Iron guard, members

I think that this isn't the proper site for my question but, I've been unsuccessful in several other places
Who were some members of the Iron guard? Do you know where I can find a listing of
their names?
I'm sorry if I am not on the proper site

Some of the famous members or sympathizers of the Iron Guard: Mircea Eliade (writer), Traian Herseni, Alexandru Codarcea, Dr. Gerota, Dr. Dan Pavel, Dr. Serban Milcoveanu, Dr. Nicolae Paulescu, P. P. Panaitescu, Mihail Polihroniade, Emil Cioran (philosopher), Vasile Christescu, Aron Cotrus, Nichifor Crainic, Radu Gyr (poet), Nae Ionescu (philosopher), Radu Meitani, Traian Braileanu, Puiu Garceanu, Mihail Manoilescu, etc.

Another former member of the Legion is the old actor Ernest Maftei.

Some of the leaders: Gen. Zizi Cantacuzino-Granicerul, Iom Mota, Vasile Marin, Gheorghe Clime.

People who testified in Codreanu's favour during his trial: Gen. C. Petrovicescu, Gen. N. Dona, Gen. M. Racovita, Gen. Ion Antonescu, Sever Dan, E. Chirnoaga, Traian Braileanu, Sextil Puscariu, Iuliu Maniu, etc.

Most of these people were sympathisers of the Iron Guard before the death of Codreanu, not during the leadership of Horia Sima.

If this is the dr. Dan Pavel I know then he has no place on this list. He is not an Iron Guard sympathizer.

If this is the dr. Dan Pavel I know then he has no place on this list. He is not an Iron Guard sympathizer.

No, he isn’t that one …

Dragos, I see you put together quite an impressive list, with many first hand personalities. But some of them, like professor Manoilescu, were distant sympathizers of the Legionary Movement, while some others (Cioran, Eliade) rejected after a short while their juvenile enthusiasm for the Iron Guard. Also I don’t think that the persons who testified for Codreanu during his trial (like Maniu) could be consider even close to the Legion. Let’s not forget that during Antonescu’s trial, when the Marshall was deserted by almost every person who happened to be more or less close to him, Maniu testified in his favor.

Also you forgot to mention “Nicadorii” and “Decemvirii”, those were real guardists and the pride of the Legion, even before its “decline” and radicalization during Horia Sima’s leadership: the assassins of prime-minister I. G. Duca and the “death squad” who slaughtered Mihai Stelescu on his hospital bed.

He had some meetings with the legionars when he was Becali's counsellor, but he rejects their ideology. That is why I thought Dragos put him on that list.
So who is/was that dr. Dan Pavel? I've never heard of him. The name resemblence is eerie.

Dr Serban Milcoveanu is still alive.

I've just read in the Adevarul daily, that High Priest Bartolomeu Anania, Cluj's new Mitropolite (?), was also an Iron Guard member, prior to and during the war. Then, after the war, he turned Communist:
http://www.adevarulonline.ro/index.jsp?sec...le_title=179185

Gen. Dénes

Mainly speculations... the common professional level of the Romanian media - never heard of 4W and H, never practiced "hearing the other side". What is really unacceptable is that they use the same “professional approach” even with the most sensitive matters, as that quoted by you.

By the way, you seem to enjoy presenting this kind of things ; its interesting tough by what criteria you choose them. I’m quite sure there are on the internet articles of the same kind talking, of course using “material evidence”, about the “paranoid, adulterous, foreign espionage agent and nationalist-fascist” bishop Tokes L. The only difference I might think of is that in his case some of the accusations might be proved to be true…

This post has been edited by Agarici on March 25, 2006 09:58 am

Hmm, this unclear sentence could mean he spent 6 more years in prison from 1940 to 1942. Guessing what the author really meant to say so unclearly, we then read:

OK, I guessed the author meant he spent 6 years in prison after his 1942 conversion to monastic life, but that would make his release in 1948. But now the author says he was named staret in 1947.
Anyone confused?

Anyway, the article only shows Adevarul's well known anti-BOR agenda/bias. They could be right on this one, or wrong, but that bias of theirs is worth keeping in mind.

take care

I don't know what are you referring to.
Why would I "enjoy" the quoted article presented in the Adevarul daily?
I think this "conspiracy theory" you're alluding to is only in your imagination.

Very simple and straight forward: yesterday this topic was created about prominent members of the Iron Guard. Then last night I read in Adevarul daily an article that fits this fresh topic. I translated a few sentences of the article and quoted the source. That's all. There is no "hidden agenda" or whatever you might insinuate here.

You're making a "spin" here. What I quoted was not a mere "internet article" (anyone can write anything on the internet), but the most read Rumanian central newspaper. Big difference and you know it.
By the way, what has Tökés have to do with the Iron Guard?

Finally, I am wondering why don't you attack 'dragos03, for example, as he listed a series of other prominent persons, members of the Iron Guard, many well known internationally, not only a single one, known only locally.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. If you have anything personal, please use the PM feature, as you did in the past, and try not to unnecessarily raise tension on this forum.

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 25, 2006 05:22 pm

Hope you’re not implying that I have used the private mail to say anything against you. You seem to make this kind of innuendoes, and I think they are most unfair. Please answer to this question of mine publicly.

As for creating tensions, I think the things speak for themselves, here as well as on other occasions. I did not attack you; I only said that I'm disappointed because you’re quoting this kind of articles. You know well what I was referring to: the fact that, on many times, in different national newspapers there were articles attacking Tokes for being adulterous, paranoid, nationalist-chauvinist, racist etc - and I’m not talking about “Romania Mare” magazine. And I mentioned about adulterous because a man proven to have cheated on his wife is called that way, if I’m not wrong.
Last but not least, I suggest that you should be far more careful when choosing your sources. Some weeks ago you admonished Imperialist for quoting an “ultranationalist” article from another daily, national and international media trust-owned Romanian newspaper. It seems to me that the article you are quoting is in no way better then that one...

This post has been edited by Agarici on March 25, 2006 05:38 pm

Let's get back on topic.

No, I am not implying at all that you used the PM in the past to attack me. This is not what I suggested.

I said that you should use the PM to clarify any issues that might seem to you as controversial, and not to do it publicly, as not to unnecessarly raise the tension on this board.

As for the Rumanian central newspapers, I only read the Adevarul on a regular basis, which seems to be more or less fairly balanced.
It is well known that Ziua lately veered towards the nationalistic side (this includes the series of ultra-nationalist articles published recently about the 'Hungarian danger', etc., mentioned here, too).
If you think the quoted article is biased (it might very well be, I don't know), please counter it with arguments, just as Imperialist did. I am always open to new information, from reliable sources.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. Apparently, you conveniently skipped the other points I raised in my previous reply. But that's fine with me. They are not critical after all.
P.P.S. Tökés is off topic here. If you wish to discuss him open a new thread.

No, I am not implying at all that you used the PM in the past to attack me. This is not what I suggested.

I said that you should use the PM to clarify any issues that might seem to you as controversial, and not to do it publicly, as not to unnecessarly raise the tension on this board.

As for the Rumanian central newspapers, I only read the Adevarul on a regular basis, which seems to be more or less fairly balanced.
It is well known that Ziua lately veered towards the nationalistic side (this includes the series of ultra-nationalist articles published recently about the 'Hungarian danger', etc., mentioned here, too).
If you think the quoted article is biased (it might very well be, I don't know), please counter it with arguments, just as Imperialist did. I am always open to new information, from reliable sources.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. Apparently, you conveniently skipped the other points I raised in my previous reply. But that's fine with me. They are not critical after all.
P.P.S. Tökés is off topic here. If you wish to discuss him open a new thread.

Sorry for my late answer. Although I was also on the run when I wrote my last post, I tried to answer to all your points. I will try now to make some further clarifications.

My purpose for being in here is not to attack anyone, nor to raise the tension on this forum; I did not intend to attack you, and there was no point in “attacking” dragos03 either. But I must emphasize that I replied to him, trying to point out that some of the names quoted by him were not of real members of the Legionary movement (see my post above).

My point regarding the newspaper article about Bartolomeu Anania was that, at least in his case, “Adevarul” was not at all balanced, and he does not deserve to be thrashed like that article did. [By the way, the fact that “Adevarul” is (was) the most read Romanian national journal, and the fact that it was fairly balanced, was due to the former editorial team (C.T. Popescu, R. Ursu, etc); almost all of them quitted that newspaper, so, if we’d make a closer scrutiny, “Adevarul” is no more the journal you were referring at.] As an addition to that first point, I was trying to say that, in my opinion, it was clearly visible that something is not all right about that article. Leaving alone the lack of logic signaled by Imperialist, for a Romanian language native speaker the article’s style was almost illiterate, included a few striking mistakes (Bartolomeu was imprisoned from 1958 until 1965, not during the 40’s) and, above all that, did not offer any direct quotation for the grave accusations it made. You cannot say things like that without offering evidence. The single piece of evidence was an account from a book, which author was indicated (an account, and not a quotation!), and a so-called quotation from Paul Goma (and even an illiterate “journalist”, if writing in good faith, should have realized that, given the number of books and articles written by Goma, he should also have indicated the book) - so-called quotation because, even if he used the quotation signs, is unclear if Goma is the quoted author. Now, in order to end this first point, given all those irregularities, I think that if you really wanted to avoid any controversies, you should have avoided quoting such a source, especially in the very day when, in Cluj, Mitropolia Ardealului was officially inaugurated.

My second point, about Tokes Laszlo, is that he was repeatedly attacked in the Romanian press, even in “Adevarul”, more or less documented and in a more or less decent manner. Some of the critics regarded his actions or were based of proved facts, thus from the ethical point of view were acceptable. But others were just personal attacks. Now I’m far from being a fan of bishop Tokes, but I’ve never thought of reproducing such garbage articles in here, not even of taking them into account or reading further than the article’s headline. And I opened this subject because I was wandering why you’ve chosen Bartolomeu from the contested church figures from Romania - bishop Tokes is far more contested, and form more years before Bartolomeu became a public person.

Least, but not last, about Bartolomeu Anania himself: although in the last years he became a controversial figure and his past was attacked by many, the only “proven fact” that I’ve heard of until now was the fact that, after being released from the prison in 1965, he was sent in the USA. Now I don’t know how much truth this accusations contains, but I cannot stop thinking that if the things written in the article from “Adevarul” were real, they would have come out a long time ago. I can hardly think that an obscure journalist could know more than all those who attacked the former arch-bishop until now, some of the member of the high church hierarchy. The only thing no one ever contested from what I know, until now, it’s his general and religious culture and his spirituality and charisma as a man of the church. For all of you who wonder in the modern values of tolerance, interculturality, globalism could be reconciled with the Orthodox faith, I suggest listening to at least one of his sermons… Since he became archbishop, the young people from Cluj started coming to church, and every Sunday the Cathedral is full, and not filled by old ladies. And I think the youth from Cluj is far from being below average (in Romania) in what education is concerned.

Some internet sources about Anania:
Dictionarul teologilor romani (in Romanian only): http://biserica.org/WhosWho/DTR/A/BartolomeuAnania.html

Wikipedia, Romanian language (kind of a copy of the article form “Adevarul”, or vice-versa, plus additional links): http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomeu_Anania

An English language article about him (2004), written by the ex chief-redactor and editor of many national Romanian newspapers, Cornel Nistorescu: http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/116/Brave%20Anania.htm


OFF-TOPIC: Denes, in the first place I’m having these discussions with you because I think you are a reasonable and reasoning person, and that for you a logically articulated demonstration could make the difference. If I would consider you “hopeless” (being it stubborn, or radical, or extremist) I would avoid any exchange of opinions with you. And about the private messaging, I remember that you sent to me by PM your article about Heinkel He 112, a very kind gesture.

This post has been edited by Agarici on April 05, 2006 01:58 pm

Concerning my post, i didn't say that all of the persons in the list were members of the Iron Guard. You are right that some of them were only distant sympathisers.

I just tried to list some personalities that were connected (in one way or another) with the movement. I don't think that such an association with the early Legion is necessarily a bad thing.