8. Jewish experience in Romania
As I have covered the Iron Guard in this paper, this chapter is focused on contemporary antisemitism in Romania, seen through the lenses of the interviewees, put into perspective with antisemitism in interwar Romania, detailedly described in the Historical Context of the paper. I believe it essential not only to look at the past, but also consider a comparative analysis between the present situation in Romania versus how it was around 100 years ago. An interesting fact was that each interviewee believes that antisemitism nowadays in their country is different from how it was in the interwar period, given what they have learnt from various sources, in a positive way. They were convinced that no ethnic-based violence is any longer taking place, comparatively to the period when the Iron Guard ‘ruled’. Moreover, the vast majority agreed upon the fact that antisemitism in Romania is much more tame than it was back then, one 17-year-old being convinced that Romania has undergone development and was more open and educated, therefore planned ethnic-based violence similar to the actions of the Iron Guard are not possible to repeat themselves. In order to have a more organised approach to the explanations related to the Jewish experience in Romania, we shall divide it into two sections: the Jewish and non-Jewish perspective, which are of equal importance on the matter. While the non-Jewish perspective can give a more objective perception of antisemitism, the Jewish interviewees provide a raw and personal account of their own experiences with ethnic-based hate.
Firstly, the non-Jewish perspective is meticulously varied. Some of them point out to the political sphere, particularly in a context when far-right political parties are drawing attention in Europe, Romania following the trend. They believe that one of these Romanian parties promotes hate speech, targeting specific minorities (not including Jews, according to them), but they can be a threat. An interviewee even described it as ‘a more modern and tame version of the Legion’. Even though antisemitism seems to be declining, some respondents told me that Jews still have it difficult, one girl in particular even pointing out that she noticed the jealousy and hatred towards the Jewish minority in her school. This hatred can be manifesting in various ways, some of which including stereotypes, verbal aggression and slurs ‘from time to time’. The same girl told me about the stereotype according to which Jews are inherently wealthy. An 18-year-old respondee explained that there are still various conspiracy theories related to the Jewish community, however they are more tame and are no longer blamed for societal problems, due to the fact that there are few Jews left in Romania. A 16-year-old pointed out the fact that Romania is making great progress in combating antisemitism, although its complete abolishment is not feasible, as opinions on minorities have always been mixed. She said that the new generation is emerging and that it is a clear difference (positively speaking). Another respondee mentioned online antisemitism, as, according to her, the spread of conspiracy theories is much easier through this medium than in real life, pointing that nowadays antisemitism is related to ideology, marginalisation and the public’s perception of contemporary Jews, a point further by another respondee who noticed a general hatred towards Judaism online. ‘Antisemitism is nowadays disguised as a conservatory and nationalist ideology, which is just an excuse.’ A 15-year-old explained to me about the swastikas painted with graffiti on the walls of buildings that are publicly known to be inhabited by Jewish families, something that she was deeply outraged by. An elderly explained that the hate towards this minority is hereditary as the Legion of Archangel Michael is part of our recent history, but in a tamer manner. It is compulsory to mention the fact that some interviewees noticed a rise in hatred online towards Jews in the context of the ongoing war in Gaza. To add up, four interviewees argued that antisemitism is no longer present today in Romania and that there are no biases against this minority anymore.
Secondly, the Jewish perspective was somewhat similar to the ethnic Romanian one in terms of online hate and political parties, but was more personal. A 17-year-old mentioned the same far-right political party as the other respondents did, mentioning that he never felt threatened by it in particular, rather by its problematic voters, and that we have a tendency to ‘borrow’ things from the Iron Guard and add them to our contemporary political parties. He felt that, alongside slurs and conspiracy theories, the negation of the existence of the Holocaust and the theory of ‘the lack of loyalty of the Jewish-Romanian’ were present online. A 16-year-old made a similar point to another respondent, that of the 18-year-old who said that there were too few Jews left to suffer because of antisemitism in Romania. To them, antisemitism seems more verbal than actional. A 19-year-old female gave a more detailed account of her view of contemporary antisemitism, saying that she is affected by it on social media and tries to log off the networks as much as possible, that she is sometimes afraid to walk on the street with her wearing her Star of David (symbol of Judaism) necklace on sight and that she hears stereotypical jokes related to money and bombs. In spite of all this, she believes that Romania has taken steps to combat this problem and things have changed for the better, particularly because the state officially supports Israel. A younger respondent shared with me two personal experiences with antisemitism. The first was that a group of his acquaintances sent him pictures with swastikas and the symbol of the Iron Guard, to show their support for the movement, with the mention that the Iron Guard is the best solution to the Jewish problem and that the Bucharest pogrom, described in the Historical Context, was a great thing. He felt terrible and was convinced that he could do nothing to change their stance. To add up, he told me that he got a random call from someone, threatening to kill him, saying that the Holocaust was a good thing and that he deserves to die. This is testimony to the fact that antisemitism is still a thing in Romania today.
According to these interviews, it can be said that Romania has undergone significant development in the past years, no ethnic-based violence being targeted at Jews anymore. However, according to the testimony of Jewish teenagers, Romania needs even more progress, as antisemitism is far from being abolished completely. It is crucial to make a parallel between the past and the present, in order to understand this complex issue from various perspectives.
In their interviewees, the Jewish teenagers told me briefly about their family during the interwar period and during World War II in Romania. Two of the Jews interviewed had a late member of their family jailed in a concentration camp, the grandparents of an interviewee were cut off from their access to education (from one day on they could not attend school anymore) and the great-grandfather of another was shot in a northern city in Romania in a pogrom, following the fall of the Legionary Movement. An interviewee was generous enough to send pictures of some papers that prove the fact that her uncle was jailed in a concentration camp in 1942, during the time of Marshal Antonescu (who was related to the Legionary Movement):
This paper describes the fact that her uncle was sentenced to forced labour, which consisted of removing snow, between 5th and 10th of February 1942.
Left to right: 1. ‘The military status of the Jews’, 2. a piece of paper with a law proposing the property of all Jews to go to the state so as to not have any control over real estate (28 March 1941), 3. (top) ‘The Jews that do not complete their compulsory work will be sent to Transnistria’ (an ex-region of north-eastern Romania), 4. (bottom) a notice regarding the conditions of compulsory work for the Jews (1941), 5. another notice regarding compulsory work and another regarding the Jewish employers (1941).
A copy of the first paper.
These papers are testimony to the reality of those who suffered because of antisemitism. Most of them were not sentenced during the Legion’s time, rather after it fell. It is important to understand, however, that the legionaries set the state for what was to come. The story of the man whose name is written on these papers is, according to my interviewee, tragic. At the age of 17, he was sentenced to hard labour for 2 or 3 years, humiliated and beaten up regularly to the point where he developed serious kidney problems. He would often write to his partner from the concentration camp, narrating his profoundly painful experience. He managed to survive the camp and was determined to finish highschool and get a job. The problems that he had due to his experience in the concentration camp followed him his whole life, dying from complications associated with his kidney disease later. This is just one of the many stories of the people that were affected by the antisemitism of interwar and World War II Romania. It is a complex narrative that cannot be described solely in a paper. In spite of the fact that there is a clear improvement in terms of the abolishment of antisemitism, it is also crucial to remember our past, which is dotted with cruelty against the Jewish minority, in the case of Romania and many other European countries.
To conclude this chapter, there is definitely a difference between opinions on this matter. While some argue that antisemitism is no longer a thing in Romania, others stand for the fact that there is still antisemitism today. One thing was certain: all respondents agree that the situation has improved significantly from interwar Romania up until now. The narrative of the Jewish respondents provides an important insight on how they experience this form of discrimination. It has also been put in balance with the past, which is more acutely described in the Historical Context chapter.
9. Education
It is crucial to discuss in detail not only the opinions of the interviewees, but to also highlight the solutions that they came up with (to combating antisemitism and preventing ethnic-based violence), which put into perspective the reality that each respondent wants to live in. As the previous section included the present, we shall now consider the future. An interesting fact was that education was proposed by the vast majority of the interviewees (24 out of 30), but each respondent had a different approach to the same solution, which will be nuanced in this chapter. Moreover, more radical solutions to the problem were proposed, but were a minority.
To begin with, two respondents preferred an informative campaign on antisemitism to education as a school subject. They insisted on presenting unbiased facts about the Iron Guard and the Romanian Holocaust: ‘the reality to be told, whether some might agree with it or not’, on TV or through other communication channels. What I found particularly interesting about the responses to the question of ‘What solutions would you give in order to prevent such events from happening again?’ (referring to the Romanian Holocaust) was that numerous interviewees, who were highschool students, expressed their support for the recent introduction of the History of the Holocaust as a mandatory subject as part of the school curriculum. Many learnt about the Legion of Archangel Michael, Antonescu and other important figures in this sense from these history lessons, something already mentioned and discussed in chapter 5. As many respondents learnt about the Legionary Movement from school, evidence is provided that this solution may be effective in combating antisemitic rhetoric. Hence, the most popular response was for students to be educated on the topic in school, as part of the curriculum. It is important to note that there was also diversity in the perception of this type of education in terms of student age. While some suggested that it should be made starting from kindergarten, others think that it’s imperative for it to be taught in highschool as the youngsters will be able to understand the Iron Guard and contemporary antisemitism better. For the sake of a deeper comprehension of the answers, we shall divide the responses in two categories: teaching at school and teaching at home.
The responses regarding in-school education differ from opinion to opinion, some arguing that they would not pay attention if the subject is to be taught in school, while others arguing for this implementation, if it were to be taught in a certain manner. I shall mention and explain each of the suggestions made by the interviewees. To begin with, the aforementioned 19-year-old that educated others on the topic of antisemitism used materials (Youtube videos, social media posts) in order to engage others in the conversation. She believes that visual support (from trustable and verified sources) is key when explaining something, in order to keep the audience engaged. While some preferred being taught unbiased facts to judge the movement and other related information for themselves, others preferred teaching in a social entrepreneurship manner (so as to know that intolerance is wrong, to encourage diversity etc.). The ones that opted for the social entrepreneurship manner justified their answer through the importance of understanding why antisemitism is wrong, particularly from a young age. This type of respondents introduced the idea of teaching youngsters our similarities, not our discrepancies, so as to encourage unity, which can also be endorsed through educating little children not to be overcompetitive, but rather united. Also, the idea that hating minorities is wrong should be insufflated amongst the youth, so as to prevent discrimination, because learning these things from a young age would transform one into a more open-minded adult. Other ways through which discrimination (towards minorities in general: Jews, Roma people etc.) can be prevented is through encouraging diversity projects at school, condemning contemporary xenophobia and teaching human rights, equality and tolerance. An alternative, for example, is for the subject to be optional (an alternative suggested by someone who said that they would not pay attention to the subject if it were to be taught in school). These respondents were abundant in their answers, giving various arguments and solutions to the issues that they considered pressing, suggesting that a part of the Romanian youth and adulthood is motivated to transform the country into a more educated and tolerant one, values considered by them as elementary.
The second category is the one regarding teaching at home. Numerous respondents knew about the movement from a parent/relative that was interested in the subject or thought that it was crucial to educate their family on it, too. Some of these respondents argued that it is imperative to encourage adults to educate their children on acceptance and tolerance towards minorities, just like the respondents who proposed in-school teaching on the topic of antisemitism. Another argument for the solution’s importance was that kids usually pick up the values that their close family have, thus tolerance and kindness can be perceived as meaningful by the child from a young age, which would definitely combat antisemitism in the future (according to the respondents). This was suggested to be done by presenting unbiased facts. A 67-year-old reflected on the fact that children nowadays have less respect for those around them than during her own childhood in her view, illustrating the importance of value enforcement. This category was not as broad in answer as the previous one, as this solution is more difficult to be implemented and explained. As efficient as these solutions might seem at first glance, an explanation about how this is supposed to be done is lacking. It is not clear whether there should be campaigns or other types of informative content that should encourage adults to teach their children on discrimination.
Evidently, according to some interviewees, self-documentation should be a priority. After self-documentation, one is enabled to teach others on the topic, just like the 19-year-old girl actively does. Another interesting point raised regarding self-documentation is thoroughly researching political parties, particularly during elections. Especially during electoral years, parties may have a tendency to hide certain characteristics, which may not be of particular appealance to the voters, especially extremism. Thus, according to one interviewee, it is important to document yourself on the candidate parties, so as to prevent supporting far-right parties to gain political power, which would be a negative scenario in her view. In our digitised era, information can be accessed as easily as ever. However, it is imperative that we seek this information from trustable sources, which provide objective information. Moreover, one 43-year-old interviewee suggested that ‘non-extremist parties should spread awareness about the extremist nature of their political opposition’. The question of how people should be motivated to educate themselves in general on diverse topics has not been tackled by the interviewees, but rather the importance of doing it.
Other solutions mentioned was a vague idea to start dialogue on the topic, so as for it to be discussed amongst the youth, but not in an academic way. Further comments were not made on this answer. Another included the legislation: more firm and detailed laws to be implemented, especially when it comes to delicate topics such as discrimination, so that there is less room for interpretation and more for enforcement. The same interviewee also added that any extremist party, of any political orientation, that would threaten the existence of Romanian democracy, should be abolished. This brings into question the thin line between traditionalism and extremism, a problematic topic to standardise, as a distinction between regular parties and ‘democracy-threatening’ ones is vital. Similarly, another person mentioned that we should aim for a moderate party, instead of an extremist one.
More radical solutions included a revolt against future antisemitic parties, should they gain political power, so as for the common man to show his concerns and disagreement, and the eradication of religions in general, perceived by the interviewee to be the starting point of discrimination and the ‘indoctrination of the fool’, a solution that was vague and gave no details regarding how the eradication should be done.
To conclude this chapter, a variety of solutions proposed can be clearly identified. A common pattern was that each solution that was given by a respondent was strongly correlated to their own perception of reality. For instance, an interviewee that learnt from the movement from school was more likely to give in-school teaching as a solution. Moreover, each one had a different perception of the ‘problem’ (the discrimination), in accordance with their inner representation of the world, and gave answers in regard to it. To illustrate this point, three respondents had answers related to diminishing the political power of extremist parties, suggesting that they perceived extremism as a threat, a view shaped by personal experiences. While the most popular answers included education through various methods, there were also solutions in regard to the legislation and the government.
10. Conclusion
The Legion of Archangel Michael was a movement in interwar Romania and WWII that has changed the collective mindset of the Romanian people profoundly. Through the former leader’s (Corneliu Zelea Codreanu) charisma and determination to revive the traditional Romanian ideals, which many of his followers have considered long lost, the thinking of many was moulded into holding antisemitic views, which were already rooted in the minds of some Romanians. While the movement has done good deeds in the sense that they created opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, the economic and social context of the country in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s has led to violent extremism, the passing antisemitic laws (the expropriation of Jews, limiting their access to education) and a spiral of violence which unfolded on the streets of numerous important cities in Romania, beating and murdering many Romanian Jews. The legionaries contributed to the promotion of antisemitic views amongst the Romanian people, describing the discrimination in messianic terms and trying to embed tradition with extremism, a line which is difficult to draw. The 30 interviewees had varied stances and opinions on the topic, each coming up with arguments for their answers. While the against-the-movement respondents mostly based their arguments on morality, the for-the-movement were either uninformed, embraced the traditionality that the movement endorsed or had a negative personal experience with a Jew that impacted their opinion. Moreover, there has been an impressively high number of teenagers and young adults who were informed on the topic and considered it of significant importance. The means through which they found out about the movement were varied, from school, from a family member, from a book or from the media. A correlation between the opinions and age/gender/ethnicity has not been found. An interesting notice is that some young people nowadays debate on the Legionary Movement or other related topics, such as antisemitism. The rhetoric of the answers varies quite significantly, while the Jews and against-the-movement interviewees illustrated their points calmly, the for-the-movement interviewees tended to be rather aggressive.
Regarding the differences between contemporary antisemitism and interwar antisemitism was quite drastic, according to all of the interviewees. While the state has undergone notable development (there is no ethnic-based violence anymore), some believe that it still has a long way to go, a point proven by the narrative of the Jewish respondents, who shared with me their own account regarding antisemitism. When asked to come up with solutions in order to change the situation for the better, most respondents answered ‘education’, detailing their responses differently. While some considered that parents should be encouraged to teach their children about discrimination, others thought that it should be a compulsory subject at school. Another interesting solution proposed was that of educating one on political parties before election, so as to prevent extremist parties from gaining political power. A more radical approach was to abolish religions altogether.
The research question behind the study ‘how has the Iron Guard shaped the collective mindset regarding Jews in interwar Romania and how can it still influence Romania today?’ was answered through how the interviewers expressed their opinions regarding the Iron Guard and about contemporary and interwar antisemitism in Romania. I addressed the question from various points of view, presenting a comprehensive analysis of each response, contextualising each opinion. While the introduction and methodology presented my hypothesis and documentation, the other sections highlighted the motives behind the opinions of the respondents and proposed solutions.
The scope of the study was to shed light on the far-right political party the Legion of Archangel Michael from an unbiased point of view, while also highlighting the diverse nature of opinions and point of view on this complex subject. The stigmatisation around this topic that has lessened from the past few years is harmful, as the young generation ought to be educated on the matter, so as to become more open-minded to those of different backgrounds and also be aware of their history.
Comentarios