This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
Removed the description of Elena Lupescu as "Jewish". Both parents were Jews converted to Christianity prior to her birth; she was raised as a Catholic, she never practiced Judaism, and she never considered herself as a Jew. Therefore, she was not Jewish either by Romanian law of the time, or by Jewish custom. Consequently, it is obvious that those authors who, then and now, describe her as Jewish, do so for political reasons. She would have qualified as Jewish under the Nuremberg laws of 1935 -- but surely that's not the Wikipedia standard!
Fine. Although I have a hard time figuting whether some Zionist criteria do not take into account nationality over religion, I do not disagree: mention was made only to render what she was perceived as (it is undeniable that she was perceived as such. Dahn21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the reference to "Codreanu's unconditional support for Nazi Germany". I am afraid I don't have access at this point to Veiga's thesis, which is given in support; but, if that's what he said, I think he was wrong. I believe that Codreanu's relation to Nazi Germany was much more ambguous and certainly not one of uncoditional support. I'll look into this as time permits, and, if I'm wrong, I'll reinstate this item. Aleksis20:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that what you did was rude, as you did not back it with references. Veiga references a Cruciada Romanismului issue, with strong pro-Italian content (much more than in Legionary papers), writes at length about Codreanu's support for Germany in Codreanu's own words (which, btw, was quite obvious without Codreanu's words). He also mentions the disagreements between Mota and the Italians after the Fascist International (CAUR) congress (when the CAUR eventually chose to back Averescu, Cuza, and others - given that, in between Mussolini and Hitler, Codreanu chose Hitler), as well as countless other episodes (including Calinescu's pressures for the German Embassy to reveal plans it had in common with the Guard). Everything in the work of major Legion figures points to an alliance with Germany, and Carol's actions included desperate attempts to compete with Codreanu's over Hitler's favours. It is not a question of thesis, and I will add that back in. Dahn21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: what is ambiguous is establishing the relation between the Iron Guard ideology and Nazism (or, for that matter, between the Iron Guard ideology and Fascism); what is ambiguous is the reception of Codreanu's support in Germany. That Codreanu expressed his primordial and staunch support for Germany as early as 1933, to the point of causing tensions between the Italians and the Guard, is not subject to nuancing. Also note that, even if you disagree with the overall policy, this reflects a divergence between Stelescu and Codreanu at that precise time (and, consequently, their attitudes at that exact time). Dahn05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
