Editing Ion Antonescu (section)

===Power base, administration and propaganda===
[[File:Razboiul Sfant Contra Bolsevismului (1941 stamp).svg|thumb|Commemorative stamp issued after the [[Siege of Odessa (1941)|Siege of Odessa]], with the profiles of [[Romanian Army]] and ''[[Wehrmacht]]'' soldiers over a slogan reading ''Războiul sfânt contra bolșevismului'' ("The [[Religious war|Holy War]] against [[Bolshevism]]")]]
In theory, Antonescu's policies had at least one revolutionary aspect. The leader himself claimed: "I want to introduce a [[Patriotism|patriotic]], heroic, military-typed education, because economic education and all the others follow from it."<ref name=d70/> According to Boia, his arrival in power was explicitly meant to "regenerate" Romania, and his popularity hinged on his being perceived as a "totalitarian model" and a "saviour" figure, like [[Corneliu Zelea Codreanu]] and Carol II before him.<ref>Boia, pp. 316–317</ref> The "providential" and "saviour" themes are also emphasized by historian Adrian Majuru, who notes that Antonescu both adopted such ideals and criticized Carol for failing to live up to them.<ref name=ameternal>Adrian Majuru, [http://www.plural-magazine.com/article_king_carol_ii_and_the_myth_of_eternal_romania.html "King Carol II and the Myth of Eternal Romania"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110715093814/http://www.plural-magazine.com/article_king_carol_ii_and_the_myth_of_eternal_romania.html |date=15 July 2011 }}, in the [[Romanian Cultural Institute]]'s ''[http://www.plural-magazine.com/ Plural Magazine] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120321152817/http://www.plural-magazine.com/ |date=21 March 2012 }}'', Nr. 29/2007</ref> Seeing his rule as legitimized by the [[national interest]],<ref name=ameternal/><ref name=d69>Deletant, p. 69</ref> the general is also known to have referred to [[Pluralism (political philosophy)|political pluralism]] as ''poltronerie'' ("poltroonishness").<ref name=r1/> Accordingly, Antonescu formally outlawed all political forces in February 1941, codifying [[penal labour]] as punishment for most public forms of political expression.<ref>Deletant, p. 71</ref> In Deletant's assessment, his regenerative program was more declarative than factual, and contradicted by Antonescu's own decision to allow the informal existence of some opposition forces.<ref>Deletant, pp. 70–71</ref> At the same time, some historians believe his monopolizing of power in the name of a German alliance turned Romania into either a "[[puppet state]]" of Hitler<ref name=pddlroutl/> or one of Germany's [[Nazi-occupied Europe|"satellite" governments]].<ref>Harvey, pp. 544–545; Steven Béla Várady, "Hungarian Americans during World War II: Their Role in Defending Hungary's Interests", in Mieczysław B. Biskupski (ed.), ''Ideology, Politics, and Diplomacy in East Central Europe'', University of Rochester Press, Rochester, p. 145. {{ISBN|1-58046-137-9}}; Achim, p. 167</ref> However, Deletant notes: "Romania retained her sovereignty throughout the period of the alliance [with Nazi Germany]. [...] Antonescu had, of course, his own country's interests uppermost in his mind, but in following Hitler, he served the Nazi cause."<ref>Deletant, p. 1</ref> He describes Romania's contribution to the war as that of "a principal ally of Germany", as opposed to a "minor Axis satellite."<ref name=d2/>

Although he assigned an unimportant role to King Michael, Antonescu took steps to increase the monarchy's prestige, personally inviting Carol's estranged wife, [[Helen of Greece and Denmark|Queen Mother Helen]], to return home.<ref>Deletant, p. 53</ref> However, his preferred military structures functioned in cooperation with a [[bureaucracy]] inherited from the [[National Renaissance Front]].<ref name=ameternal/><ref>''Final Report'', pp. 31, 43, 117, 384–385</ref> According to historian of fascism Philip Morgan: "Antonescu probably wanted to create, or perpetuate, something like Carol's front organization."<ref>Morgan, p. 85</ref> Much of his permanent support base comprised former [[National Christian Party]] members, to the point where he was seen as successor to [[Octavian Goga]].<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 31–32, 43, 116, 253, 384</ref> While maintaining a decorative replacement for [[Parliament of Romania|Parliament]]—known as ''Adunarea Obștească Plebiscitară a Națiunii Române'' ("The General Plebiscitary Assembly of the Romanian Nation") and convoked only twice—<ref name=d72>Deletant, p. 72</ref> he took charge of hierarchical appointments, and personally drafted new administrative projects. In 1941, he disestablished participative government in localities and [[Counties of Romania|counties]], replacing it with a [[Corporatism|corporatist]] structure appointed by prefects whom he named.<ref name=d72/> In stages between August and October 1941, he instituted civilian administration of Transnistria under Governor [[Gheorghe Alexianu]], whose status he made equivalent to that of a cabinet minister.<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 139, 141; Deletant, pp. 72, 87–88, 152–153, 166–171, 277, 321–327; Trașcă, pp. 384–385</ref> Similar measures were taken in Bukovina and Bessarabia (under Governors [[Corneliu Calotescu]] and [[Gheorghe Voiculescu]], respectively).<ref>''Final Report'', p. 139; Deletant, pp. 72, 83, 87–88, 153, 277, 305, 322, 324</ref> Antonescu strictly relied on the [[chain of command]], and his direct orders to the Army overrode civilian hierarchies. This system allowed room for endemic [[political corruption]] and administrative confusion.<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 118–119, 385; Deletant, pp. 69–70, 72, 88–90, 169–170, 277, 327</ref> The Romanian leader also tolerated a gradual loss of authority over the [[Germans of Romania|German communities in Romania]], in particular the [[Transylvanian Saxons|Transylvanian Saxon]] and [[Banat Swabians|Banat Swabian]] groups, in agreement with Hitler's views on the ''[[Volksdeutsche]]''. This trend was initiated by Saxon Nazi activist [[Andreas Schmidt (Transylvanian Saxon Nazi)|Andreas Schmidt]] in cooperation with the ''[[Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle]]'',<ref>Deletant, p. 59</ref> resulting in ''[[de facto]]'' [[self-governance]] under a Nazi system<ref name=rw136>[[Richard Wagner (novelist)|Richard Wagner]], "Ethnic Germans in Romania", in [[Stefan Wolff]] (ed.), ''German Minorities in Europe: Ethnic Identity and Cultural Belonging'', Berghahn Books, Providence, 2000, p. 136. {{ISBN|1-57181-738-7}}</ref> which was also replicated among the 130,000 [[Black Sea Germans]] of Transnistria.<ref>Deletant, p. 168</ref> Many young German Romanian men opted to join the ''[[Schutzstaffel]]'' as early as 1940 and, in 1943, an accord between Antonescu and Hitler automatically sent ethnic Germans of recruitable age into the [[Wehrmacht]].<ref name=rw136/>

The regime was characterized by the leader's attempts to regulate even remote aspects of public life, including relations between the sexes. He imposed drastic penalties for [[misdemeanor]]s,<ref>Achim, p. 169; Deletant, pp. 70–71; Frankowski, p. 217</ref> and the legal use of [[Capital punishment in Romania|capital punishment]] was extended to an unprecedented level.<ref>Deletant, pp. 71–72, 253; Frankowski, p. 217</ref> He personally set standards for nightclub programs, for the length of skirts and for women's use of bicycles,<ref name=r1/> while forcing all men to wear coats in public.<ref name=d70/> His wife [[Maria Antonescu|Maria]] was a patron of state-approved [[charitable organization]]s, initially designed to compete with successful Iron Guardist ventures such as ''[[Ajutorul Legionar]]''.<ref>Veiga, p. 305</ref> According to Romanian-born [[gender studies]] academic [[Maria Bucur]], although the regime allowed women "to participate in the war effort on the front in a more regularized, if still marginal, fashion", the general tone was [[Sexism|sexist]].<ref>Bucur (2006), p. 182</ref>

The administrative apparatus included official press and [[propaganda]] sectors, which moved rapidly from constructing Carol's [[personality cult]] to doing the same for the new military leader: journals ''[[Universul]]'' and ''[[Timpul]]'', as well as [[Camil Petrescu]]'s ''România'' magazine, were particularly active in this process.<ref name=ameternal/> Some other such venues were ''[[Porunca Vremii]]'',<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 92, 96; Bucur (2006), p. 191; Deletant, pp. 114, 231</ref> [[Nichifor Crainic]]'s ''[[Sfarmă-Piatră]]'',<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 92, 96; Ornea, pp. 249–250</ref> as well as all the seemingly independent newspapers and some ten new periodicals the government founded for this purpose.<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 92–102</ref> Among the individual journalists involved in propaganda were Crainic, Petrescu, [[Stelian Popescu]],<ref name=ameternal/><ref>''Final Report'', p. 97</ref> and ''[[Curentul]]'' editor [[Pamfil Șeicaru]]<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 92–93; Ancel (2005 a), p. 403</ref> (the ''Conducător'' purposefully ignored support from Carol's former adviser, corporatist economist and newspaperman [[Mihail Manoilescu]], whom he reportedly despised).<ref>Ornea, pp. 281–282, 284–285</ref> Much of the propaganda produced during the Antonescu era supported the antisemitic theses put forth by the ''Conducător''.<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 91–107, 117, 204, 284–285, 383, 385; Ancel (2005 a), pp. 406–408; (2005 b), pp. 231–232, 234–235; Bucur (2006), p. 186; Deletant, pp. 114, 138, 140; Neubauer ''et al.'', p. 150; Trașcă, pp. 387, 389</ref> Antisemitism was notable and virulent at the level of Romanian Army units addressing former Soviet citizens in occupied lands, and reflected the regime's preference for the [[ethnic slur]] ''jidani'' (akin to "[[kike]]s" or "Yids" in English).<ref>Trașcă, pp. 387, 389. Among these, Trașcă cites (p. 387): "The Romanian and German armies are fighting against [[communism]] and the kikes, not against the [[Russians|Russian]] soldier and people!" and "The war was provoked by the kikes of the entire world. Fight against the warmongers!"</ref> The religious aspect of anti-communism surfaced in such venues, which frequently equated Operation Barbarossa with a [[Religious war|holy war]] or a [[crusade]].<ref>''Final Report'', p. 94; Ancel (2005 a), pp. 403, 407; Deletant, pp. 81–82, 83, 92–93, 101, 304–305; Harvey, p. 498; Nicholls, p. 225</ref><ref name=t379>Trașcă, p. 379</ref> Romania's other enemies were generally treated differently: Antonescu himself issued objections to the anti-British propaganda of explicitly pro-Nazi papers such as ''Porunca Vremii''.<ref>Deletant, p. 54</ref> A special segment of Antonescu's post-1941 propaganda was ''Codrenist'': it revisited the Iron Guard's history to minimize Sima's contributions and to depict him as radically different from Codreanu.<ref>Ornea, pp. 320, 342–343</ref>