Soviet historians, studying the history of Romanian fascism, seek to identify the nature, essence and specifics of its development. The detailed development of this complex of questions on the basis of scientific methodology and the attraction of new materials are important and relevant, especially since the works of Western European and American bourgeois historians are increasingly reviving contradictory assessments of the political bourgeois-landlord regimes that prevailed in Romania before the establishment of people's power. Many contemporary foreign authors, and especially political emigrants from post-war Romania, seek to justify the reactionary regimes that were in power in Romania on the eve of World War II, and thereby indirectly rehabilitate their own political past. They try to present pre-war Rumania as a bourgeois-democratic state, its political figures as supporters of democracy and fighters against fascism, and fascism itself as a purely "ideological" current that allegedly spontaneously emerged in the petty-bourgeois strata that were numerous in pre-war Rumania. They leave in the shadow of the true inspirers and initiators of the establishment of the fascist regime in Romania-the top

the largest monopolists and farmers led by King Karol II. For example, the authors of an extensive work on Romania published in the United States in 1957 portray the case in such a way that Carol II withdrew "from France and democracy" only under strong pressure from "Germany from the outside and right-wing nationalist groups from within." Contrary to historical truth, they claim that the establishment of the royal dictatorship and the abolition of political freedoms were allegedly "not accompanied by the harsh repressions that Karol is often accused of by his enemies." ¹

Similarly, the problems of the political development of bourgeois-landowning Romania in the 1930s are treated in a book published in London in 1964 by G. Ionescu, a former Romanian bourgeois diplomat and now an employee of the London School of Economic and Political Sciences ^.2 And in this work, the author carefully avoids talking about the links of fascism and reaction with the Romanian bourgeois-landowner ruling circles. He portrays Romanian fascism mainly as a spontaneous mass fascist movement ("Iron Guard"). Regarding the monarcho-fascist dictatorship established in February 1938, Ionescu writes that it was "based on a kind of royalist-corporate doctrine" ³, even in this case bypassing the role of the reactionary elite of the Romanian monopolists and farmers in establishing the dictatorial system.

It is obvious from the above that a number of problems of the political history of Romania in the 1930s, which are essential for understanding the subsequent development of the country, are obscured or deliberately distorted in some works published in the West in the post-war years. This position of bourgeois historiographers is not accidental, it is caused by the desire to disguise the true goals and social content of the reactionary policies of the former Romanian ruling classes.

In the post-war years, Romanian historians published a significant number of works on the history of Romania in the 30s and 40s. In their major recent studies, Romanian historians focus on the study of economic history, as well as the history of popular movements and the struggle of workers against the offensive of fascism and the military danger ^.4 They also published a number of works on the history of the foreign policy of the ruling circles of Romania in the interwar years ^.5 As for the problems of internal political history and the development of the fascist movement in Romania, they are studied to a lesser extent. Some articles on this issue were published by Romanian historians in ^the 1950s6 . Until now, the most important works remain the books published immediately after the Second World War by L. Patrascanu, in which, based on the factual data available to the author, the problems of the formation and evolution of fascism in Romania are analyzed ^.7

Over the past decade, Soviet literature has published a number of works that cover in one form or another the problems of the history of Romanian fascism and the struggle of the Romanian workers against the fascist threat8 . Some results of studying this

¹ "East Central Europe under the Communists. Rumania". St. Fischer-Calati (Ed.). N. Y. 1957, p. 11.

² Ch. Ionescu. Communism in Rumania 1944 - 1962. L. 1964.

³ Ibid., pp. 54 - 55.

⁴ N. N. Constantinescu. Situatia clasei muncitoare din Romania, 1914 - 1944. Bucuresti. 1966; "Relatii agrare si miscari taranesti in Romania". Bucures.ti. 1967; Titu. Georgescu. Organizatii de massa legale conduse de P. C. R. 1932 - 1934. Bucuresti. 1967; A. Deac, Gh. Matei. Februarie 1933. Ecoul international al eroicelor lupte ale ceferistilor si petrolistilor. Bucuresti. 1967; P. Constantinescu-Jasi. Lupta pentru formarea frontului popular in Pomania. Bucuresti. 1968.

⁵ A. Niri. Istoricul unui tratat inrobitor (Tratatul economic romano-german din martie 1939). Bucuresti. 1965; I. M. Oprea. Nicolae Titulescu. Bucuresti. 1966; E. Campus. Mica Intelegere. Bucuresti. 1968; C. Popisteanu. Romania si Antanta Balcanica. Bucuresti. 1968.

⁶ M. Roller. - Fascismul si baza lui sociala. In: "Scrieri istorice si social-politice" Bucuresti. 1957.

⁷ L. Patrascanu. Problemele de baza, ale Romamei. Bucuresti. 1945; ejust. Sub trei dictaturi. Bucuresti. 1945.

⁸ N. I. Lebedev. Romania during the Second World War. Foreign and Domestic political history of Romania in 1938-1945, Moscow, 1961; S. M. Parkhomchuk.

The questions can be summed up in connection with the publication of the last two books by N. I. Lebedev, covering the period of the formation, development and fall of fascism in Romania. ⁹

The factual material presented by the author in both of his books confirms the position that the apparent contradiction between the domestic and foreign policies of the Romanian bourgeois-landowner circles in the late 30s and early 40s did not change the general direction of their political course towards reaction, fascism, militarism and military adventures. Attention is drawn to the relationship between the fascist movement and the fascist dictatorship in Romania and the reactionary upper classes of the Romanian ruling classes. The study of this question is particularly important, because, as has already been pointed out, reactionary historiography obscures the links with the fascist movement that compromise the Romanian monopoly bourgeoisie. Meanwhile, the rejection of the methods of bourgeois parliamentarism in the management of the state, the fascization of political life in pre - war Romania was due to the specifics of its socio-economic ^{development10} , which created the internal basis for the movement of the ruling bourgeois-landowner elite towards reaction, militarism and fascism. The author rightly connects the fascization of the country's political life in the 1930s with the intensive process of concentration and centralization of production and capital that took place in Romania. He also emphasizes the specific feature of the capitalist development of pre-war Romania: in the 1930s, the Romanian monarch, King Carol II, became the head of its financial monopoly elite, rallying around him a narrow group of the largest, by the scale of Romania, industrialists associated with foreign capital, the so-called "camarilla". This last point helps us understand why the dictatorial regime established in Romania in 1938 was monarchical in form. This also confirms the conclusion made by the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party that the regime that came to power in February 1938 was a dictatorship of "the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most aggressive strata of monopoly capital and large landlords led by the royal Camarilla."¹¹ "In its essence," N. I. Lebedev notes, " it was a fascist dictatorship, but it took a peculiar form, due to the specific historical situation in Romania." It was a monarcho-fascist regime, illustrating the conclusion of the Seventh Congress of the Comintern that the most reactionary circles of the financial bourgeoisie use various forms of dictatorship on the road to fascism ^.12

The problem of the dependence of the fascization of Romania in the 1930s on its internal economic development is still awaiting further elaboration ^.13 In particular, the peculiarity of its social development is insufficiently studied - the presence of a historically close alliance of the top of the imperialist bourgeoisie and reactionary agrarians (the specifics of Romania's economic development also consisted in the fact that often large industrialists were also the largest landowners, forming a narrow caste of the ruling elite). In Rumania, as, apparently, in some other agrarian countries, this reactionary alliance was the force that supported and brought fascism to power.

Народження нової; Румунї;ї;. Антифашистський рух і; перемога народної; демократі;ї; в Румуні;ї;. Киї;в. 1961; А. А. Язькова. Romania on the eve of World War II. 1934-1939. Moscow, 1963; A. A. Shevyakov. Economic and military-political aggression of German imperialism in Romania. Chisinau. 1963; V. N. Vinogradov, E. D. Karpeshchenko, N. I. Lebedev, A. A. Yazkova. Istoriya Rumania novogo i sovremennogo vremya [History of Romania in modern and Contemporary times]. Moscow, 1964; I. N. Champalov. To the history of the conclusion of the German-Romanian economic agreement of 1939 "New and modern History", 1959, N 1; his. The end of the occupation of Romania by Nazi troops (January-March 1941). "International Relations in modern times". Sverdlovsk. 1968, et al.

⁹ N. I. Lebedev. The Fall of the Antonescu Dictatorship, Moscow, 1966. "The Iron Guard", Karol II and Hitler, Moscow, 1968.

¹⁰ N. I. Lebedev. "The Iron Guard", Karol II and Hitler, p. 30; A. A. Yazkova. Romania on the eve of World War II, pp. 7, 63.

¹¹ "Lupta de clasa", 1938, N 4.

¹² N. I. Lebedev. The Iron Guard, Karol II and Hitler, p. 168.

¹³ The economic history of Romania in the 1930s found its coverage only in the general work of Romanian authors-N. N. Constantiriescu, V. Axenciuc. Capitalismul monopolist in Romania. Bucuresti. 1962.

As G. M. Dimitrov noted, the peculiarity of the formation of fascism in the countries of South-Eastern Europe was that it came "not from below, as a mass movement to seize power, but, on the contrary, from above - from the state apparatus"¹⁴ . The specifics of the evolution of fascism in Romania during the interwar years also consisted in the fact that grassroots fascist organizations gained a certain independence from the ruling circles. The fascist movement was born in Romania after the First World War. From the very beginning, it was characterized by militant anti-communism. Speculating on national contradictions, which were quite strong in the post-Versailles "Greater Romania", the fascist movement, which united in the early 30s in the political organization" Iron Guard", in every possible way incited nationalism and anti-Semitism. "Romania is a Romanian country, not a multinational state," the ideologists of fascism argued, demanding "loyalty" from people of non-Romanian nationality living in Romania. They opposed the idea of international workers ' unity, which was preached by the Communist Party, with nationalist slogans.

The poisonous seeds of fascism were sprouting, though not as profusely as the Fascist leaders would have liked. However, the question of how numerous the fascist movement was in Romania in different periods of its existence (after all, the legionnaires were able to launch mass terror in the autumn of 1940), what was the social composition of the movement, what strata of Romanian society it covered, has not yet been sufficiently studied in the literature.

A distinctive feature of the political history of bourgeois-landowner Romania during the period of its fascization was that the reactionary bourgeois-landowner elite, which sought to establish a dictatorial system and eventually established it, was never able to subordinate the largest fascist organization, the Iron Guard, to its influence. The conflict of the "Iron Guard" with Karol II, and then with I. Antonescu, was accompanied by a whole series of political murders (the murder of Prime Ministers I. Duka and A. Kalinescu by the Iron Guards, the death of the leader of the "Iron Guard" C. Codreanu, the mass terror unleashed by the Iron Guards in the autumn of 1940, the suppression of their rebellion in January 1941, etc.). Of course, the Iron Guard was not the only reserve of fascism in Romania. The aggravation of class and political contradictions led in the 1930s to the fact that fascist trends and factions emerged among the majority of bourgeois parties. Nevertheless, the Iron Guard, being a paramilitary terrorist organization, was the most mobile strike force of fascism in Romania. However, its leaders were in opposition to the reactionary ruling elite. This conflict is reflected in a number of works, including most fully in the books of N. I. Lebedev. But none of the authors gives an answer to the question of the real reasons for the viability of this organization, the main one of which, in our opinion, was its close contacts with Hitler's Germany. The study of this issue is complicated by the fact that the Nazis carefully concealed their connections with their Iron Guard agency, and in some cases, as was the case, for example, in the spring of 1938 during the trial of its leader Codreanu or during the Iron Guard uprising in January 1941, they left it without support for political reasons. Nevertheless, it is known that in 1938 alone, Germany spent more than 800 million lei on supporting the Iron Guard and other pro-fascist organizations in Roumania15 . Interesting information is also provided by the author of a book published in 1950 in Zurich about the secret service of nazi Germany. In an effort to generally obscure the links between Hitler's secret service and its foreign agents, he also cites data on the cooperation of Horia Sima (the Iron Guard leader after 1938 )with Hitler's intelligence service. ¹⁶ Contemporary Romanian authors also attest to the existence of direct links between Hitler's secret service and the Romanian fascist organizations-the Iron Guard, the National Christian Party of A. Cuza and O. Goga - in the mid-1930s [¹⁷].

¹⁴ G. M. Dimitrov. Selected Works, Vol. I. Moscow, 1957, p. 299.

¹⁵ See N. I. Lebedev. The Iron Guard, Karol II and Hitler, p. 190.

¹⁶ W. Hagen. Die Geheime Front. Organisation, Personen und Aktionen des deutschen Geheimdienstes. Zurich. 1950, S. 290.

¹⁷ C. Nicolae, S. Asandei etc. Militarizmul german si Romania. Bucuresti. 1963, p. 48.

To date, Soviet literature has focused on the relationship and connections of German fascism with Romanian government circles in the 1930s. The history of the economic expansion of German imperialism in Romania during this period is described in detail in the work of A. A. Shevyakov already mentioned, and his article ¹⁸ is devoted to the same question . A. A. Shevyakov gives a number of information about the systematic pressure that Hitler exerted on the Romanian government through representatives of reactionary Romanian parties and groups. The question of the relationship between the various fascist forces and trends in Romania and their links with Hitlerism is still awaiting resolution.

In February 1938, a dictatorial regime was established in Romania, which gradually began to acquire the external features of fascism: totalitarianism (prohibition of political parties and trade unions, organization of a single fascist party, de facto liquidation of parliament), nationalism elevated to the rank of state policy, forced militarization of the economy and attempts to regulate it by the state. ¹⁹ By 1940, the consolidation of the fascist regime was largely complete. In the autumn of 1940, the military fascist regime of I. Antonescu was established. The dictatorial regime brought direct benefits to the narrow elite of the Romanian monopolists and farmers, and at the same time led to a deterioration of the situation of the main strata of workers. Even the Romanian bourgeois economists could not conceal this fact. Thus, one of the theorists of the former National Tsaranist party, V. Majaru, noted a huge increase in the profits of industrialists associated with the royal elite. ²⁰ The same fact is acknowledged by the author of a book on Rumania published in London in 1964: Malaxa and other concerns that flourished under these artificial conditions and that were privileged clients of the German monopolies, received the greatest benefits from this system. " ²¹

As already noted, the history of progressive and democratic movements in Romania during the period of the offensive of fascism is revealed in the works of historians of socialist Romania with sufficient completeness and depth ^.22 It is also covered in the works of Soviet historians. N. I. Lebedev notes that due to the historical peculiarities of the country's development, the Romanian bourgeoisie was not able to lead and lead an active struggle against fascism, since it did not have strong traditions of revolutionary struggle for democracy, but had a historically established tendency to compromise. Therefore, the bourgeois-landowner parties tried in every possible way to slow down the growing anti-fascist movement in the 1930s, which was intertwined with the struggle for the completion of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. ²³ Resistance to fascism was led by the Communist Party of Romania, which, operating in difficult conditions underground, waged a heroic struggle to rally all democratic forces into a single anti-fascist front. The scope and forms of its activities are indicated by documents published in 1957 in the People's Republic of Romania ^.24 An analysis of these documents, as well as materials from the underground press, shows that the struggle of the Communist Party against fascism was particularly intensified after the Seventh Congress of the Comintern, which characterized the alignment of class and political forces in this struggle and developed the strategic and tactical line of the world communist movement ^.25

One of the most complex and controversial problems in the political history of Romania in the 1930s is undoubtedly the connection between internal and external relations.-

¹⁸ A. A. Shevyakov. From the History of the economic expansion of German Imperialism in Romania in 1936-1941 "Voprosy istorii", 1960, N 12.

¹⁹ A. A. Yazkova. Op. ed., pp. 225-234.

²⁰ V. Madgearu. Evolufia economiei rominesti dupa razboiul mondial. Bucuresti. 1940, p. 168.

²¹ Gh. Ionescu. Op. cit, p. 56.

²² See, for example, P. Constantinescu-Jasi. Lupta pentru formarea frontului popular in Romania.

²³ N. I. Lebedev. "The Iron Guard", Karol II and Hitler, p. .73.

²⁴ "Documente din istoria Partidului Comunist din Romania". Vol. IV (1934 - 1937). Bucuresti. 1957.

²⁵ See the resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (January 1936) on the tasks of the party to mobilize the broad masses of the people to fight fascism in Romania. "Documente din istoria PCR". Vol. IV, pp. 329 - 341.

It was a policy during the period of active fascization of the country. A number of new and interesting information on the history of Romania's foreign policy and Soviet-Romanian relations in the first half of the 1930s is provided by Y. M. Kopansky and I. E. Levit ^.26 They convincingly show that the forces of Romanian reaction strongly hindered any step aimed at rapprochement with the USSR, even if it was dictated by the interests of Romanian security. The factual material presented by them convincingly illustrates the position that the foreign policy of the Romanian bourgeois-landowner governments during this period was characterized by obvious inconsistency, which the military fascist dictator of Romania, I. Antonescu, later referred to as a double game, calling it "a game on two tables". In 1936-1937, as I. Antonescu noted later, in 1942, the Romanian rulers, wanting to win over Germany, refused to conclude pacts on military assistance with France, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union. At the same time, on the occasion of the visit of Carol II to Paris, "full solidarity" with France was emphasized. There was also no shortage of gestures of solidarity with Czechoslovakia, but at the same time statements were made indicating a policy of rapprochement with Germany, which was hostile to Czechoslovakia. "The double game," wrote I. Antonescu, "ruined us: we lost on both tables." ²⁷ However, this did not prevent Antonescu himself from playing a "double game" during the war in the future. As the development of military events unfavorable for Hitler's Germany, the "second team" was strengthened among the ruling circles, focusing on the Anglo-American bloc ²⁸ . The policy of unconditional cooperation with Hitlerite Germany during the war gradually gave way to the policy of maneuvering, which was characteristic of the Romanian monarch-fascist governments before 1940 and to an even greater extent of the bourgeois-landowner governments of Romania in the mid-1930s. ²⁹ Consequently, a definite foreign policy orientation was not characteristic of the Romanian bourgeois - landlord reaction even during the period of the fascist regimes in power, which, however, does not change their reactionary, anti-national nature. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the main internal trend of the foreign policy of the Romanian bourgeois-landowner circles in the 1930s was the gradual transition first to economic, and then to political rapprochement with Hitlerite Germany. This issue was specifically investigated by A. A. Shevyakov ³⁰ .

The above-mentioned problems of socio-political development of bourgeois-landowner Romania are awaiting further development based on the use of a wider range of documentary materials, including archival ones. The most fruitful results can be achieved with closer cooperation of Soviet historians with historians of European socialist countries, as well as on the basis of a comparative historical analysis of the pre-war political development of Romania and some other countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe.

Over the past decade, Soviet authors have published a number of studies on the political history of Central and Southeastern European countries before and during World War II ^.31 However, not all problems can be considered finally solved. Was there, for example, the reign of Admiral Horthy in

²⁶ Ya. M. Kopansky, I. E. Levit. The position of Royal Romania on the conclusion of a non-aggression pact with the USSR and the signing of the Convention on the definition of the aggressor (1932-1933). "Balkan Historical Collection". Issue I. Kishinev. 1968.

²⁷ Cit. by: N. I. Lebedev. Iron Guard, Carol II and Hitler, p. 144. I. Antonescu was referring to the territorial losses of Romania in 1940, when Hitler and Mussolini handed over a large part of Romanian Transylvania to their more reliable ally, Hortist Hungary.

²⁸ N. I. Lebedev. The Fall of the Antonescu Dictatorship, pp. 213-244.

²⁹ Its essence was formulated in 1939 by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs G. Gafencu in a catchphrase: "Guaranteed by London, armed by Berlin". Gh. Ionescu. Op. cit., p. 55.

³⁰ See A. A. Shevyakov. Economic and military-political aggression of German imperialism in Romania.

³¹ See, for example, V. M. Turok. Essays on the history of Austria. 1929-1938. Moscow, 1962; L. B. Valev. The Bulgarian people in the Struggle against fascism, Moscow, 1964; V. K. Volkov. German-Yugoslav relations and the collapse of the Small Entente. Moscow, 1966; A. I. Pushkash. Hungary during the Second World War. M. 1966, et al.

Hungary during a monolithic period of continuous Fascist rule? This issue is controversial among historians. There is also controversy over the nature of the regimes that existed in Bulgaria in the years between the two World Wars. The discussion on this issue, which took place among Bulgarian historians, was reflected in the pages of the magazine "Historically Preglede". L. B. Valev, R. P. Grishina, and S. A. Nikitin write about it in their article, noting that this discussion is "a very useful and necessary undertaking, which is important for further research in this direction." ³²

It is impossible not to recognize the truth of the views expressed during the discussion that not every dictatorial regime created in the name of saving the capitalist system and characterized by an extremely reactionary character is fascism. The conclusions of most researchers confirm the position that fascism is a social product of the most reactionary, narrow elite of the ruling circles (in the conditions of the agrarian countries of South-Eastern Europe - the top monopolists and farmers), who seek to protect their interests with the help of the open dictatorship regime, which come into sharp contradiction not only with the interests of workers, but also with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the nation. Hence the possibility of creating a broad popular front for the struggle against fascism. In this sense, the experience of history once again confirms the fundamental correctness of the general estimates drawn up by the Seventh Congress of the Comintern as early as 1935. The statement made at the same time about the diversity of forms of fascism and the peculiarity of its features in individual countries also turned out to be correct. The history of the development of fascism in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe confirmed this conclusion. Now it is becoming increasingly clear that the essence of the fascist regime, like any other social phenomenon, can only be understood in its development, formation and change. Therefore, in the course of historical development, one and the same regime may acquire the whole set of features characteristic of fascism, or, depending on internal and external circumstances, partially lose them. For example, the history of the development, consolidation and fall of fascism in Romania is a clear illustration of this situation. But in any case, the reactionary nature of fascism remains, and with it the danger to the progressive democratic development of society.

When studying the problems of the history of fascism in Romania, as in other countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, a comparative analysis of the socio-political history of these countries and the countries of "classical" fascism - Germany and Italy - in the corresponding period is also necessary. In connection with this, it should be noted that Soviet scientists, in close cooperation with foreign Marxist historians, have done a great deal of fruitful work on the study of the history of Italian and German fascism. Among the last fundamental works of Soviet historians on the history of Italian fascism, one should mention the work of B. R. Lopukhov, which covers the most important events in the history of Italy in 1919-1929 ^.33 The main problems and specific stages of the development of fascism in Germany - the country where fascism received its most complete incarnation and turned into a deadly threat not only to the democratic forces inside the country, but also to the whole of humanity - are also in the field of view of Soviet authors. Only in the most recent years has a number of concrete historical studies on the history of German fascism been published in the USSR ^.34 A deep historical and sociological analysis of the origin of German fascism, its social roots, ideologies, state-political practice and the specific mechanism of power created by it is given in the work of A. A. Galkin35 ^. The author's research convincingly confirms the conclusion that the essence of fascism "cannot be correctly understood in isolation from its links with a well-defined stage of economic development of modern capitalism. While not fatally inevitable, fascism was

³² See "Review of the magazine "Historically preglede". Voprosy Istorii, 1969, No. 3, p. 197.

³³ B. R. Lopukhov. Fascism and the Labor Movement in Italy, 1919-1929, Moscow, 1968.

³⁴ See G. L. Rozanov. Germany under the rule of fascism (1933-1939). Moscow, 1964; L. I. Gintsberg. Shadow of the fascist swastika. How Hitler came to power. M. 1967, and some others.

³⁵ A. A. Galkin. German Fascism, Moscow, 1967.

and it remains a political superstructure of more or less developed state-monopoly relations. This superstructure is especially effective (from the point of view of the monopolistic bourgeoisie) in times of acute crises that threaten the very existence of a socio-economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of man by man."³⁶

No less relevant is the study of the experience of the history of other countries, whose peoples have experienced the full weight of fascism's rule, the disclosure of the peculiarities of the evolution of fascism, the study of the most diverse forms of its rule, because in the modern era the imperialist bourgeoisie resorts to increasingly sophisticated methods of deceiving the masses, for whom the" classical " forms and methods of Fascism memory and are odious.

³⁶ Ibid., p. 395.

Publisher:

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Found source (search robot):

Publication author(s) - A. A. YAZKOVA:

Comments: