Valentin Sandulescu Article in Studia Hebraica 2004-Libre

Valentin Sandulescu - „Fascism and its Quest for the 'New Man:' The Case of the Romanian Legionary
Movement,” Studia Hebraica, No. 4, (2004), pp. 349 - 361.
FASCISM AND ITS QUEST FOR THE “NEW MAN”:

THE CASE OF THE ROMANIAN LEGIONARY
MOVEMENT
Valentin Săndulescu
Central European University
Motto: The “New Man” was not invented by Ceauşescu, by

communism in general, or by King Carol II. It was
invented by Codreanu (although other fundamentalist
reformers such as Martin Luther in the 16th century,
did it before him)
Ioan Petru Culianu (1991)1
Although the historiography on fascism has been abundant in the last fifty years,
contemporary scholars are far from reaching the endpoint in the analysis of this political
phenomenon. Among many others, Marxist, conservative or liberal viewpoints tried to explain
the origins and dynamic of fascism and came to diverse and often contrasting conclusions.
Depending on various orientations, fascism was considered the product of the most reactionary
forces of bourgeois capitalism, a manifestation of totalitarianism or a reaction against
modernization, to name just a few trends of thought.
An innovative development in fascist studies, based on the works of historians such as
George L. Mosse, Stanley Payne and Roger Griffin, offers one of the most in-depth
understandings of fascism as a political phenomenon of the twentieth century. This approach
focuses on the revolutionary and positive programmatic claims of fascism. It asserts that
fascism developed an ideology and not just a reactionary movement, and identifies the goals of
that ideology with the revolutionary will for a complete regeneration aimed at creating a new
order and a “new man.” It thus attempts to explain fascism’s success and makes it easier to
distinguish it from other forms of authoritarian rule.
Such an approach, adapted to the Romanian political and historical context, provides
useful insights into the study of the Legionary Movement. Thus, one may identify throughout
the Legion’s discourse a certain regenerative project, aimed at solving the perceived state of
crisis that threatened the Romanian nation. The Jewish population was considered responsible
for this state of crisis and became the “scapegoat” for Romania’s economic and political
shortcomings. The Legion attempted a “taming of the
1
Ioan Petru Culianu, Păcatul împotriva spiritului: scrieri politice (The Sin against the spirit: political
writings), (Bucharest: Editura Nemira, 1999), p. 226.
349
revolt” (George L. Mosse) of the young generation, and offered them a feeling of belonging in
this regenerative project. Achieving this project was only possible, according to the legionary
ideology, if a new type of man emerged, with hero-like qualities. The aim of the Legion was to
educate this “new man” – omul nou – the only one capable of building the new, regenerated
Romania. This research analyzes the Legion’s quest of creating a “new man,” shaped on the
profile of its young militants. It traces the evolution of the concept of “new man” within the
history of the Legionary Movement and draws the “new man’s” profile. This endeavour
attempts to comprehend what stood behind the Legion’s dramatic rise in popularity in the
1930s.
“Taming the Revolt”: Fascism’s Revolutionary Goal

Considering, as numerous Marxist theoreticians argue, that fascism was no more than a
reactionary movement, provides little if any explanation for this complex political phenomenon.
Besides its social or economic conditionings, fascism also developed a salient cultural
component. Starting to depart from an orthodox Marxist interpretation, historians such as
George L. Mosse, argued as early as the 1960s that fascism was a cultural revolution, i.e. “the
effort to develop a new ideology and culture and to create a revolutionary ‘new man’ in place of
the materialist, pragmatic, and liberal culture of the nineteenth century.”2
Mosse argued that fascism should not be seen only in negative terms (reactionary or
anticommunist). Instead, it should be considered that “for millions it did satisfy a deep need for
activism combined with identification, it seemed to embody their vision of a classless society.”3
Fascism was founded on a sense of revolt against liberalism and positivism, which emerged at
the turn of the century. However, the key consisted of the process of taming this revolt,
controlling these energies and channelling them towards a mass movement lead by a
charismatic leader.4 Fascism attempted, and in some cases succeeded, to profit from this feeling
of revolt and to fuel it, in what the Italian poet Gabriele D’Annunzio named the “constant
feeding of one’s own exaltation.”5
According to Mosse, the taming of the revolt was directed towards the irrational
conservatism of the masses. Fascists influenced the masses through the leader’s example. The
activism that went along with the taming process, centred on the leader, was based on cult and
liturgical elements such as special settings, slogans, choruses and symbols.6 The fin de siecle
revolt described by Mosse belonged to the young generation who felt alienated and found a
feeling of belonging in the spiritual communities promised by the fascist mass movements. The
primacy of culture for fascist movements, in comparison with the economic aspects, as argued
by Mosse, was visible in the outcome of the taming process described above, i.e. the “new
man”:
2
Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995), pp. 450
– 451.
3
George L. Mosse, “Introduction: The Genesis of Fascism,” in Journal of Contemporary History, Vol.
1, Issue 1 (1966), p. 25.
4
Ibid., pp. 15 – 16.
5
Ibid., p. 15.
6
Ibid., p. 17.
350
Not control over the means of production was important, but the ‘new man’
about whom all fascists talked. He was man made whole once more, aware of his
archetype and of those with whom he shared it, and activist in that he was not
afraid to join in a revolution which would make society correspond to the
longings of his soul.7
One may consider that the creation of what fascists termed the “new man” was the final
goal of their cultural revolution.8 This final, revolutionary and utopian goal was seen as a
necessity, because it was presented as a cure for a deep state of societal crisis. Therefore, the
fascist project was based on a palingenetic myth,9 the idea of the nation’s rebirth through the
creation of a “new man.” Historians such as Roger Griffin see the palingenetic myth as the core
myth of fascist ideology, and the driving force behind the movement. Corroborating the ideas
of Mosse and Griffin, one may interpret fascism as a tamed revolt of the youth against the
liberal state, a revolt channelled in a revolutionary movement that promised the resurrection
from a perceived state of crisis through a palingenetic, regenerative project centred on the idea
of creating a “new man” and a “new country.”
Applying this “culturalist” approach to a particular case such as the Romanian
Legionary Movement presents both advantages and unavoidable shortcomings. To start with
the latter, this approach refers to generic fascism, i.e. an ideal-type concept in the Weberian
tradition,10 whose traits are not found to the letter in specific realities. This theory draws heavily
on the German and Italian cases, which express the reality of fascist movements that managed
to obtain and retain political power in their countries, which was not the case with Romania. In
Romania, given that the Legion was not a governing party, every aspect of its attempted
“taming of the revolt” or “creation of the new man” had a voluntary aspect.
However, the shortcomings are less prevalent than the advantages of this approach.
Generic fascism as an “ideal-type concept” cannot hamper the historical analysis as long as one
does not try to identify it, in every detail, in specific historical situations. Rather, it should be
used as a conceptual tool of analysis11 in order to investigate specific case studies.
Although Mosse and Griffin rely mainly on Italian Fascism and German Nazism in their
work, they also talk about Romanian fascism as one of the important movements to be
considered by serious scholarship. Comparing Romanian fascism with the Western pattern is
also legitimate because of the affinities the Legion emphasized it had with Italian or German
fascist movements. In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Codreanu
acknowledged that Mussolini was an inspiration for him, and a
7
Ibid., p. 21.
8
In the Italian context, one of the most eloquent case studies on fascism, the concept of the ‘new man’
became “a major cultural theme” cf. Philip V. Cannistraro, “Mussolini’s Cultural Revolution: Fascist or
Nationalist?,” in Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 7, Issue 3/4 (Jul. – Oct. 1972), p. 129.
9
The term was coined and explained, in fascist studies, by British historian Roger Griffin in his work
The Nature of Fascism, (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 32 – 36.
10
Roger Griffin, ed., Fascism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 2.
11
Ibid.
351
“guide” for young Romanians.12 Not only affinities but also the specificity of the Legion was
defined in comparison with the Western model. An eloquent example is the “self-portrait”
designed by Alexandru Cantacuzino for the legionary movement in relation with its Western
counterparts:
To be brief, the Italian youngsters exalt most of all their youth, their perpetual
renaissance and cleansing of life, their joy of conquest in the tradition of the
roman spirit…. The German youth exalt their race, their discipline, and their
power of domination. We, Romanian youth exalt most of all our national and
Christian faith, the rightfulness, kindness and nobleness of the Romanian soul,
our wounds, our retreats and renunciations, asceticism.13
Applying the “culturalist” approach to Romanian fascism provides a fresh perspective

that avoids the pitfalls and oversimplifications of the communist works from the pre-1989
period and of the positivist and under-theorized publications emerging in Romanian
historiography after the 1989 revolution.14 It also offers a more thorough understanding of what
the legionaries wanted to express in their political discourse and examines their ideological goal
of creating a “new man” and a “new Romania.” This goal has a history of its own and may be
identified in several stages of the legionary movement’s evolution.
The Idea of a “New Man” and a “New Romania” in the History of the Legionary
Movement: Three Main Stages
Codreanu’s rupture from Cuza’s National Christian Defense League (LANC) in the
summer of 1927 was caused by various factors. The personal relations between Codreanu and
Cuza worsened since Codreanu’s rise in popularity after the 1925 trial in Turnu Severin, but
these disagreements were partially solved with his departure to France for university studies.
Codreanu’s insistence on more dynamic political action and on bypassing democratic
institutions such as the Parliament found little understanding with an old politician like A.C.
Cuza. As a consequence, Codreanu decided to form his own organization, with a different
platform, and so in June 1927, the Legion of Archangel Michael was founded. The leadership
principle, something that Cuza’s LANC lacked, was obvious in the organization’s founding
document, which stated that only those who have unbounded faith should join the Legion.15 The
slight doctrinaire differences between the Legion and LANC became increasingly visible in the
years to come.
12
La Stampa, No. 153, June 29th 1934. The interview is available in a Romanian translation “Reînnoirea
României după programul Gărzii de Fier” (The Renewal of Romania according to the Iron Guard’s
program) in Arhivele Naţionale Istorice Centrale (National Central Historical Archives), Bucharest,
Romania, Fond Ministerul de Interne – Diverse, File Number 15, 1933, ff. 83 – 87.
13
Alexandru Cantacuzino, Românismul nostru (Our Romanianism), (Bucharest, 1936), p. 7.
14
A more theoretical and fruitful approach, which analyses the importance of the “myth of
regeneration,” and regards the Legion’s activity in the late 1930s as a “right wing revolution,” is
provided by Sorin Alexandrescu, semiotician and literary theorist, in his work Paradoxul Român (The
Romanian Paradox), (Bucharest: Editura Univers, 1998), pp. 212 – 222.
15
Codreanu, Pentru Legionari (For My Legionaries), 9th edition, (Bucharest: Editura Scara, 1999), p.
229.
352
In 1927, Codreanu’s Legion of Archangel Michael consisted of young people, mainly

university and high-school students. It posed as an organization of the youth that aimed to
transform the country through their own energies. It preached action instead of dialogue and
understanding. This was highly visible in their approach of the “Jewish problem.” They
criticized A.C. Cuza’s discursive anti-Semitism and argued in favor of concrete action against
Jews. The legionaries staged boycotts against Jewish goods and attempted to diminish their
economic presence in several rural areas. These actions were accompanied by anti-Semite
campaigns in university, where the popularity of the Legion was increasing.
However, at the doctrine level, although it abhorred ideological constructions, the
Legion faced an identity crisis. The risk of being assimilated with LANC or with another party
dissidence in the political landscape was something Codreanu wanted to avoid. Based on his
own beliefs in action, youthfulness and the failure of parliamentary democracy, Codreanu
sought other sources of inspiration for his newly born movement. Gradually, his movement
would evolve from the anti-Semitic ultranationalism that A.C. Cuza’s LANC has manifested
within the borders of the democratic, parliamentary system, to a fully fledged antidemocratic
revolutionary movement, whose primary goal was to elevate the country from its crisis by
creating a “new man” and a “new Romania.”
In this regard, taming the feelings of revolt manifested by the young generation since the
end of the war,16 became a major goal for Codreanu. In his desire to avoid “classical” forms of
political action, Codreanu envisaged a revolutionary platform for his movement, proposing a
radical transformation of the country by reforming its human component. Similarly to other
fascist figures, Codreanu perceived the nation as a living and homogenous organism, whose
unity and natural existence was deeply harmed by changes brought about by democracy.
Democracy divided the nation17 into opposing camps, due to the pluralist political party system.
Another major flaw of democracy, according to Codreanu, was that it established equal rights
for Romanians and Jews alike, something he rejected, arguing that Romanians, being present on
this soil for thousands of years were the only ones responsible for the “entire existence of
Greater Romania.”18 The legionary propaganda presented the Jews as the most salient menace
to Romanians, the “threatening Other.” The “conspiracy theory” propagated by Codreanu
himself, emphasized that the Jews wanted to create a new Palestine, which would contain half
of Romania’s territory towards the Black Sea, in order to ensure “a connection by water with
the other Palestine.”19 Thus, for Codreanu and the Legion, the country was degenerated and in a
deep state of crisis, while Jewish threat was, for them, more present than ever.
16
In 1922, a massive student strike took place in Romania, a strike which, among other connotations,
also had an anti-Semitic and ultra-nationalistic component. The new, politically conscious generation
became known as “the 1922 generation” and many of its militants would later join Codreanu’s
movement.
17
Codreanu, Pentru Legionari (For My Legionaries), p. 325.
18
Ibid., p. 326.
19
Ibid., p. 118.
353
In front of this perceived state of crisis of the democratic state, Codreanu believed, as
did other fascists, that he “had been fatefully born at a watershed between national decline and
national regeneration”20 and therefore he had a duty to regenerate the nation. In this regard, the
discourse regarding the need for a “new man” and a “new Romania” came as a natural solution,
as the actual program and doctrine of the movement. However, it would be misleading to
believe that Codreanu and his followers developed this discourse at the very beginning of their
movement. On the contrary, the doctrinaire beginnings in the late 1920s were quite hesitant and
even chaotic, while later on in the 1930s, the Legion managed to crystallize its ideological
underpinnings under the guise of a regenerative project, destined to create a “new man.” In
order to underscore this gradual ideological development, one may identify three main stages in
which the idea of a “new man” and a “new Romania” was germinated and finalized in the
history of the Iron Guard.
The first stage is at the beginning of the movement, between 1927 and 1933, a period of
unclear ideological status, in which a coherent option for a doctrine was missing. The year 1933
marked the second stage, one of tremendous growth for the movement, not only quantitatively
but also qualitatively, with many intellectuals joining the Legion and fortifying the belief in the
creation of a “new man” to save the country. Finally, between 1934 and 1937, the Legion acted
according to its new found creed of educating a “new man” and presents the movement not as
an ordinary political party but as a school for Romanian souls.
The first stage (1927 – 1933) was one of inner clarifications. Still indebted intellectually
to their former mentor, A.C. Cuza, Codreanu and his followers were more preoccupied with the
survival of their organization. Their main concern was not the doctrine of their group, but rather
assuring a basic infrastructure for it to survive and grow. That was why the Legion did not
participate in the 1927 elections and preferred instead to engage in what Codreanu called
“battles.”21 The first such “battle” consisted in ensuring the self-financing of their newspaper
Pământul Strămoşesc (Land of Our Forefathers) by gathering a sufficient number of
subscriptions from sympathizers. The accomplishment of this first task, much praised by
Codreanu as an act of “educating the unitary action of all fighters,”22 showed his pragmatic
skills that would complete his charismatic side. The next “battles,” such as the one for a light
lorry that would ensure the mobility of legionaries in their missions throughout the country,
were also presented as acts of heroism with personal contributors being quoted by Codreanu in
circular letters and newspapers.
One may state that the first steps towards a revolutionary doctrine based on the idea of
shaping a “new man” were taken by the Legion out of a desire to detach itself from the political
influence of A.C. Cuza and LANC. As early as 1928, Ion I. Moţa, one of the Legion’s major
doctrinaires, issued political and ideological statements that departed from those of A.C. Cuza.
In an article written in 1928 and entitled “Yes, I am doubtful,”23 Moţa
20
Roger Griffin, Fascism, p. 3.
21
For Codreanu and the Legion, the battles were endeavours meant to provide some valuable
possessions for the movement and to enhance group cohesion among core members.
22
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Pentru Legionari (For My Legionaries), p. 253.
23
Ion I. Moţa, Cranii de lemn. Articole 1922 – 1936 (Wooden Skulls. Articles 1922 - 1936), (Sibiu:
Editura “Totul pentru Ţară,” 1936), pp. 65 – 67.
354
overtly accused Cuza’s material conceptions concerning the issue of culture and morality. In
order to underscore the fresh features of the newly founded Legion in contrast with the old
LANC, Moţa stresses that Cuza “grants no importance to the moral component from our
endeavor for national salvation.”24 The departure was not that complete, since Moţa
acknowledged the importance of Cuza’s postulates regarding “Jewish economic parasitism.” 25
Thus, Moţa maintained a continuity of the anti-Semitic discourse by embracing Cuza’s ideas, a
source for many Romanian anti-Semites, both before and after the First World War.
However, as one could perceive, a break with Cuza’s “old style” nationalism did occur,
and with time the separation grew deeper. Emphasizing the moral efforts of the young
legionaries for national salvation, Codreanu’s movement went on a different path. The
discourse of national renewal, although not very elaborate in this early stage, was quite clear. In
a 1931 manifesto Codreanu briefly stated the movement’s program:
Our program? We wish to change everything from the ground. The total rebirth
of the country. On the ruins of the old, diseased, impotent and unjust state one
has to elevate the powerful structure of the new state. The new Romania. The
modern Romania!26
The crisis of the “unjust state” could only be solved, according to Codreanu, by his new
movement, whose goal, as he stated in the Parliament in 1932, was “to build from the ground
the new, ethno-national state, based on the primacy of national culture, on the primacy of
family and on the principle of working corporations.”27 This political construction envisaged by
Codreanu excluded other ethnic minorities, and especially Jews.
The year 1933 marked a new stage in the Legion’s ideological development. If the first
stage had alluded to a deep state of crisis and to the need of building a new, ethnic state, in
1933 this discourse became even more refined. Now the Legion’s growth was significant, due
to its intense campaigns among students and Hitler’s ascension in Germany.28 The political
discourse now focused on the idea of putting an end to Romania’s crisis by revolutionary
means, with the final goal of regenerating the nation through the creation of a “new man” based
on the prototype of the young legionnaires.
At this stage, a growing number of students and intellectuals joined the Legion. The
“Axa” (Axis) group, gathered around the homonymous journal in the fall of 1932, became
supporters of Codreanu’s movement, and provided the brainpower for the Legion. Young
intellectuals such as Mihail Polihroniade, Ioan-Victor Vojen, Vasile Christescu, or poet Radu
Gyr29, although not officially members of the movement, helped building its ideological
scaffold. Articles such as “Towards the Dawn of a new Civilisation” by
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Legionarii (The Legionaries), II, No. 8, (October 11, 1931), p. 1.
27
Garda Bucovinei (The Guard of Bucovina), I, No. 4, (December 22, 1932), p. 1.
28
Armin Heinen, Legiunea Arhanghelului Mihail: mişcare socială şi organizaţie politică (The Legion of
the Archangel Michael: social movement and political organization), (Bucharest: Editura Humanitas,
1999), p. 221.
29
Codreanu refers to these intellectuals as being not enlisted in the Legion but with duties to it. Cf.
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Circulări şi manifeste 1927 - 1938 (Circulars and manifestos 1927 - 1938), 5th
edition, (Munich: Colectia “Europa,” 1981), p. 30.
355
Vasile Christescu30 or “The Meaning of the National Revolution” by Mihail Polihroniade31

expounded the belief that only the Legion’s revolutionary drive, through its young militants,
could build a “new civilisation” in accordance with the fascist principles.
In the same year 1933, due to the unprecedented growth of the movement, Codreanu
issued a manual for all legionaries, Cărticica şefului de cuib (The nest’s leader booklet) in
which he codified the movement’s history, principles and program. A significant chapter of the
book dealt with transforming the young legionaries into “new men” for the future Romania and
the nation’s regeneration.32 The end of the year, however, brought one of the most difficult
moments for the Legion. After being banned from the parliamentary elections in December,
towards the end of the month a criminal squad of three legionnaires killed the acting Prime
Minister, liberal I.G. Duca. Therefore, the Legion remained banned, along with its newspapers,
and its leaders were tried as the moral perpetrators of the crime.
The beginning of the third stage in the Legion’s “quest for the new man” was marked by
the criminal act of December 1933. Between 1934 and 1937, the Legion had no access to
conventional means of political expression. However, this was the most fruitful stage for the
development of the legionary project. The idea of building a “new country” through a “new
type of man” was not a conventional one and did not need exclusively conventional methods to
be put into practice.
After coming under severe public condemnation due to its violent and destructive
actions, the Legion wanted to cast itself as a constructive movement. Thus, the rhetoric of the
“new man” served the Legion very well. Its theoreticians hinted that regenerating the nation and
its people was a necessity of the time. The evolutions in Italy and Germany were taken as
relevant examples by legionaries. In a 1935 article, the young intellectual Dumitru Cristian
Amzăr expressed a similar thought:
Today’s youth, therefore, strives to create the new Romanian man, not in
absolute and abstract terms, but the man of today’s historical moment, the men
requested by the present Romanian society’s needs, for which the new youth has
a deep historical understanding.33
Until this stage, the creation of the “new man” has been a discursive one. However,
starting with 1934 and the development of the work camp system, it started to be propagated by
the legionaries as a palpable reality. The “making of the new man” began, and it was carried on
in new “laboratories,” the work camps. D.C. Amzăr continued his above outlined
argumentation by defining the importance of these new enterprises:
30
Axa (The Axis), II, No. 15, (July 3, 1933), pp. 1, 3.
31
Axa (The Axis), II, No.14, (June 15, 1933), pp. 1, 5.
32
The most salient elements are to be found in Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Cărticica şefului de cuib (The
nest’s leader booklet), 13th edition, (Bucharest, 2000), pp. 78 – 80, under the title “What a Legionary
believes.”
33
“The beginning of the self exertion. Thoughts and endeavours of today’s youth” (Începutul sforţării
proprii. Gânduri şi străduinţi ale tineretului de azi) in Rânduiala (The Order), Vol. I, No. 4, (1935), p.
423.
356
The work camps, - educational establishments mandatory for all young people,
the fights and the prisons come as self evident, - are undertakings in which a
number of youngsters work of their own will and for no charge in order to build
things of general interest: Churches, wells, roadside crucifixes, crosses, roads,
bridges, improvement works etc.34
By this last stage, the concept of the “new man” was fully developed, and the idea that
the Legion served as the perfect school for educating this new type of man was especially
underlined by Codreanu, in his main work, For My Legionaries, published in 1936.35 The
taming of the youth’s revolt had to be accomplished by legionaries using this ideological
scaffold: channelling their energies, by disciplining their body and spirit, towards the
revolutionary and palingenetic goal of regenerating the decaying nation by shaping a “new
man” and a “new Romania.”
Profiling the “New Man”: Qualities and Goals of the Legionary “New Man”
The ideological quest for the “new man” reached its peak in 1933. This may be
considered the year in which the theoretical bases for the further taming of the revolt and the
creation of the “new man” were set. Profiting from the influx of young intellectuals into the
movement, the legionaries clarified their theoretical positions. Under the influence of their
intellectual comrades, they began to believe that they had an historical mission.
Mihail Polihroniade captured what he considered to be the relationship between the
Legion, democracy and the imperatives of the time. In a 1933 article, “The Iron Guard and the
Democrat State,”36 he mapped out the post-war European reality as a struggle between
conservative and revolutionary forces. After a period of conservative prevalence, Polihroniade
argued, a new revolutionary wave would emerge on the continent, and this was visible in
Germany. He believed that a revolutionary trend would also develop in Romania, and since the
revolution presupposed enthusiasm, energy and courage, he argued that only the youth could
carry on such an enterprise. Wanting to synchronise the Legion with other European fascist
movements, Polihroniade points out a striking similarity, i.e. the “availability of the masses,” a
state of fact that would favour the Legionary project. In his own words, “the masses became
available. And not only the masses. The intellectual youth, for lack of a coherent and organized
revolutionary force, is also available.”37
Polihroniade’s diagnosis was correct. Disenchanted with their role in the post-war
society, the Romanian youth, including a great part of its intellectual component, became
available for political and revolutionary experiments, in order to leave its mark on history.
Rejecting communism, and under the influence of developments in Italy and Germany, young
Romanians turned to the Legion’s “palingenetic project” as a solution for their political desires.
34
Ibid., p. 429.
35
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Pentru Legionari (For My Legionaries), p. 239.
36
Axa (The Axis), II, No.13, (May 31, 1933), p. 1.
37
Ibid.
357
Obviously much aware of this “availability of the masses,” Codreanu exploited it. The
increase in popularity the Legion witnessed in 1933 offered him an opportunity to regulate the
movement and define its revolutionary goal of creating a “new man” and a new country. To this
end, Codreanu published The nest’s leader booklet which served as a textbook that encoded the
doctrinaire and organizational principles of the Legion. The strict, paramilitary organisation and
cult rituals performed in the nest38 were part of the taming process, so eloquently described by
George L. Mosse, as the key to fascism’s successes. What is even more important is that in this
work, Codreanu drew the profile of the “new men,” an ideal construction to serve as model for
the young legionaries. For him, the Legion’s regenerative project, what he called a “spiritual
revolution,” could not be fulfilled by ordinary man but by new, “spiritualised” human beings.
The longing for a spiritual revolution was clearly stated by Codreanu:
The new man or the renewed nation presupposes a great spiritual renewal, a
great spiritual revolution of the whole people, a revolution that is opposed to the
Spiritual direction of our day and an explicit offensive against this direction.39
Given the importance of the “new man” to the awaited revolution, Codreanu
underscored the qualities that he should posses. The task of the “new man,” to solve the current
crisis and guide the nation to a rebirth, asked for supreme qualities, qualities only available to
super-humans, as other fascist movements implied. Therefore, Codreanu did not shy away from
describing the “new man” as a modern hero, who had to show magnificent strengths in a
plurality of fields:
In this new type of hero – hero in the warlike sense: so that through struggle he
may impose his ideas; hero in the social sense: incapable after his victory of
exploiting another’s labor; hero of labor: the gigantic creator of his land by his
work – must be concentrated the best that the Romanian people has gathered
over thousands of years. This is the man we await, this hero, this giant.40
One may see that Codreanu emphasized qualities that attracted the masses towards his
program, and especially the youth. The “warlike” attitude intended to counterbalance the
traditional passive, peaceful and often fatalist attitude manifested by Romanians in relation to
politics.
The socially conscious side of the “new man,” with its socialist overtones of not
“exploiting another’s labor” is not surprising, if regarded in the Romanian political context of
1933. The worker strikes at Bucharest’s “Griviţa” factory and their repression by authorities in
February 1933 left a deep impression among Romanians. In an
38
The nest is the basic organisational structure of the Legion, containing at least 3 people and no more
than 13. The nest is led by a chief, conducts weekly meetings, and plays an educational role for future
legionaries.
39
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Cărticica Şefului de cuib (The nest’s leader booklet), quoted in Eugen
Weber, Varieties of Fascism: doctrines of revolution in the twentieth century, (Princeton: Van Nostrand,
1964), p. 169.
40
Ibid.
358
unexpected political manoeuvre, Codreanu and other legionary leaders did not openly
condemn the strikes as “communist provocations,” as many other politicians did. Instead, they
sided with the workers in several journal articles and argued the rightfulness of their protests.
They blamed the government for the workers’ low living standards while stating that what they
called “the Jewish exploitation” was to blame for the economic crisis the country was in. The
young legionary leader Mihail Stelescu defended the workers’ protests, accusing the Jews of
not working alongside Romanians and being agitators.41 Overt anti-Semitism was used to
explain the poor state of the working class, in contradiction with the communist version of
“class exploitation.” Thus, the intention of the Legion to establish strongholds among workers,
a necessity for its classless, regenerative project, led Codreanu to present the “new man” he
wanted to create as a social hero. The emphasis Codreanu placed on labor and physical work
was meant to address another Romanian inferiority complex that claimed laziness and no will
for hard work among Romanians. The “new man’s” mission was to prove the contrary.
The basic profile of the “new man” set forth by Codreanu in his aforementioned writing
was completed by other legionaries and by Codreanu himself. However, this “new man”
Codreanu spoke of did not exist in reality, and had to be created through education. The regular,
state education system was considered corrupt and under Jewish influence. Therefore, the
Legion had to become, in Codreanu’s words, “a spiritual school, in which if a man entered, a
hero must come out at the end.”42 Codreanu developed these ideas in For My Legionaries,
enumerating other qualities of the “new man” to be propagated by the legionary school:
The finest souls that our minds can conceive, the proudest, tallest, straightest,
strongest, cleverest, cleanest, bravest and most hardworking that our race can
produce, this is what the legionary schools must give us!43
The legionary school had the mission to create a special “atmosphere” of moral
cleanliness for the young legionaries who were destined to become the “new men” of
tomorrow. After the young legionaries were educated in this school (the nests and the work
camps) and became the awaited “new men,” their mission was to conquer the real world, and to
serve as examples of what the Legion could do. To quote Codreanu:
After the legionary has developed in this kind of atmosphere, in the Nest, the
work camp, in the organization and the legionary family itself, he will be sent
into the world: to live, in order to learn how to behave properly; to fight, in order
to learn how to be brave and strong; to work, in order to learn the habit of
working and the love of all those who labor; to suffer, in order to steel himself;
to sacrifice, in order to get used to transcending his own person in the service of
his people.44
41
Axa (The Axis), II, No.8, (March 5, 1933), p. 1.
42
Ibid.
43
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Pentru Legionari (For My Legionaries), quoted in Eugen Weber, Varieties
of Fascism, p. 168.
44
Ibid.
359
Indeed, this was Codreanu’s final goal. At the end of the educational process, the “final
products” (i.e. the “new men”) were meant to implement revolutionary changes, serving as
role-models for other Romanians.
The image of the Legion as a spiritual school designing a “new man” was appealing for
many young people, especially students. They joined the Legion with the genuine belief that
they could be part of something historic. The “palingenetic” rhetoric of the movement reached
its target audience. At the same time, many intellectuals began to see in the Legion a true
chance for a complete transformation of the country. Young sociologist Ernst Bernea, among
many other intellectuals, pleaded in favor of the “noble” aim propagated by the legionary
school:
The legion is not only a school for intellectual education, in which man is taught
to judge in a correct manner, by doing, it is not only a favorable environment for
a development of political thought and the sense of tactics, but it is also a school
for characters and for the moral rebirth of the Romanian people, in keeping
with a Christian and historical ideal. A new man on whose shoulders tomorrow’s
Romania will be elevated, this is the ultimate goal of the Legion.45
Ernest Bernea was not the only one showcasing this “palingenetic” vision of the Legion.
The image of the Legion as a school of “moral rebirth” who created the “new man” of the
future Romania became widespread and was visible in articles published in the legionary
newspapers and journals.46
Conclusions
The theoretical and methodological insights of such scholars as George L. Mosse and
Roger Griffin offer tools of analysis never used before in the study of Romanian interwar
fascism. The “taming of the revolt” followed by the “palingenetic” project of renewing the
nation through the creation of the “new man” are characteristics present not only in Western
fascist movements but also in organizations such as Codreanu’s Legion. The idea of a “new
man” had a history of its own within the Legion, marked by particularities of the Romanian
history of the time. The profile of the projected “new man” put an emphasis on a warlike,
hardworking and socially conscious hero, whose final goal was the total rebirth of the country.
The Legion showcased itself as the only school capable of educating such a “new man.”
However, Codreanu’s desire to create a “new man,” fitting the said profile, did not
remain a rhetorical exercise, but was put into practice. The Legion never became a governing
party (as it was the case for Italian and German fascists), and in spite of its
45
“The book of the dawn of a new era” (Cartea unui început de veac) in Rânduiala, Vol. II, No. 1,
(1937), p. 40.
46
In this regard one may mention several articles: Gheorghe Căsăneanu, “Legionary dignity” (Demnitate
legionară) in Braţul de Fier (The Iron Arm), Vol. I, No. 6, (November 1935), p. 2; Titu Bădescu,
“Nothing new under the sun” (Nimic nou sub soare) in Cuvântul Argeşului (Word of Arges), Vol. I, No.
10, (November 8, 1935), p. 1; Prof. Titus Mălai, “Legionary Nationalism – the new commandment of
the time,” (Nationalismul legionar – Noua poruncă a vremii –) in Revista Mea (My Magazine), Vol. I,
No. 6, (June 1935), p. 1.
360
peripheral political status, it developed a voluntary and alternative system of its own by which
it tried to act as a “spiritual school.” It attempted to tame the revolt of the younger generations
and to shape the “new man.” This process possessed a twofold component, the taming of the
body through physical work, and that of the spirit, through “moral” education. The “new man”
remained an ideal only partially fulfilled, and the Legion ended in violence without putting its
regenerative project into practice. Nevertheless, its impact on Romanian interwar political life
was a salient one.
361

Valentin Sandulescu Article in Studia Hebraica 2004-Libre

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

Valentin Sandulescu Article in Studia Hebraica 2004-Libre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valentin Sandulescu - „Fascism and its Quest for the 'New Man:' The Case of the Romanian Legionary

Movement,” Studia Hebraica, No. 4, (2004), pp. 349 - 361.

FASCISM AND ITS QUEST FOR THE “NEW MAN”:

Motto: The “New Man” was not invented by Ceauşescu, by

“Taming the Revolt”: Fascism’s Revolutionary Goal

Applying the “culturalist” approach to Romanian fascism provides a fresh perspective

In 1927, Codreanu’s Legion of Archangel Michael consisted of young people, mainly

Vasile Christescu30 or “The Meaning of the National Revolution” by Mihail Polihroniade31

You might also like