Abstract
How is the Iron Guard perceived by Romanians? In this paper, I analyse the controversial and taboo topic of the Iron Guard, a far-right movement that has profoundly changed the course of Romanian history, whose existence is known by few. I challenge notions of nationalism and fascism, researching when a line should be drawn between tradition and extremism. Moreover, I explore the subtopic of antisemitism in Romania nowadays in contrast to antisemitism in interwar Romania, which created the context in which the Iron Guard emerged. It is also an insight into the psychology of the oppressor and the oppressed, highlighting the differences in their approaches to the topic.
2. Introduction
Romania has a bloody and complicated history with its Jewish population. From the 728.000 Jews living in Romania in the 1930s, in 2023 there are only 4.000 left, a population in decrease due to their old age. From such a numerous minority rooming the busy streets of the capital city, Bucharest, there are a few thousands left, scattered around the country. Rising tensions and antisemitism in the country, particularly a few years before World War II broke out, had gradually led to this decrease in the Jewish population. Romania ranks second after Nazi Germany in terms of Holocaust-related deaths, an estimated 380.000-400.000 losing their lives during that period, but the number is approximate. In spite of Romanian antisemitism’s peak being reached during WWII, this ‘conflict’ dates back much further, back to the 19th century and even before that. It is not clear when the first Jewish settlements in Romania appeared, however a turning point was around the late 19th century. In order for the Great Powers to recognise the sovereignty of Romania, the country was forced to open its borders and grant citizenship to Muslims and Jews. Romanians were not happy with the compromise, particularly regarding the small population of Jewish newcomers, bringing antisemitism in the country, a hatred that grew gradually.
This Paper focuses in particular on the emergence and effect of the Iron Guard (in Romanian: Garda de Fier) on the mindset and actions of both the Romanian and Jewish populations living together in the interwar period, a political movement that would shape generations to come. It also provides a critical analysis of the Iron Guard from various points of view, in order to spread awareness of such an important topic and to demystify the movement. The scope of the study is to highlight the impact that the far-right movement of the Iron Guard has had on Romania in terms of change of mindset and perception of certain ethnic minorities, particularly Jews. It is imperative to be educated on a topic of such importance, especially as history is doomed to repeat itself and we can see a rise of far-right support in Romania, following the trend of other European countries (this has also been signalled by a few interviewees). In spite of the fact that the Romanian far-right party does not have antisemitism as its main focus, each nation should know its past, so as to not allow extremist discourse to flourish, which is harmful for certain groups. Moreover, it is important to understand the reasoning behind both perspectives (the pro-legionary and anti-legionary). What is particularly interesting is the thin, almost unnoticeable, distinction between the long-lost Romanian tradition and extremism, portrayed by the Iron Guard, especially in the context of the conservatory Romanians, living alongside the legionaries.
The paper is divided into 9 chapters. This introduction provides an overview of the paper, with emphasis on the research question to which the paper is aimed to respond. The second chapter explains the methods and the bibliography used in elaborating the paper and the starting point of the research: my hypothesis. The third chapter provides a detailed look at the historical context in which the events which the paper refers to occurred, as it is imperative to grasp the political and social context of interwar Romania and how the Iron Guard rose to power. The fourth chapter explores how the respondents came in contact with the topic of the Iron Guard and whether there is dialogue related to it nowadays. The next chapter analyses and presents a detailed account of the opinions the respondents had on the movement and whether there was any correlation between age, sex and political orientation. The sixth section described the approach that each interviewee had when answering the questions, dividing the answers in accordance to ethnicity in order to have a clearer outlook. The seventh section provides a comparative analysis between interwar Jewish experience in Romania and contemporary experience, drawing from the personal insight of Jews that dealt with antisemitism and the objective opinion of non-Jews. The next chapter discusses the various solutions proposed to combat modern antisemitism, with emphasis on the most common proposal: education. The last section is the conclusion, which outlines the most important points in the paper and reinforces the research question.
The research question of my paper is ‘how has the Iron Guard shaped the collective mindset regarding Jews in interwar Romania and how can it still influence Romania today?’ Taking into consideration the fact that the movement has managed to exploit the insecurities of the Romanians at the time, given the tumultuous political and economic situation, and turn them into concrete antisemitism. The mindset of blaming a minority for most of a country’s problems has surely left a mark on the Romanian people in terms of thinking and perceiving it in a certain manner. The paper explores how the Iron Guard influenced the collective morale and whether a correlation between its existence and contemporary antisemitism is still noticeable today.
3.Methodology
As part of my research before writing this paper, I read the book ‘Children of the Night: the Strange and Epic Story of Modern Romania’ by Paul Kenyon, about the detailed description of the Iron Guard and its evolution in Romania, the novel offering me perspective on the movement in its complexity. I learnt the basic facts about the Iron Guard, information included in the historical context section of the paper, but also more detailed things, like the fact that the legionaries used to burn their orders after receiving them and that the leader of the group was not great at delivering speeches in the Romanian Parliament. Moreover, it also subtly presented the flawed and sinister nature of the movement, portrayed in numerous sources as a courageous martyr in the battle against Romania’s enemies. I have also read Corneliu Zelea Codreanu’s journal ‘For my legionaries’, that gave me an insight into Codreanu’s motives and psychology. In spite of its clear bias and occasional incoherence, it was a read that gave me a better understanding of the thought process behind the whole movement. I had been wondering about the beliefs that were motivating Codreanu’s actions, and his journal made me realise the absurd nature of his thought process, sprinkled with ideas that did not make much sense. Furthermore, I have also included ideas from the following papers: ‘The Iron Guard and the ‘Modern State’. Iron Guard Leaders Vasile Marin and Ion I. Moţa, and the ‘New European Order’’, by Mircea Platon, which illustrates Romanian fascism and how the Iron Guard is part of a global movement for national rebirth and ‘The Use of Language in the Making of Romanian Nationalism from Dimitrie Cantemir and Mihai Eminescu to the Iron Guard and National Communism’, by Lucian Țion, in which the role of language in defining ethnicity is emphasised, portraying Romania’s relation to other nationalities. I chose the book as it provides an objective overview of the Iron Guard and the context in which it flourished, which complemented Codreanu’s journal, which gave an insight on the thought process of the leader and the motivation behind the Guard’s actions. The two papers also give a brief insight on the historical context and also how the Legion managed to create its mystical image. I believe it is important to both use objective sources (for unbiased facts) and subjective sources (in order to understand the motives behind the actions of the movement), so as to have a comprehensive perspective on how the movement emerged and gained political power in the tumultuous interwar period in Romania.
I have conducted 30 interviews related to the Iron Guard and antisemitism in Romania, with ages ranging from 16 to 80 years old of both Romanian and Jewish ethnicities, so as to ensure diversity of responses, the average age of the interviewees being 27. The interviewees were predominantly from Bucharest and a few from other parts of the country (Hunedoara, Constanța, Prahova). The questions were related to their awareness of the Legionary Movement, opinion on it, presence of antisemitism in Romania today and solutions so as to prevent such events as the Holocaust from happening in the future. I interviewed mostly peers from my school, 23 of them being aged from 16-19 years old. The two middle-aged and 5 elderly people were acquaintances of mine. I tried to engage in conversations with them in Romanian, so as for them to be more receptive and give a more detailed account of their experiences and opinions. From the discussion I wrote down a few interesting ideas and quotes from their responses quickly in a Google Doc, ideas that I would later have used in this ethnography. The responses were later translated from Romanian to English by me.
My hypothesis, the starting point of the ethnography, was that the perception that people have of the Iron Guard will be varied. I expected the Jewish discourse to be different from the Romanian one, particularly because of this sensitive topic. Moreover, I was expecting that not all of the respondents would know much about the Iron Guard and that the opinions on it would be quite diverse. I used my findings in order to prove my point, particularly through the diversity of opinions and levels of knowledge on the topic.
So as to not create confusion, I will refer to ethnic Romanians as Romanians and ethnic Jews as Jews, however I do not wish to make the assumption that Jews who have Romanian citizenship or who live in Romania are not Romanians.
4. Historical context
The Iron Guard, the paramilitary group of the Legion of Archangel Michael (in Romanian: Legiunea Arhanghelului Mihai), was a far-right fascist movement that emerged on 24 June 1927. Its antisemitic, ultraorthodox, anticapitalist, antimasonic, antibolshevik, ultranationalist and conservative character was a notorious combination. The seemingly opposing characteristics of the movement make it difficult to be comprehended in its entirety, as one of its members, Vasile Marin, described it as ‘Soaked in dynamism, our movement is revolutionary. The Legion promotes the creative spirit in all the fields of public life and sincerely rejects conservatism. The Legion organises the conquest of the future with the help of all the productive categories of the nation and does not represent a reaction toward the past [...] Like the Fascists and the National Socialists, we are closer to what is called the “Left” than to what is called the “Right”.’ (Platon 2012:69), which is an unusual description for a factually fascist and nazi political party. It emerged as a reaction to the monarchic regime, as, according to Vasile Marin, argued that it was ‘the only socially conscious (i.e., liberal or progressive) alternative to the nineteenth-century liberal ‘oligarchic’ system, which was both unjust and obsolete’ (Platon 2012:68). Their nickname was ‘Green Shirts’, (in Romanian: Cămăși Verzi) as they used to wear this as a uniform, along with a necklace with soil from old Romanian battlefields, symbolising nature. Its ultimate goal was, put simply, to bring to life traditional Romanian values of orthodox Christianity by all means (including mass killings of Jews and assassinating their political opposition). They built up camps in which the youth would be educated according to Christian morals and values, planting crops and leading a simple, modest life. In his book, ‘For my legionaries', Codreanu wrote: ‘I do not care what the world of non-legionaries will think and I do not care about the effects it will have in that world’. The Iron Guard was organised in ‘nests’ (groups of 6 people that would live together), whose values would include discipline, work, silence, honesty, loyalty, education, reciprocal help and honour. As much as they seemingly promoted morality and did good deeds for the Romanian people (they increased literacy rates through bringing education to the homeless and poor children, who would be brought by bus to school; they opened restaurants and theatres for the disadvantaged), they indisputably committed many atrocious crimes, passed antisemitic laws and encouraged the use of violence against Jews. This eventually led to the Romanian Holocaust, predominantly created by Marshal Ion Antonescu, the 3rd worst Holocaust in the world. Taking into consideration the diverse nature of the actions that the Iron Guard has committed, there are split opinions on the movement today, due to the movement’s mystification and lack of unbiased information. While some consider them heroes (often a reference to Marshal Ion Antonescu, who governed Romania with the Iron Guard at the time, who was a World War I veteran and national war hero), others see them as cold-blooded murderers.
Though officially established in 1927, the idea of a legion started forming 9 years back. The group, which had different structures throughout the years, but the same ideals, was established by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, a raging nationalist with Polish and German roots, thus the ‘representative’ of Romanian ideals was not even Romanian by blood. His leadership skills and creativity were arguably the best at the time, as from a tiny disorganised group, the Legion became the most popular party in Romania, one that would leave a mark on the mindset of the Romanians for tens of years to come.
In order to gain a better understanding of the characteristics of the group, it is imperative to dive into the psychology and personality of its leader. Codreanu was not a man of words, but of actions, unlike others of his time. His oratory skills were not great, as he would stutter and lose his ideas mid-sentence in front of an audience, an object of mockery when the Legion entered the Parliament. Instead, he was popular amongst its peers because of his acts of ‘bravery’, which will be detailedly described throughout the paper. He was first noticed by the crowds around 1920 in the context of numerous communist protests taking place at the time. As underpaid factory workers were asking for change, they used to hang red flags (representing communism) in the town square while protesting. Codreanu, living in Iași (a city in north-eastern Romania) at the time, saw this as a threat to national integrity and decided to take action by taking down the red flags and replacing them with the national Romanian flag, which was seen as an act of courage. Moreover, he would often walk through the crowds of the protesters with the risk of being shot. During his university years, his actions would spark feelings of antisemitism in the city. Having been elected the president of the Law Student Society, he would only propose books that included the ‘Jewish problem’ at the university book club, so as to spread his views amongst his colleges. This came in a context in which university professors recommended to their students books on ‘scientific racism’ by Arthur de Gobineau, who developed the theory of the superior Arian race. Then, the university years used to be opened with a Christian religious service. When Codreanu was a freshman, this practice was interrupted in respect to the numerous Jewish students and he saw this as a great offence, deciding to protest. He managed to get support from the other students and the service took place the next day, an action that suggests that Codreanu cared about tradition. It is important to keep in mind how the Jews were treated at the time, in the early ‘20s, in universities. The Jews were experiencing ethnic-based violence, being separated and severely beaten by both colleagues and professors. The beatings eventually extended on the streets, leaving a blood bath on the sidewalks of the Jewish neighbourhoods in Romania. Their kippahs (Jewish traditional clothing worn on the head) were stolen and burnt in Unirii Square. The Jewish students’ access to education had been violated by the Romanian students’ attempt to block their entry to the university. Ethnic Jews in Romania were over-represented in universities compared to their percentage in population, meaning that the number of Jewish students was disproportionate in percentage in the universities to the Romanian students. While undoubtedly they received their places through talent and hard work, Codreanu and others exploited this visible discrepancy, fuelling the feelings of injustice felt by some Romanians (students or not). Taking advantage of these feelings, Codreanu proposed a ‘solution’: the numerus clausus, a quota that would indicate the number of Jews which would be allowed to study at university, which was 4%. This would imply that hundreds of Jews would be kicked out of university. Moreover, Jewish Medical students would not be allowed to use bodies of Christians for their research.
His strategy to attract diverse members of society in his conquest to ‘bring back honour and dignity’ (to share his antisemitic views) is that he would ride a horse in villages, dressed in peasant clothes, while predicating antisemitism and the idea of the ‘new man’, a nationalist ideal of someone who fights against the enemies of the Romanian people (Jews). Moreover, he would create and spread manifestos according to which other countries were corrupt and plotting against Romania, so as to further build up on already-existent xenophobia. He was the representation of the Romanian traditional man, a modest and honest man who lived in harmony with nature and traditional values. Furthermore, he would ask the villagers to pray with him, a highly sacred activity that would bond Codreanu with the people. Thanks to these campaigns, many people started relating to him and giving their support, in a context in which many felt that their identity as Romanians had been lost, putting the blame on the Jews. Some of their supporters were fueled by negative personal experiences with the Jewish community. It is often a misconception that the Legion’s supporters and members were uneducated peasants who were charmed by Codreanu’s promising words, however the party was backed by numerous members of the upper Romanian class and academia members (including Corneliu Șumuleanu, a chemistry professor at the university Codreanu studied at, that, during protests, beat up several of his Jewish students). The diversity of the Legion’s supporters suggests the manipulative manner in which Codreanu exploited vague feelings of antisemitism and lost identity, turning them into political backing. This proved successful as, in 1936, the Legion had 25.000 active members.
The leader of the party was a leader and guru, rather than a politician, the messiah that guided the Romanian people in defeating all evil. He saw himself as a hero, the one that took ‘the blows received for the nation’, a hero of which was spoken in messianic terms by the legionaries: ‘Only God inspires him, because He is sent by God’, while making an honourable and divine purpose out of assassination and violence, becoming the most popular political movement in the country. He was meditating and doing yoga, only eating bread and cheese, never drank and had no possessions. The historian Nicolae Nagy-Talavera once described Codreanu as ‘A tall, handsome man, dressed in white peasant clothing, entered the square riding a black horse. He stopped next to me… his smile like a child, sincere, was radiating over the miserable crowd and seemed to empathise with it, but was mysterious as well…’.
In spite of his angelic and prophetic image, Codreanu was put on trial and arrested several times, being shortly detained and afterwards released every time (except for his last, when he was murdered) under accusations of attempted murder, assassination and attempted coups d’etat. The first time when the police interfered with their activity was when they found a list of names of people (including the prime-minister of the time, Ion I.C. Brătianu) that the legionaries were planning on assassinating. Throughout a few years, the legionaries assassinated three important politicians and a high-ranking police official: Ion Gheorghe Duca, Armand Călinescu, Nicolae Iorga and Manciu. This set the stage for numerous imprisonments of the members of the party. Codreanu recalled in his journal that, during one of his detentions, 200 children with ages from 6 to 7 were raising their hands in order to show their support. Moreover, in his 1925 trial, 19.300 lawyers showed up to defend him.
In his journal, a predominant idea was that the Jews were against the Romanians, plotting against the monarchy and planning a mass Romanian extermination that would take place after their eventual rise to power. He used a quote that I believe best describes his feelings in that regard: ‘Our sorrows were for them [the Jews] joys, and our joys were mourning days for them’. According to him, there was a Romanian saying ‘The jidan only lives in a lie and dies in contact with the truth’, which adds up to the stereotype according to which the Jews were notorious liars.
In interwar Romania, ‘Jew’ and ‘communist’ were synonyms. The rise of bolshevism in Russia, neighbour of Romania at the time, started the Romanian industrial workers’ protests, demanding their rights to be respected. Communism was seen by Codreanu and other nationalists as a threat to national integrity. Jews were the same, a threat to the national identity, as they were not ‘pure’ Romanians, whose bones were scattered around the country and their blood not yet spoiled by non-Romanians. Thus, the Jewish and bolshevik ‘problems’ were intertwined in the sense that the nationalists believed that (according to Codreanu) the Jews would back the protests financially, so as to create instability, exploiting the workers and taking over the country. The role of language is emphasised here to define ethnicity. Moreover, Codreanu was a fan of Romania’s most emblematic poet, Mihai Eminescu, supporting his antisemitic ideas with quotes from his works: ‘By what labours or sacrifices have [the Jews] won for themselves the right to aspire to equality with the Romanian people? Was it they who fought the Turks, Tartars, Poles, and Hungarians? [...] Was it through their efforts that the fame of this country spread, that this language was disinterred from the veilings of the past? Was it through one of them that the Romanian people won its right to sunlight?’. (Țion 2021:80-81) This illustrates his point that there is no room for Jews in Romania, as they did not partake in sacrifice for the national land.
In order to better illustrate the rising antisemitism during that time, we must look at the press. Two popular papers circulating in the interwar period, ‘The Romanian People’ and ‘The Sower’, included ‘fixing the Jewish problem’ as one of the three Romanian ideals. Furthermore, the legionaries created their own paper, ‘Ancestral Land’ (in Romanian: Pământul Strămoșesc), with the purpose of spreading antisemitic and nationalist propaganda. For example, in the first edition of the paper, they published an image of Saint Michael with a swastika above his head and a map of Romania with the Jewish populations marked with black dots. This suggests the collective hatred of Romanians towards the Jews, voiced through the press.
To add up, many conspiracy theories were circulating at the time about the Jewish community (through the press and not only), such as: plotting to overthrow the monarchy, having ‘anti-Romanian’ ideas, desiring to burn orthodox churches, aiming to exterminate Romanians mercilessly and deporting them to Siberia, profiting of the workers and enslaving them if they had the chance to, being paid to fight against the Romanians through their theatre plays, performed at the Jewish theatre, financing Jewish propaganda, bribing policemen, ‘systematically encouraging on the path of debauchery’, alcohol poisoning Romanians, selling the country and being ‘huge and soul-killing onslaught on the soul of the Romanian people’. Moreover, the rising instability of the monarchy set the stage for further antisemitism. Due to King Carol II’s unfortunate decisions in the political stage, which led to a rise in unemployment rates and the financial crisis of 1931, insecurity and distrust in the government have risen as well. In that context, many people turned to the violent solutions proposed by the Iron Guard, particularly because of the fact that Carol II started financing the movement in order to turn it into an electoral force. However, that would change with time as the King and the Guard would become rivalries, ending his financial aid a few years later.
Going back to Codreanu, on the 30th November 1938, a mysterious event occurred. He was put on trial under accusations of assassination, similarly to his other trials. He was sentenced to prison (he was before, but was released shortly after), but this time was different. A few days after his conviction, Codreanu was taken out of his cell by a few policemen and thrown into a car. He was taken to a city in close proximity to Bucharest (he moved from Iasi to Bucharest a few years back) and strangled by a policeman. It is likely that the policeman received those orders so as to end Codreanu’s legacy (the Iron Guard), however there is a lot of mystery around the event. Moreover, the policemen took the body back to Jilava (the prison Codreanu was in during that time), shot and buried it, in order to look as if he was killed in the prison. A few years later, some fanatic legionaries exhumed the body in order for their ex-leader to have a proper burial. Burials were important for the legionaries, as, for example, two members killed in the Spanish Civil War had a burial similar to saint canonisation, as the priest performing the ritual was wearing white clothes, dedicated solely to these occasions, and highlighting the fact that the legionaries were an example to be followed by anyone.
The death of Codreanu was a symbol of the Guard’s downfall, as, during Sima’s lead, the party would fall into chaos and divide into factions. Soon after the event, Hitler blamed Carol II for Codreanu’s death and said that the King would pay for it, as the ex-leader had German blood (Nazi Germany was a supporter of the Iron Guard).
After the Guard entered the Parliament, they formed a government with Marshal Ion Antonescu. Ten days later, on the 14th September 1940, King Mihai I, son of Carol II, declared Romania as a National Legionary State and the Legion became the only legal party, backed by Nazi Germany. In spite of the seemingly great collaboration in the beginning between the Guard and Antonescu and their similar political orientation, they soon started fighting over policies. Antonescu wanted order and discipline, while the Guard raided the streets, beating and stealing from the Jews. After months of collaboration, Antonescu started complaining to Hitler about the brutal nature of the legionaries, afterwards deciding to fire the legionaries who had the highest positions in the government. Antonescu’s decision started the discord between the two, sparking the event known today as the Legionary Revolution. Thanks to the account of a rabbi who survived the atrocities of the event, we have some information about the pogrom today.
To begin with, legionaries stormed Jewish homes and coerced them to hop into trucks, the first destination being legionary-controlled places, such as police stations and synagogues. The rabbi was taken to a police station, along with 200 other Jews, locked in and severely beaten. The beatings were so brutal, that many of the Jews were full of blood. They were not given even the basic things, such as food and water. When asked for water, the legionaries took a cloth, wiped the rabbi’s blood with it and squeezed the cloth over a bucket of water, giving it to the thirsty. Afterwards, one hundred out of the three Jews were taken to a forest, including the rabbi, and killed by a group of legionaries by gunshot. The rabbi miraculously survived, as he managed to hide between the corpses. In his account, he describes the heart-shattering pain he felt as he found the dead bodies of his two sons. Quickly realising that he needed help, he seeked the attention of a few German soldiers, who felt bad for his desperation. When they came back, they found the corpses clothless, with their identity acts taken and their jaws broken in order to pluck their golden teeth out, so as to sell them for money. Moreover, at a Jewish slaughterhouse, many Jews were impaled by animal hooks and left in the cold room to die, one of the victims being a girl of five. Synagogues were set on fire, husbands watching their wives and daughters being raped, afterwards shot by the legionaries. The horrors of the Revolution, which only lasted two days, were indescribable. Hundreds of Jews were brutally murdered and endured sufferings beyond our comprehension.
Following this event, the Iron Guard underwent a process of dissolution. Many members of the Guard were arrested and later executed, the few remaining going into hiding or some later joining the Communist party that would later rule Romania.
It is imperative to remember how the Jews were treated during that period. The image of people protesting and yelling ‘Down with the jidani’, while Jews were agonising on the streets, beaten and bloody, is the image that I believe best represents the two antagonic realities that the Romanians and the Jews were living. Apart from the countless beatings and cruelty acts aimed at the Jewish community, there were also restrictions at legislative level. When Octavian Goga, a far-right politician, became prime-minister, he imposed numerous changes for the Jewish minority: Jewish newspapers closed, 1.540 Jewish lawyers suspended from their professional activity, 225.222 Jewish citizenships suspended, Jews not being able to buy tobacco/alcoholic beverages for their shops and not being able to practise numerous jobs. After a couple of years, other changes were reinforced: Jews not being able to be close to governmental buildings or galleries, not being able to change their names to a Romanian version, not being able to marry Christians and not being able to become ‘pure Romanians’, a term written in official documents at the time. A part of these restrictions were imposed so as to please Hitler so that Romania could keep its disputed territory, Transilvania. Lastly, a Jewish lawyer living in Romania at the time, Matatias Carp, documented the antisemitic laws that were passed at the time, few of which being: law nr. 3789 - Jewish doctors could treat only Jewish patients and were forced to wear badges that read ‘Jewish doctor’, law nr. 3361 - the Guard had the right to confiscate any Jewish property, when ‘they considered necessary, without any justification’ and law nr. 3487 - Jewish lawyers still working in bar associations could no longer practise judicial professions. This was the reality for all the Romanian Jews (which was a quite numerous minority) living in interwar Romania, a precarious never-ending battle for survival, in a place where you would be hated solely for your ethnicity and religion. The movement has gained much public support through its creative methods, in spite of the people’s initial scepticism towards Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and his followers, shaping the Romanian reality. Furthermore, the Iron Guard has succeeded in glamorising extremism, moulding antisemitism into the Romanian tradition awakening. The Legion profited off the context in which the ethnic Romanians felt a sense of alienation in regard to their own values and identity, making room for far-right ideas as a solution to the Romanian problems. They had managed to blur the lines between tradition and extremism, which was particularly difficult to draw at the time.
Comments