Romanian Legionary Movement

well hating a ethinc group is not new. i agree that nowadays the legionair movement in romania is made up of unemployed drunkards who blame the others for their unadequacies.

it is unfortunate, we would have really needed a oposition pole to counterbalalnce the growing influence of assholes that make money out of manele, if you know what i mean.

too bad indeed there is no political, and i mean truly political, not a bunch a losers that want to imitate Hitler or whoever, that can form the basis of a efficient government. and i do not mean here nationalistic crap, we had enough of that. nationalism works for great countries, not for countries like romania.

I agree. And I take back saying those quotes are "filth", cause maybe somebody will be offended. I'd rather say they are part of history, but in my opinion they are outdated and simply "o porcarie".
I have nothing against them per se (they are part of another dimension and their contemporaries are agreeing or disagreeing with them as we speak, so let them sort it out, which it seems they did) but I agree that the "revival" movements are pretty kitsch and have no political value.

The Legion wasn't formed in 1923, but Codreanu was a member of the LANC and had some followers there.

I don't think it's fair t ogeneralize and say that the Jews in Romania proved their hostility towards Romanians during the occupation in 1916-18. There were also many Romanian collaborators and traitors. There were Jewish soldiers and officers that in the Romanian army and many Jewish doctors, of whom some died, struggled with the epidemic in early 1917. I believe Cofreanu's "problem" wasn't with these Jews, but those that were not yet Romanian citizens: those in Bessarabia and Bukovina and the refugees from Russia. These certainly can't be blamed of collaboration with the Germans, simply because they weren't in Walachia in 1916-18.

Victor,

Not all Jews are angels and not all Legionnary members are devils. There are always bad apples in every sides in conflicts.

Legionnary Movements had its own wrongs but the fundamental teachings of it were primarily rested on Romanian patriotism and nationalism.

It might be Codreanu perceived that the Jews in Romania primarily see themselves as Jewish first than as Romanian first. Codreanu wanted Romania for Romanians and he was strongly disapproved of non-Romanians living in Romania.

It was this threat that was perceived by Codreanu which made the Jews were primarily targeted and it was that atmopshere during the early 20s in Europe

Nationalism and evil are very closely related in my book.

But maybe someone can point me toward *anything* good coming out of nationalism during the 20th century. That is : as a worthy counterbalance for the tens (if not hundreds) of millions of deads..

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on May 11, 2005 01:37 pm

Americans are nationalists: they are far ahead in this than eastern/comunists from past; they use more propaganda than comunists - "american way", "american dream", "american flag", etc. I want to say just: they are the only nation who obtained "good" from theyr nationalism - because USA is a dream for the rest of the world, they are the most powerful nation from Earth... For americans is good.
I'm right Chandernagore?

Iama

The difference between the US "nationalism" and other petty nationalisms is that the first is not conditioned in its internal development and external geopolitics by the ethnic factor, while the latter is and almost always on a small, fragmentary way.
Also, US "nationalism" serves more an idea than a national/ethnic faction.
This gives the US a lot of leverage to foment petty nationalisms and hinder the formation or encourage the dissolution of other political federations.

IMO

Yes, you are right! But, the result is: USA nationalism - whatever is behind of this word, in this case - had obtained "good". Good results. And is the only country who obtained that.

Iama

Things are far more complex than I wrote previously, or than we can ever write here, concerning the US.
However, in my opinion the Legionary movement brought nothing useful. The fact that its ideas did not attach themselves to the romanian ethos proves that they were alien and had nothing to do with romanian patriotism or nationalism in the long run (the only way these ideas prove their worth). In the short run the Legionary movement was a reaction to the antisemite ideas and to the presence of increasing numbers of jews in Romania. Today, when there are no more or very small numbers of jews the movement is asleep or chases its "enemies" across the globe to Palestine. Whats that got to do with Romania?
Anyways, the test of history is relevant. And compared to other ideas, the legionary one failed.

You are of course entitled to your opinion Iama and I cannot pretend that mine is the absolute thruth. But, to put it shortly : maybe the US is a dream for some as it was for western Europe not so long ago. Today however I fear there are much more things for me to dislike in the US than to like. I enjoy visiting the US, it's a wonderfull country with many wonderfull people. In their current state of social and political development however, I wouldn't want to live there unless the alternative is Baghdad or Mogadiccio

What good has come out of the US, I don't believe is due to nationalism. Imperialist is right and I should have been more precise. There are substantial differences between European and American nationalism. The European blend has proven far worse.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on May 12, 2005 08:22 am

Doesn't Romania owe its existence as an independent state to nationalism? (Possibly broadly defined, but still to a sense of Romanians as being a distinct people and culture, deserving of self-determination.)

I will try to not get pulled in to the debate about American nationalism. In my opinion, in the US it has had some positive impacts and some negative (both for the US and others).

The amazing thing about American nationalism to me is how quickly some immigrants adopted it. They have barely stepped off the boat themselves, and they want to pull up the drawbridge and keep "foreigners" out. Certainly there is little of the sustained sense of "separateness" that explains (for example) Germans in Russia still being seen as "Germans" even when their family has been in Russia for 200 years. It makes it very difficult for Americans to understand nationalism based on events hundreds of years in the past -- the importance of Kosovo to the Serbs, for example.

That kind of nationalism has to evolve into something else or it will be the very compromiser of self-determination.

After recent events and a closer examination of the movement's writings, I must say I've changed my mind. Unfortunately what I wrote previously about the ethos, unusefulness and alien character, was an over-simplification.

Imperialist, in a modern world, that is fearful of the degree of control some organism can inflict on citizens, we need as many and diverse political orientations as one can get. Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Fascists, Liberals, Social-Democrats, Conservatives, Christian Democrats, Anarcho-Capitalists etc...

Lets not go totally off-topic, so maybe you should not reply to this if you know its also true, but in Romania the communist party is still banned, while in Italy for example, if you read Sartori, one can see a Communist Party not only allowed, but alive and kicking in the elections.