . . .

government reprisals by carrying out a series of extrajudicial executions of most of the

Religious Beliefs, Heretical Practices?

such a foolhardy assertion!

understand Morgan is a “theologian” on Christianity, in general, and Romanian Orthodoxy, in

“Romanian Orthodox God” assertion.

and of discussing the possible name of the planned youth organization:

characterizes the Legion’s religion as “a heretical sect” which

facts? This is quite a claim to a “blood-letting” ceremony worthy of a Hollywood production

stained with their blood, and thus . . .?

Factual Errors, Distortions, Misinformation, Disinformation?

scholars). The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, in its English-language entry on I. G. Duca’s

against the “Archangel Michael” Legion, has the following:

of “generic fascism” and of the Legionary Movement.

any form of influence instead of being true to Clio?78

December 1933 decree even constitutional?

Mihail) was established!81

In an English-language world history encyclopedia entry titled “fascism,” author Justin

which came before and after its establishment:

year after his actual arrest and execution on government orders!

As previously noted, significant historical inaccuracies of fact in scholarly and other

customary conclusions reached (based, however, on factual inaccuracies). Anyone with

acceptance of like-minded views or foregone conclusions.

Moreover, Anglophone scholars asserted at times the alleged lack of writings by

concept of publishing different perspectives one considers “polemical” and “incomprehensible”

F. C. Webster’s case, he is apparently unaware of Ronnett’s membership in the Legion since he

writes that he was “unabashedly pro-Legion. His pamphlet is essentially an apologia.”88

Romanian language editions have been (should be) listed under?