Part II

5. Awareness

One of the main points of the study is to highlight the number of Romanians that know about the Legionary Movement, a number which I suspect is much smaller than what my study reflects, as my interviewees were educated, mostly from the Romanian middle and upper class. Romania’s rural population, which is less educated than the urban one, has most likely not learnt about the movement at school or came in contact with the subject. Out of the 30 people interviewed, 6 knew no information on the subject, 6 had either incomplete or false information, 10 knew some information (average or little above average) and 8 were very well-researched. I divided these answers in accordance to the level of knowledge they had on the Legionary Movement: the ones that knew no information did not answer most questions, the ones that had incomplete or false information provided very brief explanations for their answers or were factually incorrect, the ones who knew ‘some information’ gave a more nuanced answer, supporting it with a few facts, while the well-researched interviewees provided an extensive knowledge on the topic, supporting their arguments with a lot of information. This means that 12 knew little to none information about the subject, while 18 knew average to much, indicating a fair interest in the topic or more-than-basic knowledge about this part of Romanian history.

So as to see where the interviewees got their information from, I asked them if they thought the subject was talked about or whether they engaged in the conversation. Taking into consideration the fact that, in Romania, the History of the Holocaust was implemented recently as a mandatory subject in the highschool curriculum for one school year, numerous interviewees found out about the Legionary Movement from their History class. Their teacher, who mostly explained how the Jews were hiding and being deported during the Romanian Holocaust, a subject intertwined with the movement, however touching upon the Iron Guard as well. I was surprised to find out that numerous people, particularly Jews, took the matter in their own hands and decided to initiate the conversation. They educated others, who did not know anything about the topic, through open discussions and sent unbiased materials of the event, so as to teach their friends about the event. Few of the interviewees actually found out about the legionaries from conversations with friends and from conferences, such as Model United Nations, popular amongst the Romanian youth. Other interviewees found out about the movement from their family members who either were aware of the existence of this movement or were themselves part of it. Also, respondents have heard about the movement from a film (in one case “I don't care if we go down in history as barbarians”, a Romanian film about the Romanian Holocaust and the portrayal of violence; Sergiu Nicolaescu’s films) and, in the case of a 17-year-old, even acting in one (a play about adolescents killed by the legionaries), or from the radio. The most well-researched responses were from people that read books about the topic, documenting themselves on the event. Two respondents mentioned the book ‘Life as a prey’, written by Marin Preda, a canonical Romanian writer famous for his novel ‘Moromeții’, (in Romanian: Viața ca o pradă) as the book in which they first read about the legionary movement, having been mentioned briefly in the book. This indicated a willingness to start the conversation, an initiative started by the Romanian youth, which is a great starting point.

However, even education may be problematic. We can encounter the problem of bias in any domain, in taboo topics in particular, just like this one. There is a tendency to present the facts in a certain way so as to persuade others to have a similar opinion, which should not be the end goal. For instance, an 18-year-old interviewee, already well-researched about the topic, heard on the radio a discussion about heroes that should be brought to life. The speakers mentioned marshal Antonescu, the main architect of the Romanian Holocaust. The problem was that he was glorified, without the mention of the crimes he had indirectly committed, according to the teenager’s account. Such things can have an impact on the opinion of an audience, as the less informed and those who would prefer this information to be true may create an erroneous view of the topic, as the input may be biased.

Another interesting point was that a generation gap was clear in the responses. The oldest responders, during the Communist period in which they went to school, learnt little to none information about the Iron Guard, as it was not recognised by the Communist Party and one could not talk about it, according to their account, although the situation might have been more complex than that. Touched by tens of years of misery and distrust (how Communism is depicted by them) they speculated on whether the course of history would have changed if the Iron Guard remained in power, as maybe Communism would have never risen to power. In spite of the stigmatisation around the Legionary Movement, there certainly were attempts to bring it back to life. According to the account of two elders from a village 40 kilometres from the Romanian capital, around 70 years ago there was a secret gathering forming some sort of a legionary organisation, made out of around 20-30 people. They were an illegal party, meeting in secret, planning on a plot to overturn the communist regime. They were spreading propaganda in order to gain local votes, however people would not talk about it in fear of being taken by the notorious regime police. They might not have been as brutal and totalitarian as the legionaries if they would have managed to get their hands on the political power, however they never got the chance to, as they were arrested by the police. This group was represented by a few ex-Iron Guard members who wanted to restore its ‘glory’, but mostly fanatics that identified themselves as some sort of legionaries.

The answers to the question made me realise the importance of term definition. When asked to define the movement and to tell the information they knew about it, they gave varied answers, as mentioned above. One answer stood out in particular. A young woman knew solely about the anti-communist characteristic of the legionaries, which in itself was not an unusual answer. When asked about their stance on the topic, she said she identified as a legionary, as she is an anti-communist militant. It occurred to me that, if she would have mentioned in a conversation that she identifies as a legionary, she would have, most likely, gotten some raised eyebrows. However, if she would explain her point, it would surely make more sense for more people.

6. Points of view

The sides on the topic were varied, 21 people being against the movement, 7 being neutral and 2 being for. Each answer had a reason behind it and I believe it is imperative to not dismiss any response, no matter its nature. Every response is an insight into a certain pattern and stance that is valuable and interesting to know about. Every opinion has surely been influenced by personal interactions with the Jewish minority and other factors, such as age and political orientation. There certainly are nuances to the same point of view, for instance there were different explanations to the same answer.

To begin with, the neutral opinion was mostly represented by people who knew little to none information on the topic and were not researched enough in order to have one. However, a 74-year-old man, who was interested in the subject, was neutral because he identified with the patriotic ideals represented by the Iron Guard, described earlier in the paper, but disagreed with the extremist nature of the movement (particularly with the executions). He told me how nationalism is important for a people to keep its unique identity and to flourish, an ideal that he believed is lost amongst the Romanians nowadays. He augmented his point by further explaining how the Guard promoted patriotism, which was a good thing in his view, while also adding that this patriotism had a dark side to it, that was extremely harmful to the Jewish community. Moreover, he was sure that ‘about 80% of the population is not even aware of the fact that it existed’ (referring to the Iron Guard as a whole). 

Furthermore, the clear majority of the respondents are against the movement. The element that was present in almost all responses of this kind was the fact that the Jews being killed was unfair, because they had no fault that they were Jewish. Other respondents were outraged by the brutal nature of the mass murder committed, described in the Historical Context chapter: ‘I do not know how I would identify myself with a legionary’. This side was mostly backed by moral arguments, which would be described more detailedly in the next lines. A respondent was taken aback by the fact that the Legion of Archangel Michael was behind many political assassinations, describing them as a ‘very dubious cult of orthodoxism’, giving much background for his beliefs and answers. Others described the movement as ‘absolutely hideous’ and ‘not normal to wish the death of anyone’. Extremism was on the lips of numerous respondents. They explained to me that extremism is harmful, as far-right movements are damaging to minorities, through their discriminative nature. Excessive nationalism was certainly harmful to the Romanian Jewish community through the promotion of ideas such as ‘the ideal Romanian’, which has ‘pure’ Romanian blood, being against the idea of race/ethnic superiority. They recommended a more moderate approach to politics, in order to avoid discrepancies. They did not give a specific definition of moderate nationalism, however they most likely referred to nationalism as a patriotic idea and feeling, not exclusion of minorities. A young woman was outraged by the fact that they do not only exclude certain social categories of people, but they actively militate against them. They did not agree with the cruel nature of the ethnic cleansing, which, in their opinion, was morally wrong and unfair. In a nutshell, the legionary values were not values that they aligned with. An interesting point was that two of the respondents were initially impressed by the movement, because it brought the Romanian tradition back to life and improved literacy, however they change sides, after finding out about the crimes committed by them: ‘even though maybe at first they had good intentions, it spiralled into antisemitic violence and assassinations’. In this regard, an elderly respondent reflected on the communist period and wondered if the course of history would have changed for the better, should the movement remained in power for a longer period, something already mentioned in the study.

Another category of responses, who were somewhat related to morality, was related to religion. Taking into consideration the fact that the legionaries were ‘notorious Christians’, few respondents perceived it as a religious doctrine that they did not identify themselves with. There is also another point to this that shall be considered: the fact that Jews are not Christian, but are instead part of Judaism. As legionaries were fanatics, they were certainly against Judaism. A respondent commented ‘You don’t kill someone because you do not agree with their religion’. The Jewish opinion on the movement was not radical as it would have been expected, one of them not even being aware of the Iron Guard’s existence. The first respondent did not agree with it, as expected, however she mentioned that she does not judge people of other political orientations, even fascist or nazi. She said that she is not in the position to judge anyone, especially when it comes to opinions, as long as it does not get down to hate speech, which she considers wrong. The second respondent’s family had suffered because of the Legion of Archangel Michael, because their access to education had been severely limited. From going to school like any other child, they suddenly could not go anymore, due to the antisemitic policies that were implemented at the time. They were denied access to their right to education. The interviewee could not give me further details, as this subject was not talked about much, being highly sensitive for his grandparents. He explained that the core problem, that has caused such trauma amongst the Jewish population, was the definition of the Romanian as a Christian orthodox. ‘It was a wrong thing’, another respondent commented, while pointing out the fact that the people that suffered did not deserve the suffering. To conclude the against-the-movement section, most respondents based their arguments on clear moral principles that have not been respected by the Iron Guard. Others illustrated their point that extremism is harmful, particularly for minorities, one of the respondents even having family members that were directly affected by the Legion’s far-right policies. Moreover, some commented on the fact that the difference of religion played a key role in the discrimination, arguing that the definition of the Romanian as a Christian orthodox was highly problematic.

In regard to the for-the-movement arguments, there were two types of respondents. The first, which was mentioned in this paper earlier, identified with the movement for its anti-communist characteristics and was not aware of its fascist features, information deduced from the little information she knew about the movement. The second identified with the movement for various reasons, the main one being that the movement ‘lead their life in accordance with the Bible’. The respondent explained that he had personally met some Legion supporters and ‘nest’ (legionary measurement unit) leaders in Germany and was impressed by their attitude. Their ideals were fair and honourable, guided by correct and moral principles, according to his account. He admired them for their respect to the traditional lifestyle, nurturing old values. His predominant idea was that Codreanu was a unique man, who aspired to change Romania with his self-sacrificing legionaries. His personal opinion was influenced by a negative experience with the Jewish community, which is not excusable, but rather explanatory, experiences that fed his stereotypes. He had lowkey antisemitic views, considering Jews to be dishonest and untrustworthy, illustrating his point by mentioning a personal example with a Jew that he met that tried to fool him into selling his merchandise at a lower price. One of these stereotypes is Jews taking over monetary institutions and that they always seek methods of making money maliciously, that they lie and ‘steal’ money from their customers, that they surround you with a lot of warmth in order to trick you into buying their merchandise. He fantasised about a ‘new’ Romania that would have been created, in accordance to the long-gone Christian values, who were wishing to cleanse Romania of the Jews, that were a threat to the country. He added that the Jews were driven by the Devil, the Jews that killed Christ, would kill their enemies in order to steal their land. On the contrary, he gave counterexamples of Jews that made a good impression on him, through their patriotism. He was inspired by the fact that many Romanian Jews from Israel, whom he met on his trips to Jerusalem, told him about how much they missed Romania. It is hard to get a grasp of the psychology behind this paradox, however I believe that his negative experiences marked his perception of Jews as a group on top of various stereotypes that he was exposed to (perceiving them as dishonest), but thought that there were also some positive exceptions at individual level.

There are certainly various nuances to each answer, but there was an undeniable pattern. While the against-the-movement side based their arguments on morality and portrayed extremism as a harmful product, the for-the-movement arguments were mostly based on stereotypes, fueled by negative personal experiences. As mentioned above, it is important to understand both sides and the reasoning behind each one. Unfortunately, due to the low number of interviewees and their insufficient diversity, it is difficult to tell whether there is any correlation between age, sex, social class and ethnicity and type of response, however there is definitely a correlation between ethnicity, political orientation and approach to answer, which will be detailedly discussed in the next section.

7. Approach

As there have been significant differences between the points of view of the respondents, highlighted in the previous section, it is also imperative to note the disparities in the approach to answer. 

To begin with, the term ‘approach’ must be defined in this specific context. Approach here is similar to rhetoric as in the manner in which a respondent answered the questions and supported their arguments. The rhetoric refers to the phrases used (whether they used slurs, for example), their tone and their body language. It is not only important the content of each answer (which was thoroughly explained previously), but also the manner in which it is given. Therefore, the approaches should be divided into three categories: Romanians against the movement, Romanians for the movement and Jews. I believe Jews should be treated separately as the Iron Guard has directly affected their community in the interwar period, therefore they may be expected to have stronger views on this topic, represented through a rougher rhetoric.

Romanians against the movement have both had a neutral and a slightly aggressive rhetoric. The majority supported their arguments in a neutral manner, more specifically with no changes in terms of tone and non-aggressive body language (no hand gestures). Moreover, some were pretty hesitant in giving their answers, trying to remember specific dates related to the Iron Guard and explaining their point of view. The minority (less than 5 respondents) was arguably aggressive while responding, condemning the Iron Guard for their antisemitic actions and calling others out for supporting them. They usually frowned when asked about their side on the topic (whether they agreed with the movement or not) and used various hand gestures while sustaining their arguments. Moreover, they also had a tendency to slightly raise their voice when asked to tell me what they knew about the movement, so as if the Legion’s actions enraged them. A correlation that I noticed was with their level of education on the topic. The more they knew about the movement, the more likely they were to talk about it wholeheartedly. Regarding the Romanians that had a neutral stance on the topic, they mostly presented arguments for both sides calmly and without much body language, as expected.

The Romanians for the movement had the most aggressive rhetoric out of all respondents, particularly the one that explicitly highlighted the negative side of Jews and who had been exposed to diverse conspiracy theories. He mostly frowned while giving his answers, gesticulating with his hand up and down, while moving slightly in his chair. He seemed annoyed to remember the times when he felt fooled by some Jews and his tone changed when he wanted to articulate certain things or phrases, for example the dishonest nature of the Jews. He was not necessarily aggressive by what he said, as no targeted slurs were used in any of the interviewees that I took, but rather by how he answered my questions. He emphasised the negative feelings he had for the Jewish community by facial expressions such as intense frowning and turning his head to the side, suggesting a profound disgust. However, as mentioned before, he also gave counterexamples of Jews that left him with a good impression, such as the Jews that value education, something that he subscribed to as well. Whenever he found common things with the Jews and managed to empathise with them, his face slightly lit up and came forward with his body, suggesting openness. A lot could be speculated judging from his rhetoric and body language, but generally he was sceptical and slightly aggressive when answering my questions.

The Jews had surprised me with their calm and neutral rhetoric. I had the initial misconception that they would talk violently about the Iron Guard and condemn their actions towards their minority, but I was soon taken aback by their civil manner of response. One of them was not educated about the topic, even though his grandmother was locked in a concentration camp in the 1940s by Marshal Antonescu, who had to deal with the Guard for a short period of time. Moreover, one Jewish girl said that she does not condemn people of fascist political orientation as everybody has the right to an opinion, something quite unexpected. Even the ones that were aware of how the Legion of Archangel Michael affected their late relatives were calm in giving their answers, having no particularly aggressive body language or tone, contrary to what I had expected prior to starting the interviews. It was surprising how little they seemed to be affected by something that might have cost their lives, should they have lived during the interwar period. They were open to detailedly discuss with me about their opinions on the movement and how their families had been affected by it. Opening up to me was an act that showed their strength and courage.

To conclude this section, there were significant disparities amongst the interview responses in terms of rhetoric and body language. While some respondents were neutral or calm in terms of how they answered, others were more aggressive. It can also be noted that the for-the-movement responses were delivered in a more violent manner than the ones submitted by the Jewish respondents.