Editing Ion Antonescu (section)

===Fascism and conservatism===
[[File:AntonescuYHoriaSimaOctubre1940.jpeg|thumb|right|Antonescu (left) sporting an Iron Guard green shirt and displaying the [[Roman salute]] together with Horia Sima during a mass rally in October 1940. Historians are divided on whether Romania under Antonescu was a fascist regime or merely a right-wing military dictatorship.]]
There is a historiographic dispute about whether Antonescu's regime was [[Fascism|fascist]] or more generically [[Right-wing politics|right-wing]] [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]], itself integrated within a larger debate about the aspects and limits of fascism. Israeli historian of fascism [[Zeev Sternhell]] describes Antonescu, alongside his European counterparts [[Pierre-Étienne Flandin]], [[Francisco Franco]], [[Miklós Horthy]], [[François de La Rocque]], [[Philippe Pétain]] and [[King of Italy|Italian King]] [[Victor Emmanuel III of Italy|Victor Emmanuel III]], as a "[[Conservatism|conservative]]", noting that all of them "were not deceived by a [fascist] propaganda trying to place them in the same category [as the fascist movements]."<ref>[[Zeev Sternhell]], ''Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France'', [[Princeton University Press]], Princeton, 1996, p. 5. {{ISBN|0-691-00629-6}}.</ref> A similar verdict is provided by German historian of Europe [[Hagen Schulze]], who views Horthy, Franco and the Romanian leader alongside [[Portugal]]'s ''[[Estado Novo (Portugal)|Estado Novo]]'' theorist [[António de Oliveira Salazar]] and [[Second Polish Republic]] founder [[Józef Piłsudski]], as rulers of "either purely military dictatorships, or else authoritarian governments run by civilian politicians", and thus a category apart from the leaders of "Fascist states."<ref name="hs292">[[Hagen Schulze]], ''States, Nations and Nationalism'', [[Blackwell Publishing]], Oxford, 2002, p. 292. {{ISBN|0-631-20933-6}}.</ref> For Schulze, the defining elements of such governments is the presence of a "[[The Establishment|conservative establishment]]" which ensured "social stability" by extending the control of a "traditional state" (thus effectively blocking "revolutionary suggestions" from the [[far left]] and the [[far right]] alike).<ref name=hs292/> The term "conservative [[Autocracy|autocrat]]" is used in relation to the ''Conducător'' by British political theorist [[Roger Griffin]], who attributes to the Iron Guard the position of a subservient fascist movement,<ref>[[Roger Griffin]], "Staging the Nation's Rebirth: The Politics and Aesthetics of Performance in the Context of Fascist Studies", in Günter Berghaus (ed.), ''Fascism and Theatre'', [[Berghahn Books]], Providence, 1996, p. 18. {{ISBN|1-57181-877-4}}. Griffin also draws direct comparisons between Antonescu's conflict with the Iron Guard on one hand and [[António de Oliveira Salazar]]'s clash with the [[National Syndicalists (Portugal)|National Syndicalists]] (1993, pp. 151–152).</ref> while others identify Antonescu's post-1941 rule as a military rather than a fascist dictatorship.<ref>Laqueur, pp. 203, 205; Morgan, p. 86; Roper, pp. 8, 11.</ref> Several other scholars prefer "conservative" as a defining term for Antonescu's policies.<ref name=dslill228/><ref>Veiga, pp. 281–283, 290, 296, 305, 327; White, p. 158.</ref> Antonescu described himself as "by fate a dictator", and explained that his policies were "[[Militarism|militaristic]]"<ref name=d70/> or, on one occasion, "national-[[Totalitarianism|totalitarian]]".<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 115, 323.</ref>

Nevertheless, other historians theorize a synthesis of fascist and conservative elements, performed by Antonescu and other European leaders of his day. [[Routledge]]'s 2002 ''Companion to Fascism and the Far Right'' uses the terms "[[Para-fascism|para-fascist]]" to define Antonescu, adding: "generally regarded as an authoritarian conservative [Antonescu] incorporated fascism into his regime, in the shape of the Iron Guard, rather than embodying fascism himself."<ref name=pddlroutl/> "Para-fascist" is also used by Griffin, to denote both Antonescu and [[Carol II of Romania|Carol II]].<ref name="rg93127">Griffin (1993), p. 127.</ref> American historian of fascism [[Robert Paxton]] notes that, like Salazar, Romania's dictator crushed a competing fascist movement, "after copying some of [its] techniques of popular mobilization."<ref>[[Robert Paxton|Robert O. Paxton]], "The Five Stages of Fascism", in Brian Jenkins (ed.), ''France in the Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right'', Berghahn Books, Providence, 2007, p. 119. {{ISBN|1-57181-537-6}}.</ref> Political scientists John Gledhill and Charles King discuss the Iron Guard as Romania's "indigenous fascist movement", remark that Antonescu "adopted much of the ideology of the Guardists", and conclude that the regime he led was "openly fascist".<ref name="jgckwolchik">John Gledhill, [[Charles King (professor of international affairs)|Charles King]], "Romania since 1989: Living beyond the Past", in Sharon L. Wolchik, Jane L. Curry, ''Central and East European Politics: From Communism to Democracy'', [[Rowman & Littlefield]], Lanham, 2007, p. 319. {{ISBN|0-7425-4067-7}}.</ref> References to the fascist traits of Antonescu's dictatorship are also made by other researchers.<ref name=jvg186/><ref>''Final Report'', pp. 115–116, 237, 313, 316, 322–324, 384–385; Achim, pp. 167, 180; Ancel (2005 b), pp. 234, 245, 255; Boia, pp. 118–119; Gella, pp. 171, 172, 173; Ioanid, pp. 232, 235, 237–238, 244, 245; Kenney, pp. 92–93; Nicholls, p. 6.</ref>

The synthetic aspect of Antonescu's rule is discussed in detail by various authors. British historian [[Dennis Deletant]], who notes that the fascist label relies on both Antonescu's adoption of some fascist "trappings" and the "dichotomy of wartime and postwar evaluation" of his regime, also notes that post-1960 interpretations "do more to explain his behaviour than the preceding orthodoxy."<ref>Deletant, pp. 1–2.</ref> Deletant contrasts the lack of "mass political party or ideology" with the type of rule associated with [[Nazism]] or [[Italian fascism]].<ref name=d70/> British-born sociologist and political analyst [[Michael Mann (sociologist)|Michael Mann]] writes: "The authoritarian regimes of Antonescu [...] and Franco [...] purported to be 'traditional', but actually their fascist-derived corporatism was a new immanent ideology of the right."<ref>[[Michael Mann (sociologist)|Michael Mann]], "The Sources of Social Power Revisited: A Response to Criticism", in John A. Hall, Ralph Schroeder (eds.), ''An Anatomy of Power. The Social Theory of Michael Mann'', [[Cambridge University Press]], Cambridge, 2006, p. 350. {{ISBN|0-521-85000-2}}.</ref> Another distinct view is held by Romanian-born historian of ideas [[Juliana Geran Pilon]], who describes Romania's "military fascist regime" as a successor to Iron Guardist "mystical nationalism", while mentioning that Antonescu's "national ideology was rather more traditionally militaristic and conservative."<ref>Geran Pilon, p. 59.</ref>