Abstract
Reviewed by: Cosmin Koszor Codrea, Oxford Brookes University, UK
The highly problematic debate on interwar fascist activism is reflected in Roland Clark’s study of the Romanian organization the Legion of the Archangel Michael, which he describes as ‘one of the largest and most enduring fascist movements in interwar Europe’ (4). The book provides a much needed in-depth analysis derived from numerous sources, from oral history to periodicals and the unexplored archival materials of Securitate. Although the specialized historiography concerned with the nature and ideology of the Legionary Movement has been covered by various scholars, Clark does not choose to go with the flow; instead the author embraces the framework of Alltagsgeschichte or the ‘history of everyday life’ (6), analyzing in eight chapters the way in which the practice of fascist activism changed the life of its supporters.
Reflecting on the anti-Semitic ideas that were flourishing with the aid of Orthodox clergy, printed propaganda and Romanian intellectuals, the volume identifies the roots of ultranationalism in nineteenth-century nationalism, which ‘later entered in the institutional discourse through schools and universities’ (19). After World War I, national and transnational organizations such as the Blood Brotherhood (Frăţia de Cruce), the Antisemitic League (Liga Antisemită), the Guard of the National Conscience (Garda Conştiinţei Naţionale), and the Italian Romanian National Fascist Movement (Movimento nazionale fascista italo-rumeno) promoted their anti-Semitic ideas in the violent form of the National Christian Defence League founded in 1923 (Liga Apărării Naţional Creştine; LANC). LANC was then the ‘organizational face of ultranationalism’ (63) until the schism of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, who founded the Legion of the Archangel Michael in 1927.
In tracing the organizational structure of the Legionary Movement, Clark argues that support for the cause was received from different social groups: from students to peasants, from workers and tradesman to members of the clergy. All were recruited to join in ‘nests’ (cuiburi) with a specific dress code, fascist symbols and sacrificial rituals. The book reveals that, besides self-discipline, oath taking and building work camps, the ones who flew from the Legion’s nest or abandoned the movement were sanctioned by the ‘Legionary Court’ (119). In order to secure justice within the political system, the Iron Guard (Garda de Fier) paramilitary faction was born in 1930. Soon after its birth, several political assassinations, trials and street violence became part of its agenda. Understanding the power of the printed word, the movement managed to earn respect from leading intellectuals who contributed and promoted their ideas through lectures and cultural evenings (131).
Despite the fact that, at the beginning, the legionaries did not proclaim themselves to be a political party, the author argues that ‘together with the help of public sympathy’ gained in work camps and the human sacrifice of the Spanish Civil War (210), the legionaries managed to score a political success in the 1937 elections. In addition, Clark’s work acknowledges that in the long run of the movement, the legionaries ‘frequently portrayed themselves as victims of Jewish violence’ (246), and in the same way, ‘violence was important for legionaries because it established them as enemies of an illegitimate government’ (247). Subsequently, becoming a member of the Legion did ‘not involve taking a new self, just a new life’, which suggests that ‘the archetypal legionary was apparently born, not made’ (252).
Although the work highlights some interesting ideas for future research within the field of fascist activism in Romania, Clark’s book mentions only some of the aspects concerned with the contact between the Legionaries and the supporters of communism and antifascism. Also, in focusing on the ‘practical activity’ of the organization, the book has the effect of eclipsing their ideology and their convictions, which gives the false impression that the members of the Iron Guard were peaceful and pragmatic. Indeed, state violence against the Legionaries did change the self- and popular perception of the movement; however, only some aspects are mentioned when it comes to violent acts against the Jewish community (220) before and after the birth of the National Legionary State in 1940 (223) and the major pogrom in Iasi (234). Another issue that could have been given more attention is the role of the charismatic leader, which can be traced in the legionary hymns, propaganda and sacrifice rituals.
Nevertheless, Clark’s work on Holy Legionary Youth is a major contribution to the understanding of the history of fascist activism in interwar Romania. It pays great attention to the primary sources, especially archival material, and brings a new dimension to reading the legionary movement through the lenses of their ‘ordinary life’.