Crusade of Romanianism

The Crusade of Romanianism (Romanian: Crucia-da Românismului, also known as Vulturii Albi, “WhiteEagles”, or Steliștii, “Stelists”) was an eclectic far-rightmovement in Romania, founded in 1934 by Mihai Ste-lescu. It originated as a dissident faction of the IronGuard, Romania’s main fascist movement, and was viru-lently critical of Guard leader Corneliu Zelea Codreanu.Stelescu reinterpreted nationalist ideology through thelens of anticapitalism and “humane” antisemitism, appro-priating some ideas from communism and Italian fascism.The Crusade was famously associated with Panait Istrati,world-renowned novelist and dissident communist, whoadded into the mix of “Romanianism” some elements oflibertarian socialism.The Stelists oscillated between maverick independenceand electoral alliances with more prestigious nationalistparties. The Crusade was a minor party, whose decisionof publicly settling scores with the Iron Guard proved fa-tal. In the summer of 1936, Stelescu was murdered by anIron Guard death squad, and his party only survived forone more year. Its caretakers during that final period werejournalist Alexandru Talex and General Nicolae Rădescu.

1 History

1.1 Beginnings

Iron Guard rally, 1933. Codreanu is front row, right, with Ste-lescu by his side

Originally named “The White Eagles”,[1] the Crusadeemerged in early 1935, as a splinter group from theIron Guard. Stelescu’s break with Codreanu was suddenand public. In 1932, Stelescu was a prominent Guardpolitico, tasked with political campaigning in Bucharestand the youngest Romanian Parliament member.[2] Asdocumented by visitors Jean and Jérôme Tharaud, Ste-lescu eclipsed his political boss in matters of oratoryand political competence.[3] As a consequence of this,Codreanu began handing him risky assignments, impli-cating him in the assassination of Premier Ion G. Duca(for which Stelescu served a term in prison).[4] It is alsolikely that Stelescu was infuriated by Codreanu’s refusalto tackle the political establishment head on: in 1934, theGuard was keeping a low profile, content with mildly crit-icizing the authoritarian King of Romania, Carol II.[5]

When, in September 1934, Stelescu went public with hisfirst denunciations of Codrenist tactics, he was promptlyexcluded from the Guard. The decision had a vague dis-claimer: Stelescu could be welcomed back into the Guardon condition that he perform an exceptional act of self-sacrifice.[6] According to later Codrenist mythology, Ste-lescu had in fact been exposed as the would-be assassin ofCodreanu.[7] For his part, Stelescu alleged that, by hint-ing at reconciliation, Codreanu had discreetly urged himto poison another one of the Iron Guard’s adversaries:Foreign Minister Nicolae Titulescu.[8]

Stelescu left together with some other high-ranking ac-tivists of Codreanu’s movement, who helped him estab-lish the “White Eagles” party, and possibly convincedall of the Guard’s youth sections in Bucharest to jointhem.[9] Historian Franklin L. Ford sees the schism as im-portant, arguing that Stelescu effectively took control ofthe “Cross Brotherhood” network, which he had helpedrecruit for the Guard in the late 1920s.[10] Citing theGuard’s supposed elitism, Stelescu hoped to rely on sup-port from more populist Guardsmen, including Ion Moțaand Gheorghe Clime.[11]

On November 22, 1934,[12][13] Stelescu established hiseponymous weekly newspaper, Cruciada Românismului,with Alexandru Talex as editor and himself as director.Talex, who was politically independent, had been univer-sity colleagues with Stelescu. He was moved by Stelescu’smarginalization, but, as he recalled in a later interview,personally disliked him.[14]

Talex and Stelescu were allegedly supplied with fundsby Prince Constantin Karadja,[6] who also contributedto the paper.[13] Another important figure was Gheorghe

1

2 1 HISTORY

Beza, an Aromanian dissident of the Iron Guard, famousfor his earlier involvement in political conspiracies.[15]

Other men involved with Stelescu’s newspaper, and prob-ably his movement, were journalists Sergiu Lecca, Dem.Bassarabeanu[12] and Mircea Mateescu.[16] Joining themwas a cartoonist, Gall.[17]

More famously, Cruciada Românismului hosted articlesby Panait Istrati. He was a literary celebrity and long-time socialist, whose public denunciation of the SovietUnion had sparked an international controversy. It isstill unclear whether Istrati was ever formally affiliatedwith the Crusade as a political party. Some authors sug-gest as much.[18] In April Istrati died from tuberculosis inBucharest. He had been unable to support himself dur-ing his last months, and relied on government handouts—an appeasement that was much ridiculed from the farleft.[14] An independent Trotskyist newspaper, Proletarul,claimed that the Stelists had supervised Istrati’s funeralceremony, driving away his leftist friends.[19]

1.2 Under Stelescu

Stelescu and other Crusade members at Panait Istrati's funeral,April 1935

The Stelists were intensely courted by other far-right or-ganizations, with which the Guard was competing for thenationalist vote. The Crusade was especially close to theNational-Christian Defense League (LANC), from whichthe Guard had split almost a decade before, and envisagedthe creation of a “united front” against democracy and“the radical left”.[20] In March 1935, a Crusade delegationattended a LANC’s national congress. The state moni-tored such agreements, which also involved the RomanianFront, and reported that the Crusade was in the processof merging with the LANC.[21]

The LANC merger never took place. In September 1935,the Crusade of Romanianism sealed a pact with the right-wing “Georgist” Liberals and Grigore Forțu's extrem-ist “Citizens’ Bloc of National Salvation”.[22] This three-pronged alliance aimed at involvement in national pol-itics. The “Georgists” had also formed a cartel with thePeople’s Party (PP), which had previously been one of thethree most powerful parties in Romania. The “Georgist"-Populist alliance, or “Constitutional Front”, came to in-clude both the Stelists and the Citizen’s Bloc.[22]

PP leader Alexandru Averescu was working to gather asmuch support as needed for prompting Carol to hand himpower. His plan backfired: on one hand, the Stelists didnot necessarily endorse the idea of a new Averescu gov-ernment; on the other, the PP moderates protested againstAverescu’s cohabitation with fascist groups.[22] By early1936, the Constitutional Front still existed, but the PPhad effectively withdrawn from it.[22]

Meanwhile, the Crusade was preparing to settle scoreswith the Iron Guard. Its newspapers published de-tailed reports about the contacts between Codreanu andKing Carol, noting that the Guard enjoyed free pub-licity “in the official and semiofficial press”, and eventhat government money was being spent on manufactur-ing Guardist insignia.[23] More disturbingly for Codreanu,Stelescu was publishing information regarding secret con-tacts between the Guard and the royal mistress, Elena Lu-pescu,[24] as well as statements implicating Codreanu inthe Duca assassination.[25] Stelescu already expected tobe assassinated by the Codrenists, and repeatedly tauntedhis adversaries, instructing them to shoot him, but “not inthe back”.[26]

In July 1936, while recovering at the Brâncovenesc Hos-pital, where he had undergone an appendectomy, Ste-lescu fell victim to the Guard’s revenge. A Decemvirideath squad, comprising ten Theology students,[27] hadformally received Codreanu’s blessing at the Iron GuardCongress in Târgu Mureș that April.[28] Seizing its op-portunity, it stormed into the hospital building and shotStelescu to death. This murder left an enduring mark onpublic memory because of its ritualistic nature: Stelescu’sbody was not just riddled with bullets, but also hacked topieces.[29]

1.3 Stelescu’s posterity

The orphaned movement still counted among its mem-bers some relevant figures in Romanian politics. NicolaeRădescu, a Romanian Land Forces general, was an affil-iate, and, according to some sources, became the Cru-sade’s leader upon Stelescu’s murder.[30] He was in anycase the decision-maker, and probably contributed tothe movement’s financing.[31] Previously registered withAverescu’s PP, Rădescu was a stated enemy of the polit-ical establishment. In 1933, upon presenting his resigna-tion from the army, he had accused “profiteering politi-cians” and the king’s "camarilla" of commercializing mil-itary life.[32]

Other Crusade members were harmed by Codrenist at-tacks, and, within the Iron Guard, “Stelism” became acrime punishable by death.[33] Nevertheless, CruciadaRomânismului newspaper was in print until 1937,[12] bywhich time some of its members had embraced othercauses. Moving on from the Crusade, Sergiu Lecca wasinvolved in arranging contacts between the mainstreamNational Peasants’ Party (PNȚ) and communist cells.[34]

3

Gheorghe Beza was also accepted into the PNȚ, and laterleft Romania altogether.[35] At least one other Stelist hadregistered with the Social Democratic Party by 1946.[36]

Instead, Mircea Mateescu returned into the Iron Guard,celebrating its fight against “the deep, massive, darknessof the Romanian Sodom”.[37]

The group dissolved itself, but Rădescu remained polit-ically active into World War II, and was listed as one ofKing Carol’s more potent enemies.[32] He survived the"National Legionary" episode of Iron Guard rule, whenhe was reportedly marginalized as a "Freemason".[38] Ac-cording to one testimony, the general was never forgivenby the Guard for having supported Stelescu. During theputsch of January 1941, Iron Guard assassin squads wereon the lookout for Rădescu, who went into hiding.[39]

Some former Crusade members were already working atundermining Romania’s involvement with the Axis Pow-ers. When, under the Ion Antonescu regime, Roma-nian troops occupied Transnistria, Rădescu issued a for-mal protest and spent a full year in the concentrationcamp.[32][39] From his diplomatic post, Prince Karadjaextended protection to Jews fleeing the Holocaust, com-ing into conflict with the SS.[40] Meanwhile, SergiuLecca, who was the brother of Antonescu aide RaduLecca, took part in informal negotiations between Ro-mania and the Allied Powers.[41]

Although still an anticommunist, Rădescu was brought tohigh office by the Soviet occupation of Romania, and,from December 1944, served as Prime Minister. Herefused to sanction Soviet abuse of power and clashedwith the Romanian Communist Party, while pursuing waragainst Nazi Germany.[39][38][42] Additionally, Rădescuwas also at war with the Iron Guard puppet governmentthat was set up behind enemy lines, but it is still debatedwhether or not he actually protected those Guardsmenwho did not defect to the Germans.[38]

The toppling of Rădescu’s cabinet in February 1945 wasa new step toward the communization of Romania.[39][43]

Indicted as a crypto-fascist by the communist authori-ties, he escaped to New York City, where he helped formthe Romanian National Committee.[39][44] The survivingmembership of the Crusade of Romanianism was alsohunted down. According to aviator Ion Coșoveanu, whowas for long a political prisoner of the Romanian com-munist republic, Stelists were a distinct faction amongthe anticommunist underground. Coșoveanu (quoted bywriter Niculae Gheran) recalled that, once in prison, Cru-sade members used to bicker with Iron Guard rivals.Coșoveanu also notes that the Stelist faction accepted intoits ranks the poet Radu Gyr, until discovering that he wasinforming on them for the Guardists.[45]

Talex himself was not touched by communist persecu-tions and was perceived by the authorities as a fellowtraveler.[31] When Istrati was posthumously rehabilitatedin the 1970s, Talex worked on publishing his manuscriptsand his correspondence.[13][14][46] As argued by cultural

historian Zigu Ornea, Talex’s work in this field makes apoint of obfuscating Istrati’s contribution to the Crusade,as well as Talex’s own.[13]

This contrasted with the treatment of other former Cru-sade people: Dem. Bassarabeanu’s poetry was strickenfrom public memory by communist censorship, due to theauthor’s fascist beliefs.[47] Another poet, Mihu Dragomir,albeit formally aligned with communist ideology, was in-vestigated for a supposed teenage involvement with theCrusade.[48]

2 Ideology

2.1 “Confusing the extremes”

Political historian Stanley G. Payne describes the Cru-sade as distinct among the Romanian fascist groups: “atiny organization which sought to target workers andto inspire socioeconomic transformation.”[49] Within theparty, there was always a degree of assimilation betweenfascist trappings and far-left causes, indicative of Ste-lescu’s indecision. In his first-ever editorial column, Ste-lescu derided all political uniforms, and implicitly all po-litical extremes, stating: “one can believe in somethingwithout donning a colored shirt, just as one can weara colored shirt without believing in anything.” He de-manded a “united front” of “fearless warriors”, entirelycut off from all preexisting ideologies.[50] In March 1935Eugène Ionesco, the left-leaning literary columnist, notedthat Stelescu’s newspaper made a habit of “confusing theextremes”. Ionesco was referring to Cruciada Românis-mului ' s appreciation for the socialist poetry of Liviu Bra-toloveanu.[51]

The appropriation of leftist ideas was especially apparentafter the Crusade’s involvement in the international Is-trati scandal. When he first publicized his pact with Ste-lescu, Istrati specified an “absolute requirement that theCrusade keep itself equally distant from fascism, com-munism and the antisemitism of hooligans.”[52] In one ofhis letters, where he paraphrases the Stelist program, Is-trati reaffirms this principle, while also noting: “Ours isa national movement for economic change, for civic edu-cation and for social combat. We are against capitalism,oppression and violence.”[53]

The group was entirely against the parliamentary sys-tem, but harbored two distinct currents when it cameto supplanting it. Stelescu himself wrote that “democ-racy sickens us”, since it had resulted in inept governance“by a mass of nitwits”.[54] The movement viewed liber-alism and human rights with suspicion rather than hos-tility, since they left the door open for “capitalism andpoliticking”.[55] Istrati had dissenting views. In its Christ-mas 1934 issue, Cruciada Românismului published his“Letter to... the Right”, which called democracy “putrid”but described dictatorship as an unsound regime: “Dicta-

4 2 IDEOLOGY

torship, of whatever kind, signals that the social organismhas grown old. It is the system that will suppress in itsadversary all his fighting means, to take them over for itsown use, like an old man who ties up a robust youth andthen proceeds to beat him up at his own convenience.”[56]

Beyond its anticapitalism, the Crusade had as its maincharacteristic a strong connection with Italian fascism, asopposed to Nazism. Historian Francisco Veiga describesthis as being a necessary repositioning against “Co-dreanu’s Germanophilia"—when Nazi Germany and Italywhere still competing with each other in Southeastern Eu-rope.[27] Other historians also stress the Crusade’s anti-Nazism. F. L. Ford also writes that Stelescu’s “dra-matic forecasts” are notable protests against the Guard’sNazification.[57] Armin Heinen paraphrases Stelescu’smessage: “he feared [Germany] would impose uponRomania the status of a colony.”[11] Also according toHeinen, Codreanu’s celebration of Nazism as an interna-tional phenomenon had turned Stelescu’s attention towardthe Benito Mussolini alternative.[58]

2.2 Istrati’s “spiritual movement”

As Talex recalls, Istrati was bothered by Stelescu’shomages to Mussolini, and, on one occasion, threatenedto withdraw from the common enterprise.[14] His own po-litical preferences were veering toward libertarian social-ism and anarchism.[59] Inspired by Gandhism, the “Let-ter to... the Right” advised against all forms of politicalviolence.[60] Istrati saw the Crusade as “rather a spiritualmovement”. According to Ornea, this was a naive assess-ment, and evidenced the degree to which Istrati was being“manipulated” by Talex.[13]

For Istrati’s adversaries on the left, the Crusade involve-ment was proof that Istrati was a covert fascist. The al-legations were publicized by two of Istrati’s former col-leagues in international communism, Henri Barbusse andFrancis Jourdain.[61] According to such sources, Istrati’s“mercenary literature” and his contributions to a “fascistnewspaper” earned him some 50,000₣, paid for by bigoil.[62] Overall, Trotskyist commentators were more le-nient, writing off Istrati’s inconsistencies as a sign of hisperennial nervous instability.[19]

Istrati made a point of responding in Stelescu’s paper, un-der the headline “The Objectivity of the 'Independent'Communist Press” (March 21, 1935).[63] He was pub-licly defended by his friend, the anti-Soviet leftist VictorSerge, who described Istrati’s last combat in verse:However, Istrati’s connection with the Crusade was nothis only contact with right-wing radicalism: he hadalso promised to have his political testament printedin Gringoire, a newspaper of the French far-right.[64]

Against Talex’s disclaimers, several later exegetes havereanimated the debate about Istrati’s possible fascist lean-ings. Historian Jean-Michel Palmier includes Istrati’sname on a list of “intellectuals [who] saw for a moment

in fascism the possibility of arousing a crisis-struck Eu-rope from its lethargy.” He is in the company of KnutHamsun, Ezra Pound and Wyndham Lewis.[65] Philolo-gist Tudorel Urian asks: “Who really is Istrati: the fran-tic socialist he was before his visit to the USSR [...] orthe nationalist of his very last months, the emblem of aGuardist periodical? There is something that those whojudge him rarely take into account: in the periods whenhe flirted with socialism [...] and Guardism, both move-ments where in their romantic, idealistic stages. Once hecame face to face with the brutal realities of the Sovietregime, Istrati broke with socialism and perhaps his fa-mous motto, je ne marche pas ['no, I won't bite'] wouldhave come into play in relation with the Guardists, shouldhe have lived to see their earliest crimes.”[66]

According to literary historian Angelo Mitchievici, “In-terestingly, [the Crusade] had stated its dissidence and adistinct position within the Iron Guard movement. Per-haps it was the group’s marginal, dissident status that ap-pealed to Istrati. [...] Even if, in this very context, PanaitIstrati endures as a freelancer, he could not have evadedthe abusive assimilation into a direction that did not trulyreflect his affinities.”[31]

2.3 On antisemitism and Christianity

The Istrati scandal touches another controversial as-pect of Stelist policies: their Iron Guard-inherited anti-semitism. Stelescu sent the message in November 1934,when he criticized ethnic minorities for monopolizing thejob market: “Factory positions for Romanian workers,our own kind first and if anything is left we would gladlyshare it with the foreigner, if he is indeed in need of.”[67]

According to Veiga, Istrati “toned down the antisemitismof Stelescu and his followers, but the [Stelist] Movementcontinued to be a far-right one.”[27] Also, “the disillusion-ment he felt toward Soviet communism did not manageto make Istrati into a fascist; quite the contrary, he wasthe one to influence Stelescu, making him renounce, forinstance, his antisemitism.”[68] Among the Crusade men,Prince Karadja witnessed first-hand the application of an-tisemitic terror in 1930s Germany, and was already takingmeasures to protect the Jewish Romanian expatriates.[69]

In his papers of 1935, Istrati presents himself exclu-sively as an enemy of “the Jewish bourgeoisie”, a classhe describes as “corrupt, pseudo-humanitarian, pseudo-democratic” and accuses of stirring up scandal.[53] Is-trati’s articles in Cruciada Românismului are moreadamantly philosemitic. One of them, “A Letter toLove”, led to a series of articles on the subject, from Ste-lescu and other Crusade people.[13] In his own articles,Talex answered for the Stelist movement: “Panait Istrati,do you know what it is we need? A fist... The Crusade ofRomanianism will attempt to become that fist... Our an-tisemitism? Just the same as yours: a humane one. But itis also combative, for as long as the Judaic element shallattempt to set up a state within our own state, sabotaging

2.4 Defining “Romanianism” 5

us with any opportunity it gets”.[13] Stelescu’s newspaperwas noted for its obstinate claim that Jews were a rootless,disloyal race.[70]

A satirical take on “the Romanian eagle” as “the guiding principleof Romanianism”. 1929 cartoon by Nicolae Tonitza

The Crusade’s agenda was debated among Jewish Ro-manian intellectuals. Fellow writer Mihail Sebastian de-scribed Istrati as politically “illiterate” and “addled”.[71]

In his words, “Mr. Istrati fights nowadays for the Crusadeof Romanianism, searching for the formula of reasonableantisemitism (neither here nor there), for the way into amore gentle chauvinism, for a nice agreement betweenhis anarchic vocation and a methodical process of bash-ing heads in.”[72] Other Jewish literary figures, includingJosué Jéhouda, issued statements in support of Istrati’sstance.[73]

The Crusade may have contextualized its antisemitic re-flexes within a pro-Christian bias. The American Jew-ish Committee papers describe the Crusade as “a Fas-cist group which did not have anti-Jewish tendencies”,quoting Stelescu’s statement “that he was not a Jew-baiterand that, although his party was nationalist, it was in-spired by genuine Christian principles.”[74] The move-ment resented the secularization of public affairs, andexpressed admiration for Romanian Orthodoxy: “And ifsome church servants have indeed trespassed, faith itselfis not to blame. The belief in God and The Cross is abanner and support for our combat, and the token of ourcoming victory.”[75] However, according to at least oneaccount, the ailing Istrati was in the process of becoming

a militant Roman Catholic.[76]

The Crusade believed that its mission included protectingChristian interests against the consequences of moder-nity. It was critical of feminism, noting that Christian-ity itself had liberated women, had given them status andpurpose. However, it also asserted that woman was “theguardian angel, always in the shadow of man.” Femi-nism, meanwhile, was “equality in vice.”[77] The Stelistsalso accused the Soviet Union and its Romanian sym-pathizers (for instance the staff of Cuvântul Liber news-paper) of mounting an international campaign againstChristianity.[75]

2.4 Defining “Romanianism”

When Stelescu founded his “White Eagles”, the right-wing nativists, the centrists and the advocates of left-wingnationalism in Romania had been disputing over the con-cept of “Romanianism” for over a decade. The idea of ahomegrown ideological current of that name was swiftlyembraced by intellectual sympathizers of the Iron Guard,among them Nae Ionescu, Nichifor Crainic, AlexandruRanda, Traian Brăileanu and Mihail Manoilescu.[78] Analternative Romanianism, liberal and skeptical toward na-tionalist rhetoric, was being promoted by the philoso-phers Constantin Rădulescu-Motru and Mircea Eliade,who demanded the continuous Westernization of Ro-manian society.[79] Before he was won over by fascism,Eliade defined Romanianism as “neither fascism norchauvinism—rather, the mere desire to realize an or-ganic, unitary, ethnic, balanced state”.[80]

The Crusade’s version of the concept borrowed from allsides of the debate. In his “democracy sickens us” es-say, Stelescu proposed: “Romanianism is the only credothat might invigorate this nation. Solutions for its sons,from its bosom, within its spirit, on its soil”.[81] Accord-ing to Talex, this brand of Romanianism was “noble andcreative”, Istrati being its leading exponent.[13] When firstintroduced to Gandhism and the Ramakrishna Mission in1930, Istrati himself had declared: “To me, the Occidentis dead.”[60] In 1934, Stelescu’s newspaper noted with sat-isfaction that nationalism was even making its comebackin the Soviet Union. Reading the Soviet press, the Stelistsremarked that references to the Comintern and the causeof proletarian internationalism were being discarded, andthat Mother Russia was returning in force.[82]

Talex, who described himself as a “know-nothing” in po-litical matters,[14] had for a personal idol the nationalisthistorian Vasile Pârvan. He was especially inspired byPârvan’s Russophobia, which colored his reading of Is-trati’s work.[14] His admiration for “Romanianism” pit-ted him against the more cosmopolitan liberals of theday, prompting the Crusade’s journalistic attacks againstEugen Lovinescu, the doyen of Romanian liberalism.Lovinescu (who had been Talex’s high school teacher)[14]

was called “a con artist” in Cruciada Românismului.[83]

6 3 NOTES

3 Notes[1] Gheran, p.439

[2] Veiga, p.159, 228, 241

[3] Heinen, p.253; Veiga, p.241

[4] Heinen, p.253, 446

[5] Ornea, p.306-307; Veiga, p.228-230, 241

[6] Ornea (1995), p.306

[7] Heinen, p.253, 277; Veiga, p.241

[8] “Iron Guard Accused of Plotting Titulescu’s Death”, in theJewish Telegraphic Agency News, Nr. 213/1937

[9] Veiga, p.229, 241

[10] Ford, p.268

[11] Heinen, p.253

[12] Ileana-Stanca Desa, Elena Ioana Mălușanu, Cornelia Lu-minița Radu, Iliana Sulică, Publicațiile periodice românești(ziare, gazete, reviste). Vol. V, 1: Catalog alfabetic 1931–1935, Editura Academiei, Bucharest, 2009, p.316. ISBN973-27-0980-4

[13] (Romanian) Z. Ornea, “Cum a devenit Istrati scriitor”, inRomânia Literară, Nr. 22/1999

[14] (Romanian) Mugur Popovici, " 'Panait Istrati m-a ajutatsă rămân om într-o lume de lupi' ", in România Literară,Nr. 48/2009

[15] Heinen, p.183-184, 187, 278, 477

[16] (Romanian) Victor Durnea, “Un avangardist uitat – Mi-hail Dan”, in Anuar de Lingvistică și Istorie Literară, Vol.XLII–XLIII, 2002-2003, p.174

[17] Neagu Rădulescu, Turnul Babel, Cugetarea-GeorgescuDelafras, Bucharest, 1944, p.39

[18] Ionesco, p.184; Veiga, p.229

[19] Tănase (2004), p.53

[20] “Demisia Doctorului Trifu”, in Cruciada Românismului,November 22, 1934, p.6

[21] (Romanian) Radu Florian Bruja, “Din istoria partidu-lui național creștin în Bucovina (1935-1937)", in theRomanian Academy (George Bariț Institute of History)Historica Yearbook 2010, p.83

[22] Gheorghe I. Florescu, “Alexandru Averescu, omul politic(VIII)", in Convorbiri Literare, December 2009

[23] Eliza Campus, “Despre politica externă antinațională aguvernelor burghezo-moșierești din România, în timpulpoliticii imperialiste de așa-zisă 'neintervenție' ", in Studii.Revistă de Istorie, Nr. 3/1952, p.51

[24] Ornea (1995), p.298-299, 306-307

[25] Heinen, p.277

[26] Ornea (1995), p.307

[27] Veiga, p.229

[28] Gheorghe & Șerbu, p.268; Heinen, p.259-260, 278, 281-284, 290, 446; Ornea (1995), p.204, 307

[29] Gheran, p.440; Heinen, p.260; Ornea (1995), p.308;Veiga, p.229

[30] V. Liveanu, “Particularități ale strategiei politice a Par-tidului Comunist Român în revoluția populară. Reven-dicările imediate și obiectivul final”, in Studii. Revistă deIstorie, Nr. 3/1971, p.584

[31] Mitchievici, p.94

[32] Gheorghe & Șerbu, p.303

[33] Heinen, p.260, 278, 283-284, 291, 483

[34] Stelian Tănase, “N.D. Cocea, un boier amoral/N.D.Cocea, an Immoral Boyar” (I), in Sfera Politicii, Nr.136/2009, p.56

[35] Veiga, p.14, 207

[36] (Romanian) Melania Țărău, “Procesul de desființare aPartidului social-democrat. Studiu de caz - județul Bi-hor”, in the 1st December University of Alba Iulia Bulet-inul Cercurilor Științifice Studențești, Arheologie - Istorie -Muzeologie, Nr. 8 (2002), p.178

[37] (Romanian) Mircea Mateescu, “Organizarea haosuluiromânesc”, in Universul Literar, Nr. 39/1940, p.1, 6 (dig-itized by the Babeș-Bolyai University Transsylvanica On-line Library)

[38] (Romanian) Neagu Djuvara, “Replică. Din nou despre ex-ilul românesc”, in Observator Cultural, Nr. 140, October2002

[39] (Romanian) Alexandru Șerbănescu, “Nicolae Rădescu 6martie 1945”, in Memoria. Revista Gândirii Arestate, Nr.50

[40] Trașcă & Obiziuc, passim

[41] Dan Amedeo Lăzărescu, Andrei Goldner, “Opțiuni în po-litica externă", in Ion Solacolu (ed.), Tragedia României:1939-1947. Institutul Național pentru Memoria ExiluluiRomânesc: Restituiri I, Editura Pro Historia, Bucharest,2004, p.69-70. ISBN 973-85206-7-3

[42] Gheorghe & Șerbu, p.303-304

[43] Gheorghe & Șerbu, p.304-305

[44] Gheorghe & Șerbu, p.305, 307

[45] Gheran, p.439-440

[46] Mitchievici, p.88-89, 94

[47] (Romanian) Andrei Moldovan, “Din corespondența luiLiviu Rebreanu”, in Vatra, Nr. 11/2011, p.58

[48] (Romanian) Paul Cernat, “Anii '50 și Tînărul Scriitor", inObservator Cultural, Nr. 285, August 2005

7

[49] Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism 1914-45,Routledge, London, 1995, p.284. ISBN 978-0-299-14874-4

[50] Mihai Stelescu, “Prefață", in Cruciada Românismului,November 22, 1934, p.1

[51] Ionesco, p.183-184

[52] (Romanian) Teodor Vârgolici, “Publicistica lui Panait Is-trati”, in România Literară, Nr. 14/2007

[53] Mermoz & Talex, p.292

[54] Ornea (1995), p.59-60

[55] Const. Barcaroiu, “Incertitudinea muncii”, in CruciadaRomânismului, November 22, 1934, p.7

[56] “Revista revistelor. Cruciada Românismului", in RevistaFundațiilor Regale, Nr. 2/1935, p.476-477

[57] Ford, p.268-269

[58] Heinen, p.300

[59] Mermoz & Talex, p.282, 283, 299-300; Mitchievici,p.82-83, 88-89; Roux, p.95-96, 101-104

[60] (Romanian) Liviu Bordaş, “Istrati, Rolland și reprezen-tanții 'Renașterii indiene' ", in Idei în Dialog, Nr. 8/2005(republished by România Culturală)

[61] Mermoz & Talex, p.284-285, 289, 291, 301-302, 305;Roux, p.103; Tănase (2004), p.56

[62] (Spanish) Cayetano Córdova Iturburu, “Panait Istrati”, inNueva Revista. Política, Arte, Economía, Nº 4/1935, p.3(online copy at the Internet Archive Fedor Ganz Collec-tion)

[63] Mermoz & Talex, p.289

[64] Mitchievici, p.86, 94

[65] Jean-Michel Palmier, Weimar in Exile: The AntifascistEmigration in Europe and America, Verso Books, London& New York City, 2006, p.49-50. ISBN 1-84467-068-6

[66] (Romanian) Tudorel Urian, “Cine a fost Panait Istrati?",in România Literară, Nr. 10/2004

[67] Mihai Stelescu, "Șomajul”, in Cruciada Românismului,November 22, 1934, p.3

[68] Veiga, p.241

[69] Traşcă & Obiziuc, p.110-113

[70] Henri Zalis, “Despre Mihail Sebastian, cu dragoste și custrângere de inimă", in Realitatea Evreiască, Nr. 54-55/1997

[71] Tănase (2004), p.53-55

[72] Tănase (2004), p.54

[73] Mermoz & Talex, p.292-294

[74] Harry Scheiderman, Review of the Year 5697, p.440,at the American Jewish Committee Archives; retrievedFebruary 17, 2013

[75] “Am fost atenți...”, in Cruciada Românismului, November22, 1934, p.3

[76] Michel de Galzain, Une Âme du feu: MonseigneurVladimir Ghika, Éditions Beauchesne, Paris, 1961, p.83-84

[77] Icadé, “Cronica femenină. Femeia”, in CruciadaRomânismului, November 22, 1934, p.7

[78] Ornea (1995), p.87-95, 98-102, 108, 110, 124-126, 374

[79] Ornea (1995), p.119-129, 134-137

[80] Ornea (1995), p.135-136

[81] Ornea (1995), p.60

[82] “Presa de peste graniță", in Cruciada Românismului,November 22, 1934, p.6

[83] Ornea (1995), p.439-440

4 References

• Cruciada Românismului, Year I, Issue 1, November22, 1934

• Franklin L. Ford, Political Murder: From Tyranni-cide to Terrorism, Harvard University Press, Har-vard, 1985. ISBN 0-674-68636-5

• (Romanian) Constantin Gheorghe, Miliana Șerbu,Miniștrii de interne (1862 – 2007). Mică enciclope-die, Romanian Ministry of the Interior, 2007. ISBN978-973-745-048-7

• Niculae Gheran, Arta de a fi păgubaș. 3: Îndărătulcortinei, Editura Biblioteca Bucureștilor, Bucharest,2012. ISBN 978-606-8337-24-1

• Armin Heinen, Legiunea 'Arhanghelul Mihail': ocontribuție la problema fascismului internațional,Humanitas, Bucharest, 2006. ISBN 973-50-1158-1

• Eugène Ionesco, “Texte recuperate”, in Caiete Crit-ice, Nr. 5-6-7/2009, p.177-184

• Marcel Mermoz, Alexandru Talex, “Justice pourPanaït Istrati”, in Panait Istrati, Vers l'autre flame.Après seize mois dans l'U.R.S.S. Confession pourvaincus, Éditions Gallimard, Paris, 1987, p.274-308. ISBN 2-07-032412-5

• (Romanian) Angelo Mitchievici, “Panait Istrati –revoluționarul rătăcitor”, in Ex Ponto, Nr. 3/2009,p.79-95

8 4 REFERENCES

• Z. Ornea, Anii treizeci. Extrema dreaptăromânească, Editura Fundației Culturale Române,Bucharest, 1995. ISBN 973-9155-43-X

• Stéphane Roux, “Une approche sociologique de ladiffusion de l'œuvre de Panaït Istrati”, in AlainPessin, Patrice Terrone (eds.), Littérature et anar-chie, Presses Universitaires du Mirail, Toulouse,1998, p.95-112. ISBN 2-85816-308-1

• (Romanian) Stelian Tănase, “Document. Panait Is-trati”, in Sfera Politicii, Nr. 108/2004, p.52-56

• (Romanian) Ottmar Trașcă, Stelian Obiziuc,“Diplomatul Constantin I. Karadja și situaţiaevreilor români din statele controlate/ocupate de celde-al III-lea Reich, 1941-1944”, in the RomanianAcademy (George Bariț Institute of History)Historica Yearbook 2010, p.109-141

• Francisco Veiga, Istoria Gărzii de Fier, 1919–1941:Mistica ultranaționalismului, Humanitas, Bucharest,1993. ISBN 973-28-0392-4

9

5 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

5.1 Text• Crusade of Romanianism Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_of_Romanianism?oldid=646526992 Contributors: Keresaspa,

Rjwilmsi, Nihiltres, Anonimu, Dahn, Kendrick7, Vanished User 03, Cydebot, Biruitorul, Afil, ClueBot, Strikerforce, VictorianMutant,Yerevantsi, Charles Essie, Cei Trei and Anonymous: 3

5.2 Images• File:Monumentul_lui_Eminescu_aşa_cum_şi-l_imaginează_d._Tonitza.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/

commons/2/2c/Monumentul_lui_Eminescu_a%C5%9Fa_cum_%C5%9Fi-l_imagineaz%C4%83_d._Tonitza.JPG License: Publicdomain Contributors: Arta şi Arheologia, 2/1929 (available through the Bucharest City Library DacoRomanica archive); republished fromAdevărul, 12 Feb 1929 Original artist: Nicolae Tonitza

• File:Stelescu_&_Codreanu,_Casa_Verde,_1933.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Stelescu_%26_Codreanu%2C_Casa_Verde%2C_1933.JPG License: Public domain Contributors: “Mişcarea legionară: istorie în imagini”, online series atthe Historica magazine site (2013) Original artist: uncredited

• File:Înmormântarea_lui_Panait_Istrati,_apr_1935.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/%C3%8Enmorm%C3%A2ntarea_lui_Panait_Istrati%2C_apr_1935.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: George Potra Collection Originalartist: uncredited

5.3 Content license• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0