Talk:Iron Guard death squads

dubious

Untitled

The article needs some work. It doesn't make a clear distinction between legionnaire claims and facts/explanations provided by scholars. Anonimu 18:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I've tried to avoid the Legionnaire POV as far as possible. It certainly doesn't read as a pro-Guard piece, does it? Biruitorul 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm talking about phrases like: "Moţa (...) went to Spain to die for Romania so that his country would be redeemed in God's eyes", "many gave their lives knowing that the movement and the national cause would be strengthened", "because he had allowed for increased Jewish immigration while blocking that of Aromanians to Dobrudja." it's not very clear if they're facts or legionnaire claimsAnonimu 09:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The theory section is entirely sourced to Petreu, no fan of the Guard. The last is what the Nicadori themselves claimed at trial. I don't know if Duca actually did that (then again, they wouldn't kill him randomly, would they?), but I will look into the matter. Biruitorul 16:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who Petreu is, but maybe his statements are tongue-in-cheek. It wouldn't be something unusual for them to kill people for trivial matters or even randomly (as in the legionnaire rebellion & bucharest progrom)Anonimu 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Marta Petreu is a woman. Second, no: the entire book is quite serious in tone. Third: that's quite different. The pogrom and rebellion entailed a spasm of uncontained violence that left many dead, including probably non-enemies (Jews and army personnel). By contrast, they wanted to kill Duca alone in this case, and they were very angry with him. Arresting 11-18,000 Legionnaires, promising to allow in 300,000 Jews, and restricting Aromanian settlement would obviously have provoked them to kill him. Did he actually do those things? I don't know for sure (though it would seem odd for them to make up a justification like that on the spot, when anyone could call them on it if they were lying), but that was their claimed motive for the crime. Biruitorul 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but how serious can a book who states a guy died on the fascist side to "redeem" his country "in God's eyes" can be? (except the case when it quotes a legionnaire claim). It's not the same thing, but it proves that they didn't need a real motivation to kill. And as I already said the article doesn't make it clear that was a legionnaire claim.Anonimu 08:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just tried to clarify which things were the beliefs of the Legionnaires. Is it better now? K. Lásztocska 16:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Thank you. Biruitorul 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I've read enough of the book to know how serious it is. 2. Quote from Moţa (an excerpt from a longer work): "Se trăgea cu mitraliera în obrazul lui Hristos! Se clătina aşezarea creştină a lumii! Puteam noi să stăm nepăsători? Eu aşa am înţeles datoria vieţii mele. Am iubit pe Hristos şi am mers fericit la moarte pentru El". 3. I'd say that those three things, from a Legionnaire perspective, knowing what we know about how they thought, were an excellent motivation for killing Duca. Biruitorul 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation???

If one enters "Green Shirts" one gets this entry, but if one enters "Greenshirts" one ends up with an entry about the Henri Dorgeres. In addition, there is an entry about the "Green Shirt Movement of Social Credit"LAWinans (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Manual, not Guide

The book is called Nest Leader's Manual! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.90.218 (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Marta Petreu is a philosophy professor at Babeş-Bolyai, as well as a historian of fascism.

2. The Romanian term manual can be translated as "manual" or "guidebook". Petreu uses the latter, and there's no reason for us not to, either. The concept of an "official" name for the work is odd: as far as I know, the Iron Guard weren't publishing "official" translations in English prior to 1941. Of course, we could use "manual", but without the silly string of blind links; the Petreu footnote will suffice.

3. No, we will not quote Codreanu's works directly: see WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I just tried to help to make the article better with more explaining facts, I think it's just silly to have the "wrong" title of it, people who search for it will not find it under the title guidebook, as the english version is manual instead. It's like renaming official english titles with words that are the same but just wrong anyway. I have the book here in my room and on the front page it says clearly: NEST LEADER'S MANUAL by CZC Books... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.90.218 (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote

I think the quote I added to Codreanu fit because it explains the ideology more, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.90.218 (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If featured in a reliable secondary source discussing his ideology and quoting him, perhaps. But direct quotes that haven't been covered by such a source are not acceptable: see WP:PSTS, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)