How Far Was Communism A Continuation Of Romanian Nationalism In A New Guise?

How far was Communism a continuation of Romanian nationalism in a new guise?

- Essay plan -

I. In order for Communism to be considered a continuation of Romanian nationalism we need to establish a direct, unbroken, link with previous nationalist movements and their representatives as well as a presence of established nationalists in Communist structures. To this end we will be looking at (a) the nature of nationalism in Romania previous to the Communist seizure of power, (b) the structures and ideology of the Romanian Communist Party and its evolution during its underground period and after as well as (c) its reasons for adopting, and the type of, nationalism.

II. Prior to the ascendancy of Communist power around 1944 Romania was ruled by marshal Ion Antonescu`s military regime and, before that, by a coalition of Antonescu and the Romanian Legionary Movement (known as the "Iron Guard" in the West). Some of the main features of these governments since their democratic ascension to power in the late 1930s were Romanian ethnic nationalism, the supremacy of Orthodox Christianity, the union of all territories inhabited by Romanians, a strong focus on private capital as well as a general hostility towards Communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular.

III. The Romanian Communist Party, at its inception in the underground of Romanian political movements, was strongly dominated by Romanian Jews, Hungarians and some non-Romanians (even Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Russian leaders). It sought to establish a fully Communist state on the model of the Soviet Union, with atheism as the state policy, an elimination of ethnic identities in favor of class identities and collective ownership. Many of its initial leaders were members of ethnic minorities in Romania that sought to improve their lot and break the shackles that ethnicity placed on their freedom. Being a very weak movement, lacking in popular support (in the mid-1930s it only had about 2,000 members), it relied very strongly on Soviet support and direction, going even as far as stating that Romanians are an artificial nation and denying the right of Romania to Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia. This put it very strongly at odds with a very large part of the population and certainly did nothing to establish nationalist credentials. Later on, when it did accede to power in the aftermath of WW 2 this position was softened and eventually reversed by the Great Purges of the Stalinist era that brought in a majority of ethnic Romanians to positions of leadership. Eventually, after Stalin`s death, the RPC of Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, adopted a seemingly nationalist approach.

IV. The transition from commitment to the international nature of Communism to a narrow, ethnically-focused, ideology should not be mistaken for a change of heart of the Communist leaders alone. Rather, it should be seen in the context of de-Stalinization as the Romanian Communists perceived it: de-Stalinization was likely to destabilize the authority of the Party which was not very well entrenched and which lacked in popular support. Thus, the best chance of survival was to resist de-Stalinization as it was pushed by the Soviet Union and, instead, adopt a more independent line that could win popular support. Consequently, Gheorghiu-Dej started to move towards his brand of Romanian Communism that was inherited, eventually, by his successor, Nicolae Ceaus?escu. Ceaus?escu`s Communism tried to capitalize on the nationalist credentials of former Romanian leaders and led a very strong drive to rehabilitate many of them, re-invent national myths that put him in a direct line of rulers (or "conduca?tori" - literally meaning "leaders") all the way back to a Dacian king called Burebista some 2,000 years before. However, this should not be mistaken for a continuity of Romanian nationalism. The nationalist leaders that he rehabilitated (e.g. Ion Antonescu) pursued policies that opposed the Communists very strongly (indeed, Antonescu himself was executed by the Communists) and the ideologies of traditional Romanian nationalism were often diametrically opposed to those of Ceaus?escu`s Communism (i.e. religion, property). Furthermore, there was no real presence of former nationalists in Communist structures despite persistent efforts to co-opt such figures (see attempts to bring Mircea Eliade back to Romania). Thus, the continuity of Communist nationalism was manufactured by the RPC for the self-serving purpose of maintaining its own power independently of the Soviet Union.

V. In conclusion, we can see that Romania did have a recent and strong nationalist tradition that was expressed in the Legionary Movement and Antonescu`s dictatorship, both of which enjoyed broad popular support. However, these nationalist movements were completely opposed to Communism and actively pursued policies that persecuted and restricted the activity of Communists. Romanian nationalist movements allied themselves with Nazi Germany in order to invade the Soviet Union and regain lost territories, something that the early Romanian Communists opposed. Additionally, in order for there to be a claim of continuity there would have to be a link of some sort between old nationalism and Communist nationalism. However there was none. The Communists attempted to manufacture such a link by rewriting national myths but they were not able to recruit any nationalist figures with strong credentials. Their nationalism was based almost entirely on the fundamental desire to hold onto power and survive without the Soviets.