TheRomanianIronGuard PDF

 

 

THE ROMANIAN IRON GUARD: ITS HISTORY AND DOCTRINE BY CHRISTOPHER THORPE

This file contains three essays written by Christopher Thorpe dealing with the subject of the Iron Guard or Legionary Movement of Romania. The aim of these essays is to provide a clearer view of this movement’s history and teachings in order to counter the bias of the mainstream media.  Due to the fact that it is necessary that the facts presented herein are readily available to the  public, the essays have each been published online. The three essays included are the following: “The History of Corneliu Z. Codreanu and the Legionary Movement,” “The Legionary  Doctrine,” and “The Romanian Legionary Movement between Truth and Deception.” At the end of the file, there is a collective bibliography.

 

 

The History of Corneliu Z. Codreanu &  the Legionary Movemen Movementt  Corneliu Zelea Codreanu was the Romanian Christian nationalist who founded the Legionary Movement, often referred to as the Iron Guard among English speakers. It is surprising that very little attention is given to him among those in the Anglophone world, and when it is given, it is only to heap insults and lies upon up on his memory.

Attempts are made to label him as a “dark” and “fanatical” figure, but even the Jewish-Hungarian historian Nicholas Nagy-Talavera commented about Codreanu his book The Green Shirts and the Others that he “could see nothing monstrous or evil in him. On the contrary. His childlike, sincere smile radiated over the miserable crowd, and an d he seemed to be with it yet mysteriously apart from it.”  Horia Sima, Codreanu’s successor as commander of the Legion in 1940, also described Codreanu in his book Istoria book Istoria Mişcarii Legionare  Legionare (“History of the Legionary Movement”) as a noble man who had unlimited love for his people and was motivated by this love: “The characteristic of his soul was goodness. If you want to penetrate the initial motive which  prompted to for throw in a fight so hard almost desperate, the best answer to is that he didCorneliu it out of o f Codreanu compassion suffering people. Hisand heart bled with thousands of injuries see the misery in which p easants and workers struggled.”  It should be clear that Codreanu was w as a great man with good intentions; something that most Liberals and Jews will never admit. Here we will present an overview of his life and motives from an unbiased perspective for the sake of the education of English speakers. The Early Life of Codreanu

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu was born on September 13, 1899 in the small town of Hushi in Moldavia. His father, Ion Zelea Codreanu, had h ad been a nationalist fighter all his life, while his grandfather and great-grandfather were foresters. Corneliu Codreanu had been b een educated for five years, from age eleven to sixteen, at the military academy academy Manastirea  Manastirea Dealului  Dealului (“the Cloister on the Hill”). Codreanu explained how his time there affected him (quoted from the key book he wrote, For wrote,  For My Legionaries): “…my military education will be with me all my m y life. Order, discipline, hierarchy, molded into my blood at an early age, along with the sentiment of soldierly dignity, will constitute a guiding thread for my entire future activity. Here too, I was taught to speak little, a fact which later was to lead me to hate ‘chatter boxing’ and too much talk. Here I learned to love the trench and to despise the drawing room.”  After Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary in August 1916, Corneliu Codreanu and his father went to join the Romanian army moving into Transylvania. Codreanu was not old enough to be accepted as a volunteer, but still fought with the army in its ad advance vance and retreat across the mountains. However, his father had been wounded in battle, and insisted that Corneliu return home so that they do not both die in battle and leave his mother unsupported. However, a year later in 1917, Codreanu completed c ompleted his military education in The Military School of Infantry at

 

  Botosani by 1918, but did not get the chance to join the front before the war ended. After graduating from high school in 1919, Codreanu C odreanu was accepted into the University of Iasi and left Husi for Iasi. He had already alread y read many works by the famous professors Nicolae Iorga and A.C. Cuza, which taught him the ideals for Romania: “1. The unification of Romanian  people. 2. The elevation of peasantry through land reform and political rights. 3. The solution of the Jewish problem.” After  arriving  arriving in Iasi, Codreanu found that the city and university were heavily influenced by Communist agitators and that even many professors were Marxists. The Romanian workers were experiencing terrible working conditions and had very low wages, and had therefore been drawn to Communism by Marxist propagandists. Students at the University of Iasi were also largely converted to Communism, and Communist student meetings attacked the Army, Justice, Church, and the Crown, essentially propagating propa gating anti-Romanianism. After doing some research, Codreanu discovered that the leaders of the Romanian Communist Com munist workers were neither Romanians nor workers. At Iasi, the “workers’ movement” move ment” was led by Dr. Ghelerter along with Messrs, Gheler, Spiegler, and Schreiber. At the capital, Bucharest, the leaders were Ana Pauker and Ilie Moscovici. All of them, Codreanu found, were Jews. Realizing that like in Russia, where a largely Jewish-led Bolshevik revolution occurred a few years earlier, Romania was in danger of being taken t aken over by Jewish Co Communists mmunists who would destroy everything Romanian. He commented:

“If these had been victorious, would we have had at least a Romania led by a Romanian workers’ regime? Would the Romanian workers have become masters of the country?  No! The next day we would have become the slaves of the dirtiest tyranny: the Talmudic, Jewish tyranny. Greater Romania, after less than a second of existence, would have collapsed.” ( For  For My Legionaries) Legionaries) Early Political Activity

Codreanu then decided that he quickly needed to take action against the Communist movement, while the conservative students were not doing anything an ything sufficient. He joined a small organization, the Guard of National Conscience, which had been recently created by Constantin Pancu, who wasand a well-known The members of theto Guard of National Conscience, C onscience, with Codreanu Pancu at thesteel-worker. head, made speeches and rallies combat Communism and eventually even got into physical p hysical battles with groups of violent Communists. At the Nicolina railway works, where nearly all the workers were Communist Commun ist and a large number of Jews were also present, a general strike began. Conservative Romanians led by Pancu and Codreanu then met and marched around placing the national flags on various buildings while removing Communist red flags. Codreanu even heroically climbed on top of a factory to throw off the red flag and put up a Romanian one in its place. By the time he was down, the Communists workers were so impressed by his efforts that they allowed Codreanu and Pancu to leave without a fight. Everywhere across Romania news of this event was wa s carried quickly, and the Co Communist mmunist movement soon was reduced and had no chance at success. The Guard of National Conscience then declared its program for the improvement of the

Romanian nation, which they called “National “ National Christian Socialism.” Codreanu explained that “It

 

  is not enough to defeat Communism. We must also fight for the rights of the workers. They have a right to bread and a fight to honor, We must fight against the oligarchic parties, creating national workers organizations which can gain their rights within the framework of o f the state and not against the state.”   It was then, by 1920, that Codreanu started focusing on the problems at Iasi University, when they realized that Romanian universities, as revealed by b y the studies of professor Ion Gavanescul, were swarming with Jews. The Jews, an alien people peo ple hostile to Romanian culture, formed about five percent of the population, and yet in Iasi a third of the students were JJews. ews. Codreanu knew that the schools, which had an unreasonable number of Jews when compared to Romanians, formed the next leading class in Romania. Once the Jews would become overwhelming in the leading class, Romania’s national culture would be destroyed, because, as professor Cuza taught, Jews were an alien people culturally and racially and would only distort the culture of the nation in which they lived. This menace disturbed Codreanu and others who loved their Romanian nation, its culture, and the Orthodox Christian religion. Codreanu put forth a dramatic exposition of his own feelings about this issue in For in  For My Legionaries: Legionaries:

“At Posada, Calugareni, on the Olt, jiu and Cerna rivers, at Turda; in the mountains of the unhappy and forgotten Moti of Vidra, all the way to Huedin and Alba-Iulia (the torture  place of Horia and his brothers-in-arms), there there are everywhere testimonies of battles and tombs of heroes. All over the Carpathians, from the Oltenian mountains moun tains at Dragoslavele and at Predeal, from Oituz to Vatra Dornei, on peaks and in valley bottoms, everywhere Romanian blood flowed like rivers. In the middle of o f the night, in difficult times for our  people, we hear the call of the Romanian soil urging us to battle. I ask and I expect an answer: By what right do the Jews wish to take this land from us? On what historical argument do they base their pretensions and particularly p articularly the audacity with which they defy us Romanians, here in our own land? We are bound boun d to this land by millions of tombs and millions of unseen threads that only our soul feels, and woe woe to  to those who shall try to snatch us from it.” ( For My Legionaries) Legionaries) The Jewish students at the University of Iasi continued encouraging Communism, but after his victory with Pancu, Codreanu could now put an end to the bullying of nationalist students by Jewish and Marxist students. Students wore Russianstudent caps asstrike a signwas of support for Bolshevism were beaten and their capswho bu rnt. burnt. A Marxist then defeated b by y Codreanu and his friends when they seized the dining hall and insisted that students who do not work, do not get to eat. Soon afterwards, newspapers owned by Jews insulted King Ferdinand and Codrenau, to which Codreanu responded by leading a group to the papers’ offices to wreck the presses.

In 1922, Codreanu graduated from Iasi University’s Faculty of Law, and by then had made almost the entire university nationalist as well as having spread pro-Romanian and anti-Jewish concepts to other universities. In that same year, professors A.C. Cuza and Nicolae Paulescu, who Codreanu regarded as being some of the greatest intellectuals to teach Romanians about the Jewish Problem, published two articles in the magazine Apararea magazine  Apararea Nationala  Nationala (“The National Defense”): “The Science of Anti-Semitism” (by Cuza) and “The Talmud, the Kahal, Freemasonry” (by Paulescu, an excerpt from a book). Of this influential publication, Codreanu

 

  wrote: “The articles of Professors Cuza and Paulescu were religiously read by all the youth and had everywhere upon students both in Bucharest and in Cluj a resounding impact. We considered the publication of each issue a triumph, because it was for us another munitions transport for combating the arguments in the Jewish press.”   He continued studying political economy and in the fall of 1922 traveled to Germany to register at the University of Berlin. While in Berlin he spoke with German nationalists and taught them what he knew of the Jewish problem. He also heard of Adolf Hitler, who, upon u pon becoming more  prominent, Codreanu thought of as a great anti-Jewish nationalist leader. It was also in Berlin Berlin that Codreanu heard of Mussolini’s victory in Italy, at which he h e declared: “I rejoiced as much as if it were my own country’s victory. There is, among am ong all those in various parts of  the  the world who serve their people, a kinship of sympathy, as there is such a kinship among those who labor for the destruction of peoples.”  The National Christian Defense League & Reactions to Government Corruption

In December, 1922, Codreanu’s education in Germany was suddenly halted, because a nation-wide anti-Jewish nationalist student movement exploded in Romania and Codreanu felt he had to return to join them th em at that crucial moment. While the students were making a strike for  better conditions in universities as well as a limit limit on the number of Jews, Codreanu, Cuza, and a few others decided to hold a rally in March 3, 1923 in Iasi to create a new organization. This organization, which they decided to call “The League of Christian National Defense”, was to be created once thousands of students would meet at the rally. Codreanu explained the banner of the  National Christian Defense League (L.A.N.C.): “The cloth of these flags was black –  a  a sign of mourning; in the center a round white spot, signifying our hopes surrounded by b y the darkness they will have to conquer; in the center of the white, a swastika, the symbol of anti-Semitic struggle throughout the world; and all around the flag, a band of the Romanian tricolor  –  red,  red, yellow and  blue.”  However, just a few weeks afterwards the Romanian government, under pressure from influential Jews as in Romania as well as abroad, decided to change the Ro Romanian manian constitution to allow almost all Jews to become Romanian citizens. This allowed an alien body in Romania, different language, religion,Judaize customs, type, and soul, to further were infiltrate Romanianinsociety anddress, undoubtedly its racial culture. Romanian nationalists shocked and Codreanu so much that he cried. After explaining this situation in in For  For My Legionaries, Legionaries, Codreanu reflects on how the great and highly respected Romanian leaders in 1879, after Romania won independence from the Ottoman Empire, took action to make sure that Jews would not gain any  power in Romania, even though they were forced to give Jews a theoretical right of citizenship (which depended on qualification through military service, thus making only a few Jews citizens, since most Jews did not want to fight in war). wa r). These men, whose works were read b by y all nationalist students, were Vasile Conta, Vasile Alecsandri, Mihail Kogalniceanu, Mihail Eminescu, Bogdan Petriceicu Hajdeu, Costache Negri, A.D. Xenopol. The larger Romanian parties ruling the government also refused to take any action aagainst gainst the increasing number of Jews flooding into universities, jeopardizing the nation’s future. Codreanu

wrote of them, “Fundamentally there was no distinction among them other than differences of

 

  form and personal interests-the same thing in different shapes. They The y did not even have the  justification of differing opinions. Their only real motivation motivation was the religion of personal interest.” He also knew, having been educated by the works of Nicolae Paulescu, that the Jews used their economic, financial, and media power to influence the government ’s activities. Finally, filled with despair at the almost complete failure of the national n ational student movement, Codreanu and his close friends, including Ion Mota, decided that they woul would d assassinate the top Romanian politicians, top rabbis, and Jewish bankers. Codreanu wrote explaining why he was more concerned with going after the politicians: po liticians:

“We unanimously agreed that the first and greatest culprits were the treacherous t reacherous Romanians who for Judah’s silver pieces betrayed their people. The Jews are our enemi es and as such they hate, poison, and exterminate us. Romanian leaders who cross into their camp are worse than enemies: they are traitors. The first and fiercest punishment ought to fall first on the traitor, second on the enemy. If I had but one bullet aand nd I were faced by by  both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it.” ( For  For My Legionaries) Legionaries) However, one of the members of this group, Vernichescu, decided to betray them and they were arrested before they could take action. Upon being interrogated by the police, Codreanu decided that honesty was the only noble n oble way to deal with the situation, and took full responsibility for the assassination plot. They spent some time in jail, where they the y felt a living spiritual force in the icon of Saint Michael the Archangel at the prison church, which led them to decide that a new group they would create should be named The Legion of Michael the Archangel. The trial for the assassination plot was held at Bucharest, at which Codreanu and his friends were acquitted since the jurors, all Romanians, were sympathetic s ympathetic with their action due to their anger at the government’s betrayal of the will of the Romanian Ro manian people. However, upon leaving, Ion Mota felt that they could not succeed in their efforts without killing their betrayer, whom they recently discovered was Vernichescu. Mota shot him in his cell on the day of the ttrial rial and thus remained in prison for a longer time to be tried for murder later (although he was acquitted there as well, since few had sympathy for the traitor). Work for the L.A.N.C. and the Split with Cuza

After Codreanu returned to Iasi in May of 1924, 19 24, he again started working for the National Christian Defense League. The youth wing of the L.A.N.C. of which Codreanu was a part, the Brotherhood of the Cross, was very low on money as well as labor and was no longer allowed to hold meetings in universities. They resorted to holding meetings in old wooden barracks, until they finally decided to build a “Christian cultural home” with their own hands a t Ungheni. With  picks and shovels, even making their own bricks with the help of local brick-makers, they built this meeting house, which inspired local villagers (who simultaneously learned about the ideas of the regeneration of Romania). However, while they were doing their construction work, they were brutally beaten several times without any legal reason by policemen. Codreanu and other students were arrested and hauled off to the police station in Iasi, where the Police P olice Prefect Manciu had them tortured wh while ile hanging upside-down in chains. Only with the intervention of Cuza and other leading citizens in Iasi were

 

  the students finally freed. The Jews in the area were extremely happy over the torture of the students and rewarded Manciu, who received no punishment for his actions, by buying him a car. Months later in October, 1925, Codreanu was defending a student in court who was arrested at the raid on the Ungheni site. In this courtroom, Manciu burst in with several gendarmes and was  prepared to harm Codreanu again. But Codreanu reacted quickly, refusing to be illegally beaten and humiliated, by taking out his revolver and shooting Manciu. Codreanu was transferred for trial to Tunul Severin, as far south from Moldavia as possible in order to make sure that he was not in an area where everyone sympathized with him. Yet even there, while the policemen denied torturing the students, the jury knew the truth of what happened and proclaimed Codreanu Co dreanu innocent. Shortly after this trial he returned to Iasi and there married Elena Ilinoiu. From there he and his wife decided to travel to France where he would earn his doctorate in political economy at the th e University of Grenoble. In May of 1927, Codreanu returned from France and found that the L.A.N.C. was split into two factions due to a lack of coordination and unity (specifically because of a confusion over the expulsion of a deputy), which he h e felt was the beginning of failure and d disaster. isaster. Codreanu found that Cuza, the leader of one faction, was perfectly happy with the situation, which caused Codreanu to realize that Cuza was not a good leader. He commented on Cuza’s leadership abilities: “If the doctrinaire is expected to master the science of researching and formulating truth, the leader of a political movement is expected to master the science aand nd the art of organization, education and leadership of men, Professor Cuza, excelling and unsurpassed on the first plane, when brought down on the practical one showed himself ignorant, awkward . . .”   After failing to get the two factions, one led by professor Sumuleanu and the other b by y Cuza, to come to an agreement, and also after seeing Cuza willing to cooperate to an extent with corrupt  politicians from other parties, Codreanu finally decided to split off. off. He thought that the youth, which was beginning to form a faction of its own, should become a totally new organization that would be better led and more unified. Codreanu and his best friends visited Cuza as well as Sumuleanu and declared their intentions to create a movement on their own. The students met at the “Christian cultural home” and founded their own fully independent group, the Legion of Michael the Archangel, which used the icon of Saint Michael as its symbol. The Legion of Michael the Archangel

The Legion of Michael the Archangel did not present a party program, and Codreanu did not even consider the Legion to be a political movement, but rather a spiritual movement whose aim was to improve Romania. He asserted that even ev en the best political programs would be compromised if the Romanian people were corrupted by the influence of Jews and greedy  politicians. In The Nest Leader’s Manual , he wrote: “The Politician’s P olitician’s goal is to build a fortune, ours is to build our homeland flowering and strong. For her we will work aand nd we will build. For her we will make each Romanian Roman ian a hero, ready to fight, read ready y to sacrifice, ready to die.”   The Legion was to be more mo re of a school and an army, rather than a political group, for the creation of a New Man (Omul (Omul Nou), Nou), a generation of Romanians who, who , through their Christian spirituality and nationalism, would create a Greater Romania freed from darkness dark ness and

 

  oppression. A spiritual revolution would be the prerequisite for a political revolution. He declared in For in For My Legionaries: Legionaries:

“From this Legionary school a new man will have to emerge, a man with heroic qualities; a giant of our history to do battle and win over all the enemies o off our Fatherland, his  battle and victory having to extend even beyond the material world into the realm of invisible enemies, the powers of evil. Everything that our mind can imagine more  beautiful spiritually; everything the proudest that our race can produce, greater, more just, more powerful, wiser, purer, more diligent and more heroic, this is what the Legionary school must give us! A man in whom all the possibilities of human grandeur that are implanted by God in the blood of our people be developed to the maximum. This hero, the product of Legionary education, will also know k now how to elaborate programs; will also know how to solve the Jewish problem; will also know how to organize the state well; will also know how to convince the other Romanians; and if not, he will know how to win, for that is why he is a hero. This hero, this Legionary of braver bravery, y, labor and justice, with the powers God implanted in his soul, will lead our Fatherland on the road of its glory.” ( For  For My Legionaries) Legionaries) The Legion, because it needed n eeded a strong structure of organization, was designed as a hierarchical system. The basic unit of the Legion was called a nest, numbering from simply three to thirteen members. At each level of the Legion, from the nest to town, city, county, and regional sections up to the Căpitanul  (“Captain”), the top leadership role which Codreanu attained, at tained, the leaders were not chosen by election but by bravery and skill. The movement would be opposed to the republican system, which Codreanu observed did not really represent will of the people, and replace it with a new form of government in which a leader would be selected  be selected  rather  rather than elected , and would not be b e able to do what he h e personally wishes, but only what is best for the nation. He explained the role of the leader in this way: “He (the leader) does not do what he wants, he does what he has to do. And he is guided, not by individual interests, nor by collective ones, but instead by the interests of the eternal et ernal nation, to the consciousness of which the people have attained. In the framework of these interests and only in their framework, personal interests as well as collective ones find the highest degree of normal satisfaction.”   All the members of the Legion were educated ed ucated in Christian virtues, love of nation, and were taught to be disciplined and disinterested in battle. The Th e Legionaries marched and sang national songs together along with volunteering to help impoverished lower class Romanians (especially  peasants) in building, repairing houses, assisting in farming, farming, and other areas of work. The Legion’s nests were to be self --sufficient, sufficient, not reliant on buying materials for survival. Codreanu and other nationalist Romanians had h ad witnessed for many years the suffering of the Romanian people at the hands of the Capitalists, which were largely Jews only interested in  profit, and had no sympathy for Romanians. The peasants were extremely poor, in some areas even to the point of starvation, and were barely surviving by borrowing money at interest rates from Jewish money-lenders. Jew-owned companies were chopping down forests at alarming rates, destroying the source of livelihood for certain groups of peasants such as the Moti. Jewish speculators were buying up land and malnutrition was widespread, making the situation seem grim for the Romanian people.

 

 

The Legionary Movement grew, spreading through Romania and determined to change this situation by finally banishing the Jews who usually had little sympathy for Gentiles. Through charity and volunteer work, they revealed that they were not just another ccorrupt orrupt party interested in power and money. By 1929, in order to progress p rogress further, the Legionaries were forced to create a political branch of the Legion to run for elections. This organization was called Garda de Fier   (“Iron Guard”), which is the name by b y which the Legionary Movement would later be commonly called. Throughout the early 1930s Iron Guard members marched through villages, wearing the green-colored uniform with a white cross sewn on their shirts. Top Legionaries, including Codreanu, were making speeches and marches, sometimes at night, calling for the regeneration of Romania and the expulsion of the Jews. But influential Jews and established political parties were determined to stop the Iron Guard. In certain areas, Codreanu and other top Legionaries were illegally barred from speaking and often beaten b eaten by policemen as w well ell as by Jews, usually without provocation. Unfortunately, they also got into clashes c lashes with members of the L.A.N.C., also called Cuzists, who viewed them as a threat to their own success. Eventually, by 1932, Codreanu and his father entered the Romanian National Assembly through elections in Moldavia. Despite this, the treatment of Legionaries got worse wo rse as time passed, and all members, including girls, were beaten and humiliated. hu miliated. By 1933, the Liberal Party, led by Ion Duca, was elected into power and declared that it would exterminate the Iron Guard.

In that same year, Duca’s government, after having havin g already terrorized, tortured, and assassinated several Legionaries, went ahead and banned the Legion to keep it from participating in elections, leading to the arrest of about 18,000 Legionaries (although Codreanu succeeded in hiding). The Legionaries Nicolae Constantinescu, Doro Belimace and Ion Caranica then assassinated Ion Duca in revenge and immediately turned themselves in to the police. F Following ollowing this, the tortures and assassinations of Legionaries by the government multiplied. m ultiplied. By the fall of 1936, the Legion decided to send a symbolic team of seven top Legionaries to Spain to help Francisco Franco fight the Marxist Republicans. While fighting there, Ion Mota and Vasile Marin died at Majadahonda, near Madrid. At the funeral, before the bodies of Mota and Marin, Codreanu declared in an “Oath of Ranking Legionaries” (1937): “That is why you are going to swear that you understand u nderstand that being a Legionary elite in our terms means not only to fight and win, but it also means above a bove all a permanent sacrifice of on oneself eself to the service of the  Nation; that the idea of an elite is tied to the ideas of sacrifice, sacrifice, poverty, and a hard, bitter life; that where self-sacrifice ends, there also ends the Legionary elite.” Later, there were large funeral processions all over Romania, and in the next year a new elite u unit nit in the Legionary Movement was created, the “Mota-Marin Corps.”  In March of 1938, Codreanu sent a letter to Nicolae Iorga to complain about Iorga’s campaign of calumny against the Legion, in which he told Iorga that he is a dishonest person who has taken  part in the oppression of innocent people. Iorga, insulted, then filed a lawsuit against Codreanu, which resulted in King Carol II (who had earlier e arlier established himself as a dictator, changing the constitution) and his Minister, Armand Calinescu, arresting Codreanu (and then thousands of

 

  Legionaries) and condemning him to six months in prison. The government organized a second trial to take place, closed to the public and extremely biased, in which Codreanu was sentenced to ten years in prison for unreasonable and unproven accusations of sedition and treason. Calinescu, a few months later, then had the military police murder Codreanu, acting outside of of the law (this occurred on November 30, 1938).

After Codreanu’s death, terrible persecutions of the Legion continued, and eventually a group of of nine Legionaries assassinated Calinescu. General Argeseanu, the new leader in the Romanian government, afterwards executed 252 Legionaries and imprisoned thousands more, intensifying the persecution yet more. By 1940, The Legionaries, under the leadership of Horia Sima, attempted to negotiate with King Carol II. Later that year, General Ion Antonescu would finall finally y overthrow King Carol’s government, resulting in the creation National Legionary State ruled  jointly by Sima and Antonescu. The Legionary Movement After Codreanu

Horia Sima joined the Legion of the Archangel Michael in November of 1927, the same year it was founded by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. But Sima was prominent only when he first became a leader of the Legion in October of 1938, after a new Legionary Command (of which Sima was a  part) was organized due to the fact that Corneliu Codreanu was imprisoned and other top Legionaries arrested or assassinated. In 1940, Sima and Ion Antonescu launched a coup cou p against the tyrannical King Carol II and together created the National Legionary State. It was onl only y after this state was established that Horia Sima became the top commander of the Legion. Of the establishment of the National Legionary State, Horia Sima said in his book Era book  Era Libertaţii –   Statul naţional -Legionar -Legionar vol. 1  1 (“It was Freedom –  National  National Legionary State vol. 1″) that “Rarely in our people’s history has there been experienced a moment of collective exaltation of as impressive enthusiasm as that of the popular masses after the expulsion ex pulsion of King Carol from the country. You cannot even e ven compare the intensity of national sentiment with that rush of joy in the annexed provinces, when the Union of 1918 was formed.”  

Sima and Antonescu then proceeded to nationalize or Romanianize the nation’s economy, trade, industry, and mass media. Jews had previously gained an unreasonable degree of ownership of factories, companies, newspapers, cinemas, and various economic positions. p ositions. Romania would no longer allow the Jews, an alien ethnicity whose influence previously had negative effects on Romanian life, to dominate their nation’s economy and media and distort Romanian culture and lifestyle. A note needs to be made of an event that occurred in the Legionary State. On November 25, 1940, the bodies of Codreanu and other murdered by Calinescu were exhumed. In two days, by  November 27, the Legionaries who were working in that exhumation were so disturbed and angered upon seeing the bodily remains of Codreanu and the other martyrs that they could not restrain themselves from executing 64 members of previous political regimes imprisoned at Jilava who were involved in imprisoning, torturing, and massacring m assacring Legionaries in the past. Among these executed for their past crime was Nicolae Ni colae Iorga.

Iorga’s death was oftentimes, and still is, used as propaganda against the Legionary Move ment

 

   by philo-semites, Jews, and Communists (it was used used by the Romanian Communist regime during its reign) in order to label Horia Sima and the Legion as “terrorists” and “criminals.” Sima wrote in his 1990 book Era book Era Libertaţii –  Statul naţional -Legionar -Legionar vol. 2  2 (“It was Freedom –    National Legionary State vol. 2″) that “Iorga’s killing offered our enemies a weapon of great efficiency, which they fired into the Movement and which has not left their hands even today.” Of course, the Communist propaganda usually usuall y overlooks the fact that Iorga was ver very y anti-Semitic and very anti-Communist like many other Romanians, and also that Iorga brought his death upon himself by his own actions. It has also been pointed o out ut that Traian Boeru, Iorga’s assassin, was a Communist agent and that the Legionaries involved would not have actu actually ally killed Iorga had this agent not been there. The facts of the situation are not fully clear, but what is clear is that it is foolish and unreasonable to condemn the Legionary Movement based on Iorga’s death, especially when considering how many man y “democratic” movements throughout history are not condemned, but praised, despite the murders they had committed. Earlier in November of 1940, Legionary Romania Roman ia had joined the Tripartite Pact of National Socialist Germany, Italy, and Japan, bringing Romania Roma nia into World War II on the side of the Axis  powers. However, the dual leadership of Sima and Antonescu was imperfect, since Antonescu was extremely ambitious and wanted to gain complete power by personally becoming the leader of the Legionary Movement. In January of 1941, Antonescu prepared a personal meeting with Adolf Hitler without notifying Sima or any other Legionary leaders lead ers (which resulted in Sima  being unable to participate) and left for Berlin on January 13th. Antonescu discussed with Hitler the possibility of a war with the Soviet Union and the conditions for Romania’s participation in that war. Antonescu argued that the Romanian army was on his side and if Hitler wanted Romania to join in fighting the U.S.S.R., Germany must remain neutral in the event of a conflict  between him (Antonescu) and the Legionary Movement. General Antonescu in a few days then prepared a coup d’et a at  t  against  against the Legion by having anti-Legionary propaganda spread through rumors claiming that Legionaries were undisciplined, engaging in scuffles with military members, and of questionable use in war. Antonescu then took various anti-Legionary actions, including removing various prominent Legionaries from government positions and eventually began to arrest and imprison Legionary leaders. In this situation, on January 21 of 1941, Horia Sima and a large numbe numberr of Legionaries rebelled against Antonescu, and although they would later tried to negotiate an agreement, Antonescu harshly repressed the Legionaries. In another meeting with Hitler, Antonescu convinced convi nced the German leader that the Legionaries were “fanatics” that needed to be suppressed. The Romanian government under Antonescu then became highly authoritarian and began to arrest and kill hundreds of Legionaries. By April of 1941, Horia Ho ria Sima and many other me members mbers of the Legion fled into German territory and were confined to compulsory c ompulsory quarters in certain camps, although they were treated well by the Germans. During World War II, Romania under Antonescu took part in Operation Barbarossa, Barbarossa, fighting with the Axis against the Soviet Union. After the Battle of Stalingrad was lost, the Soviets expanded westwards. As the Soviet armies were moving into Romania in 1944, Antonescu contemplated making peace with the Allies but decided to firmly stay in the Axis alliance. Because of this decision, the Royal Coup of August 23, 1944 occurred, in which groups led by King Michael I decided to remove Antonescu from power by surrounding him and having him

 

  arrested. Romania then switched sides in World War II, joining the Allies. The Germans reacted to this by releasing Horia Sima and the other Legionaries. Upon this release, Sima established, with German help, a Legionary government go vernment in Vienna to assist in the battle aagainst gainst Communism. However, by 1945 the Soviet conquest could not be stopped, so they retreated westwards. Sima and most other Legionaries fled to Italy or to parts of Germany, where they established Romanian Committees to help Romanian refugees fleeing from Communism get into Western Europe. By 1949 – 50, 50, Sima and other top Legionaries started collaborating with French, American, and British authorities to fight Communism, especially by assisting emigrants from the Soviet Union (which would weaken Communist regimes in Eastern Europe). The French-American military then assisted in preparing Legionaries to move into Romania R omania in order to physically fight Communists and start an anti-Communist uprising in that nation. By B y 1954, the agreement was cancelled due to Soviet infiltration of British intelligence (led by Kim Philby) and  because Western powers wanted to establish a “peaceful coexistence” with Stalin’s regime.  Although some Legionaries in Romania continued fighting the Communists into the 1960s, most Legionaries went into exile, scattered across nations in Europe, North America, Ame rica, South America, and Australia. Horia Sima, from the 1950s onwards, lived in various places throughout Germany, German y, Italy, France, and finally Franco’s Spain (where he h e received political refugee status). Various dissident groups created factions splitting off from Sima’s rule, although he was considered leader by the majority of Legionaries. For decades, most Legionaries could not do much other than publish articles, books, and translations. However, in 1989 198 9 after Ceausescu’s Communist regime was overthrown in Romania, Sima and other Legionaries took the oppo opportunity rtunity to attempt to revive Legionarism in Romania. Legionaries created various parties, although Sima could not go to Romania himself since he had been sentenced to death there since 1946. Unfortunately, the Legionary parties came into conflict with each other, and none could establish a large movement. Sima died in May 25, 1993 in Madrid, Spain unable to end the quarrels among the various groups. However, the Legionary Movement still continues in its new form, and modern Legionaries today are still working to educate the younger generations about the truth of Legionary history.

 

 

THE LEGIONARY DOCTRINE

The Legionary Doctrine (also called Legionarism) refers to the philosophy and beliefs presented  by the Legion of Michael the Archangel (also commonly known as the Iron Guard), the Romanian Christian Nationalist organization founded by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, who is the key figure in the creation of its doctrine. It is necessary to clarify what the members of the Legionary Movement taught and believed due to the large amount misconceptions which occur through lack of study or through media deception, as well as the mistaken assumption that the Legionary Movement was largely an imitation of Fascism or National Socialism. Precursors

In 1878 and 1879, after Romania had won its independence from the Ottoman Empire , the new nation wanted to be recognized by other European powers. The Romanians could not achieve this without signing the Treaty of Berlin, which forced them to grant citizenship to Jews, a hostile and alien people, on Romanian land. Although the treaty was signed, certain significant cultural and political figures in Romanian history spoke out against the Jews in order to warn their nation that the Jews were culturally and economically harmful. These men’s works from 1879 were significant intellectual sources from which the Legionary Movement received ideas and knowledge involving the Jewish Problem and Christian nationalism. The most influential of them were the following: 

Vasile Conta (1845-1882) –  philosopher  philosopher and politician



Vasile Alecsandri (1821-1890) –  diplomat  diplomat and politician



Mihail Kogălniceanu (1817-1891) –  statesman  statesman and historian



Mihail Eminescu (1850-1889) –  famous  famous poet and journalist



Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu (1838-1907) –  historian  historian and philologist



Costache Negri (1812-1876) –  politician  politician



A.D. Xenopol (1847-1820) –  historian  historian and economist th

There were also more modern intellectuals, who had lived through the early 20  Century to see the birth and growth of the Legionary Movement, who educated Codreanu and other Legionaries with more knowledge about the Jewish Problem and gave them concepts involving national mysticism, Orthodox mysticism, and economic practices. These men were: 



A.C. Cuza (1857-1947) –  politician  politician and professor of law and political economy econ omy  Nicolae Iorga (1871-1940) –  historian,  historian, professor of history, and politician

 

 







 Nicolae Paulescu (1869-1931) –  physiologist,  physiologist, professor of medicine, and philosopher Ion Gavanescul (1859-1949) –  professor  professor of pedagogy  Nichifor Crainic (1889-1972) –  professor  professor of theology, theologian, and philosopher

To avoid misconceptions, it must be noted here that it is not implied here that the precursors of the Legionary Movement agreed with Legionary doctrine on every point. For example, some of them had different political attitudes; the Legion rejected republicanism while precursors such as Eminescu supported the democratic system. Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Problem

Some people today who follow the Legionary doctrine or admire the Legionaries assert that the Legion was not anti-Semitic, that they only appeared to be because of a Jewish problem in Romania . One of the major reasons for which they object to the term “anti -Semitic” is because of a certain way by which that term is defined by Jews and philo-semites. Such groups define it as an irrational hatred of all Jews, and in that case the Legionaries were not truly anti-Semitic, since pointed their hostility theLegion Jews was irrational were they enemies with every Jew (it has  been out thattothe had not a few Jewish nor supporters, although it should be remembered that the majority of Jews were enemies of the Legion). th

th

However, in the late 19  Century and early 20  Century the term anti-Semite was simply defined as one who had hostility towards Jews and opposed their presence in one’s nation. This is how Cuza and other precursors, Corneliu Codreanu, and his successor Horia Sima defined it, and they all had no qualms about calling themselves anti-Semitic. Codreanu freely stated in his major  book For My Legionares about his visit to Germany that “I had many discussions with the students at Berlin in 1922, who are certainly Hitlerites today, and I am proud to have been their teacher in anti-Semitism, exporting to them the truths I learned in Iasi .” It should be noted, however, that while Codreanu had no problem with relating with the German  National Socialist movement (although he also correctly insisted that his Legion was entirely independent of National Socialism), Horia Sima objected to any connection between the two after World War II. In his 1967 book Istoria Mişcarii Legionare ("History of the Legionary Movement") Sima wrote:

“The Legionary Movement, since its first manifestation, was the object of all sorts of slander. One of the most common allegations by its countless internal and external enemies was that the Legion was a 'branch of Nazism'. Such statements can be made as a result of ignorance or bad faith. The anti-Semitism of the Legionary Movement has nothing in common with German anti-Semitism. By taking a stand against the Jewish danger, a danger extremely active and menacing in Romania, Corneliu Codreanu was simply continuing an almost century old Romanian tradition.” It should also be emphasized that Legionary hostility to the Jews as an ethnic group was actually

 

  rational, based not only on the scientific studies of the Jewish problem by intellectuals such as Cuza, Paulescu, Iorga, Xenopol, et al. but also on real experiences and observations made by many average Romanians. The Jewish problem was a vivid reality. Both intellectual observation as well as common observation showed the people beyond any doubt that the majority of Jews not only lived parasitically off of the labor of Romanian workers by their ownership of many companies or financial activity, but also posed a threat to Romanian culture and tradition, which they were damaging through their influence on mass media and certain government policies. It is also worth noting that while Codreanu was first and foremost concerned with the Romanian condition, he believed that an alliance between nations needed to be made to solve the Jewish  problem internationally. This is made clear by a statement in For My Legionaries, Legionaries,

“There, I shared with my comrades an old thought of mine, that of going to Germany to continue my studies in political economy while at the same time trying to realize my intention of carrying our ideas and beliefs abroad. We realized very well, on the basis of our studies, that the Jewish problem had an international character and the reaction therefore should have an international scope; that a total solution of this problem could not be reached except through action by all Christian nations awakened to the consciousness of the Jewish menace.” The solution to the Jewish problem was not to kill the Jews, as many dishonest people accuse Codreanu of wanting, but to expel the Jews from Romania. This plan for deportation is plainly stated in The Nest Leader’s Manual, where he wrote “Romania for Romanians and Palestine for the Jews.” Economics and Labor: Anti-Communism and Anti-Capitalism

When Codreanu first went to the University of Iasi in 1919, years before he created the Legion, he discovered that most of the city and university were heavily influenced by Communist  political campaigns. The Romanian workers were experiencing terrible working conditions and had very low wages, so they had been drawn to Communism by Marxist propagandists. Professors and students at the University were also largely converted to Communism, and Communist student meetings attacked the Romanian army, the Orthodox Church, the monarchy, and other aspects of traditional Romanian life. It was this situation which drove Codreanu into a heroic fight against Communism, finally leading a conservative group to completely crushing the Communist movement. Codreanu, being a traditionalist, insisted on defending faith in God, nationalism, the Crown, and private property. On the other hand, Codreanu also believed in fighting the Capitalist system, which he realized was an inherently exploitive system, which allowed corporations to exploit millions of workers. In 1919, when forming the program of “National Christian Socialism,” he stated that “It is not enough to defeat Communism. We must also fight for the rights of the workers. They have a right to bread and a fight to honor. We must fight against the oligarchic parties, creating national workers organizations which can gain their rights within the framework of the state and not against the state.”

 

  Later in 1935 he announced the creation of a new system which he hoped would be adopted by the nation as a whole once the Legionary Movement took power: “Legionary commerce signifies a new phase in the history of commerce which has been stained by the Jewish spirit. It is called: Christian commerce - based on the love of people and not on robbing them; commerce based on honor.” Essentially Codreanu was a Third Position socialist, supporting private property but at the same time opposing the materialistic and money-centered system of capitalism. Another important point of Codreanu’s ideas for Romania is that labor is something in which everyone must be involved in. Laziness was a trait that should be, all over Romania, treated as a highly negative vice. All Legionaries in some way did some kind of physical work, often to help lower class Romanians in their own labor and problems. Codreanu wrote: “The law of work: Work! Work every day. Put your heart into it. Let your reward be, not gain, but the satisfaction that you have laid another brick to the building of the Legion and the flourishing of Romania.” One issue which has often been brought up against Codreanu is the fact that he associates both Capitalism and Communism with the Jews, as both of them were dominated by Jews in Romania. He wrote, connecting Jewish Capitalists and Jewish Communists, “But industrial workers were vertiginously sliding toward Communism, being systematically fed the cult of these ideas by the Jewish press, and generally by the entire Jewry of the cities. Every Jew, merchant, intellectual or banker-capitalist, in his radius of activity, was an agent of these antiRomanian of his opponents have objected to this would connection by arguing that it revolutionary is ridiculous ideas.” to say Some that Jewish company owners and bankers support Communists, who supposedly would destroy them upon a revolution, since they would want to eliminate the capitalists. But it should be remembered that not all of the bourgeoisie were exterminated in Communist revolutions across Europe. Sometimes, members of the bourgeoisie who supported Communism before a revolution, which were oftentimes Jews, would be given a  place in the Communist system once the revolution was achieved. Nation and Land

The Legionaries believed that nations were not merely products of history and geography, but were created by God Himself and had a spiritual component to them. Codreanu wrote in For My Legionaries, adopting the teachings of Nichifor Crainic,

“If Christian mysticism and its goal, ecstasy, is the contact of man with god through a ‘leap from human nature to divine nature’, national mysticism is nothing other than the contact of man and crowds with the soul of their people through the leap which these forces make from the world of personal and material interests into the outer world of nation. Not through the mind, since this any historian can do, but by living with their soul.” A nation was also inseparable from the land on which it developed, to which the people grew a spiritual connection with over time. Codreanu wrote of the Romanian people:

“We were born in the mist of time on this land together with the oaks and fir trees. We are bound to it not only by the bread and existence it furnishes us as we toil on it, but also  by all the bones of our ancestors who sleep in its ground. All our parents are here. All our

 

  memories, all our war-like glory, all our history here, in this land lies buried… Here... sleep the Romanians fallen there in battles, nobles and peasants, as numerous as the leaves and blades of grass… everywhere Romanian blood flowed like rivers. In the middle of the night, in difficult times for our people, we hear the call of the Romanian soil urging us to battle… We are bound to this land by millions of tombs and millions of unseen threads that only our soul feels…” Finally, it must be noted that Codreanu also believed that every nation has a mission to fulfill in the world and therefore that only the nations which betray their mission, given to them by God, will disappear from the earth. “To us Romanians, to our people, as to any other people in the world, God has given a mission, a historic destiny,” wrote Codreanu, “The first law that a person must follow is that of going on the path of this destiny, accomplishing its entrusted mission. Our  people has never laid down its arms or deserted its mission, no matter how difficult or lengthy was its Golgotha Way.” The aim of a nation, or its destiny in the world of spirit, was that it does not simply live in the world but that it aims for resurrection through the teachings of Christ. “There will come a time when all the peoples of the earth shall be resurrected, with all their dead and all their kings and emperors, each people having its place before God's throne. This final moment… is the noblest and most sublime one toward which a people can rise.” It was for this ideal that the Legion fought tirelessly against all obstacles, corrupt politicians, and alien peoples such as the Jews which insisted on feeding off the Romanian people and land. Religion and Culture

One aim of the Legionary Movement was the preservation and regeneration of Romanian culture and customs. They knew that culture was the expression of national genius, its products the unique creations of the members of a specific nation. Culture could have international influence,  but it was always national in origin. Therefore, the Liberal-Capitalist position that different ethnic groups should be allowed to freely move into another group ’s nation, interfering with that nation’s culture and development by their presence and influence, was incredibly wrong. Each ethnic group has its own soul and produces and crystalizes its own form and style of culture. For example, a Romanian cultural image could not be created from German essence any more than a German cultural image could be created from Romanian essence.

Furthermore, religion was an important aspect in a people’s culture, oftentimes the origin of many customs and traditions. The Legionaries believed that Christianity was not only a significant part of their culture, but also that it was the religion which represented divine truth. This is why in order to join the Legion of Michael the Archangel one had to be a Christian and could not be of another religion or an atheist. With these principles clear, the Legion therefore aimed for a Romanian nation made up of only ethnic Romanians and only Christians. With this in mind, it becomes clear why Codreanu and many other Romanians felt that the Jewish presence in their nation was so threatening. The Jews became influential in economics, finance, newspapers, cinema, and even politics. Through this they even became powerful in the field of culture, slowly changing Romanian customs and Romanian thinking, making it more related to that of the Jews. Codreanu, as concerned about the problem as people such as Cuza

and Gavanescul, commented: “Is it not frightening, that we, the Romanian people, no longer can

 

   produce fruit? That we do not have a Romanian culture c ulture of our own, of our people, of our blood, to shine in the world side by side with that of other peoples? That we be condemned today to  present ourselves before the world with products of Jewish essence?” and “Not only will the Jews be incapable of creating Romanian culture, but they will falsify the one we have in order to serve it to us poisoned.” Race

The reality of race was accepted by most Legionaries and Codreanu wrote of the importance of keeping a nation racially cohesive. In For My Legi onaries Codreanu quoted Conta’s racial separatist arguments, which formed the basis of his own attitudes on race, and even compared them to the German National Socialist view. He wrote: “Consider the attitude our great Vasile Conta held in the Chamber in 1879. Fifty years earlier the Romanian philosopher demonstrated with unshakeable scientific arguments, framed in a system of impeccable logic, the soundness of racial truths that must lie at the foundation of the national state; a theory adopted fifty years later  by the same Berlin which had imposed on us the granting of civil rights to the Jews in 1879.” However, it should be noted that at least a few Legionaries did not agree that race was important. Ion Mota, in 1935 when he met with the NSDAP in Germany , criticized the National Socialists

 by telling them that “Racism the most vulgar form fo of materialism. are not d different ifferentand by flesh, blood or colour of skin.isThey are different byrmtheir spirit, i.e. byPeoples their creations, culture religion.” Of course, Mota’s attitude is unlikely to have been dominant among the Legion, since Codreanu was the founder of the ideas the majority of its members shared. It is also notable that Horia Sima, in his works on Legionary beliefs, agreed with Codreanu that race is real and important. However, Sima disagreed with connecting Romanian racial views with German racialism, censuring the followers of Hitler by asserting that their worldview misused racialism, making it too absolute and materialistic. The New Man

The Legionary Movement aimed to create a New Man (Omul Nou), to transform the entire nation through Legionary education by transforming each individual into a person of quality. The  New Man would wo uld be more honest and moral, more intelligent, industrious, courageous, willing to sacrifice, and completely free of materialism. His view of the world would be centered around spirituality, service to his nation, and love of his fellow countrymen. This new and improved form of human being would transform history, setting the foundations of a new era never before seen in Romanian history. Codreanu wrote,

“We shall create an atmosphere, a moral medium in which the heroic man can be born and can grow. This medium must be isolated from the rest of the world by the highest  possible spiritual fortifications. It must be defended from all the dangerous winds of cowardice, corruption, licentiousness, and of all the passions which entomb nations and murder individuals. Once the Legionary will hav e developed in such a milieu… he shall  be sent into the world… He will be an example; will turn others into Legionaries. And

 

   people, in search of better b etter days, will follow him… will make a force which will fight and will win.” Therefore, a spiritual revolution would create the basis for a political revolution, since without the New Man no political program could achieve any lasting accomplishment. Politics

Romania ’s government was that of a constitutional monarchy, thus the nation’s government was considered a democracy. Corneliu Codreanu was a member of the Romanian parliament two times, and his experiences with democratic politics led him to firmly conclude that the democratic system, although claiming to represent the will of the people, rarely ever achieved its goal of representation. In fact, he felt that it did just the opposite. In For My Legionaries, he listed out some major objections he had to the system and the way it worked (the following is a  paraphrase of his points): 

Democracy destroys the unity of the people since it creates factionalism.



Democracy turns millions of Jews (and other alien groups) into Romanian citizens, thus carelessly destroying the ancient ethnic make-up of o f a nation.









Democracy is incapable of enduring effort and responsibility because by design it inherently leads to an unending change in leadership over short period of time. A leader or party works to improve the nation with a specific plan, but only rules for a few years  before being replaced by a new one with a new plan, who largely if not completely disregard the old one. Thus little is achieved and the nation is harmed. Democracy lacks authority since it does not give a leader the power he needs to accomplish his duties to the nation and turns him into a slave of his selfish political supporters. Democracy is manipulated by financiers and bankers, since most parties are dependent on their funding and are thus influenced by b y them. Democracy does not guarantee the election of virtuous leaders, since the majority of  politicians are either demagogues or corrupt and the masses of common people usually are not capable or knowledgeable enough to elect good men. Codreanu rhetorically remarked about the idea of the masses choosing its elite, “Why then do soldiers not choose the best general?”

Therefore, Codreanu aimed for a new form of government, rejecting both republicanism and dictatorship. In this new system the leaders would not inherit power through heredity, nor would they be elected as in a republic, but rather they would be selected. Thus, selection and not election is the method of choosing a new elite. Natural leaders, demonstrating bravery and skill, would rise up through Legionary ranks, and the old elite would be responsible for choosing the new elite. The concept of the New Man is important to Codreanu’s system of leadership, because

 

  only by the establishment of the New Man would the right leaders rise and become the leaders of the nation. The elite would be founded on the principles Codreanu himself laid out: “a) Purity of soul. b) Capacity of work and creativity. c) Bravery. d) Tough living and permanent warring against difficulties facing the nation. e) Poverty, namely voluntary renunciation of amassing a fortune. f) Faith in God. g) Love.” This new system of government which Codreanu aimed to establish would be authoritarian, but it would not be totalitarian. He described it in this way: “He (the leader) does not do what he wants, he does what he has to do. And he is guided, not by individual interests, nor by collective ones, but instead by the interests of the eternal nation, to the consciousness of which the people have attained. In the framework of these interests and only in their framework, personal interests as well as collective ones find the highest degree of normal satisfaction.” An important point in the Legionary political system is that the Legion recognized three entities: “1) The individual. 2) The present national collectivity, that is, the totality of all the individuals of the same nation, living in a state at a given moment. 3) The nation, that historical entity whose life extends over centuries, its roots imbedded deep in the mists of time, and with an infinite future.” Each of rights these entities had their but ownthe rights in a hierarchical Republicanism only the of the individual, Legionary Movement sense. recognized the rights ofrecognized all three. The nation was the most important entity, and thus the rights of the national collectivity were subordinate to it, and finally the rights of the individual were subordinate to the rights of the national collectivity. The destructive individualism of “democracy” infringed on the rights of the national collectivity and the rights of the nation, since it ignored the rights of those two entities and placed that of the individual above all. With these facts in mind, it becomes clear that to accuse the Legionary Movement of wishing to establish a tyrannical dictatorship or of being “Fascist” is nothing more than mindless or deceitful propaganda against the movement. Martyrdom

“The Legionary embraces death,” wrote Codreanu, “for his blood will serve to mold the cement of Legionary Romania.” Throughout the struggles and intense  persecutions it faced, the Legionary Movement produced many martyrs, two of the most often referenced being Ion Mota and Vasile Marin, who died in 1937 helping Franco fight against Marxist Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Other martyrs of the Legion include Sterie Ciumetti, Nicoleta Nicolescu, Lucia Grecu, and Victor Dragomirescu among hundreds of others. Finally, in 1938, Corneliu Codreanu himself became a martyr after Armand Calinescu, acting outside of the law, had him murdered. Martyrs were often honored in songs all Legionaries sang and in Legionary rituals, when their names were announced in the roll call, all Legionaries attending spoke “present!” They believed that the souls of Romanian dead would still be p present resent with them in their battles. Violence

 

  Along with martyrdom, in which death was received, there was an occasional violence committed by Legionaries against their enemies. Codreanu originally intended that the Legionary Movement would be nonviolent, but the unusually ruthless and cruel manner in which their enemies treated them created conditions in which violence was inevitable. When their political opponents physically attacked them, the Legionaries often struck back. In certain select cases, certain top enemies of the Legion were assassinated. There are three most prominent examples: 



In 1933, the government of I.G. Duca had banned the Legion to keep it from participating in elections, arrested 18000 Legionaries, and tortured and murdered several others. On December 29-30 of that year, the Legionaries Nicolae Constantinescu, Doro Belimace and Ion Caranica (who are often referred to as the Nicadori) assassinated Duca for revenge. In 1934, Mihail Stelescu, a member of the Legion, was investigated by top Legionaries and discovered to have had planned to betray the Legion and create his own group and was therefore expelled. Stelescu then created the group in 1935, calling it Cruciada  Romanismuliu (“The Crusade of Romanianism”), and slandered Codreanu in its newspaper. There is also evidence that Stelescu was plotting to assassinate Codreanu and that, after contacting top political figures, he received government support for this plan. In this situation, ten Legionaries later called the Decemviri the  Decemviri  (“The Ten Men”) shot him.



In November of 1938, Armand Calinescu had the military police illegally murder Codreanu (who was earlier that year imprisoned to 10 years at unfair and biased trials under unproven charges), the Nicadori the  Nicadori and the Decemviri the  Decemviri.. On September 21, 1939 nine Legionaries referred to as the  Rasbunatorii  Rasbunatorii   (“The Avengers”) assassinated Calinescu. After they turned themselves in, they were tortured and executed without trial. These nine men were: Miti Dumitrescu, Cezar Popescu, Traian Popescu, Nelu Moldoveanu, Ion Ionescu, Ion Vasiliu, Marin Stanciulescu, Isaia Ovidiu and Gheorghe Paraschivescu.

One may object to such actions on the part of the Legionaries, asserting that they are thus taking  part in un-Christian actions. However, to correctly understand this it needs to be remembered that throughout the history of Christianity there were many people who had committed violent acts or killed for the sake of their religion. Certain crusader knights who had killed massive amounts of people were even sainted. Clearly it is nothing new for Christian zealots to engage in combat against their enemies. Some would argue that because Christ taught people to “love their enemies” that therefore Codreanu was openly violating Christian teaching. But it is not quite so clear.

It should be remembered that in the original Greek and Latin the phrase “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27) referred specifically to private enemy, not public enemy or national enemy (who could therefore be hated). This is why Codreanu said to the Legionaries: “Forgive those who struck you for personal reasons. Those who have tortured you for your faith in the Romanian people, you will not forgive. Do not confuse the Christian right and duty of forgiving those who wronged you, with the right and duty of our people to punish those who have betrayed it and assumed for themselves the responsibility to

 

  oppose its destiny. Do not forget that the swords you have put on belong to the nation. You carry them in her name. In her name you will use them for punishment - unforgiving and unmerciful. Thus and only thus, will you be preparing a healthy future for this nation.” These are the facts which need to be remembered in order to properly understand why Codreanu and the Legionaries did what they the y did. Otherwise, a proper historical study cannot be done.

 

 

The Romanian Legionary Movement between Truth and Deception The Legionary Movement of Romania, also popularly known as the Iron Guard, is for many  people today a difficult matter to discuss straightforwardly straightforwardly because of all the untruths, the deceptions, the distortions, and the misconceptions surrounding its history. The T he movement has a great legacy and there is much muc h to learn from it, but due to the destructive and hostile forces th which have been politically dominant in the latter half of the 20  Century and the beginnings of st the 21  Century, the history of the Legionary Legiona ry Movement has almost always been shown to the  public through the perspective of its enemies. The image of the movement and its founder, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, is smeared using every eve ry possible method from any possible angle as its history is written (or rewritten) by Liberals, Communists, C ommunists, Jews, and Philosemites.

We have produced two previous p revious works on this subject, “The History of Corneliu Z. Codreanu and the Legionary Movement” and “The Legionary Doctrine,” which aimed to provide an overview of the teachings and history of the Legion of Michael the Archangel which would counter the deceptions and distortions d istortions normally thrown against it. Here we aim to make further clarifications and address more directly some of the key misconceptions and an d accusations thrown at the Legionaries, something which is increasingly necessary if the world wo rld will ever have the  benefit of properly understanding this movement. As Ronnett and Bradescu put it in “The Legionary Movement in Romania,” “The wave of calumny must cease, and society must become aware that there are two sides to the coin.” The Jews in Romania

It is important to keep in mind that in Romania, and in fact in much of Eastern Europe in general, th th Jews had obtained a very peculiar position throughout the late 19  Century and the early 20   Century. A majority of the Jewish population managed to obtain occupations in most fields excluding those based on serious physical ph ysical labor, thus gaining positions in fields such as law,  journalism, politics, trade, banking, speculation, company management, etc. It was very disconcerting for Romanians during this time period to witness an upsurge u psurge of Jewish students in their colleges, which is significant when one keeps in mind that in Romania at this time, universities were not places to which everyone would go to, but specifically those who were more intellectually inclined and would thus form the nation’s elite.  While this occurred, the majority of Romanians were of the lower class, working in factories, on farms, or other such areas. They were living in conditions of economic inferiority when th compared to most Jews. Their conditions worsened by b y the early 20  Century, when their poverty increased, also increasing malnutrition and starvation as Romanian peasants struggled in physical labor, underpaid and in many cases having lost their former sources of livelihood. Simultaneously, the increase in Jewish economic and political influence placed the integrity of Romanian culture in danger, as Jews, who were clearly a culturally and racia racially lly foreign group, were increasingly able to influence culture. With such things occurring, it should come as no surprise that suspicion of the Jews and anti-Semitism became widespread.

 

  It was also very common for certain notable Romanian Roma nian intellectuals such as Nicolae Paulescu, A.C. Cuza, and Nichifor Crainic to postulate that Jews functioned as a conspiracy. While it is  possible to explain Jewish power without using a conspiracy theory, it needs to be kept in mind that the reason many Romanians (and almost all Legionaries) believed in a Jewish co conspiracy nspiracy was because of the intellectual backing the concept received. Even if one discounts the conspiracy thesis, this certainly does not mean that their anti-Semitism was unjustified, as the facts mentioned above indicate. In fact, the reality of Jewish economic, financial, and political p olitical ascendance opposed to the conditions of native populations is now very much verifiable from recent historical studies and analyses on the subject (see, for example, Professor Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents). Discontents). These are the facts which need to be acknowledged in order to understand why the Legionary Movement was anti-Jewish. Anti-Semitism th

Many Legionaries who lived through the latter half of the 20  Century, as well as modern Legionaries today, oftentimes deny that the Legionary Movement was anti-Semitic. Why? What does it mean to be an anti-Semite? Unfortunately, the term “anti-Semitism” has been distorted to describe an irrational and unfounded hatred h atred of Jews, at the same time conjuring up images of massacres and pogroms against the Jews. The Legionary Legionar y Movement was not anti-Semitic in that sense, even though it opposed Jewish power and wanted to expel the Jews. Corneliu Codreanu is often accused of having h aving called for the d destruction estruction of Jews, yet nowhere has he ever done such a thing, neither in speech nor in writing. While Codreanu had often expressed anger towards the Jews and even insulted them at times, the truth is that he merely wanted to  peacefully deport Jews to Palestine as a solution to the problem (as is made clear, for example, example, in The Nest Leader’s Manual ). ). Codreanu also opposed any an y sort of immoral action or physical attacks against Jews, as he himself stated in his autobiography autobiograph y For My Legionaries. Legionaries. Michel Sturdza (a Romanian nobleman and diplomat), who joined the Legion and was learned in its  policies, informs us in The Suicide of Europe  Europe that “Codreanu never tolerated the slightest  physical violence against Jews or Jewish properties. Any act of indiscipline in that direction direction would have been punished immediately by the expulsion of the culprits from the organization.” This fact, often cited by Legionaries, is almost always alwa ys ignored by official “historians” in academia today. Even more striking is the f act act that, to quote Sturdza, “There were always one or two Jews in the Movement, and the only trouble they gave was due to their sometimes too extreme devotion to the Legionary cause.” As is obvious, ob vious, while the Legion of Michael the Archan Archangel gel wanted to remove Jews from Romania so that they could safeguard Romania’s culture and national vitality, their anti-Semitism was in no way violent or immoral. Thus we can see that there are different forms of anti-Semitism which must be distinguished from each other in order o rder to understand the Legion’s true character. Violence against the Jews

There are certain key events which are oftentimes referenced in regards to Legionaries committing violence against the Jews in order to denounce their movement. One of these is the

 

  “pogrom” which occurred in Oradea when the Student Congress met there in December of 1927, which included both Legionaries and non-Legionaries alike. When this incident is pointed out by most historians today, usually all that is mentioned is that five synagogues were sacked and burnt and Jewish shops were broken into and looted, and that this was supposedly organized by the Legion. Nowhere do these ideologically ideologicall y biased “historians” reference the facts that Ion Mota, a notable Legionary leader, had brought up in his book Cranii de Lemn  Lemn (“Wooden Skulls”), where he wrote how, prior to the burning, bu rning, when the students met, “the Jewry o off Oradea dared to receive the students with knife blows, revolver shots, and then with boiling water and gangs of coachmen organized to attack…” So, as Romanian students simply traveled to meet and discuss the Jewish problem at a congress, masses of local Jews took the liberty to physically attack them and even threaten them with death. What could be expected of these enraged students in such an intolerable situation, in which the police did not intervene? They were likely so infuriated that even if their leaders commanded them to restrain themselves, they would not obe obey. y. It is also interesting to note that in this event, neither side ever mentions any Jews dying in this so-called so -called “pogrom,” only property damage and theft.  More important to address are the events which occurred oc curred during the establishment of the  National Legionary State in 1940, led jointly by Horia Sima and Ion Antonescu, up to its end in 1941. Jewish historians attempt to portray the Legionary State as an oppressive regime in which Jews wereofgreatly mistreated. It isand truepolitical that thepower, Legionaries removed Jews their former  positions economic, financial, and thus put them infrom the position to do the same physical labor that the masses of common Romanians engaged in. However, the leaders of the National Legionary State generally had no intention of being cruel to the Jews and in many cases gave them reasonable living conditions. A notable example to corroborate this is the fact that when the Legionary official Radu Gyr was appointed to the role of general director of theatres in 1940, he initiated a program to establish the Jewish Theatre. It is evident that these “vicious anti-Semites” were not at all interested in being unkind un kind to the Jews which remained in Romania. In terms of what occurred after Antonescu made a coup against the Legion Legionary ary State, anti-Legionary writers oftentimes cite yet another common charge against the t he Legionaries: their involvement in the Bucharest Pogrom of 1941. 19 41. During this time, when thousands of Legionaries

were engaged in protests against Antonescu’s actions and a nation-wide state of disorder was created, thousands of Legionaries were simultaneously being arrested and killed. During the Bucharest Pogrom, official records reveal that a total of 125 1 25 Jews were killed and a small numbers of others wounded. It must be pointed out beforehand that some Co Communist mmunist and Jewish writers on this matter are extremely biased and deceitful, and many times exaggerate the number of Jews killed. Although, fortunately, mainstream historians have recently admitted that the number of Jews killed is limited to 125. It must also be kept in mind that this is a remarkably small number of Jews when compared to most m ost pogroms which took place in other parts of Europe (where several hundred if not thousands tho usands of Jews oftentimes died), which indicates that it is not as significant as the rhetoric of the Legion’s e nemies would have readers believe. Oftentimes, a lot of attention is given to a specific incident in this pogrom, the story in which Jews were allegedly hung on meat hooks in the Slaughter House in Bucharest. This accusation was originally made during Antonescu’s dictatorship, which attempted to censor any evidence

 

  disproving it because of how unclear the facts of the matter were. Studies have shown that the  photographs of bodies at the slaughterhouse were most likely forged, and all of the people who were employees at that slaughterhouse, including a Jewish tinker, denied that there was an any y  pogrom when they were interviewed. Most of the employees even signed a note denying that Jews were killed which was published in the newspaper Universul  (“The Universe”) on February 12, 1941, although it was later censored by Antonescu’s government. When the police of the Communist regime in 1946 investigated the slaughterhouse pogrom, po grom, there was such a lack of of evidence as to who committed the crime or whether or not it even occurred that the case was closed without any prosecution. However, whether or not the killings at the slaughterhouse transpired, there some facts about the Bucharest Pogrom as a whole which need to be remembered, and which have been pointed out  by Horia Sima in his book Era book Era Libertaţii - Statul Naţional -Legionar -Legionar vol. 2  2 (“It was Freedom  National Legionary State vol. 2”). As Sima wrote, “It is regrettable what happened to these poor anonymous Jews, taken at random and killed, but the origin of these crimes should be placed into the whole situation at that time. All the information needs to be collected, from all places, and analyzed in the light of these facts, if we are to reach an objective judgment.” Those Jews were attacked in a state of disorder, when wh en there was no real authority to protect th thee Jews; a state of disorder created by Antonescu. More importantly, in such revolutionary circumstances there are always immoral people who engage in looting,for thethe destruction of property, killings.irresponsible It is not clearand which particular people were responsible pogrom, although it isand evident that it was a mixture of Legionaries and non-Legionaries. It is certain that had the Legion in that situation retained the amount of order, discipline, and authority that they possessed during the National Legionary Legionar y State, not only would the committers of the pogrom have been severely punished, but the pogrom itself would not have even occurred. Through objective historical analysis it may be observed ob served that there is no po political litical movement in history, no matter how well-intentioned its leaders may have been, which had not committed any sort of excesses or crimes. What is important to remember when one on e observes the Bucharest Pogrom, is that a distinguishment must be made between those who committed the crimes and those Legionaries who, in the spirit of Codreanu, upheld Legionary principles and refused to do any harm to the Jews. Political Violence

The occasional assassination of political figures by Legionaries is often characterized as “gangster -like behavior” by enemies of the Legion. However, one should ask in return, what of the behavior of these politicians who were killed? Were they completely innocent, or did they the y engage in “gangster -like” behavior themselves? The analysis of the Legion’s assassinations should begin with the police prefect Constantin Con stantin Manciu, who was killed by Corneliu Cod Codreanu reanu himself. Even though his death occurred before the Legion was founded and when Codreanu was still with Cuza’s party, this event is important to address because anti-Legionary propagandists attempt to ignore or obscure the facts of the situation. In 1924, Manciu had policemen beat Codreanu and his friends (who had not committed any crimes at the time) multiple times tim es without any legal reason and eventually eve ntually arrested the students (including Codreanu) and tortured them at the police headquarters before they were forced to release them. Later, as Codreanu defended a

 

  student at a trial in October, 1925, Manciu abruptly entered the courtroom and was prepared to illegally beat and torture Codreanu once again. Codreanu quickly reacted by shooting him. Codreanu was acquitted later at a trial, t rial, and certainly it is no surprise that that happened when the  policemen themselves, especially Manciu, were behaving like gangsters and torturing innocent  people.

The second assassination took place during the year of 1933, when the “liberal” Ion G. Duca was elected prime minister and declared that he would “exterminate” the Legion (or the Iron Guard, as it was called by that time). In order to keep the Legion from participating in elections, he used the charge of treason (although he had no real evidence to back this accusation) in order to ban the organization. Following this, Duca had the police arrest 18,000 Legionaries and put them to work in concentration camps, while terrorizing others and even ev en torturing and murdering certain top Legionaries. It should not be shocking that this led three Legionaries, known as the the Nicadori  Nicadori,, to assassinate Duca in revenge. The third assassination was in 1935, after the Legionary Mihail Stelescu was discovered by Legionary officials to have engaged in a plot to poison Codreanu himself and was subsequently expelled from the Legion (in 1934). It is known that Stelescu had secretly gathered a group of friends who would spread false rumors claiming Codreanu was a traitor, and that Stelescu

himself would kill Codreanu afterwards as athat “reaction” to these would rumors. It washim Stelescu’s ambition to thus replace Codreanu, hoping the Legionaries accept as a leader and hero once convinced the rumors were true. However, after the plot was discovered and Stelescu and his friends were brought before Codreanu and other top Legionaries, Vasile Cotea (one of the conspirators) admitted the whole plot. It should also be noted here that some authors try tr y to claim that Stelescu voluntarily left the Legion after he became “disillusioned” with Codreanu, a notion which these facts sufficiently dispel. After Stelescu founded his own organization in 1935 with some friends, Cruciada Romanismuliu  Romanismuliu (“The Crusade of Romanianism”), he slandered Codreanu in its newspaper in all possible ways. wa ys. When Legionaries met with Stelescu in order to make a compromise, Stelescu refused and only intensified his propaganda. Eventually, ten Legionaries known as the Decemviri the Decemviri,, fearing that Stelescu would once again attempt to assassinate Codreanu (a reasonable suspicion, considering the circumstances) and also believing that treason needed to be stigmatized for Romania to improve itself, shot Stelescu. The fourth assassination is preceded by the trial and murder of Codreanu. In the months after King Carol II established his dictatorship on February 12, 1938, 193 8, Nicolae Iorga slandered the Legionary Movement in his newspaper, and once Codreanu wrote him a letter criticizing his  behavior, Iorga filed a lawsuit for insult and injury (an action which essentially made Iorga responsible for all subsequent events). Carol’s government, making full use of this s ituation, had Codreanu arrested and put on trial. Although Iorga later changed his mind and tried to withdraw the charges, it was too late and Codreanu was condemned to six months in prison. At a second trial completely closed to the public, Codreanu was tried for treason and sedition and condemned to 10 years in prison, despite the fact that the charges were completely unproven. During this situation, an assassination attempt was made by a Legionary student on Florian Stefanescu-Goanga, the rector of the University of Cluj and a friend of Armand Calinescu (Carol’s prime minister). This event, which occurred on November 24 of 1938, is oftentimes

 

  referenced in passing but not explained exp lained in-depth by most historians, who usually refuse to even mention Stefanescu-Goanga’s name. It is claimed that the reason Calinescu decided to kill Codreanu later was because of the supposed killing of Stefanescu-Goanga. However, we can speculate that the reason historians do not explain what happened is because Stefanescu-Goanga was not even killed, and recovered in the hospital after being shot. Furthermore, Horia Sima has  pointed out in Sfarşitul unei domnii sângeroase  sângeroase (“The End of a Bloody Reign”) that the Legionary Command did not order the assassination attempt on Stefanescu-Goanga, as it was an entirely local event, and even tried to stop it by sending a messen messenger. ger. The reason Calinescu decided to kill Codreanu was not because of the attempt on Stefanescu-Goanga, but rather  because Codreanu and his followers had already gained the support of the majority of Romanians and were a threat to the continuation of Carol’s regime. When one learns these facts, it becomes  painfully clear that all the “historians” who mention only the most superficial superficial details of this incident are actively attempting to mislead their readers.

As Calinescu, under the service of Carol’s tyrannical regime, moved to arrest, torture, and massacre thousands upon thousands of Legionaries as well as killing Corneliu Codreanu, it is completely understandable why on September 21, 1939, nine Legionaries called the  Rasbunatorii  (“The Avengers”) assassinated him. Even the Legion’s enemies do not try to  Rasbunatorii  pretend that this was unjustified. However, they do try to claim that the executions at the Jilava  prison which occurred on the November 1940 underthe Nicadori the National, and Legionary State were crimes. As Legionaries exhumed remains27, of Codreanu, the  Nicadori, the Decemviri, the Decemviri , they were so enraged that they could not control themselves and rashly, “in the heat of the moment,” decided to execute the 64 politicians held at Jilava. Those who reference this event as a “crime” while forgetting that these politicians all engaged in the torture and massacre of Legionaries are clearly attempting to distort history. These politicians were criminals themselves and were therefore going to be tried at court and condemned, most likely executed considering their deeds,  by the state itself. It is certainly no “tragedy” that they were executed prematurely, merely an inconvenience. Finally, it should strike anyone as strange that all of these writers who condemn the Legionary Movement for its assassinations and executions of the politicians who oppressed op pressed it do not condemn other, more “democratic” revolutionary movements mov ements which engaged in similar a ctions. It is very hypocritical, for example, to praise the French Revolution, brushing aside its crimes, while simultaneously attacking the Legionaries for such events as the assassination of Duca or the Jilava executions. Nevertheless, this kind of hypocrisy hypoc risy seems to permeate academia today. Accusations of Chauvinism and Xenophobia

The Legionaries are often accused of believing in the ethnic cultural and genetic superiority of Romanians, particularly in relation to the supposed inferiority of Hungarians, Gypsies, Jews, and other surrounding peoples. It is undeniable that some Romanians R omanians had these kinds of attitudes, even some members of the Legion of Michael the Archangel. However, these ideas were certainly not part of the doctrine of the Legion and its leaders did n not ot share them. Codreanu never expressed any sort of ethnic or racial supremacism and people of non-Romanian ethnic  background living in Romania, such as Germans and Hungarians, could and did join the Legion.

 

  The Legionaries were concerned with race, which most of them believed to be of some importance, because they understood that tha t if a nation’s racial type and solidarity is destroyed, the foundation of the nation and the culture is undermined, and therefore the nation itself is harmed. The Legionary view was that a nation must uphold its racial solidarity, and the Legionaries’ concern with this matter did not involve any beliefs of racial superiority or supremacist attitudes. Of course, some Legionaries such as Ion Mota did not believe race was important, as there was variety in opinion within the Legion, but b ut this a description of the general attitude of the Legionary Movement. It may come as a surprise to many Leftists that it is possible to believe in the reality of race without believing tha t one’s race is somehow superior. These points p oints on the Legionary view of race and ethnicity have already been extensively discussed by Horia Sima in several works on Legionary belief. Thus it becomes beco mes apparent that when certain “ac “academics” ademics” today accuse Codreanu or the Legionaries as a whole of believing in the inferiority of Hungarians (or of being specifically anti-Hungarian), Jews, or other peoples, they are simply speaking plain falsehoods.

The Legionary Movement is also wrongly labeled “xenophobic” or “ anti-foreign” by its enemies, who are implying that the Legionaries aimed to make Romania into some kind of bubble closed to the outside world. However, these claims are simply simpl y ridiculous considering that the Legionaries were very much willing to engage in dialogue and an exchange of ideas with other ethnic in Europe. Codreanu didLegionaries. not feel entirely place whenthat he Codreanu visited Francegroups and Germany, as he reveals himself in For My in For Legionaries . It is out alsoofnoteworthy and other Legionaries often expressed concern and sympathy for the well-being of other nations in Europe. For Codreanu's Legionaries, Europeans were Christian brothers and European nationalism was to be supported everywhere against the threat of what they believed were its chief enemies: Jews, Capitalists, and Communists. Thus their aim to defend the integrity of their culture and religion was not a form of “xenophobia,” it was simply a natural cconservative onservative trait.  Religious Devotion

The enemies of the Legion often try to portray it as a group of “madmen” and “religious fanatics” incapable of rational thought and obsessed with martyrdom. Michel Sturdza responded well to such absurd arguments in The Suicide of Europe: Europe:

“It would be unjust, perhaps, to ask from this new ne w crop of intellectuals - victims, it seems, of a contagious brain-corroding pestilence that has already suffused Western universities with its materialistic, utilitarian and Marxist philosophy, to understand fully the notion of sacrifice for a principle, or for one's country, or of fidelity, even unto death, toward the leader who incarnates this principle or represents better than anybody anybod y else the interests and destiny of that country. For this new generation of ‘educators’ and public opinion  builders, religion is no better than magic; love and fear of God is superstition; superstition; patriotism is an error; nationalism is a crime; self-sacrifice is masochism; love of the past is necromania; an obeyed leader is a medicine man; and discipline is a dark cult.”  As Sturdza also mentioned, attempts are made to depict Codreanu as a cultic leader manipulating his followers; attempts which reveal themselves to be absurd once one learns that Codreanu was a devout Christian motivated by his love for his people. When opp opponents onents of the Legion try to

 

   bring up the writings or declarations of Romanians who were formerly Legionaries Legionaries but which later turned against the Legionary Movement, it is odd that most of these happen to be from Romanians who were forced to become becom e anti-Legionary by the Communist regime under which they lived. For example, Nichifor Crainic, before and during World War II a Christian nationalist who supported the Legion, mocked Codreanu and his followers in his autobiography Zile autobiography Zile albe,  zile negre (Memorii) ("White (Memorii) ("White Days, Black Days [Memories]") which he wrote after Romania fell to Communism. However, it should be remembered that Crainic was imprisoned and tortured by the Romanian Communist dictatorship from 1947 to 1962, 1962 , after which he was released and forced to work for the Communist propaganda newspaper Glasul Patriei  Patriei (“The Voice of Fatherland”), which sought to mislead Romanians abroad. There is already evidence from people who had personal contact with Crainic that some of the things written in his autobiograph autobiography y were done under Communist pressure, and certainly a man who had undergone “reeducation” through torture cannot be trusted as having expressed e xpressed a reliable opinion. This example is only one of many, and serves to demonstrate how dishonest and a nd biased certain scholars are concerning Legionary history. It must also be point out here that the assertions that Codreanu taught that men must actively sin (therefore, “accepting damnation”) in service to their nation are also quite ridiculous in light of Legionary teachings and attitudes. Alexander Ronnett mentioned that “Codreanu considered the Legion's of mission holy crusade; enemies were, not only the enemies of whic Romania, but also enemies God.”aCodreanu madeits a distinction between personal enemies, h a person hadthe a Christian duty to forgive, and the enemies of o f the nation and Christianity itself, towards which one had no such duty as with the former. This is an o old ld Christian argument, which is oftentimes overlooked by anti-Legionary sources. The Legionaries Legion aries actually did believe that overall their actions against the enemies of Romania and God were justified. Political Programs 

Related to the issue of “fanaticism” and “insanity” are also the claims that the Legionaries had no real political and economic programs for their nation and that they were incapable of o f leading during the National Legionary State. Those who make such assertions only show their ignorance, considering that there are already standards of leadership lead ership as well as general political and economic plans or ideas laid out in the works of various Legionary leaders. While it is true that the Legion was specifically dedicated to the spiritual and moral improvement of the people, laying less stress on programs, it should not be thought thou ght that they had no programs in mind. The Legion of Michael the Archangel itself had a very specific and hierarchical organizational structure with determinations as to how leaders would be selected and the kinds of personal and moral qualities they should possess (on this subject, Codreanu’s own works, The Nest Leader’s  Manual  and For  and For My Legionaries, Legionaries, are particularly relevant). It is evident that this kind of organization served as the model for their plans for the future Romanian government. Concerning economics, the writings of Legionaries as well as the formation of the Corpul  Muncitoresc Legionar (“Legionary Workers Corps”), which was established in 1936 to aim for fairer conditions for workers, should be taken into consideration. The program of “National-Christian-Socialism” which Codreanu had advocated earlier in his life should not be ignored, and neither should the practice of the “Christian Commerce” concept which was taken

 

  up by the Legion in the late 1930’s. Furthermore, Legionary leaders had already written on o n the subject of economic programs, studying and taking inspiration from the economic policies used in Italy and Germany. Ion Mota had written on corporatism in Cranii de Lemn, Lemn, approving of the concept while demanding the  prerequisite of removing Jews from economic positions first, and Vasile Marin’s 1932 doctoral thesis Fascismul: thesis  Fascismul: Organizarea Constitutionala a Statului Corporativ Corporativ Italian  Italian (“Fascism: The Constitutional Organization of the Italian Corporate State”) deals with the matter as well. This Th is is  not to say that Legionarism was a copy of Italian Fascism (it was neither a cop copy y of German  National Socialism), something which is demonstrably false false considering its uniqueness, but only an indication that they did not no t ignore the issue of what kinds of economic programs to implement. Essentially the Legionary Movement aimed for a kind of Christian Socialist Corporatism in which everyone would be motivated to work. As for assertions that the Legionaries could not successfully manage the National Legionary State, these are very empty claims considering that the Legionary state had already begun b egun carrying out their basic aims in terms of what kind of political and economic system they would create. However, they could not accomplish their goals to the extent that they had desired  because they had only recently emerged from revolutionary and bloody conditions (created by King CarolofII,1941, whom they toppled) andby only had the hunger opportunity to rulemade for five months. By the the  beginning Antonescu, driven a personal for power, a coup a gainst against Legionary State after creating a secret agreement with Hitler. Antonescu spread deceitful  propaganda attempting to portray the Legionaries as a group of uncontrollable and belligerent youths who were incapable of ruling; propaganda which forms the basis of these same accusations today. Conclusion

From what has been written thus far it should be clear that ideological bias and dishonesty  permeates academia today. The most disgusting falsehoods are projected onto the Legionary Movement and some of the oldest lies are simply repeated in the newest w ways. ays. This essay does not provide a complete address a ddress to all of the problems concerning the Legionary Movement and the untrue claims and misconceptions surrounding it; what it aims to accomplish is an exposure expo sure of the more common distortions. The Legion of Michael the Archangel was a mov movement ement which sought to defend its country and culture as non-violently as possible during an opp oppressive ressive and turbulent time period in Romanian history. It eventually eventuall y fell due to facing constant betrayal,  persecution, expulsion, and dissolution, but its legacy is nevertheless a beacon of victory for true European nationalism, free of chauvinism, which may ma y provide the world with many valuable lessons. Yet, the history of the movement faces constant distortion d istortion and falsification. For this reason, those who study Legionary history and who also wish to truly learn something from this history, need to be skeptical of what they read in mainstream sources.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY Codreanu, Corneliu Zelea. For Zelea. For My Legionaries. Legionaries. Third Edition. Trans. Dr. Dimitrie Gazdaru. York, SC, USA: Liberty Bell Publications, 2003. Codreanu, Corneliu Zelea. The Nest Leader’s Manual . USA: CZC Books, 2005. Codreanu, Corneliu Zelea. The Prison Notes. Notes. USA: Reconquista Press, 2011. Codreanu et al. Thoughts and Perspectives Volume Five: Codreanu. Codreanu . Ed. Troy Southgate. London: Black Front Press, 2011. Codrescu, Razvan. In Razvan. In Cautarea Legiunii Pierdute  Pierdute (“In Search of the Lost Legion”). Bucuresti: Editura Vremea, 2001. Crainic, Nichifor. Zile Nichifor. Zile albe, zile negre (Memorii) ("White (Memorii) ("White Days, Black Days [Memories]"). Bucharest: Casa Editoriala Gandirea, 1991. Crisan, Radu Mihai. Eminescu Mihai. Eminescu Interzis: Gândirea Politică  Politică (“Forbidden Eminescu: Political Thought”). Bucharest: Criterion Publishing, 2008. Crisan, Radu Mihai. Istoria Mihai. Istoria Interzisă  Interzisă (“Forbidden History”). Bucharest: Editura Tibo, 2008.  

Evola, Julius. “The Tragedy of the Romanian ‘Iron Guard’: Codreanu”. USA: Thompkins & Cariou, 2004. Hall, Christine. “Pancosmic” Church - Specific Românesc: Ecclesiological Themes in Nichifor Crainic's Writings Between 1922 and 1944. Uppsala: 1944.  Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2008. MacDonald, Kevin. Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory Th eory of  Anti-Semitism. Westport,  Anti-Semitism.  Westport, CT, USA: Praeger Publishers, 1998. Marin, Vasile. Fascismul: Vasile. Fascismul: Organizarea Constitutionala a Statului Corporativ Italian Italian  (“Fascism: The Constitutional Organization of the Italian Corporate State”). Bucureti: Editura Majadahonda, 1997. Mota, Ion. Cranii de Lemn: Articole 1922-1936. ("Wooden 1922-1936. ("Wooden Skulls: Articles 1922- 1936"). Ediţia a II-a. Bucureşti: Editura Totul pentru Ţară, 1937.    Nagy-Talavera, Nicholas. The Green Shirts & The Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and  Rumania.. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press/Stanford University Press, 1970.  Rumania

Ronnett, Alexander E. and Bradescu, Faust. “The Legionary Movement in Romania.” The  Journal of Historical Review, Review, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 193-228.

 

 

Ronnett, Alexander E. Romanian E. Romanian Nationalism: The Legionary Movement . Chicago: Romanian-American National Congress, 1995. Seiche, Fabian. Martiri Fabian. Martiri si marturisitori romani din secolul XX. Inchisorile comuniste din  Romania ("Romanian  Romania  ("Romanian Martyrs and Witnesses of the Twentieth Century: Communist Prisons in Romania"). Făgăraş, Romania: Editura Agaton, 2010.   Sima, Horia. Ce este comunismul? ("What comunismul? ("What is Communism?"). Madrid: Editura Dacia, 1972. Sima, Horia. Doctrina Horia. Doctrina Legionară  Legionară ("Legionary Doctrine"). Madrid: Editura Mişcării Legionare, 1980. Sima, Horia. Era Horia. Era Libertaţii - Statul naţional -Legionar -Legionar vol. 1 ("It 1 ("It was Freedom - National Legionary State vol. 1"). Madrid: Editura Miscarii Legionare, 1982. Sima, Horia. Era Horia. Era Libertaţii - Statul naţional -Legionar -Legionar vol. 2 ("It was Freedom - National Legionary State vol. 2"). Madrid: Editura Miscãrii Legionare, 1990. Sima, Horia. Istoria Horia.  Istoria Mişcarii Legionare ("History of the Legionary Movement"). Timişoara: Editura Gordian, 1994.Legionare  Sima, Horia. Menirea Horia. Menirea Nationalismului ("The Nationalismului ("The Meaning of Nationalism"). Salamanca: Editura Asociaţiei Culturale Hispano-Române, 1951. Sima, Horia. Guvernul National Român de la Viena ("Romanian Viena ("Romanian National Government in Vienna"). Madrid: Editura Miscarii Legionare, 1993. Sima, Horia. Pentru Horia. Pentru ce am pierdut războiul din rasarit şi am căzut în robia comunistă comunistă ("Why  ("Why we lost the War in the East and Fell into Communist Slavery"). Madrid: Editura Biblioteca Documentară Generaţia Noua, 1973.  Sima, Horia. Prizonieri Horia. Prizonieri ai Puterilor Axei  Axei (“Prisoners of the Axis Powers”). Madrid: Editura Miscarii Legionare, 1990. Sima, Horia. Sfârşitul unei domnii sângeroase ("The sângeroase ("The End of a Bloody Reign"). Madrid: Editura Miscarii Legionare, 1977. Sima, Horia. The History of the Legionary Movement . Liss, England: Legionary Press, 1995. Sturdza, Michael. The Suicide of Europe: Memoirs of Prince Michael Sturdza, Former Foreign  Minister of Rumania. Rumania. Boston & Los Angeles: Western Islands Publishers, 1968. Valenas, Liviu. Miscarea Liviu. Miscarea Legionara intre adevar si mistificare ("The mistificare ("The Legionary Movement  between Truth and Deception"). Timisoara: Editura Marineasa, 2000.