Talk:Iron Guard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romania allows German troops to pass through to Poland[edit]

The first paragraph of the Sima's brief ascendancy section reads

"In the first months of World War II, Romania was officially neutral, but leaned heavily toward the Axis Powers, allowing the German troops to pass through on their way into Poland.".

I made a similar comment on Romania during World War II which contained a similar phrase, and it was fixed: if you take a look at a map of Europe it's pretty obvious that Germany needs no permission from Romania to find their way into Poland. --Gutza 14:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. You want to edit here in parallel fashion, or should I? --Jmabel 23:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I won't edit because the article goes on with "This political alignment was obviously favorable to the surviving legionnaires.", and continues based on these assumptions, so some of the continuation must be rewritten to accomodate the changes. --Gutza 17:02, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Gutza, I'd appreciate if you review my revised version. It's parallel to how we changed Romania during World War II. -- Jmabel 18:17, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I find your edit quite sensible and unbiased, as usual. Again, I'm aware it's a very, very late acknowledgement, but at least it is here, for whoever might want to check out my opinion in the future. Thank you! --Gutza 00:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just came across The Legion of Saint Michael the Archangel - it'd be nice if someone integrated that text into this article.IulianU 13:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just went and cleaned that up a little, but I think that any reasonable merger is going to have to be done by someone else. I feel dirty after handling the other article: e.g. "This success is granted to the deeply Christian message of the legionnaires." I'm going to stick an NPOV notice on it. There may be some decent content there, but I can't bring myself to work on it further. -- Jmabel 00:56, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

"royal dictator" vs. "absolute monarchy"[edit]

An anon recently changed my phrase "taking on the role of a royal dictator" to "re-establishing the absolute monarchy". I leave it to someone else to decide which is better wording. I had specifically avoided the term "absolute monarchy" because of its connotation of Divine Right, which he certainly was not claiming. I don't believe there was a change in the theory of sovereignty, just in the practice of rule. -- Jmabel|Talk 00:35, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, reverted. Yes, late, but not never. :-) --Gutza 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing style[edit]

These edits by Sam Spade are arguably defensible as NPOVing the article, but some of this feels to me like what I've come to think of as the "war on vivid writing" in Wikpedia; but I shouldn't make the judgment, because the writing in question is mine. I'd appreciate, though, if a third party would have a look and see what they think. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I largely agree with you. I'd add that, unless there is a significant group (preferably of scholars) arguing that the anti-semitism of the Iron Guard was not particularly virulent, it is not POV to say that they were virulently anti-semitic. john k 19:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John, would you please revert what you think is appropriate to revert? I suspect that, since Sam is no fool, some of his edits of me are likely to be correct, but I don't feel I should be the one to make that judgment. This is not a topic on which I am easily neutral. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Fatherland" or "Country"?[edit]

I realize that "Everything for the Country" is a more literal translation of "Totul pentru Ţară" than "Everything for the Fatherland", and is occasionally used in English, but I believe that "Everything for the Fatherland" is the more common English-language name, both then and now. At the very least, it deserves mention as a common English-language name. It is the name used by both Encarta [1] and Britannica [2]; interestingly, the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania refers [3] (PDF) to "Everything for the Motherland", which I'd never seen before. I'll leave one Romanian daytime (just beginning as I write) for someone else to comment before I edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmmm, the thing is that there are other mor elaborate synonims for Country (Tara) in Romanian like glie stramoseasca or the simple patrie which would be better suited for Fatherland. But taking acount the fascist context, I think it is more apporpriate to translate Totul pentru Tara as Everything for the Fatherland. --Orioane 08:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any case, this is now covered in an extensive footnote, indicating the different choices made by different translators. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In romanian it's „Totul pentru ţară“ wich means "Everything for the Country". Not motherland, not fatherland! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This has a cleanup tag on it, but no indication of what someone thinks is wrong with the article. I noticed, and fixed, a problem in the footnote mechanism. Was there anything else? If not, the tag should be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several observations about the historical accuracy[edit]

1) "The royal dictatorship was brief". This is not true: it lasted 2 years and 7 months. The previous Romanian governments were corrupt, but at least they were more or less democratic. Royal dictatorship, however, was a dictatorship in the full sence: many public and personal liberties were suppresed. In turn it provided the "moral" justification for the "National Legionary State" and the Antonescu regime, which were also dictatorships. No democratic parties participated in government since 1938. I think this point must be mentioned in the article, because it provides one of the reasons of Iron Guard's ascendancy in popular mind.

2) It must be mentioned that Iron Guard supported the Franco's uprising in Spain, while other political parties officially remained neutral

3) From the article it is not clear that the charismatic leadership, that was assasinated prior to 1940, was only declaratively anti-semitic, and that no actual pogroms occured prior to 1940-41. This however should not hinder to mention up and sound that Iron Guard members killed many Jews in 1940-41. This point is important to explain the way Iron Guard is persived nowadays in Romania

4) The most important shortcome of the article is in my oppinion: How did Iond Guard so suddenly switched in September 1940 from a persecuted organizetion to a party with 50% of givernment posts? It must be mentioned that in June and then in August 1940 King Carol II government agreed to ceed importsnt portioned of Romanian territory (about 1/3) to Soviet Union, Hungary, and Bulgaria due to Soviet ultimatum as result of Molotov-Ribbentrop parc and to the Vienna dictate of Germany and Italy. As a result, there was a general uprising in Romania. It was not organized, but spontaneous and popular. King Carol II had to abdicate (for the 4th time) and WAS FORMALLY FORBIDDEN TO ENTER ROMANIA EVER SINCE (September 1940). All political parties were dissolved at that time, and the only orginized forces which profited were the reminants of the Iron Guard, led by Horia Sima, and the military, led by Chief of General Stuff General Antonescu. In the first months the government was very popular!

5) "The Iron Guard have become infamous for their participation in the Holocaust. In The Destruction of the European Jews, Raul Hilberg writes, "There were... instances when the Germans actually had to step in to restrain and slow down the pace of the Romanian measures." The annihilation of the Jews of eastern Romania (including Bessarabia, Bucovina, Transnistria, and the city of Iaşi) had more the character of a pogrom than of the well-organized transports and camps of the Germans." Only the first sentance is correct. The events in June 1940 in Iasi, and the deportation of the Jews from Bassarabia, Bucovina and Botosani district to ghetos in Transnistria (which only 20% would survive) occured after Iron Guard was removed from power, and was largely performed by Gandarmery (militarised police). Rather then attributing wrong dids to Iron Guard it would be wise simply to mention that Iron Guard were the main ideological promoters of anti-semitism in Romania of 1930-40s, which is no small did. One should mention clearly that it was during the coup (the 3 days) of 1941 that about 400 Jews were killed (by Iron Guard) in Bucharest, Ploiesti and Iasi. One can also mention that like in other countries there were anti-semitic laws in Romania from 1920s: Jews were forbidden to occupy political posts, and practice some professions, such as Law. Iron Guard supported and achieved in 1940 harsher laws.

6) One can mention that Horia Sima lived in peace in Germany after WWII (he led (ideologically) several divisions of Romanians fighting on the Germany side even after and Romania switched sides in August 1940), and died in 1993 witnessing the fall of communism, unlike Cordeanu who died in 1938 without seeing the ascension of legionarism to power.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 30 July 2006.

1) I assume that we can agree that the royal dictatorship began after the dismissal of Octavian Goga on February 11, 1938 (and, by the way, if we want to talk undemocratic, it's not as if Goga's partly had much popular support). When you say "2 years and 7 months" I gather that you are saying that the country continued to be a royal dictatorship until Carol abdicated. I have never seen a historian characterize it that way; do you have a source that says so?
2) I have no idea whether any other Romanian party endorsed Franco's Nationalists. Do you have a source on the claim that none did?
3) "only declaratively anti-semitic"? One does not have to mass murder Jews to be more than "declaratively anti-semitic". By this standard, the Nazis themselves were only "declaratively anti-semitic" at least until Kristallnacht and arguably until the Wannsee Conference.
4) I have no comment on the popularity or otherwise of the National Legionary State (certainly they had ardent supporters; I would imagine that few of their opponents would have dared to show their opposition publicly, and it's not like we have a reliable opinion poll. If we want to go into the background of Carol's downfall, it seems to me that what happened was that Carol held out against Nazi encroachment and sought a Western and a Balkan alliance long enough to be viewed by Hitler as an enemy; finally, in stages, he bowed to the inevitable because Britain and France offered no meaningful support; he chose not to fight in the East because if he had, then Romania would have had a bloody defeat instead of a relatively bloodless one; Hitler conned him into thinking Romanian would get a fair shake at the Second Vienna arbitration, but basically treated him as a whipping boy from the moment he showed up; he went down in flames. There were several times along the way that the Iron Guard, at Hitler's behest, raised the ante of violence, most notably when Carol traveled to the UK and France seeking a Western alliance. (By the way, the Iron Guard tried to ambush Carol's train on the way out of the country.)
5) Yes, this does seem to conflate the Iron Guard with Romania in general during the war, probably inappropriately. There is a relationship, it needs to be stated, but the passage as it stands oversimplifies.
6) I don't know much about Simia postwar. Again, do you have sources on this?
I'd appreciate if some others would weigh in on this. I'm pretty knowledgable on this for an American, but I imagine that there are several people working on this page who know this history in far more detail than I do. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but i don`t know where t wright this... but i have to say that in Romania there waz NO holocaust. It is a official thing! Pliz search this fact, and find, that is a true thing. Thank you!{{subst:unsigned||18 August 2006}

With reference to this odd claim, I refer you to our article on the Wiesel Commission and especially to the Commission report itself, linked from that page. - Jmabel | Talk 00:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have to explain my last edit summary. I had not read the entire sentence, and I mistakenly thought that the edit in question was referring to the Iromn Guard's exile in Germany, and that someone had added (insttead of removed) "death" in front of "camps". Thus, I was under the impression that it was being implied that they were victims of the Nazis... Sorry, I'm quite tired and I've taken off my glasses... Dahn 03:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking through the context,I stand by my edit, as it was inadvertedly correct: I think the qualifier does apply to the German camps where Romanian Jews were sent. Dahn 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dahn, are you sure you don't want to re-read that? (I think either version is fine, but, yes, your original summary shows that you were misreading at the time.) - Jmabel | Talk 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand the article says On January 24, 1941 Antonescu successfully suppressed a Legion-inspired military coup, resulting in the Legion being forced out of a governing role and losing its government protection. So since they where not in power you should tell what kind of involvement had The Iron Guard in Bessarabia, Bukovina and Iasi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Just a remark[edit]

The Iron Guard Regime was in power since September 14, 1940 until January 21, 1941 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

German Army[edit]

The sentence "during the three-day civil war, eventually won by Antonescu with support from the German army" is not quite accurate, since it implies that the German troops contributed to the defeat of the Legionnaires' Rebellion. I quote from the Legionnaires' Rebellion and Bucharest Pogrom: "After the rebellion was suppressed, Antonescu addressed the public on the radio, telling them "the truth", but never mentioning the Pogrom. He asked the German garrison, which had sat idly by throughout the rebellion, to show their support. The German troops were sent marching through the streets of Bucharest, ending in front of the Prime Minister's building, where they cheered Antonescu."

Thank You[edit]

This article has helped me so much! I never understood why Mr. Eliade's works have offended me so much, even though he is "famous" and I am "supposed" to appreciate him. Also it explained a few things my mother told me. She used to say that the history teacher would have to use body language to tell the students when he was lying to them in school! She was born in 1944 in Romania. 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-Hungarian aspect[edit]

I added the term "anti-Hungarian" because of the anti-Hungarian component of the minority policy of the Iron Guard. Very often anti-Semitic actions went together with anti-Hungarian actions. (Very often a-S actions were considered as a-H actions and other way round.) Just one example: The meeting of the Legion in Oradea on December 5, 1927 in Oradea ended in a pogrom where many Jewish and Hungarian shops and restaurants where destroyed. I agree with Dahn that the Iron Guard was not "especially" anti-Hungarian, but is was also not especially anti-Semitic, not especially religious, etc. I would agree if we could find another solution to mention the anti-Hungarian aspect.


It was actually both especially antisemitic and religious. One would have to rate it being anti-Hungarian as an aspect of it being nationalist, whereas antisemitism and claim to Christian inspiration set it apart among the nationalist standard of the day (and, of the two, the latter made it diverge from other Romanian chauvinist movements). To my knowledge, the Iron Guard did not have an explicit goal of attacking Hungarians in Romania, and Codreanu was cool but respectful toward Hungarian fascists. Nagy-Talavera, who was both Hungarian and Jewish, made a note of this in his book, and there are, to my knowledge, few commentators that even bother to comment on the supposed trait. It being anti-Hungarian, is, basically, equivalent to it being anti-Ukrainian or anti-Bulgarian, and is arguably less important than it being anti-Romani (it was the Iron Guard government who first legislated anti-Ziganism) or anti-Catholic. In my view, such attitudes it had should be detailed a bit lower in the text - the article as it is deserves a makeover and much more sources, but that is likely to be a consuming task. Dahn 23:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I said... it was both anti-Semitic and religious, but also anti-minority and not "especially" one of them... The ideology was quite a mixture and changed from region to region - of course members and sympathizers were less anti-Hungarian in Bucharest than in other parts of Romania with a bigger Hungarian population. I think mostly it was anti-Semitic, just think about the slaughterhouse incident. There were no such cruel actions against other minorities, although especially Hungarians as the biggest minority, but also Armenians, Greeks and other minorities had to stand discrimination. The question is the influence of the Iron Guard on the Romanian policy in those days, which changed rapidly as we know. Also many political opinions are symptomatic of the whole era. Many incidents against Hungarian civil population happened after the fall of the Iron Guard, but especially in Transsylvania some "terrorist groups" were still considered as parts of the Iron Guard. Between 1927 and 1940 people from Hungarian origin disappeared, were killed or beaten up, pogroms as the one I mentioned took place in different parts of the country. I have the sources. The Iron Guard being anti-Hungarian especially in Transsylvania is not equivalent to it being anti-Ukrainian or anti-Bulgarian. About Codreanu and the Hungarian fascists: Don't forget that he died in 1938. Hungarian fascists were imprisoned then, they became important in the 40ies. Codreanus attitude towards the Hungarian fascists - who lived outside Romania and had an Armenian leader (as an Armenian I am not proud of it) - doesn't really matter in this question. The anti-Ziganism is also very, very important, I agree with you... I think both have the same, but a different kind of importance. Anti-Magyarism has its roots in the "fear of a young nation" (you surely agree that the Transsylvanian Question is the crux of Romanian history). The Iron Guard government legislated anti-Ziganism, because there was nothing more left to do for them... Practically anti-Hungarian laws were already legislated in the 20ies (for example the Citizenship acts in 1924, local acts concerning cultural, educational topics as well as the language usage); Armenians, Jews and Greeks got their special discrimination acts also from the Iron Guard in 1940. There is too much to discuss and some information is not available of course. Here is my suggestion: I will write a new part about the minority policy of the Legion, skip "anti-Hungarian" and write an additional sentence in the introduction about the anti-minority attitude. I will try to get some proofed information about the Zigan topic as well.


PS: Again, the Iron Guard was not only anti-Catholic in religious matters...


Because the ==References== were attached one year later than the original page and weren't posted by its author. In was attached by Morning star on 13:08, 3 September 2005. No Verifiability. Original research prezumption.Because the ==References== were attached an year later than the original page and weren't posted by its author. No Verifiability. Original research prezumption.



Because the ==References== were attached one year later than the original page and weren't posted by its author. In was attached by Morning star on 13:08, 3 September 2005. No Verifiability. Original research prezumption.


Originally as an IP i noticed a template of wikiproject:judaism on the hugo Chavez talk page, I thought it should be removed because the POV of Chavez being anisemitic was highly contentious, and it was no defining moment in his policy. After putting my point on the prokect's talkpage they told me that wikiproject Judaism does not deal with anti-semitism except in very specific issues. They said that it was probably a bot of sorts that had been going around adding the templates. Therefore if wikiproject Judaism does not deal with antisemitism, its tempalte should probably not be here (I admit not to reading the whole article, there could be something specifically project related). I therefore propose removing the template, but its up to you guys, its merely a matter of what should be here and what should not, NOTE: I am not at all against the fact that the Iron Guard was anti-semitic, but wikiproject Judaism states it dosent deal with with anti-semitism.R.G.P.A (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Either way is fine by me. Dahn (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I told them on their page, its up to them whether they want it, but just seemed a bit against the projects policy.R.G.P.A (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iron Guard & Holocaust Involvement[edit]

would someone please change the section in which the Iron Guard is blamed for atrocities commited 6 months after they were removed from power and when most members were either exiled or imprisoned? I tried to change it but someone reverted my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but we do not have enough evidence to show how evil they really were, so we have to write something... They were all in labour camps at that time, but if they were free for sure they would have participated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It clearly breaks any fair understanding of the point of view to be maintained by Wikipedia to attribute atrocities to the Iron Guard to make people think they were more evil than they really were. (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)GenktarovReply[reply]

Iron Guard & Holocaust Involvement: some lies[edit]

My contribution is about the sentence (quoted from the main article): << Particularly gruesome was the murder of dozens of Jewish civilians in the Bucharest slaughterhouse. After the victims were killed, the perpetrators hung the bodies from meat hooks and mutilated them in a vicious parody of kosher slaughtering practices >>.

Several articles written by romanian historians are proving with original documents that the "celebrated" massacre of the Bucharest's slaughterhouse is a fake. Since there are documents (see short bibliography below) proving the fake, I demand to the contributors to erase the sentence (quoted above) from the article.

Briefly, about the facts: Act I: (1941) The Ion Antonescu's regime was decided to put discredit onto the legionnaries, thus some fake photos have been made by the Siguranta Statului, and all the collective protests of the workers from the slaughterhouse have been passed under silence. Act II: (1947), the pro-soviet communist regime begun in Romania a series of trials in order to punish the war (or civil war) criminals. In one of this trials, the former chief of Bucarest slaughterhouse, Dr. Aurel Naghel, was accused precisely in connection with the facts exposed in the wiki's article. All the people being employees of the slaughterhouse in 1941 have been interrogated and all of them (about 40 people) have signed a testimony in which they declared that that there was no incident of this type in the slaughterhouse. There was no evidence about the names of the potential victims nor about what the corps became, etc. The trial finished with a no pursuite issue, since there were no proofs in order to accuse people. Not because the accused people were the wrong ones, but because the FACT (the crime) was wrong. The documents of this trial can be consulted, and the scan of the declaration of the employees even circulated on internet. Among the sources:

"Express Magazin" Nr. 87, 25 March 1992,

Răzvan Codrescu, În căutarea Legiunii pierdute, pag. 15

Radu Theodoru, A fost sau nu HOLOCAUST?, Editura Lucman, Bucureşti, 2003, pag. 198-212.

PS: I tried to be clear and precise, and to enumerate FACTS that the contributors to the article may not know, but they have the duty to take them into account. Since this is NOT a blog page, I ask to the contributor Dahn, what is the relevance (for the topic : "Iron Guard") of the discussion (see above) called "Thank You" (user:, 15:03, 18 July 2007). I think that if some rules have to be respected for some people, then ALL people have to obey it.

PisikaA (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was the Iron Guard Christian Socialist?[edit]

There are at least some arguments for the label christian socialist to apply to the iron guard. Their own literature talks about their socialism as much as their nationalsim (see: ) and definitely all within a christian context. So why aren't we including them under the christian socialist category as well as the national socialist category. As is already well remarked, they don't neatly fit in a number of ways. TMLutas (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serious issue of biased writing[edit]

The following is in the article, with no citation whatsoever:

Romanian antisemitism had deep roots and was generally accepted, as it was a religious conception in which Christians and Jews were very different and should live independent to each other, not interfering and not abusing each other. The internal situation was favouring the Jews, as they were in direct charge of Romanian press, politics and public life. As the First World War ended, the Jews turned to pro-communism, an attitude strongly condemned by the population, as the Soviet Union was growing more and more aggressive.

Essentially, this states, as fact, in the article's narrative voice, a right-wing antisemitic view of the matter. - Jmabel | Talk 04:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That passage now removed, after I mentioned this at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous); I just now posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania, requesting further attention to this article. (I would have posted there rather than VP if I had been aware that the WikiProject is significantly active.) - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation number 14[edit]

The adjective "sterilitate" is feminine, not masculine as stated in the citation.

Source: (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Iron Guard and gender?[edit]

I'm not sure that this section is needed. It's longer than the Iron Guard Ideology section which seems more important. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs would fit neatly into the ideology part in act. As far as I'm aware the Iron Guard aren't famous, or infamous, for their views on gender so... Perhaps removing this section and the bits that are relevant to ideology moved to that section? Thoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iron Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2604:2d80:e685:4400:257c:5f7:16d3:1dfa's restructuring[edit]

Was this really needed? The new sidebar is of considerably lower quality, and is lacking even an image. Has anyone else noticed this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Behr's claim of non-agression pact[edit]

Per Ciobanu, "Repression, Resistance, and Collaboration in Stalinist Romania 1944-1964", some of the active anti-communist resistance was associated with the Iron Guard:

Among these were the group lead by Ogoranu and the group called Cross and Sword led by Iron Guard member Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Marasesti


So I am not a historian, but Behr's claim probably needs to be balanced with this information. It is apparent there were active Iron Guard members in the anti-communist resistance.

Category: Political parties with anti-hungarian sentiment?[edit]

A while ago I brought this up on Talk:Anti-Hungarian_sentiment, but Anti-Hungarian sentiment doesn't actually exist, outside of the the usual xenophobia that inevitably comes with nationalism, in countries with a notable hungarian minority. The concept of "Anti-hungarian sentiment" is really just a conflation of this type of general xenophobia, with criticism of the Orban regime and legitimate historical greivances against Austria-Hungary to weave a persecution narrative that acts as a cornerstone of of hungarian right wing irredentist propaganda. Not only that, but the body of the article doesn't support this classification, as the only mention of hungarian in the entire article are references to fascism in both Romania and Hungary, which leads me to believe that this is an artifact of an older version of thew article, that some people tried to shoehorn mentions of Anti-hungarian sentiment into, alongside antisemitism. (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an interesting claim and I find myself sympathetic to it. Could you provide some sourcing on it? Is there academic discourse about anti hungarian sentiment, and whether or not it actually exists? Carlp941 (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Everything for the Country" as a name[edit]

I am having trouble reaching some of the sources for this, so I'm going to try to access them in other ways. If I don't find anything, I'm going to change the infobox name to something that has a source - like "Iron Guard" Carlp941 (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was able to access the sources! Leaving as is. Carlp941 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]